Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [joaco21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I am not peaking now for the racing season. I will do so in February/March. And I will take my time up La Morcuera then.
Might I suggest that you do it without witnesses then tell me your time (or, whatever you would like it to be) and I will post it here. You know what they say, "any publicity is good publicity" :-)

Will keep PowerCranks on the front page while some of the folks here call you and me names. :-)

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
[reply]
the file supports he did it in the time that analyticcycling says would take about 350 watts.[/reply]

You keep saying this, but this is not actually the case.
It's not? What time does the file say it took him to cover the distance? Or, what is the time for interval 1 and what is the distance covered as logged (not as calculated by the average speed)?
My point is that if the file is obviously corrupt or manipulated, you can't pick out one set of data and claim that it is accurate or uncorrupted. But I suppose it is a fool's errand to try and convince you of that. You have a pretty long track record of leaning on incomplete bits of data that support claims you want to make. If the data is junk, it is junk. You can't just take a part of it because you want to. The fact that one part of a corrupt data file matches up with a ballpark estimate from AnalyticCycling (made by me, of a climb I've never seen, and for which I was relying on 3rd hand information to profile) means nothing.

The data doesn't show what you hoped it would, because it is junk (either because of manipulation or corruption). Why can't you just simply say that and wait for the next PowerCranks wunderkind to come along?

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [brandonecpt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
A few points:

1. Joaquin isn't your "patient" and you're not treating him.
2. "Sometimes a patient will tell you they are in pain to get drugs". I don't think that applies here either
3. "
I chose to believe my patients and occasionally those who were lying would reveal themselves in other ways with time". Which seems to be the case here.
4. "
I see no secondary gain potential here to suggest lying is a reasonable possibility". There is our underlying problem. Someone "called out" Joaquin in a previous thread. If someone called me a "liar", even in jest, I'd want to prove them wrong. If I had made statements about how strong I was, and someone called me on those, I'd sure as hell want to prove them wrong and myself right. Now, in the off chance that I claimed I was stronger than I actually was, and someone called me a "liar" on that claim I'd be doing something, anything, to redeem myself.

Now, if your training leads you in the way you say, "I believe everything I am told unless I have a reason to not believe it" truly removes you from the possibility of being a scientist.
Ask Kendall what he thinks about this, he was there wasn't he? Oh, he already piped up that he thinks Joaquin did the ride in the time claimed, even though he wasn't with him the entire time. But, what would he know? If Joaquin wanted to prove a lie why would he wait for there to be a witness there? He had no idea how good Kendall was going to be did he? You are welcome to think what you want but this ""fraud" makes no sense to me.

And, you confuse science with anecdotal reports. Believing anecdotal reports is not quite the same as science so tending on the side of believing people is not inconsistent with being a scientist. Sometimes listening and believing people actually leads to science in trying to prove or disprove the reports one is hearing. Many of the so-called scientists here seem to forget that and simply proclaim things to be impossible, rather than doing the work and proving it so. It was what happened with "cold fusion", the subsequent studies proved it didn't happen. I believe that is what both Luttrell and Dixon were trying to do regarding the PowerCranks claims, but they failed. Thanks for bringing that up.

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
[reply]
the file supports he did it in the time that analyticcycling says would take about 350 watts.[/reply]

You keep saying this, but this is not actually the case.
It's not? What time does the file say it took him to cover the distance? Or, what is the time for interval 1 and what is the distance covered as logged (not as calculated by the average speed)?
My point is that if the file is obviously corrupt or manipulated, you can't pick out one set of data and claim that it is accurate or uncorrupted. But I suppose it is a fool's errand to try and convince you of that. You have a pretty long track record of leaning on incomplete bits of data that support claims you want to make. If the data is junk, it is junk. You can't just take a part of it because you want to. The fact that one part of a corrupt data file matches up with a ballpark estimate from AnalyticCycling (made by me, of a climb I've never seen, and for which I was relying on 3rd hand information to profile) means nothing.

The data doesn't show what you hoped it would, because it is junk (either because of manipulation or corruption). Why can't you just simply say that and wait for the next PowerCranks wunderkind to come along?
I didn't say that one set of data was accurate or uncorrupted, only that one set of data supports what he (and Kendall) said occurred. That suggests it is accurate and so, it is "the case" that I keep saying. Another set of data actually suggests his power is higher than he claims (the speed data), so that may be manipulated but he isn't using it to prove his case. Hence, there is a discontinuity. I agree the data file is corrupted so it should be discarded as nothing can be relied upon in this data.

You can think what you want but I suspect we will have to wait for more data to resolve this issue.

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [joaco21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
isn't it 1-2 a.m. in Madrid? Where are you actually located?
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
[reply]
the file supports he did it in the time that analyticcycling says would take about 350 watts.[/reply]

You keep saying this, but this is not actually the case.
It's not? What time does the file say it took him to cover the distance? Or, what is the time for interval 1 and what is the distance covered as logged (not as calculated by the average speed)?
My point is that if the file is obviously corrupt or manipulated, you can't pick out one set of data and claim that it is accurate or uncorrupted. But I suppose it is a fool's errand to try and convince you of that. You have a pretty long track record of leaning on incomplete bits of data that support claims you want to make. If the data is junk, it is junk. You can't just take a part of it because you want to. The fact that one part of a corrupt data file matches up with a ballpark estimate from AnalyticCycling (made by me, of a climb I've never seen, and for which I was relying on 3rd hand information to profile) means nothing.

The data doesn't show what you hoped it would, because it is junk (either because of manipulation or corruption). Why can't you just simply say that and wait for the next PowerCranks wunderkind to come along?
I didn't say that one set of data was accurate or uncorrupted, only that one set of data supports what he (and Kendall) said occurred. That suggests it is accurate and so, it is "the case" that I keep saying. Another set of data actually suggests his power is higher than he claims (the speed data), so that may be manipulated but he isn't using it to prove his case. Hence, there is a discontinuity. I agree the data file is corrupted so it should be discarded as nothing can be relied upon in this data.

You can think what you want but I suspect we will have to wait for more data to resolve this issue.
The power data ALSO shows (at least in terms of the average) what Joaquin says occured, but that is clearly junk. The whole file is junk. So you can't say that one part of it is probably accurate. That is a fundamental flaw in your scientific method. You seem to think it is okay to pick and choose from the data. Data is good, or it's bad. It's not some of each.

Taken another way, of course the file says that the X distance was covered in Y time. The general consensus is that the file was manipulated by someone, so clearly the manipulation would make sure that at the very least, the duration and time of the climb matched up. Just like the average power matches up to the claimed report. If the time/distance for the climb didn't match up, then the data would obviously be junk, even to someone who knew nothing about power files.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Ask Kendall what he thinks about this, he was there wasn't he?"

He was in the general vicinity, but was NOT at the finish of the climb.

"
Oh, he already piped up that he thinks Joaquin did the ride in the time claimed, even though he wasn't with him the entire time."

Exactly, he THINKS (not KNOWS) Joaquin did the ride, but he WASN'T WITH HIM. I guess you are MISSING THE FACTS...surprise, surprise.

"
If Joaquin wanted to prove a lie why would he wait for there to be a witness there?"

Remind me again what was witnessed. Because this mysterious file DISAPPEARED for WEEKS. What good is a WITNESS if they DIDN'T WITNESS ANYTHING.

"
You are welcome to think what you want but this ""fraud" makes no sense to me"

A couple things here: thank you for allowing me to think what I want. BUT, NEXT TIME YOU QUOTE ME, MAKE SURE I SAID IT! You can't quote the word "fraud" to me until I say it! Something like that will REALLY upset some people. Ask h2ofun about me taking something he said out of context. THEN, ask him if he'd get mad if not only was it taken out of context, but COMPLETELY FRAUDULENT.

"
Believing anecdotal reports is not quite the same as science so tending on the side of believing people is not inconsistent with being a scientist"

Um, I don't know about that Frank. I know I'll LISTEN to people, but if I think there is ANY chance of what they are saying to not be true, it is up to them to PROVE it. I don't JUST BELIEVE CLAIMS. I don't think a scientist would either, until the hypothesis becomes a theory, it isn't to be believed, right?

"
Sometimes listening and believing people actually leads to science in trying to prove or disprove the reports one is hearing"

Close, listening to them leads to science, believing them does not. If you blindly believe them, there is no science to follow.

"
Many of the so-called scientists here seem to forget that and simply proclaim things to be impossible, rather than doing the work and proving it so"

And this is why we keep telling you that you are not a scientist. When anything is claimed, it is up to that person to prove it to be true, NOT to everyone else to prove it's not true. I could tell you I can produce 1,900 watts for 47 hours straight. BUT, it would be up to me to prove it, not up to you to disprove it.

"
I believe that is what both Luttrell and Dixon were trying to do regarding the PowerCranks claims, but they failed. Thanks for bringing that up"

Here we go again.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lemond is cycling's version of Rev Jessie Jackson." -johnnyperu 5/18/07
"Just because I suck doesn't mean my bike has to" -rickn 9/2/08
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"You can think what you want but I suspect we will have to wait for more data to resolve this issue"

I thought that's what THIS file was supposed to do! We waited and waited for this one to resolve the issue....and surprisingly enough it didn't.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lemond is cycling's version of Rev Jessie Jackson." -johnnyperu 5/18/07
"Just because I suck doesn't mean my bike has to" -rickn 9/2/08
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
. . . That is a fundamental flaw in your scientific method. You seem to think it is okay to pick and choose from the data. Data is good, or it's bad. It's not some of each.

Taken another way, of course the file says that the X distance was covered in Y time. The general consensus is that the file was manipulated by someone, so clearly the manipulation would make sure that at the very least, the duration and time of the climb matched up. Just like the average power matches up to the claimed report. If the time/distance for the climb didn't match up, then the data would obviously be junk, even to someone who knew nothing about power files.


What "flaw" in my scientific method? I have simply said there is data to support what was said to have occurred. And there is conflicting data to suggest he performed even better. Your ignoring the supporting data is a flaw in your analysis. The entire file cannot be relied upon because of the discrepancies but it is ludicrous to suggest the file was manipulated to make it look better then it is for nefarious purposes but then that data is not used to inflate claims over the lesser data that supports what was reported.

This is only an issue because it has to do with PowerCranks and I suspect some of you will grasp at any straw to discredit any claim that suggests PC's are as good as I say. This data should not be used to support Joaquin's claim but is also should not be used to refute it. It is bad data. We are stuck with field reports as to what actually happened. Believe them or not.

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [brandonecpt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
"Ask Kendall what he thinks about this, he was there wasn't he?"

He was in the general vicinity, but was NOT at the finish of the climb.
If he had been at the finish he would not have been at the start. He made his assessment by what he observed, in part by riding out with him and then watching him easily ride away. He thought he most likely did it in the time claimed.[/reply]

"
Oh, he already piped up that he thinks Joaquin did the ride in the time claimed, even though he wasn't with him the entire time."

Exactly, he THINKS (not KNOWS) Joaquin did the ride, but he WASN'T WITH HIM. I guess you are MISSING THE FACTS...surprise, surprise.[/reply] The only fact here is he was there, you were not.[/reply]
"
If Joaquin wanted to prove a lie why would he wait for there to be a witness there?"

Remind me again what was witnessed. Because this mysterious file DISAPPEARED for WEEKS. What good is a WITNESS if they DIDN'T WITNESS ANYTHING.[/reply] No, they didn't witness what you wanted them to witness. He witnessed plenty and made his assessment. You, of course, are free to disagree.[/reply]
"
You are welcome to think what you want but this ""fraud" makes no sense to me"

A couple things here: thank you for allowing me to think what I want. BUT, NEXT TIME YOU QUOTE ME, MAKE SURE I SAID IT! You can't quote the word "fraud" to me until I say it! Something like that will REALLY upset some people. Ask h2ofun about me taking something he said out of context. THEN, ask him if he'd get mad if not only was it taken out of context, but COMPLETELY FRAUDULENT.[/reply] Ugh, you may not have used the word fraud, but you have certainly implied it. If you have not implied it tell my what you have been implying as to the intent of the person you believed manipulated this file.[/reply]
"
Believing anecdotal reports is not quite the same as science so tending on the side of believing people is not inconsistent with being a scientist"

Um, I don't know about that Frank. I know I'll LISTEN to people, but if I think there is ANY chance of what they are saying to not be true, it is up to them to PROVE it. I don't JUST BELIEVE CLAIMS. I don't think a scientist would either, until the hypothesis becomes a theory, it isn't to be believed, right?

"
Sometimes listening and believing people actually leads to science in trying to prove or disprove the reports one is hearing"

Close, listening to them leads to science, believing them does not. If you blindly believe them, there is no science to follow.

"
Many of the so-called scientists here seem to forget that and simply proclaim things to be impossible, rather than doing the work and proving it so"

And this is why we keep telling you that you are not a scientist. When anything is claimed, it is up to that person to prove it to be true, NOT to everyone else to prove it's not true. I could tell you I can produce 1,900 watts for 47 hours straight. BUT, it would be up to me to prove it, not up to you to disprove it.[/reply] You mistake marketing claims, what I believe the typical user will see, from scientific proof. It is not my duty to prove marketing claims. I offer a 90 day money-back guarantee as the "proof" of my marketing claims. If I could "prove" them I would but it is difficult. Show my one other product in this field that has scientific proof of their marketing claims. At least a study is soon to be underway that might let me "prove" what I have been saying all along or cause me to revise my claims.[/reply]
"
I believe that is what both Luttrell and Dixon were trying to do regarding the PowerCranks claims, but they failed. Thanks for bringing that up"

Here we go again.
[/reply] Only if you want to. :-)

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I didn't say that one set of data was accurate or uncorrupted, only that one set of data supports what he (and Kendall) said occurred. That suggests it is accurate and so, it is "the case" that I keep saying. Another set of data actually suggests his power is higher than he claims (the speed data), so that may be manipulated but he isn't using it to prove his case. Hence, there is a discontinuity.

Yep...here's where the discontinuity is located:

Frank Day <---> logic

You keep forgetting that the speed data and the distance data are calculated from the same signal using the same entered coefficient. A "glitch" affecting one would affect the other....and this mysterious "glitch" ONLY occurred during the interval in question...how interesting.



In Reply To:
I agree the data file is corrupted so it should be discarded as nothing can be relied upon in this data.

You WISH it could be discarded. Sorry...not going to happen. The one thing it can be relied upon is to clearly demonstrate how bogus his (and your) claims are.



In Reply To:
You can think what you want but I suspect we will have to wait for more data to resolve this issue.

You're a real piece of work....

Watching you try to find evidence to support your claims is like watching a low-rent version of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"...only not as funny.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Frank, let me ask you this: let's say you are performing a scientific study. You finish the study, and realize the measuring device you were using was inaccurate. What do you do then? Do you use the data that supports the result you'd like to see? Or do you throw out the data and realize that if one portion of the data is bad, it's all bad?

Another question: let's say you make a public claim to potentially thousands and thousands of people. Someone calls you a "liar" from this public claim. You stick to your claim and try to back it up, but when the data you were going to use comes back NOT supporting your claim. Do you manipulate the data to fit, or do you admit defeat?

I can't speak for others, but I'll throw out a Get Out of Jail Free Card in my eyes: admit this data is crap, from beginning to end, and there is NOTHING of use...NOTHING and I'll drop it and stop pestering you. But to do so, you have to stop trying to defend a file that is so painfully obvious that it's crap and stop trying to say there is data that supports Joaquin's claim.

"some of you will grasp at any straw to discredit any claim that suggests PC's are as good as I say"

I don't think the hordes of people ganging up on you are the ones grasping at straws, Frank.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lemond is cycling's version of Rev Jessie Jackson." -johnnyperu 5/18/07
"Just because I suck doesn't mean my bike has to" -rickn 9/2/08
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
What "flaw" in my scientific method? I have simply said there is data to support what was said to have occurred. And there is conflicting data to suggest he performed even better. Your ignoring the supporting data is a flaw in your analysis. The entire file cannot be relied upon because of the discrepancies but it is ludicrous to suggest the file was manipulated to make it look better then it is for nefarious purposes but then that data is not used to inflate claims over the lesser data that supports what was reported.

If there was a dictionary definition of "delusional spin", that paragraph above would be a prime example.

Now the choice is between the data either supporting what he claimed...or that it could have been BETTER???

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!



In Reply To:
This is only an issue because it has to do with PowerCranks and I suspect some of you will grasp at any straw to discredit any claim that suggests PC's are as good as I say.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! STOP IT! STOP IT! YOU'RE KILLING ME!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!

Who's grasping at straws???? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
" If he had been at the finish he would not have been at the start. He made his assessment by what he observed, in part by riding out with him and then watching him easily ride away. He thought he most likely did it in the time claimed"

I agree, he would have had to ride as fast or faster than Joaquin, he could not, either could I. He made an assessment, but THAT IS NOT DATA. He thinks Joaquin is a good rider, especially against his ability, I would and DO think the same. But that doesn't make the claims you and Joaquin have made true.

"
The only fact here is he was there, you were not."

I was not, either were you. But that is NOT the only fact.

"
No, they didn't witness what you wanted them to witness. He witnessed plenty and made his assessment. You, of course, are free to disagree"

Plenty is a relative term. In this case, plenty for you is NOT plenty for me. I've witnessed plenty of people ride away from me, that means nothing for them other than the fact that they're faster than me. It certainly does not prove their power or explain a file like this one.

"
Ugh, you may not have used the word fraud, but you have certainly implied it. If you have not implied it tell my what you have been implying as to the intent of the person you believed manipulated this file"

YOU CAN NOT QUOTE SOMETHING I MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE IMPLIED. And acting like a pre-teen girl with your "ugh" doesn't make me pity you. All I have implied to this point is that this file is either corrupt, manipulated, or both. By who, I don't know and don't claim to know.

"
It is not my duty to prove marketing claims"

Um, then whose duty is it? Oh yeah, THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIMS.

"
Show my one other product in this field that has scientific proof of their marketing claims. At least a study is soon to be underway that might let me "prove" what I have been saying all along or cause me to revise my claims"

Anyone else making those claims should prove them as well! I'm not just saying you should, everyone should have proof to their claims before making them. I know I was taught in school not to claim something until I could prove it. As for the study that is soon to be underway....good! Can we know anything about this study?

"
Only if you want to. :-)"

NO!!!!!!!!!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lemond is cycling's version of Rev Jessie Jackson." -johnnyperu 5/18/07
"Just because I suck doesn't mean my bike has to" -rickn 9/2/08
Last edited by: brandonecpt: Nov 21, 07 19:25
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Your ignoring the supporting data is a flaw in your analysis. The entire file cannot be relied upon because of the discrepancies but it is ludicrous to suggest the file was manipulated to make it look better then it is for nefarious purposes but then that data is not used to inflate claims over the lesser data that supports what was reported.

So my flaw is that I am ignoring data that is obviously crapola? Ok, no problem. I accept that. I am willing to admit that I do not consider data that is obviously junk when drawing conclusions.

In Reply To:
...We are stuck with field reports as to what actually happened. Believe them or not.

No, we also have a file that certainly shows strong evidence of manipulation, given that ONLY the specific interval in question shows signs of irregularity. If the rest of the data was equally bad, that would indicate a faulty device. But the data only becomes "odd" once the climb starts. Hmmmmm...

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I see no secondary gain potential here to suggest lying is a reasonable possibility.
How about good old-fashioned ego gratification?
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

No, we also have a file that certainly shows evidence of manipulation, given that ONLY the specific interval in question shows signs of irregularity. If the rest of the data was equally bad, that would indicate a faulty device. But the data only becomes "odd" once the climb starts. Hmmmmm...
Come on, Frank explained that earlier with a completely plausible explanation right here: "While repeating data could be from a cut and paste manipulation of a data file. It could also be from an electrical interference pattern from some repeating outside source when the data was collected."

I think I saw this on the X-Files.....


So, is this not a good time to ask you about your own experience with PC's......


Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [roady] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

No, we also have a file that certainly shows evidence of manipulation, given that ONLY the specific interval in question shows signs of irregularity. If the rest of the data was equally bad, that would indicate a faulty device. But the data only becomes "odd" once the climb starts. Hmmmmm...
Come on, Frank explained that earlier with a completely plausible explanation right here: "While repeating data could be from a cut and paste manipulation of a data file. It could also be from an electrical interference pattern from some repeating outside source when the data was collected."

I think I saw this on the X-Files.....


So, is this not a good time to ask you about your own experience with PC's......

My coach and several other sensible people talked me out of trying them. One of the most notable items was the following observation, "everyone I know who uses them seems to get injured at some point." I also spent a lot of time reading Dr. Coggan's and other's opinions on the matter (in threads like this one) and decided I was, like many people, looking for a "shortcut" or "edge" which didn't really exist. I knew a few guys who used to use them - all guys I respect. NONE of them use them anymore, which to me speaks volumes. Basically, when it came down to it, I had lots of people I trust telling me "no," and no one saying "yes."

I think one of the key factors is that people train and they use powercranks, and they get faster. And then they mistakenly assume that they got faster because they trained used powercranks, rather than just because they were training hard. Coggan posted something along these lines in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek post about how to raise VO2max some % in some period of time. Basically, the crux was just do smart, hard workouts.

Not one the former powercranks users I know misses them. Not one of them has gotten slower.

My own fleeting interest also had nothing to do with cycling. It had to do with running. I've also shifted my training program towards a lower volume of higher quality cycling, and more running, so the idea of using my cycling to improve my running is even less applicable than it was in the past when I was riding more.

Basically, I did research and used some critical thinking and asked my coach to do the same. In the end, our decision was that powercranks were not worthwhile. We both focused on training where is lots of good evidence (and easily producible power files to support said evidence) of what actually works.

EDIT: Quick add - it was over this most recent winter, when I had planned to use them, that all the guys I know who had used them decided they just weren't worth it. So all those guys I talked about in the thread you mentioned who had not previously had anything bad to say, changed their mind. People can do that, contrary to what *certain* people on this forum might be people. It is okay to admit you were wrong. Or to change your mind. Or to come to a new understanding in light of research, input from knowledgeable folks, etc. ;)

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Last edited by: Rappstar: Nov 21, 07 21:00
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [brandonecpt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Frank, let me ask you this: let's say you are performing a scientific study. You finish the study, and realize the measuring device you were using was inaccurate. What do you do then? Do you use the data that supports the result you'd like to see? Or do you throw out the data and realize that if one portion of the data is bad, it's all bad?
Well, it would depend upon the type of error and whether it is correctable. When doing a scientific study one should describe the materials and techniques one is using and if an error is found but it can be compensated for then that error should be described and the method of compensation described then the editors can determine whether the study should be published and the readers can determine the value of the data and the study. If the error is uncorrectable then the study is crap and nothing can be learned from it. One must analyze the data that one has.
In Reply To:
Another question: let's say you make a public claim to potentially thousands and thousands of people. Someone calls you a "liar" from this public claim. You stick to your claim and try to back it up, but when the data you were going to use comes back NOT supporting your claim. Do you manipulate the data to fit, or do you admit defeat?
I wouldn't manipulate the data. But, I haven't done what you said.
In Reply To:

I can't speak for others, but I'll throw out a Get Out of Jail Free Card in my eyes: admit this data is crap, from beginning to end, and there is NOTHING of use...NOTHING and I'll drop it and stop pestering you. But to do so, you have to stop trying to defend a file that is so painfully obvious that it's crap and stop trying to say there is data that supports Joaquin's claim.
Ugh, this data is crap. But, using my response to your first question I contend this data cannot be used to either confirm or refute Joaquin's claim since the data is contradictory.
In Reply To:


"some of you will grasp at any straw to discredit any claim that suggests PC's are as good as I say"

I don't think the hordes of people ganging up on you are the ones grasping at straws, Frank.
Yes they are. They are the ones trying to use crap data to discredit someone. I admit the data is flawed and should not be used to support Joaquin's claim. But, there is data in there that supports his claim so, by the same token, this data should not be used to discredit him. That can only be done if good data is obtained, be it an eye witness to his entire climb next time or a data file that is internally consistent (even that wouldn't satisfy some here as they would think he learned how to better manipulate a file this next time from this thread). If, instead, his file had low numbers but these same internal consistencies would these same people be clamoring that the file was manipulated and the data should not be trusted. I think not.

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i might be mistaken but did I not read somewhere earlier in this thread that a) the file contains a whole lot of data prior to this particular climb and b) only the climb portion was deemed as corrupt?

Note sure if you have the file but would it not make sense to do some analysis of the prior data to get a feel for the kind of power output (w.r.t HR if nothing earlier in the file was ridden "all out" ) Joaquin is capable of?

-----------------------------------------------
www.true-motion.com Triathlete Casual Wear since 2007
(Twitter/FB)
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [brandonecpt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
" If he had been at the finish he would not have been at the start. He made his assessment by what he observed, in part by riding out with him and then watching him easily ride away. He thought he most likely did it in the time claimed"

I agree, he would have had to ride as fast or faster than Joaquin, he could not, either could I. He made an assessment, but THAT IS NOT DATA. He thinks Joaquin is a good rider, especially against his ability, I would and DO think the same. But that doesn't make the claims you and Joaquin have made true.
I have not made any claims here. I have simplypointed out what the data shows relative to Joaquin's claim. The data supports it in some ways, but is inconsistent in others so, hence, cannot be trusted and shouldn't be used either for or against the claim. Those who think this data proves he cannot do what he says he did or does are wrong.
In Reply To:

"
The only fact here is he was there, you were not."

I was not, either were you. But that is NOT the only fact.

"
No, they didn't witness what you wanted them to witness. He witnessed plenty and made his assessment. You, of course, are free to disagree"

Plenty is a relative term. In this case, plenty for you is NOT plenty for me. I've witnessed plenty of people ride away from me, that means nothing for them other than the fact that they're faster than me. It certainly does not prove their power or explain a file like this one.
Well, I guess it was plenty enough for Kendall.
In Reply To:


"
Ugh, you may not have used the word fraud, but you have certainly implied it. If you have not implied it tell my what you have been implying as to the intent of the person you believed manipulated this file"

YOU CAN NOT QUOTE SOMETHING I MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE IMPLIED. And acting like a pre-teen girl with your "ugh" doesn't make me pity you. All I have implied to this point is that this file is either corrupt, manipulated, or both. By who, I don't know and don't claim to know.
Well, others have certainly implied deliberate intent on Joaquin's part to corrupt this file. The file is corrupted. It is worthless to prove any point about that ride.
In Reply To:


"
It is not my duty to prove marketing claims"

Um, then whose duty is it? Oh yeah, THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIMS.
No, my only duty is to have enough data to support the claim. Supporting a claim and proving a claim are two entirely different things. I believe the claim to be true. I am working on getting additional support. Whether I am able to get scientific proof or not is yet to be determined. If I do so I may be the first product in the history of sport to get proof of a performance enhancement claim ever.
In Reply To:


"
Show my one other product in this field that has scientific proof of their marketing claims. At least a study is soon to be underway that might let me "prove" what I have been saying all along or cause me to revise my claims"

Anyone else making those claims should prove them as well! I'm not just saying you should, everyone should have proof to their claims before making them. I know I was taught in school not to claim something until I could prove it. As for the study that is soon to be underway....good! Can we know anything about this study?
Don't hold your breath. Have you asked Dr. Coggan to show proof that all of what he says in his book is proven true? If you do, don't hold your breath because it doesn't exist.

Regarding the study I will not discuss it any more than I have. I don't discuss studies in general before they are published because doing so could interfere with their being published. I am interested in them being published, if possible so I don't want to do anything that might hurt that potential. As I said, I expect it to get underway soon and it should have enough subjects and last long enough to be very powerful, statistically speaking.
In Reply To:


"
Only if you want to. :-)"

NO!!!!!!!!!!
Rats:-)

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Well, it would depend upon the type of error and whether it is correctable. When doing a scientific study one should describe the materials and techniques one is using and if an error is found but it can be compensated for then that error should be described and the method of compensation described then the editors can determine whether the study should be published and the readers can determine the value of the data and the study. If the error is uncorrectable then the study is crap and nothing can be learned from it. One must analyze the data that one has"

In your opinion, do you THINK (not "do you know", do you THINK) this data was compensated? If so, was it done without describing the method used? I'm looking for your OPINION on this one.

"
I wouldn't manipulate the data. But, I haven't done what you said"

I'm not claiming you manipulated anything, but what are you saying you didn't do that I said? Made a public claim to thousands of people? That you DID do, and CONTINUALLY do.

"
I contend this data cannot be used to either confirm or refute Joaquin's claim since the data is contradictory"

I agree with you partly. This data can not be used to refute his claim, IMO. But, it's not my job to refute his claim. For about the 900th time, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. This is a point that for some reason, no one as has been able to get across to you. So, UNTIL IT'S PROVEN TO BE TRUE, IT ISN'T.

"
They are the ones trying to use crap data to discredit someone"

They are discrediting him, not refuting his claim, big difference. On this forum at this point, Joaquin holds little credibility in many peoples' eyes. That doesn't mean they are saying he CAN'T potentially do what he says, but that he hasn't and has to prove it. Credibility and ability are very different.

"
But, there is data in there that supports his claim so, by the same token, this data should not be used to discredit him"

Frank, come on. I could claim 1,000 watt FTP. But just because I jump on the pedals and produce 1,000 watts for a moment in time, doesn't support my claim.

"
That can only be done if good data is obtained, be it an eye witness to his entire climb next time or a data file that is internally consistent"

An eye witness to his full climb and a good data file (that doesn't take weeks to get a hold of and have VERY inconsistent data) will quiet down some....But, this argument has as much to do with the fact that you keep tauting these wunderkind PC users that don't live up to the claims. I don't know about you, but when I am feeling attacked I want nothing more than to prove people wrong. If I were in your shoes I'd be doing everything I could to get at least one person to come through with their claims....

"
even that wouldn't satisfy some here as they would think he learned how to better manipulate a file this next time from this thread"

There you go again, putting words in peoples mouths. How about you produce the results that are accurate and verifiable before passing judgment.

"
If, instead, his file had low numbers but these same internal consistencies would these same people be clamoring that the file was manipulated and the data should not be trusted. I think not."

One last reminder: speak for yourself and not others....But, if Joaquin's numbers were consistently too low, there would be no argument. No one would doctor a file that makes them look like they have LESS power. If the file showed low we'd all KNOW it wasn't doctored, unless of course Joaquin were sandbagging for some reason.

You're missing the point here. If the numbers were low with inconsistencies, the file wouldn't support Joaquin. If the numbers were high with inconsistencies, the file wouldn't support his claim. If the numbers were low without inconsistencies, the file wouldn't support Joaquin. IF THE NUMBERS WERE HIGH WITHOUT INCONSISTENCIES, THE NUMBERS WOULD FINALLY SUPPORT JOAQUIN.

So, of course, if the numbers were low and STILL had the consistencies, you're wrong, I would still say the data shouldn't be trusted, but I would ALSO still say it doesn't support his claims.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lemond is cycling's version of Rev Jessie Jackson." -johnnyperu 5/18/07
"Just because I suck doesn't mean my bike has to" -rickn 9/2/08
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"I have not made any claims here"

HERE being the key word.

"
Those who think this data proves he cannot do what he says he did or does are wrong"

Maybe I missed that, who said this "corrupt" data PROVES he cannot do what he says?

"
Well, I guess it was plenty enough for Kendall"

OK Frank, but Kendal's "plenty" was enough to say, yes, Joaquin is fast. But NOT enough to say, yes, Joaquin is as fast as he says he is. Those are two very different points.

"
Well, others have certainly implied deliberate intent on Joaquin's part to corrupt this file. The file is corrupted. It is worthless to prove any point about that ride"

First you "quote" the word fraud as I said it. Then you tell me I implied something that I didn't. Then you pin what OTHERS have implied on me? You're full of it Frank.

"
my only duty is to have enough data to support the claim"

Which I'm not convinced of. To which you'll say, "but you'll never be convinced". Try me.

"
Supporting a claim and proving a claim are two entirely different things"

I agree. I don't feel you can adequitely do either. But that's just me.

"
I believe the claim to be true"

Believing something, doesn't make it true. That goes for both of us, not just you.

"
I am working on getting additional support. Whether I am able to get scientific proof or not is yet to be determined"

Best of luck, so far your "test mule" results have been less than stellar. But I really do wish you the best, if you prove us all wrong, we'll all be on PC's and riding 40% faster.

"
Have you asked Dr. Coggan to show proof that all of what he says in his book is proven true?"

Such as? I just finished his book not long ago, but I don't remember reading any "claims" that I thought could even possibly be not true. But let me know what you think isn't true and maybe I can ask him.

"
As I said, I expect it to get underway soon and it should have enough subjects and last long enough to be very powerful, statistically speaking"

Two questions that shouldn't give much away: When should we expect it to get started and how long will it run? Oh, and a third question, will there be a control group?


--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lemond is cycling's version of Rev Jessie Jackson." -johnnyperu 5/18/07
"Just because I suck doesn't mean my bike has to" -rickn 9/2/08
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jordan, thanks for the thoughtful reply. However, I still can't see why you don't understand the obvious Area 51 effect that the Morcuera climb has on the Power Tap.......
Quote Reply
Re: I got my ass beat by Joaquin riding his Powercranks up La Morcuera with a Powertap [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

No, we also have a file that certainly shows evidence of manipulation, given that ONLY the specific interval in question shows signs of irregularity. If the rest of the data was equally bad, that would indicate a faulty device. But the data only becomes "odd" once the climb starts. Hmmmmm...
Come on, Frank explained that earlier with a completely plausible explanation right here: "While repeating data could be from a cut and paste manipulation of a data file. It could also be from an electrical interference pattern from some repeating outside source when the data was collected."

I think I saw this on the X-Files.....


So, is this not a good time to ask you about your own experience with PC's......

My coach and several other sensible people talked me out of trying them. One of the most notable items was the following observation, "everyone I know who uses them seems to get injured at some point." I also spent a lot of time reading Dr. Coggan's and other's opinions on the matter (in threads like this one) and decided I was, like many people, looking for a "shortcut" or "edge" which didn't really exist. I knew a few guys who used to use them - all guys I respect. NONE of them use them anymore, which to me speaks volumes. Basically, when it came down to it, I had lots of people I trust telling me "no," and no one saying "yes."

Last time I was at a Team Timex training camp (2006) and I asked the athletes how many had or were training on PowerCranks about half the room raised their hand. Do you mean to say that all of those people gave up on them? That is not the feedback I have had. But, you know, they are probably just playing along with me to keep the "sponsor" happy.

I am especially intrigued by this observation you made: "One of the most notable items was the following observation, "everyone I know who uses them seems to get injured at some point." "

Wow, that is so foreign to the reports I get from users. Perhaps you could PM me some names and how the PC's contributed to their injuries so I could look into it more. I mean elite athletes get injured all the time. One of the selling points we emphasize is they help reduce risk of injury, and help the injured rehab. I would really love to get some data from you that suggests this is not true. Of course, it would be good if it were good data an not just a lot of anecdotes. I mean, we sold a PowerCranks exercise bike to a Div I gymnastics coach to use in keeping his girls healthy. He got them because the track team and trainers at the same school was using PC's to keep the track team healthy. It is why Coach Joe vigil got PC's for Team Running - USA (California) which only has such members as Meb Keflezigh, Deena Kastor, Ryan Hall, the late Ryan Shay (maybe we can blame his last "injury" on the PC's) and others. Where did these folks go wrong in their understanding of the product that your coach clearly understands from his vast experience with them?

Anyhow, I am sorry you didn't have the cajones to try them yourself (they are still on the shelf since you wanted a special size) and see what you thought from your own experience and how they fit your specific need rather than taking the opinions of others.
In Reply To:

I think one of the key factors is that people train and they use powercranks, and they get faster. And then they mistakenly assume that they got faster because they trained used powercranks, rather than just because they were training hard. Coggan posted something along these lines in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek post about how to raise VO2max some % in some period of time. Basically, the crux was just do smart, hard workouts.

Not one the former powercranks users I know misses them. Not one of them has gotten slower.

Well, I suspect that not one of those users used them exclusively such that they never really got through the transition. It is one of the reasons we don't give these things away to pros anymore. If they are simply trying them because it is more "free swag" they are not motivated to use them properly and they give up on them. New pros who get on them now do so because they want to be on them. Anyhow, to each his own.
In Reply To:

My own fleeting interest also had nothing to do with cycling. It had to do with running. I've also shifted my training program towards a lower volume of higher quality cycling, and more running, so the idea of using my cycling to improve my running is even less applicable than it was in the past when I was riding more.

Basically, I did research and used some critical thinking and asked my coach to do the same. In the end, our decision was that powercranks were not worthwhile. We both focused on training where is lots of good evidence (and easily producible power files to support said evidence) of what actually works.

EDIT: Quick add - it was over this most recent winter, when I had planned to use them, that all the guys I know who had used them decided they just weren't worth it. So all those guys I talked about in the thread you mentioned who had not previously had anything bad to say, changed their mind. People can do that, contrary to what *certain* people on this forum might be people. It is okay to admit you were wrong. Or to change your mind. Or to come to a new understanding in light of research, input from knowledgeable folks, etc. ;)

Are you saying nobody on the Timex team or any pro you know who did use them still uses them? Wow!!! That is pretty amazing. I may have to fact check that. If I can find one who is still using them that you know does that mean you are manipulating the data for some nefarious purpose. :-) That wasn't what I heard from Victor or Andily or Louis or any of many others last time I saw them. And, I wonder why we still get request from Timex pros to get on them. They mustn't know anyone you know.

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

Prev Next