His deferring to ttn is almost as remarkable as his feat. I'd not only give him a record, I'd make it a CD! ttn will still always be the first at 100 miles in the history books, though! These two guys are making me feel like a wimp. The longest I've gone on them at one time is 65 miles, and I've had them over 6 months now!

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

What I find most remarkable is that the very first thing he does is put them on and ride them in a big race/ride (I am not sure what it was). Most people (many of them on this list) are in their second year and wondering if they are capable of racing on them.

He just puts them on and does it (after those "little" check out rides). Ignorance (and being a terrific rider) is bliss!!!

---

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

well that is nuts. dude has it all over me, with that everyday thing - and in a race no less!! mine was more of a "put them on and go 50 miles one way so you have to limp home to be to work by noon or call the wife" type deal.

somebody is gonna have to just get them and do a century that day plain and simple to claim the undisputed crown. nne of this 70 miles one day, and 80 the next - or third day hooha. maybe mr NOT, or that antequil devotee guy ??? is yaquicarbo's $10K offer for a 1 hour spin session with no slipping still open ???? we could maybe sell tickets to the festivities. :)

we could probably sell enough tickets at 5 bucks a pop just from slowtwitchers to pay the preem, if they do it and if they don't then donate the money to charity. At least we know it is possible.

---

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

If he could race on them after just putting them on, that's just probably saying he has an extremely efficient pedal stroke (like many pro cyclists), and doesn't really need them (so they don't make that big of a difference).



and what's ttn anyway?

As FREESTYLE says, he probably already had an
efficient round or circular pedaling style. As soon as
a person perfects the technique and unweights the
idling pedal the usefullness of POWERCRANKS
disappears because there is nothing to be gained
by pulling up on the pedal, you could even lose
power. The advantage that PC's give comes from
unweighting correctly and not from pulling up.
But then who can prove that round pedaling is the best way to pedal.
Cycling's three unanswered questions, how to
eliminate the dead spot area by being able to
apply normal pedal power in that area, what causes
and what is the instant cure for persistant severe
"on the bike" lower back pain and what was the
secret of Anquetil's mysterious extra pedal power in
time trials have all arose from the disadvantages
of round pedaling and all can be solved by a simple
switch to linear pedaling. Care to bet against those
facts?

 
>Care to bet against those facts?

Facts?

Actually the 'dead spot' problem has been solved with Rotor Cranks which accelerates a rider through the dead area using mechanical devices. It is UCI legal too. I think that once the Rotor Cranks get more popular they will be used all over the place. There are a few issues I have with them right now but time will tell. I may pick up a set this fall.

The major advantage with these cranks is that there is no learning curve to use them AND it is very beneficial to use them while racing unlike other systems. Also, you do not have to 're-train your brain' to pedal like other systems.

They are also several hundred dollars less than other pedalling devices and they have studies that show improved performance from using the cranks - unlike other pedalling systems that I have seen.

I believe that Rotor is definately an advantage and going to be very popular soon.

interesting points, gary. since we are speculating, i will venture that if these rascals DO become popular, they will be banned. there is, i believe, ample precedent for this. in any case, if some runty climber pulls a RC equipped bike out the bus and time trials with lance you can bet that somebody is gonna do SOMETHING !!

i mean, just look at the things. two words " mechanical advantage". no way the UCI is going down that road, IMHO - these will find themselves with spinachi's and high back saddles and those cables you used to tie around your waist and connect to the stem on the scrap heap of wayward Things, say i. maybe they will still be legal at your local tri, but twill that be enuf to sustain them ??

anyway, other pedalling devices , to me, make you a better rider, and these do not - or do only on race day when they in play ( allegedly. . . . . . . .:) ).

one man's opinion, of course - but it is an interesting topic nonetheless.

well they do not generate power, only enhance the pedalling stroke to become more efficient. They are UCI legal and have been used in UCI events. Ans yes, if they were not UCI legal then they would likely die out.

I'm with you on this one, ttn. I see these things eventually getting banned by the UCI if they do catch on. Not sure I care though, given that I can't recall the last time I rode in a UCI race.

Freestyle wrote: "If he could race on them after just putting them on, that's just probably saying he has an extremely efficient pedal stroke (like many pro cyclists), and doesn't really need them (so they don't make that big of a difference)."

Then why was he willing to pluck down the bucks for a pair when the owner of the cranks he was using wanted them back. (in fact he was quite desperate to get them ASAP as he had another race coming up!!!) I can only presume he saw some benefit to him from them and also saw some further benefit from continued use, despite his obvious abilities pre PC. Further, the list of pro cyclists who are using them continues to grow. In the last month picked up two more Posties and the current UCI #1 is a user. Previous pedaling excellence is not an indicator that one cannot further improve.

ttn is the moniker of a PC owner who rode 100 miles on the PC's on this 3rd day with them and posts here.

---

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

gary wrote: "Actually the 'dead spot' problem has been solved with Rotor Cranks which accelerates a rider through the dead area using mechanical devices."

IMHO rotor cranks do not solve the dead spot problem but work through a different mechanism, by improving the contractile efficiency of the major power producer, the quadriceps, by slowing the pedal on the down stroke. PC's eliminate the dead spot. It looks like PC's and rotor cranks benefits would be additive to me, if Rotor Cranks remain legal.

One interesting thing to look forward too. The same person (Ben Larsen) who reviewed Rotor Cranks for cyclingnews.com (quite favorably, I might add) is currently riding PC's for an upcoming evaluation. He has been on them for about 3 months exclusively I believe so his report should be interesting whenever it appears.

---

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

[reply]gary wrote: "Actually the 'dead spot' problem has been solved with Rotor Cranks which accelerates a rider through the dead area using mechanical devices."

IMHO rotor cranks do not solve the dead spot problem but work through a different mechanism, by improving the contractile efficiency of the major power producer, the quadriceps, by slowing the pedal on the down stroke. PC's eliminate the dead spot. It looks like PC's and rotor cranks benefits would be additive to me, if Rotor Cranks remain legal.

[reply]


What is the difference between effective (throughout
the entire pedal stroke) circular pedaling or ankling
and the PC method of pedaling. Circular pedaling
and ankling may cut down on power lost because of
dead spot area but they do not eliminate it.
It will be interesting to see Ben Larsen's comment
on this claim.

Perfection wrote: "Circular pedaling and ankling may cut down on power lost because of dead spot area but they do not eliminate it. It will be interesting to see Ben Larsen's comment
on this claim."

A dead spot, to me, is a portion of the stroke where there is no application of power (or negative application of power). By definition, circular pedaling is applying power around the entire circle, hence eliminating dead spots, not just reducing them. To make PC's work properly requires some application of power around the entire circle, hence dead spots (using the above definition) must be eliminated. PC's don't require the user to use any particular style, such as ankling, to accomplish this goal (although many do) so your question really can't be answered.

---

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

[reply]Perfection wrote: "Circular pedaling and ankling may cut down on power lost because of dead spot area but they do not eliminate it. It will be interesting to see Ben Larsen's comment
on this claim."

A dead spot, to me, is a portion of the stroke where there is no application of power (or negative application of power). By definition, circular pedaling is applying power around the entire circle, hence eliminating dead spots, not just reducing them. To make PC's work properly requires some application of power around the entire circle, hence dead spots (using the above definition) must be eliminated. PC's don't require the user to use any particular style, such as ankling, to accomplish this goal (although many do) so your question really can't be answered.




[reply]
Ok so we are both correct except that our
meaning of eliminating the dead spot area is very
different. My idea of eliminating it is making it part
of your main power application stroke in which you
apply continuous steady power for almost 180
degrees of the 360, using the same power generating muscles in exactly the same way. There
has to be a very slight loss as one leg takes over from the other but otherwise it is continuous maximum power. Linear pedaling's power application
area is from 11 o'clock to 5 o'clock.

Mr. Perfection. Linear pedaling, as you decribe it, is by no means necessarily perfect. A smooth transfer of power from one leg to another after 180 degrees may appear smooth but it is not necessarily efficient, depending upon whether the other leg on the backstroke is now applying backwards pressure (reducing overall power to the wheel for the effort expended). The efficiency of the pedaling stroke depends as much on what is going on on the backstroke as it does on what is going on during power application.

PC's primarily work by improving the backstroke portion of the motion and there is probably a secondary, lesser, benefit on the power application portion also. We won't know until someone actually measures these forces and changes that occur with use.

---

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

When I use circular pedaling, anytime I concentrate on pulling up I lose

concentration on the main task of applying downward pressure and

eventually end up with a drop in pedal power.

In his book B. Hinault stated that it was impossible to combine arm

resistance with lower body power when riding at speed in the saddle and

that is true when normal circular pedaling is used. A change of pedaling

technique makes it possible to make maximum use of arm resistance.

If you ever tried hand cranking using the normal directly opposite pedals

and cranks, it is possible to make maximum use of both arms throughout

the full 360 degrees using forward and backward power but then pulling

back is as strong as the forward power and there is no dead spot area.

Linear pedaling is an extension of this technique with arms and legs working as a unit. The dramatic change in lower body power generation

and the method used in transferring this power to the pedal makes it

possible, it is done in much the same way as the hand applies the power

to the hand crank. Is it efficient, I can guarantee you that it is and

Anquetil proved that. I'll end there because like pedaling we are just going round in circles.

Mr. Perfection.

If you didn't have to concentrate on pulling up then you wouldn't have to divert your concentration from your "main task", as you see it, of "linear pedaling" technique and you wouldn't lose power. Getting the recovery leg out of the way should only add to your power if you could do it without changing what you do now.

---

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

hey mr day ! leaving aside antequil and hinault for a moment ( tho, i must admit i am looking forward to watching my man lemond whup the badger's sorry, deceitful, treacherous, lying, and disloyal a$$ tonite on my lemond recap tape. . . . .) , i was wondering. was the guy in colorado , by chance, an xc skiier, or an xc ski skater, by chance ??

Don't know, forgot to ask but I would think there was a good chance. He is a shop bike and ski shop (combined into one) owner. I'll try to find out. Makes sense though as it seems that all the big time first users have that XC skiing background.

---

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

Put the question to him about XC skiing, etc. and this is his reply:

I've been diagonal skiing for 20 years and skate skiing for 5. I think the reason that they work so well for me is the single speed Mtn. biking I've been doing for the last 5 years. Singlespeeding puts a premium on a smooth stroke and it's much more important to pressure the pedals for the entire revolution. I've been pedaling for 27 years and riding the power cranks for a week, I could immediately see what an awesome tool they are. I will ride the PC's next weekend in the Triple Bypass on the front range of CO. It is a 120 mi. ride that tops 3 mtn. passes @ 11,140 ft, 11990 ft, & 10560ft.

---

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

well whaddya know. xc skiing and singlespeed mt biking - my two fave things. personally i think the xc skiing helps the PC-ing, and the PC-ing helps the singlespeeding but how that ties into triathlon or antequil i am not so sure. :)

but anyway, it is nice to read about a guy who has ridden for umpteen years and, instead of postulating or dening or theorizing or whathaveyou actually puts the things on and goes out to bust a$$ to see what they are about. and guess what - having done so he digs them - go figure.