There has been much discussion of opening the hip agle to somewhere around 95 -100 for optimal power output. Most of the experts believe that power output drops off when you open the hip angle further.
My question is how much does the power output drop off as you open up to 110, 120, or more. Are there any data out there? A simple graph plotting hip angle versus power output would be great.
I dont know to what degree, But I know my pedals do open up your hip angle.
Steve
www.sidemountpedal.com
Can you elaborate as to how? I am trying to picture that and not succeeding at all.
I beleive it is because my pedals give you a much wider Q factor than most. I beleive that this is very important because I FEEL, from the waist down, power is acheived by pushing down and out, not down and in.
Steve
SMp
That’s interesting. I am fascinated by your pedals, but “opening up the hip angle” was not one of the things that sprang to mind when I thought about how they might go on my bike.
It may not be fair since I haven’t tried your pedal, but I would have thought that maximum power would be generated by pushing straight down, neither in nor out. It may be that I’m mistaken, or it may be that what we feel when pedaling is not what is actually happening. I know this happens to me way too often when swimming for instance.
There has been much discussion of opening the hip agle to somewhere around 95 -100 for optimal power output. Most of the experts believe that power output drops off when you open the hip angle further.
My question is how much does the power output drop off as you open up to 110, 120, or more. Are there any data out there? A simple graph plotting hip angle versus power output would be great.
if you don’t have a fat gut 85-90 is a lot better (aerodynamic + power)
I beleive most power by humans is down and out. To me its almost like we are paddleing with our bikes. If you look at sports that provide power and foward movement, ie cross country skiing etc. Also power is ususally supplied by a wider stance… THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO ME ABOUT THE MYTH OF Q FACTOR is it makes the bike work better, better chain line, but does not make the body on the bike work better.
Steve SMp
whatever buddy. talk to theo bos or any other trackie who’s living depends on putting out 2500 watts in a match sprint…and that’s talking about the one rare instance in the sport of cycling where absolute power may actually be part of the equation…cycling is an endurance sport and we pedal with a gait that is derived from mechanics evolution bestowed upon us for running…i.e. one foot in front of the other.
go ride a walser- the only folks who aren’t faster on narrower q-factored bikes are people who can not overcome or choose to not overcome the muscle memory of riding with regular width bikes and bottom bracket. by all acounts lance was faster on his narrow bike; but it fucked with his feel on his road bike so ekimov got the bike and won the olympics on the thing…
jerk
No go talk to Lance Armstrong or DR. Max Testa, and really find out why Treks 100 grand experiment with narror Q factors is in some landfill. Buddy
Also buddy, the foot striking in front of each other is part of the recovery phase of a runners stroke and not the power one.
Steve SMp
i have. and it has everything to do with not screwing with lance’s road bike position. look at a bt or a walser or a koga-miyata or a fes track bike…its more aero; threshold power numbers go up; and no match sprinter has ever complained that his feet were too close together and no one develops more power than those guys. we’re not setting up the polish olympic weight lifting team here for the world sqaut record attempt here…we’re trying to make cyclists faster. your pedal idea has merit and may more than offset the whole screwing with the q factor thing…i don’t know. but i do that its been quantifiably proven numerous times both in a windtunnel and on the track that a narrow q is faster for pretty much everyone.
jerk
I beleive in what you are saying about one part of the sport which a very very small pop. try. Part of that picture is also the leg speed, 150 to 180or more rpm, that is not in any other aspect of the sport. This also includes very short crank arm length, tactics, and rapid acceleration. Trying to prove a point in using highlly unusual cycling event, which is full of contradictions to adapt the human body ie short cranks max power, max acceration. is at best, sketchy. If sprinting were like the qualifying, the fastest in 200 meters wins. there would be major changes in the body bike interface
Steve SMp
i agree and was using it as an example of the one place in cycling where peak power is important. for everyone else not involved on the track or in a field sprint; peak power has very little to do with anything and even were wider q somehow responsible for more power output, (which i believe my example disproves categorically,) it’d have nothing to offer the time trialist or triathlete who generally rides at a more steady rate. narrower qs are more efficient and allow for a more aero bicycle…both of which make the rider faster.
jerk
I read about the lance qfactor bike, and they threw it away because he made less power.
But the bike was still faster.
conclusion: lance is a dumb jock
steve, instead of hearing about what you believe to be true, which is meaningless to me, do you have some power data, something like power vs qfactor for a few riders?
that isn’t hard to collect and is infinitely more valuable than plausible stories
I understand your point, but for now do very much disagree. From strictly a aero point of view, I have brought a cylclist down anywhere from 1.9 to alomost 4 cent. There body is “hiding the bike better.” Alsomoving the foot away from the crank gives better air flow between.
Steve SMp
what was the pounds of drag with your pedals vs regular ones?
Again going back to what I said earlier, one can make an extremly slippery bike that passes all UCI regs, but putting a body on taht fast bike may not, probably wont, make a fater rider.
Steve
SMp
Your probably right, but I dont have the funds to test. Insteed I spent a great deal of time talking to Dr. Max Testa about this subject. If I can give a small Ananlogy, talking to Chester Kyle about tire pressure. and in tests on a perfectly smooth surface . higher pressure was better. But on normal roads this was Not the case. Again an instance of lab results not being confirmed by real world conditions.
Steve SMp
Sorry as of this time I have not being able to afford wind tunnel time. And truly pedal drag, plus or minus would only be a small part of the newer body position.
Steve SMp