Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Dennis Rohan position & 175 cranks [Rachela] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maybe Andrew expect that instead of saying :
"we created 4DP method",

Sufferfet and Neil say :
"we created tools based on Coggan/Allen power profiling method"

But I leave in a less lawyer addict country...
Quote Reply
Re: Dennis Rohan position & 175 cranks [Rachela] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rachela wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
As well, power profiling is, as the name implies, a tool for describing or classifying an athlete (e.g., "sprinter")**, as well as a way of
providing benchmarks that can be used to structure workouts.

So it is, to some extent, prescriptive, isn't it?

You are confusing the FTP-anchored training levels that are descriptive with going out at and testing your power at specific durations to provide prescriptive training targets.

Quoting myself from the introduction of the training levels on the wattage list in 2001: "...the primary reference, therefore, is not to the system itself, but to the athlete's own unique (and current) ability."

Rachela wrote:
Anyway, what exactly are you trying to achieve here? What's the end goal? We've had this argument on here before and I do believe 4DP is based on your work, I think most folks do. What then? Do you want them to mention you somewhere on their website and acknowledge your contribution to the project? Do you want share of their profits? Or are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

Educate people on the ethical way to deal with intellectual property.

(Zoom in on the somewhat washed-out slide here and you'll see how it should be done: https://www.facebook.com/.../?type=3&theater)
Quote Reply
Re: Dennis Rohan position & 175 cranks [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Going to try and get this train back on track....

While this article is not on Rohan, it does go through some of the initial points of measuring and testing that Neal uses to help optimize a riders position.
http://apexcoachingco.com/blog/apex-coaching-may-blog-assessing-time-trial-posture-using-leomo-type-r/


A major factor with Rohans' position is how comfortable he is in it. When most people try to assume a more aerodynamic position they expend excess energy trying to hold a position their body does not want to be in. When Rohan gets on his TT bike and drops his head down he is not "fighting" to hold that position at all.
One component of this is years of Team Pursuit riding, meaning riding a more aggressive position, at higher power, with higher demand for smoothness and stability.
And lastly, pacing. Rohan is exceptionally good at pacing himself over distances from a few kilometers to 50+ like we saw at worlds. You can have the most aerodynamic position ever, and have the fitness to roll everyone over, but if you can't pace yourself properly for the full effort it doesn't matter.


Hope that was at least mildly insightful for those of you who are still here.
Last edited by: Mac_Cassin: Oct 12, 18 11:50
Quote Reply
Re: Dennis Rohan position & 175 cranks [Mac_Cassin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Mac_Cassin wrote:
While this article is not on Rohan, it does go through some of the initial points of measuring and testing that Neal uses to help optimize a riders position.
http://apexcoachingco.com/blog/apex-coaching-may-blog-assessing-time-trial-posture-using-leomo-type-r/


Good illustration of turtle and shrug, and how your "position" isn't dictated by your contact points.
Last edited by: rruff: Oct 12, 18 10:26
Quote Reply
Re: Dennis Rohan position & 175 cranks [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
Mac_Cassin wrote:
While this article is not on Rohan, it does go through some of the initial points of measuring and testing that Neal uses to help optimize a riders position.
http://apexcoachingco.com/blog/apex-coaching-may-blog-assessing-time-trial-posture-using-leomo-type-r/


Good illustration of turtle and shrug, and how your "position" isn't dictated by your contact points.

#ShrugsNotDrugs
Quote Reply
Re: Dennis Rohan position & 175 cranks [Bio_McGeek] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The abstract that you outlined earlier in the thread looks very interesting. I'd love to know some way of getting the paper when you're done, so thanks for that.

Secondly as you asked for a critique of your explanation can I ask...

When you say "Most people adjust their seat height so that they maintain the same leg extension at the bottom of the pedal stroke. This results in the leg being more extended throughout the rest of the cycle and thus your leg is "stronger".

Do you mean they adjust saddle height to give the same leg extension at the bottom of the pedal stoke for different crank lengths?

Cheers,
Mark
Quote Reply
Re: Dennis Rohan position & 175 cranks [Mark57] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, that's what I meant. My sense is that's common practice.
Cheers,
Jim

Mark57 wrote:
Do you mean they adjust saddle height to give the same leg extension at the bottom of the pedal stoke for different crank lengths?
Quote Reply
Re: Dennis Rohan position & 175 cranks [thatzone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hi everyone. David McQuillen, Founder of The Sufferfest here.

Almost exactly a year ago, I stopped responding to Andy Coggan due to this thread: https://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=6456277
We weren’t alone in our views of his behaviour there. Here is how TrainingPeaks felt about him at the time: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/...dologies-road-ahead/

I’m baffled that he - and behaviour like his - is allowed to remain part of the SlowTwitch community. Some of his posts have been deleted from this thread already, but I see absolutely no value at all in having such personalities remain part of what should be open, lively and positive discussions about topics. Arguments and heated discussions are fine — abuse and bullying is not, no matter how many letters you have after your name. I’ve chosen, thus far, to just ignore him.

And I’ll continue to do so. I wanted, however, to make sure that those of you who are exposed to posts about us are aware of how I think about this. You might not agree with my position, but at least you’ll know what it is.

The academic world has a rich history of attribution. Anyone who wants to build a credible research career there needs to make sure they have all their attributions in order. Andy - although he’s had some involvement with businesses - is part of this world.

The commercial world does not have a tradition of attribution. Rather, ideas are brought to market, improved by competitors and the most effective companies thrive.

For truly unique ideas, protection exists in the form of rights, trademarks and patents. If a company is able to take an idea and get a trademark for the name, great — if they can get a patent for the concept, even better. If they can’t, then the idea is not something that deserves legal protection. In those cases, you protect your idea by building the best product, service and marketing around it.

In this commercial environment, companies do not thank each other for bringing ideas to market. Apple didn’t thank Nokia for their pioneering work on mobile phones. Google didn’t thank Yahoo. We didn’t thank Spinervals for coming up with the idea to produce cycling training videos.

When Chris Carmichael at Carmichael Training Systems and the team at PainCave.com copied The Sufferfest concept of using race footage in cycling training videos and put their own spin on it, neither of them thanked me for coming up with the idea. And I didn’t expect them to. I accepted that as the nature of a commercial market. Bring it on. May the best concept win.

Since that time, the market has grown and new competitors have entered. Indoor training is completely different than it was when I started The Sufferfest. It’s exciting and I’m thrilled and energised by it — we’re working hard to keep reinventing ourselves and be the best training platform possible.

4DP-based training was - and continues to be - a major advantage for our customers. Does it have some basis on science that came before? Absolutely. Like all innovation, we’ve built on the work that came before us. We never claimed to have invented power profiling.

Is it simply a repackaging of something else? Hardly. We have examined the ideas in the market, saw how we could do better and created new, effective, practical concepts. Working with Coach Neal Henderson of APEX Coaching, we’ve made power profiling something that individuals can test in their own home in a single session, without a coach, and subsequently receive dynamically-created and personalised workouts that are tailored to their exact profile and rider type. Those workouts will control your smart trainer and provide a level of engagement that helps you get the best out of yourself. We use your 4DP results to create training plans that offer a degree of precision which off-the-shelf plans have never been able to offer before.

Unlike Andy, I don’t think you are too ‘dense’ to understand and apply the pre-existing science and we’re certainly not going to insult you for not doing so. Rather, I believe you have neither the time, interest nor energy to figure it all out. You want something that’s easy to understand, simple to use and which gives you the maximum return for your investment on that time and energy. This is why 4DP exists.

Andy seems to think that we’re just trying to ‘make a fast buck’ and ‘rip people off.’ Well, I can assure you of two things.
  • Firstly, there are no fast bucks being made when it comes to app development. These are very much slow, hard bucks. 4DP took nearly 18 months of - and a significant financial investment - to bring to market. That doesn't even include the years and thousands of tests that Coach Neal spent refining his methodology. Ah -- and with a monthly subscription of $13 USD (as of 1 Nov) we’re hardly ripping people off — I feel very confident that we’re delivering far more value than the two-and-a-half cups of coffee you could buy with that money.
  • Secondly, we’re a business. We’re not a public university or a charity. We try to create a product you’re willing to pay for and provide a level of service that keeps you around. In doing so, we’re trying to earn enough money to pay our hard-working employees, grow our business and give something back to a few causes that we believe in. If we can make a profit, then that’s a good thing.
Although some might prefer it were different, this is not an academic environment — a lengthy list of attributions at the end of every advertisement or product piece is not necessary. One might argue, however, that the cycling industry is a small one, and one in which it’s simply polite to thank those who came before and upon who’s ideas the latest product is based. I’d agree with that in principle, but how would you execute on that — where, how often, for how long and in what circumstances should such thanks or attribution be given? Do customers really want to see such things?

Such attribution is hardly practical and largely down to the personal discretion of a company’s management team. But sometimes there is someone who has made a contribution so significant, and who has conducted themselves so well, that you feel you need to thank them. So, to close, I’d like make a long-overdue expression of gratitude: Thank you Coach Troy Jacobson at Spinervals for creating the indoor cycling entertainment industry. Without you, we wouldn’t exist. You don’t get nearly the attention you deserve for your vision in this space.

David McQuillen
Founder & CEO of The Sufferfest
Last edited by: The Sufferfest: Oct 14, 18 20:21
Quote Reply
Re: Dennis Rohan position & 175 cranks [The Sufferfest] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Apple didn’t thank Nokia for their pioneering work on mobile phones."
They don't need to thanks, as they pay for the Nokia patents. And other patents.


Either an idea is protected, and you pay for.
Either it is not protected (free licence) and you do not need to pay. So it is easier to recognize origin, it is free of charge !


If not protected, and no need to pay, it is fair to recognize value of the original ideas and work. But I agree with you, the commercial companies not always do it.


In my work, I often hear peoples saying "I invented this, I created that, ..."


Best case it is real innovation based on something existing, and well understood. Ethic would recommend to recognize where we are coming from. Sometime, for marketing reason, or ego inflation, that is not the case.


Worst case it is mix up of half understood existing knowledge + local nevrose. In this case, generally it is claimed as a real breakthrough, coming from genial brain...ahem. Another case of Dunning-Kruger effect ?


Seems to me that 4DP and Sufferfest are based on other works. Of course. And it is not a problem. Your work can bring value. And be profitable.
But Andrew Coggan request fo you to recognize where some basis come from does not seems excessive to me.


What is the problem to recognize what is obvious to me (with no whatsoever financial or political, or relationship interest in this business) ? And probably obvious to many others. Not licence free ?








Quote Reply
Re: Dennis Rohan position & 175 cranks [The Sufferfest] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The Sufferfest wrote:
The academic world has a rich history of attribution. Anyone who wants to build a credible research career there needs to make sure they have all their attributions in order. Andy - although he’s had some involvement with businesses - is part of this world.

The commercial world does not have a tradition of attribution. Rather, ideas are brought to market, improved by competitors and the most effective companies thrive.

For truly unique ideas, protection exists in the form of rights, trademarks and patents. If a company is able to take an idea and get a trademark for the name, great — if they can get a patent for the concept, even better. If they can’t, then the idea is not something that deserves legal protection. In those cases, you protect your idea by building the best product, service and marketing around it.

In this commercial environment, companies do not thank each other for bringing ideas to market. Apple didn’t thank Nokia for their pioneering work on mobile phones. Google didn’t thank Yahoo. We didn’t thank Spinervals for coming up with the idea to produce cycling training videos.

So your excuse for your unethical behavior is that you're in business to make money?

The Sufferfest wrote:
When Chris Carmichael at Carmichael Training Systems and the team at PainCave.com copied The Sufferfest concept of using race footage in cycling training videos and put their own spin on it, neither of them thanked me for coming up with the idea. And I didn’t expect them to. I accepted that as the nature of a commercial market. Bring it on. May the best concept win.

#whataboutism

The Sufferfest wrote:
Since that time, the market has grown and new competitors have entered. Indoor training is completely different than it was when I started The Sufferfest. It’s exciting and I’m thrilled and energised by it — we’re working hard to keep reinventing ourselves and be the best training platform possible.

4DP-based training was - and continues to be - a major advantage for our customers. Does it have some basis on science that came before? Absolutely. Like all innovation, we’ve built on the work that came before us. We never claimed to have invented power profiling.

No, you have just taken something that already existed and pinned a new name on it, while claiming that it is completely novel (to the point that "FTP is dead").
Quote Reply
Re: Dennis Rohan position & 175 cranks [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think you might have answered this previously - and if so, I do apologise.
Another that I believe pre-dates your power profile is Kurt Jensen's testing series for rowing, which tests 1 stroke, 1 minute, 2000m (IRO 6 mins) 6000m (IRO 19 mins), 1 hour, and was used to indicate strength/weaknesses and to prescribe training.
Was this part of the thinking?
Quote Reply
Re: Dennis Rohan position & 175 cranks [altayloraus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I was unaware of Jensen's approach when I proposed power profiling in 2003.

In fact, this is the first time anyone has shared any details...can you point me to the original source?

ETA: Could this be it?

https://indoorsportservices.co.uk/...ide_v2_chapter_4.pdf
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Oct 15, 18 9:39
Quote Reply

Prev Next