The anti-PC mafia is forever going on about how there isn’t any scientific proof that powercranks improve performance. They might be right.
Let’s look at it from another angle, though. Is there a compelling reason *not *to use powercranks? I can think of two possible objections to their use- the time it takes to adapt might represent a loss of time that would otherwise be spent in proven training techniques, and they might not offer any benefit to correspond to their financial cost.
Personally, those two don’t seem like compelling reasons not to at least try them. The first can be mitigated by starting PCs during the off-season, and the second, well, there are lots of expensive gadgets that people buy despite the fact they don’t offer substantive performance improvements.
Doubt if there is a case against them, but for me the case “against” PC’s is the cost and the lack of verifiable studies. Not that I’m against them or even doubt that they might work, but I’d like to see a bit more evidence other than testimonials before I’ll lay my money down.
but I’d like to see a bit more evidence other than testimonials before I’ll lay my money down.
Which is a reasonable position, especially coming from a guy with a CH Aero cover. Coming from someone with a Zipp disk, it’s a little harder for me to understand.
Am I correct in my impression that nobody claims that powercranks will inhibit performance in the long run?
Okay CG…what kind of results/proof are you looking for? I’ll dole out the bucks and get a pair…you tell me how I am supposed to run this test to prove they actually work…taking into account things should be done according to the creators workout plans. If they say do your training this way and you get these results how can one argue? Let me know and maybe we can settle this debate once and for all.
My feeling after using them exclusively - then switching purely to regular cranks for a couple months and now planning on starting some off-season training (half on/half off PC’s).
They do not seem to train your quads as much as regular cranks. So as your hip flexors/gluts/etc…work to catch up - your quads do not get trained as much…
Your cadence drops. I like to train/race at 95-105. My PC cadence got up to about 80-85 with some work. I felt I lost the ability to spin higher cadence.
That’s the problem. You can test the CH Aero cover against the Zipp in a wind tunnel and get the results. Quite easy to do if you can afford wind tunnel time and know what you’re doing. Much harder to test PC’s. It’s hard to tell with PC’s just because a guy rides on them and his running improves, how do you tell that it’s the PC’s that made him faster. Perhaps he just got into better shape and his running would have improved any ways.
Those kind of studies have to be set up like clinical studies with a placebo group to compare with. Probably quite hard to do, but that’s Frank’s challenge, not mine.
It’s hard to tell with PC’s just because a guy rides on them and his running improves, how do you tell that it’s the PC’s that made him faster.
Did you just turn down an offer of free powercranks?! Hey Kentiger, I’ll take 'em!
CG, are you improving your times each year? (Not flaming, OK?) If you were steadily improving your times each year, tried powercranks, and noted similar improvement, I’d say you couldn’t attribute it to the PCs. If you’ve reached a plateau, or if your improvement after PCs was more dramatic then past improvement, I’d say it was reasonable that it might be due to the PCs. I know it ain’t that scientific, but still. . .
Actually yes, but not by very much. My biggest gains were in my first two years. It’s small incriments these last couple of years. Of course I’m not getting any younger and suspect I’ll soon plateau or start backwards. At that point I’ll either have to take training more seriously or try some PC’s. Or accept it and start to prepare myself psychologically for the retirement home!
It takes a big base before one can get back to “working the quads” like before. The problem is when one pushes hard with the quads the cadence comes up to beyond the capabilities of the HF’s and Hamstring’s so one learns to hold back, just to be able to ride them. That is why people use bigger gears. Once people start to get the base then the cadence can come back up but this takes most people a full season to get back up to a cadence of 90 or so for a couple of hours.
I recently sold a pair to an elite track rider whose main concern was being able to keep the cadence up. He got adjustable cranks and set them short and was able to ride at high cadences from the get go. He is out to about 175 now and still has a way to go (he races at 185). Anyhow, that is another way to go.
Either way, what is important is the PC base. The better the base the better one will be on them. The better the base the higher the cadence one will be able to spin on them. The higher cadence one can maintain the more one can use his/her quads. Your plans to do half and half training this off season will hurt your PC base and slow your development.
My feeling after using them exclusively - then switching purely to regular cranks for a couple months and now planning on starting some off-season training (half on/half off PC’s).
They do not seem to train your quads as much as regular cranks. So as your hip flexors/gluts/etc…work to catch up - your quads do not get trained as much…
Your cadence drops. I like to train/race at 95-105. My PC cadence got up to about 80-85 with some work. I felt I lost the ability to spin higher cadence.
Dave
Isn’t what you describe what you want to see as a triathlete? Training your HF’s and using them to spin on a steeper angle bike saves your legs for the run. If your run POSE or “POSE like” you lift with the hamstring not the quads. The only thing you need is to keep up the spin drills to maintain your cadence. This is my take based on a couple of years in the sport, does this make sense?
Doubt if there is a case against them, but for me the case “against” PC’s is the cost and the lack of verifiable studies. Not that I’m against them or even doubt that they might work, but I’d like to see a bit more evidence other than testimonials before I’ll lay my money down.
Did the Lutrell study mean nothing to you? Or did you miss that (even though it was “discussed” quite a bit here months ago.) 10% improvement in cycling efficiency in 6 weeks over the regular cranks group. Statistically significant. Another way of stating the findings was the PC group dropped their HR 15 beats for the same power measured pre PC training.
Only you can determine if the potential of the cranks is worth the cost to you. Only you can determine if the risk of falling behind those who are getting them (assuming they work) is worth the wait to you. Each has their own threshold. Some crossed it years ago. Some have a few years yet to go, if they ever cross it.
Yes I did miss it. I normally don’t read the PC threads in much detail because I haven’t been in the market for them (or rotor cranks). I tend to delegently research things before I purchase, but as PC’s haven’t at this time been on my shopping list I haven’t been following the threads that closely.
That’s the problem. You can test the CH Aero cover against the Zipp in a wind tunnel and get the results. Quite easy to do if you can afford wind tunnel time and know what you’re doing. Much harder to test PC’s. It’s hard to tell with PC’s just because a guy rides on them and his running improves, how do you tell that it’s the PC’s that made him faster. Perhaps he just got into better shape and his running would have improved any ways.
Those kind of studies have to be set up like clinical studies with a placebo group to compare with. Probably quite hard to do, but that’s Frank’s challenge, not mine.
That is my challenge if I thought it would work. I actually think it wouldn’t do me any good (or much good) for me to do the studies (or to fund them) because of the bias that comes from same. they would hardly convince the good AC. Therefore, I will wait for the independent studies that will eventually come to verify the claims.
Vitus, I was a plateau fellow. I’ve been doing some sort of bike riding and running most of my life. Although, I didn’t start bike racing until the mid 1980’s. I generally hit a certain level and just held it for years. When I began Triathlon, it took some time before I quit improving, because I had to learn to swim better (still have a long way to go there!), and I had to learn to run off the bike. After that adjustment, I plateaued again. Then, I tried PC’s. Running improved almost immediately. I was faster on the run in sprints by several minutes as compared to the same courses on the previous years. I increased my TT speed on the bike by, I think it was 1.5 mph in the first year. I still don’t train on PC’s exclusively, and maybe I should, or maybe I’m doing it just right. I’m just a FOP AG’er that’s trying to be competitive AND have fun, and to tell you the truth, I don’t care if I should be on PC’s more or not…I’m having fun and being competitive, so they’re just right for me. When I notice I’m slowing down on my run, I turn more to the PC’s a while, it works for me. Whatever they do for me, they keep doing it whenever I put the time in. That’s just me, doesn’t mean everyone will have the same experience.
I just know that when I trained exclusively on PC’s - I had my worst half IM to date. Now it was wildlfower - its a hard course - it was super hot. I worked the bike harder than usual - I also spun at a higher cadence that I had trained with PC’s. All in all - I ran 20 minutes slower than usual - and all 13 miles hurt a lot. It was early in the year - I had been on PC’s for > 6 months. There obviously were a lot of other factors and I do not blame PC’s.
I then switched back to regualr cranks a month or so before my 2nd half IM of the year - that went well. I then started to feel a lot stronger on the bike (riding regular cranks) - my quads started feeling stronger and my 95+ cadence started to feel a lot better. My 3rd and final half of the year I PR’d by over 12 minutes - I lost a bit on the swim - biked 3-4 minutes faster and ran over 9 min faster! It was a flat/fast course…so who knows. Maybe the PC work early in the season helped - maybe it hurt. I do know that I can spin higher cadence much easier on regular cranks - my legs feel stronger on regular cranks - and I run better after spinning high cadences…
Seems like most people switch to part time training on PC’s (at least from the posts I’ve seen). I’ll see how I feel on them this season and decide how to divide my time.
I have a set of PCs and use them semi-regularly. reasons not to get them:
Technical descents on the PCs are a good way to die. Going down steep, twisty, bumpy, and partially paved roads without being able to stand on the pedals and use your body position to maneuver the bike is an invitation to suicide. A large reason why I exercise and ride bicycles is that I enjoy getting out and exploring the nooks and crannies of my surroundings. This is not possible on PCs, hence I won’t ride them exclusively. They’re permanently mounted on my trainer bike and see sporadic weekly use.
If you happen to be riding PCs on the road and start up from coasting by back-pedaling the right foot, rather than by bringing it over the top, it is possible to partially unscrew the pedal over time, so when you stand to aggressively charge up a hill the pedal rips out of the remaining threads, you crash, bruising your family jewels on the top tube and have to ride home 15 miles with one leg.
There is also a reported problem with the clutch slipping occasionally. I believe this is Gordo’s stated reason for not riding PCs more - he doesn’t want to be far from home with a possible mechanical failure. I may be mistaken on this though.
That being said, when I have ridden the PC’s regularly (i.e. 1-2x per week on the trainer) I do feel like I climb more efficiently, especially seated, and that my run turnover is a bit better. Unfortunately I’d almost always rather get out and ride outside than use the PCs indoors. I am resigned to enjoying my mediocrity in its entirety.
Seems like most people switch to part time training on PC’s (at least from the posts I’ve seen). I’ll see how I feel on them this season and decide how to divide my time.
I make the assumption that people get PC’s because they want to improve their athletic performance. I understand that many use the PC’s part time and still report improved performance. However, my recommendations come about because I believe that exclusive use in training is the way to maximize the benefit of the devices, whether one races on them or not. I wold be remiss to give advice that I thought was not optimal because many people do otherwise for whatever reason (like in another post, they are too scary to ride downhill). It isn’t hard when spending $1,000 on a set of aero wheels to know how to use them properly to get the most for your money (put them on your bike, at least for races). It is hard, apparently, to know how to get the most for your $800 or so for a pair of PC’s, which is why these discussions keep coming up.
It would be interesting to take a little poll of the PC’ers out there to see if there is a correlation between how much one uses them to how much improvement they have seen. Just how much use is optimum? 0% (for AC), 10%?, 50%?, 75%?, 100%? My prediction is the more one has used them the more improvement will be reported, ON AVERAGE.
Anyhow, you will do whatever you think is best for you, I presume. Whatever that is, if this data is ever gathered you will be a data point to help others to better understand how to best use them.
