Mr. Winkle,

Luttrells study had to start somewhere. Perhaps they thought there wold be no improvement so didn't think it would be necessary to find elite cyclists in the middle of Kansas just to disprove the concept. They tried to get reasonably serious cyclist by requiring each particpant to have particpated in 3 races in the last 6 months. that seemed reasaonble. And, to me, cycling efficiency is a form of performance. you may disagree but I thought it was a reasonable approach.

My criticism of the study was they only had the people ride the cranks 1 hour 3 times a week and allowed regular cycling in between. I would have never predcited the degree of difference they saw with that little use. If they had seen no difference that would have been my criticism of it. Fortunately for me, even with that little use, a statistically significaant result occurred.

Anyhow, perhaps this is like cold fusion to you, but even in this case, respected scientists tried to repeat the study to see if the effect was real or not, even though they disbelieved the results. That is the scientific method, not bashing results simply because you don't like the results.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Why is the concept of no one ever achieving VO2 max (as opposed to VO2 peak which is what is measured during testing) during normal exercise bizarre. Are you saying there is absolutely no cardiac reserve at VO2 peak, when measured ox consumption levels off? there are many explanations for this, none of which require the individual to be at maximum cardiac output.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I understand what you are saying here. I'm just trying to make a point that when it comes to the human body and it's reaction to different "training methods" nothing is ever certain so arguing back and forth for 10 pages in this thread is kind of meaningless. No one will ever PROVE the other one right or wrong as there is always something in the test that is uncontrollable or another test exists that completely refutes the first one? So what's the point in arguing about it all day? TTN can say with 100% confidence that PCs helped his biking and running. I can say with 0% confidence that TTN's increased skills were due to the new color of his bike. Why is it 0%? Because I don't know if he upped his mileage, intensity or if he actually lowered them.

but again my point is that IF they did offer even just a 4% improvment, then you'd have pros lining up to get these things and you're be able to easily quantify the improvements in results. 4% is massive at the elite level. hell epo is only like 6-8% improvement at most, and altitude tents may only be like 1-3% at best.

"4%? Well maybe he was at a plateau and those last couple of months on the bike pushed him forward that 4%. Maybe when he was tested at the beginning he was feeling just a little bit off. Can you tell if you were feeling 96% or your maximum versus 100%? What about wind, weather, etc?"

If you use a powermeter, then yes you can measure 4% quite easily and accurately. I work and have access to the power data of a number of elite athletes and it would be quite apparent if a 4% improvement was acheived. I use elite athletes for eg because for many they have come close to maximizing their performance already and therefore improvements from devices such as PCs would less likely to get lost in the "noise" of normal intra-season and inter-season improvements.

This is why the anecdotal evidence of the typical age grouper has little weight to me, as if they are training on a regular basis then they should expect to be improving their performances whether they use PCs or not, and given that I believe the magnitude of PCs effect is small, then their effect would get lost in the noise.

"But your experience with them is then second hand. Have you used them?"

Do you also expect scientists conducting a study to also be subjects in said study? Not that I'm comparing myself with a serious scientist, but...

And yes I have riden a bike with PCs installed.

Joel

Since you road them then you have more experience than I.

I'm just making the point that regardless of the test circumstances someone who doesn't want to believe the results can find enough holes in it to say that it really doesn't prove anything.

I don't even really know what I'm talking about with any of this stuff. Hell I'm an accountant that just started triathlons 2 years ago and only finds the time to do 1 or 2 races a year.

Dr. Winkle,

That fact that someone caan exercise anaerobically for several minutes as do mid distance runners or wrestlers and a whole host of athletes does not mean they are exercising at VO2 max, which means the absolute maximum cardiac output and uptake. By your definition, this is VO2 peak, isn't it? Whch is the maximum they can do, isn't it. VO2 peak falls short of VO2 max for several reasons and if they are not the same then exercise is not limited by cardiac considerations, as there is always a little cardiac reserve.

BTW, adjusting CO based upon muscle mass is a cop-out to help you explain your biases. the heart starts out the same in all of us. If Co adjusts for exercised muscle mass that indicates that CO does not have an arbitrary maximum and any of us can increase it if we exercise more muscle. It goes against your argument and not for it.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Frank. Now you've totally flip-flopped.

You got me there

Hey I got an idea….maybe, just maybe…the efficiency of the pedal stroke can be improved. Wait, this may get interesting and here is the beuty of it……this doesn’t require any more oxygen, lung capacity…… Come on, with all of those studies cited surely someone can tell me, what is the average level of efficiency of the cycling subjects studied?





Oh, oh, oh, oh, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter…….wasn’t one of them showing efficiency at around 70%. So if we simply improve this efficiency wont we improve the power output? At NO additional cost. Yep, I said IF, so back off. And be fore you go there… the efficiency of the subjects varied what up to 15%?



Now let’s understand what is meant here by efficiency. I mean that pressing downward with the pedal at 6:00 does nothing for producing positive torque, nor does pushing while at 3:00. Now throughout the cycle there is some level of inefficiency involved. Plotting of the forces exerted on the pedals reveals this. In doing this I am actually saying that we could REDUCE the wasted effort. Thereby lowering the total power produced BUT, not affecting the total power output.



So I would argue IF you could in fact increase the least efficient subject into the range or above the highest subject, then this subject would indeed see appreciable gains in performance.



OK, now check this out…….anyone spend any time drafting a tandem? Ever listen to the rear wheel? It is harder to notice this on a single, but maybe you have. Maybe you have heard this yourself while on the trainer or rollers. The power output sure sounds cyclic to me. So if the power output is cyclic, then the torque curve isn’t steady. Simply flattening out the torque curve could yield favorable results. This may be done by applying some positive torque throughout the cycle or by changing the point at which the current torque curve comes on.



These are simple concepts that do not involve any PHD to understand. Mind you, I am not saying that PowerCranks provide this function, nor I am saying that Rotorcranks do. I am merely pointing out that there could be gains to be had. These gains can also be had without “cost” to the engine.



Have fun, call Frank Day out if you wish. You may be correct that PC’s do nothing. But to believe that there are no further gains to be had is foolish.

****

The power output sure sounds cyclic to me. So if the power output is cyclic, then the torque curve isn’t steady. Simply flattening out the torque curve could yield favorable results.

****

Why and how?

Dave "knowledge is power"

You call 70% efficiency good? Come one on, I didn't say we could make it perfect either. The infamous Coyle study had efficiency ranges from around 65% up to 80%. I was only saying that if we could take the 65% guy and move him up to 80% that would be appreciable.

Why what level of efficiency did your buddy Jeff determine his subjects to have? What was their range of efficiencies?

not sure what this thread is all about (but at over 200 posts it must be hot) but from the looks of the last few posts it looks like a cat fight..jeeze people...go race or something...getting all uptight about details is going to age you really quickly...agree to disagree and let it go..doesn't appear either with convince the other that they are right. And vice versa. This is a sport..go out and play.

My idea is to have Frank and Rip just wip out there tube steaks and measure them. I think it's deeper then just PCs.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Please do not take this be a non answer. But isn't that the ultimate question here as far as the how part is concerned? Even power application would result in a lower level of power needed throughout the cycle.

Do you think that the noise you hear from the back of a tandem is even power application? This means that they are accelerating and deccellerating each time you hear that.

On many multiseat bikes they is a tendancy to position the cranks so that they are not in phase so that the peak torque being applied is much lower. The cummulative affect of this uneven torque curve.



Well its closing time.......

Read the Coyle study - his numbers, not mine.....

I'm sorry I thought yo actually knew the butcher.....



Goto to go.....yes it is just a game....

This is a sport..go out and play.[/reply]

Isn't that what we are doing?

yes..but I forgot to add...play nice...with the other triathletes