This data is internally inconsistent. I do not know how it got this way but it is this way and this inconsistency makes it worthless to prove make any point.
what claim is that? that I expect our typical new user can gain 40% in cycling power in 6-9 months of exclusive PC use? Yes, I still make that claim and I admit it has not been scientifically proven. It is an expectation based upon my own early testing and from feedback from users as to what many (most) achieve. Some see more and some, of course, see less. Oh, and at the same time we expect them to run substantially faster also, most will see about a minute per mile in their marathon pace in about 3 months. Is that the claim to which you were referring?
That is cool. His abilities remain unproven to the ST crowd. Just as the point that he deliberately manipulated the data to make himself look better than he is is unproven. The data is worthless for proving any point about his abilities (although it is not worthless for making innuendo).
So be it. It is the internet.
The data to which I referred was an average power of 358 watts that went on for 29 minutes and covered a distance of 8+ km. That data is in the file and is consistent with what he claimed for this ride and what one gets if one puts the numbers into analyticcycling.com. Other data in the file is not consistent with this claim which is where the problem is. This has nothing to do with his previous testing results where he was told he had an FTP of 390 at that time.
There are some here that wouldn't believe Joaquin's results if God himself were to witness the ride and then certify the file. They would simply claim that enough time had passed that he would have seen that improvement in due course anyhow training on regular cranks.
Hey, I can only do what I can do. I rely on others to do the work or produce the files or the argument can be made that I manipulated the files or data. Anyhow, this good study design and data collection was done by Luttrell. the only weakness of the study is he did not look at VO2max or max power after PowerCranks but only looked at efficiency. Go back and look at the criticism of that work. The data was basically ignored and the study discounted simply fbcause of the journal it was published in. Many here don't care about the data. They know what the results should be and anything to the contrary cannot reflect reality. Some scientists!
If the data is inconsistent, either high, low or otherwise, the data is pretty much worthless for proving anything! One may argue as to how it got that way but it is worthless to settle the "how good is he" argument.

---

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

  
Here's some more fuel to the fire and further proof that the data has been "physicianed" (Thanks Paul!). Joaquin wrote on 10/28:



Well...something happened to the file between then and when it was sent to all of us, because here are the stats for that interval from the file he sent out:

Duration: 28:39
Work: 617 kJ
Norm Power: 360
VI: 1
Distance: 5.448 mi
Min Max Avg
Power: 299 539 359 watts
Heart rate: 174 184 182 bpm
Cadence: 66 90 72 rpm
Speed: 11.8 15.7 13.1 mph
Pace 3:49 5:05 4:35 min/mi
Hub Torque: 155 264 182 lb-in
Crank Torque: 330 632 419 lb-in


So...either the original data was made up (gee, I wonder why he left out the distance), the later data was made up, or (and this is the most likely given all the evidence in play) BOTH sets of data were made up. Can't blame this one on the powertap.

Frank, I see that you are finally in the "anger" stage. It even sounds as if you've progressed along to "bargaining"...but, I think you may be directing your anger in the wrong places. Don't shoot the messenger(s).

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Personally, i can't believe you've all been so patient with Frank and his mad thoughts. Frank has talked the most utter shite i've ever come across from the moment i first had the misfortune of "speaking" (typing) with him. None of the stuff he's previously mentioned has been true, from the triathlete who was going to break the world hour cycling record on power cranks to the 11 yr old girl who turned up on the wrong day to Joaquin's sorry attempt here. Add in his pathetic attempt at presenting the world with his "use power cranks and gain 40% power" claim, which was some utter crap he did himself on his indoor trainer...

Anyway, other than the laugh that this thread has presented, it's wasting my life to read Frank's crap.

Ric

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com

Yeah man! ...woo hoo! my legacy!

I should be careful to criticize that data myself...'cuz even I've been "doctored". :)

Smelly, Ph.D.

---

ErgVideo.com

The data in my file is exactly the one I posted several weeks ago. If I recall right I even posted the MMC for the ride. All the data was in Km/h, and I have checked this morning and is exactly as I said. It has nothing to do with the data you post here. Something is wrong there. And maybe thats why Robert asked me if the file he received was right because he got very strange results.

When I met Kendall I was never intending to do the climb at a max effort (we met a Friday afternoon after work, without lunch on a cold rainny day, and I was carrying my tarining bike with PCs and PT wheels. Never cared of inflating the tubes, or making sure the PT worked to record a file to demonstrate anything to anybody). It was Kendall who invited me to ride fast (but I guess he never intended to demonstrate anything either, since he was not carrying his PT, or it was also broken; he just wanted to ride up La Morcuera for fun). I told him my time up la Morcuera (not really, I just told him I was 1 minute behind my PB). He could easilly see me during the last section of the climb because the last 2 km of the climb are perfectly visible from the distance since there are no trees and is a strainght road. I waited for him, put on my rain jacked and winter gloves, ride down about two kilometers, and ride up again with him to the top. And then we took some photographs and rode down again to Soto del Real to drink a beer together. (Kendall is the story right?). He then told me two days later that he posted something here, and I did not even had a look to this thread until Frank told me you stupid guys were scatching your heads with the number Kendall left here. And I just posted the number I read in my Cycling Peaks software, and the reasons I could imagine why my time was 1 minute behind my PB and the wattage reading was higher. And forgot again about this thread. Believe me I DO NOT CARE AT ALL WHAT YOU THINK OF ME. You want to come to Spain, you are wellcome; you want to do a club ride, a race or climb la Morcuera, I will drive up to meet you; you beat me, fine, we will take a beer together. I beat you, great, we will take another beer together. But then I will come back home with my wife and kids who do not care at all about me cycling; otherwise, FORGET ME

Let me repeat: I did not make up any data. I just rode up with Kendall and I didn't have any idea he intended to start this thread here. So I never intended to claim anything. If he had not started the thread nobody would have known anything of my ride with him; the same as nobody know what I do every Sunday when I ride with my friends. Frank asked me in a private email if I had met Kendall for the ride. I said yes. But I NEVER tried to organise any sort of official climb to La Morcuera (nor I think kendall did) to show all you anything.

But I think Frank has been always very honest to me, and I am very grateful to him for inventing PowerCranks and make me enjoy my races over here, and to thank him for my improvements. I told him my doctors findings, so he knew it was not only my subjective perception. Also my doctor was impressed. I never intended to publish or claim anything (and thus never kept track of my files for a judge or scientist to come to any conclusion). Frank asked me if I would agree to tell Pez about my story (I did not even know what was Pez). I said yes. Full stop. In Spain I am not any famous at all (nobody here ever read the Pez article; just my wife)

But Frank (not you) deserve something to show he is honest; and it is very easy to do; I will organise a completelly objective test for him overe here. I will PM Alvaro and invite him to ride with me and let him state the data here. If you do not trust Alvaro, please let me know who you think is a completelly undoubtful witness you will accept (maybe a Spanish Cycling Federation judge). And again I will take the time exactly where he decides. It is up to you to do the calculations. (Or let me know any alternative protocol you would like me to do). For me is easy; just do another climb to La Morcuera, just half an hour away from home. I do not know if this will prove anything to you about the benefits of PowerCranks; and to speak the truth I do not care at all.

But this will prove that Frank is not manipulating anything, and he is honest ( I do not care what you think about me). You do not like Frank, I don't care. But to me he has been always nice and honest. And I am a fully satisfied customer.

I don think anyone of you has riden for two years exclusivelly on PowerCranks (over 10.000 miles) to know what happens inside our bodies to adapt to them. I do not know either. But I ride faster; much faster now than before. And I have been riding for about 20 years and racing both in Spain and Italy. I just care of the people I love (my familly and friends) and the people who know me. And over here none of these doubt about me.

Joaquin

So what you are saying that benefits gained from using PowerCranks are permanent! Wow! Sign me up!

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

You crack me up. No, the data IS NOT the same as you posted on 10/28. The only reason the speed and distance values I posted above are in mi/hr and miles is that I've got my version of CP set at a default of english units. That doesn't change the power or HR values. Here, to prove it to you, I changed the setting to metric and re-imported your file (the one you sent to me directly, it's not the one that Robert hosted, even though they are identical). Sorry...still wrong...and the MMP plots are different as well. I'm not going to bother posting that. Anyone with CP can import your file and see that's the case.

Duration: 28:39
Work: 617 kJ
Norm Power: 360
VI: 1
Distance: 8.767 km
Min Max Avg
Power: 299 539 359 watts
Heart rate: 174 184 182 bpm
Cadence: 66 90 72 rpm
Speed: 19 25.3 21.1 kph
Pace 2:22 3:09 2:51 min/km
Hub Torque: 17.5 29.8 20.6 lb-in
Crank Torque: 37.3 71.4 47.3 N-m




Umm...no. Robert's a nice guy, and that was his way of letting you know that it appeared that the file was physicianed...and giving you a chance to fess up before going public with it. But, no...you insisted it was correct.




Horse-hockey. This "test" has been in planning for months:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...%20morcuera;#1481955




Don't bother.




You keep saying you don't care, yet you keep responding and claiming that this obviously forged file is "the truth"...but, as I demonstrated above, it doesn't even match your previous version of "the truth".





Aah, see...that's not the case. I'm ambivalent about Frank as a person. I've never met him. However, I have no compunction about calling "bullshit" on statements and claims that he makes that are obviously incorrect. That goes for you too.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

"You crack me up. No, the data IS NOT the same as you posted on 10/28."

If I manipulated the data why would I be so stupid as to no even match the numbers I gave?


Why would I even give any numbers at all? Who cares if I do climb at 300; 320; 370 Watts. ANd if I cared at all about you I would manipulate everything from the beginning not even bothering to meet kendall. I would just manipulate any file up to 400 Watts or more; why not?

But you did not answer one question I made you before: is it possible to manipulate de data still stored in the CPU?

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true.

The data is NOT inconsistent. The data before the climb is consistent, and the data on the climb is NOT inconsistent--it's consistent with being manipulated.

So let me get this straight. Your claim is that a "new user" can gain 40%? Not an untrained athlete? So if I put down my hard earned income I'll go from a FTP in the 280-290 range to something in the 380-390 range despite years of training? And I'll be able to run a marathon 30 minutes faster?

I can see this for an untrained athlete, but not for a trained one. Choice of words is important. No way, no how would a trained athlete gain 40%. An untrained athlete most certainly could gain that much, but all that takes is dedicated training. I.e., you can get there on proper training and not gizmos.

So which is it - "new user" or "untrained athlete"?

Nice try--but not quite (and I realize you're just playing devil's advocate here). 2 problems: 1) there are earlier sections of the ride with high power where the hub acts normally, and 2) while the data are identical in some sections, in other sections they're 'almost' identical, i.e. the power pattern repeats itself, but some of the other numbers may or may not repeat themselves. IOW, someone changed a couple of pieces in an attempt to 'not make it look like a clear cut and paste'. For me, THIS is the most obvious reason that the data are faked, and not an artifact of the PT. If you look closely at the raw data, you'll see exactly what I mean.

EDIT: oh yeah, and 3) if this were a software glitch, I think it's pretty likely that someone, somewhere, would have experienced or witnessed this before. I'm sure the folks contributing to this thread/comedy have seen a combined number of 'Tap files numbering in the 10's of thousands--and yet this is the first case--and the glitch just so happens to match up with a desired result?

Anger stage? Not quite. Bemused perhaps. Hey, sh$# happens. Especially if one is collecting data. This is not quite the same as the laboratory losing an important tissue sample that was difficult to obtain. This is just a drop in the PC data bucket. It would have been nice if all the data was reliable but it isn't. And, if the data is still in Joaquin's CPU so it will be possible to prove, it would seem, as to whether the data was manipulated and/or, what the real data is, since it would seem impossible to change the data stored in the unit. Wouldn't it be interesting if the data came out exactly as presented by Joaquin or, even if different, confirms what he said he performed. Who would have egg on their face then? Even if manipulation was demonstrated I had nothing to do with it. And, besides, it is simply on ST. There may be 5 people posting negative things about Joaquin and there might be 100 people, 200 max, who will see this thread. What is to get angry about? Even if everything had been perfect in this data I doubt this would have sold you a set of cranks.

I can only think of one time when I really got mad at something like this. Many years ago I had a well known pro who I had given a set of PowerCranks to who stated he was embarrassed that I would refer to him as a PowerCranker after he won his first world championship (even though I had been doing so for three years, it was only after he won Kona that this became an issue), despite the fact we had been in regular e-mail contact for 3 years talking about his use of the product. That experience really made me mad and changed my relationship with every pro subsequently.

---

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

regarding (3), I have worked in software development for nearly 10 years, and you wouldn't believe sometimes the strange issues you could get: once we hit a very strange bug in a piece of software that I was writing that happened only on one of 10 supposedly identical lab machines (identical meaning they had the exact same OS installed, patches, hard drives, memory, etc. etc.), so just the fact that it's never happened before is not enough to say it couldn't have... again, not saying it's likely, just that you can't say it's impossible.

Regarding 1 & 2, I have never looked at a PT file before, so I doubt I could bring any expertise to the table: from the graphs that were plotted it looked as if the cyclical data (repeating blocks) were exactly the same, hence why I was wondering if it was a software glitch where the program mistakenly did something like 'ok, get the block of data, oops we hit a bug, write out the previous block of data we have read again (instead of saying there is an error)'. I also didn't realize that there were high power sections before, from the graphs it looked like maybe there were a couple of spikes, but nothing like a sustained high power effort like a climb would be...

Man, Frank, I had to pay for my powercranks, and have been positive about them.


Dave

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Yes, our "typical" new user are trained athletes all. Why don't you see what some of them have reported, I am sure you will find someone there who has similar abilities to yourself before PC's.

http://www.powercranks.com/...stimonialsdialup.mov

Untrained athletes will see much bigger improvements (there is one on our testimonials - she reported a tripling of her power). So, if you are an elite (they are not our typical customer, although we have a lot of them using them) it is not likely you will see 40%. But if you are now at an FTP of 280-290 if would not surprise me if you could be at an FTP of 350 in 1 year. Joaquin went from an FTP of 280 to 390 in one year (per his doctors testing), but I wouldn't think everyone would see that who is at that level. Of course, the caveat is one must use the cranks exclusively in training. That is what Joaquin did. If you don't, all bets are off.

Regarding running. The improvements again depend upon your current ability. Someone currently running about a 3:10 marathon is likely to see about 15 minute improvement (that is what Tom Evans saw) while 20-30 minutes is more typical for our 4 hour customers. Here is another video link. Again, you might find someone of your capability there and see what they reported.

http://www.powercranks.com/...stimonialsdialup.mov

---

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

OK, the data is consistent with being manipulated. It is also consistent with other sources of error.

The data is pretty consistent before the climb but not perfect. The data for the climb is very flawed but there are parts of that data that are consistent with what is claimed. There are other parts that seem "inflated" above what is claimed. Anyhow, in my opinion, the data is worthless for proving anything as regards this ride or Joaquin's abilities.

Some have determined he had to manipulate the data and give as his motivation that he needed to stroke his ego. Perhaps. However, many here have claimed that my claims for my product are impossible and Joaquin is someone who has claimed (and given evidence) the claims are true, even at a very good level. I see a motivation here to discredit him however it must be done because, if it can't be done, that means they have been proven ignorant and wrong in the past so not much they say in the future can be relied upon. Who has the greater motivation here to "manipulate" the interpretation of the data?

In some ways I am actually surprised that any athletes come forward with data. The advantages of the product are so huge why would anyone want the competition to know about it? This has been an issue for us from the beginning. We have recently been approached by an intermediary for some big name pro on a major pro-tour team who wants to get on the cranks for a discount but wants to remain anonymous. If he wants to remain anonymous he can pay full price and have a friend buy them for him. We have heard of others who have done that. Now, I don't know who this guy is (I can guess) but why on earth would someone of this stature want to get on this product if they didn't think there might be an advantage to it? I doubt we would increase his power 40% but any improvement at his level is a big deal. So, Joaquin comes along and those here who have staked their reputation on the "sure knowledge" that pedaling style doesn't make a difference have a great deal to lose if what he has done is actually "proven" to be true. Best way to try to do that is to try to humiliate him such that he just wants to disappear into the woodwork. All it has done, it seems, is make him mad.

The truth will come out. It just isn't going to come out with this data.

---

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

LOL. You keep repeating this uncorroborated shite. Pure marketing BS. Do you take us for fools? Haha

For entertainment value, though, this thread is pure gold. Please carry on with the spin. :D

okay so how about a 90kg bloke in his early 30's with an FTP of 450W? What's his potential then? (not me BTW!).

I'm talking real watts now. Not JoaquinWatts (^TM).

... and that's the point ...

xav

---

AeroCoach UK
http://www.aero-coach.co.uk

I have no clue but one might ask Magnus Backstedt how much improvement he has seen from training with them. I suspect it was at least a little bit as I understand he is still a fan and is still using them.

---

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

 So, Joaquin comes along and those here who have staked their reputation on the "sure knowledge" that pedaling style doesn't make a difference have a great deal to lose if what he has done is actually "proven" to be true.[/reply]



Pedaling style does make a difference but the problem here is that a PC rider is forced to use the "ankling" technique which is an extreme version of the circular style, this explains the low cadence and he is able to generate some power around the circle with each leg. As he gets accustomed to the PC's, his cadence will increase but his ability to generate additional power around the circle will decrease and when eventually he returns to normal cranks, he will have perfected the normal circular technique which is less powerful than the mashing style. It's as simple as that and except for a rider who has an awkward pedaling style or does not unweight, there is nowhere to gain additional power. Can you specify one area in the pedaling circle where it would be possible to generate extra power. As for the improvement in running, there is a simple explanation for that, PC's are a form of resistance training, some use water for this purpose to improve their running.

Could I ask you a question or two?

Do you think you have some special insight into "pure hype" that you feel you need to protect the rest of the world (who lack this special factor) from marketing charlatan's like me?

Do you not find it just a little bit unusual that of the many people who have actually plunked down money for these things are not on here complaining about about how the product performs.

Let me give you a little history as I have been doing this for awhile. You are not the first to think by claims complete BS. Most of the most vocal naysayers are absolutely certain they are. However, I can think, right off the top of my head, at least two instances where the most vocal naysayers at the time agreed to a test of them. People thought I was crazy as I would surely be proven wrong. But, I was confident the product would perform well so I took the "chance". They would use them as I recommend and they would report back regularly to the group. The first was Phil Holman on the rec.bicycles.tech / racing listserve. You can look it up. He was a track racer and in 7 months he improved his pursuit speed from 30 to 32 mph and his top speed from 35 to 38 mph and won a bronze medal at masters track worlds.

The second was TTN on this very site. Unfortunately it was done on the old list and it has been lost so you can't see the thread, but he is still around and can confirm everything (or correct me if I am wrong). I gave him a set of cranks for him to use for his evaluation with the caveat that if he liked them he had to buy them. It took him a total of about 3 weeks to determine to buy them.

Now, if you want to prove me wrong, and demonstrate how wonderful your knowledge in this area really is I suggest you buy a pair and do a very open evaluation of them and see what they do for you. You can send them back in 3 months and your "proving me wrong" won't cost you anything but time. Many, I am sure, have bought them with that intention. No one, to my knowledge, who has used them anywhere close to as I recommend, has ever had a negative result. Do a search, maybe you can find one. Or, maybe you will be the first.

---

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

Oh, phooey. If only you (and may others) knew what you were talking about when you talk about PC's. Again. PC'ers aren't "forced" to do anything except completely unweight on the upstroke. Other than that they can pedal in any "style" they wish including "mashing" (emphasizing the down stroke).

In my opinion, the part of the pedaling stroke where the most potential additional power lies is at the top of the stroke. A traditional "dead spot" for which a large muscle (the quads) would be the prime contributor here.

Yes, water running and PC's have similar effects. Only a couple of differences. PC's don't require a pool. Water running will probably have little effect on your cycling. And, it is hard to get in 1-3 hours a day in water running and do any other training (like swimming, or cycling, or actual running) if one is a triathlete. Time is your most precious resource. If one can accomplish 2 tasks at the same time, much is to be gained.

---

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