Just got a report in from Italy of a rider who has been on the PC’s since November. At greater than 90 kg he is not a climber but he does race seriously. He recently did a climb with his old team in which his previous personal best for the climb was 32 minutes but other day he did it in 20 minutes!!! The climb is apparently 5.7 km long and averages 6.2% grade. He had a power meter this ride and says he averaged 320 watts. He has not had power in the past. He is 5 kg lighter than last year. I went to ACC to see if I could figure out what his power was on the climb last year so we could calculate an improvement.
At ACC for this year I put in a bike rider weight of 97kg and frontal area of .65m^2 and speed of 4.75 m/s and got 320 watts. Keeping everything the same except increasing his weight to 102 kg and changing the speed to 2.96 m/s one calculates a power of 200watts. That appears to be a 60% power increase in about 5 months.
This is all apparently being discussed on an Italian forum but it you don’t speak Italian, like me, it will be impossible to figure out.
Frank, I guess I’ll ask the obvious, but did he magically lose 5 kg through dieting and starvation, or did he ride more to burn off the dough…you know where the discussion goes from here…being a 5 year PC user, I’d like to believe the 60% improvement, but I am looking for the magic bullet to becoming a Kona front of pack cyclist, so that I can ride with Dr. Tommy, Macca and Craig Alexandar…I figure that 60% improvement can get me there…then again, maybe not.
I guess that clarifies it…I’m at 4.3W per Kg for an hour (well I was at the end of last year based on my hillclimb times…but that’s just Analytical Cycling plug in values…no SRM data)…with a twisted illusion of jacking that up to 6.88…I figure that can get me a pro cycling contract (even if I am 42) and starting spot in the TdF
Frank, I guess I’ll ask the obvious, but did he magically lose 5 kg through dieting and starvation, or did he ride more to burn off the dough…you know where the discussion goes from here…being a 5 year PC user, I’d like to believe the 60% improvement, but I am looking for the magic bullet to becoming a Kona front of pack cyclist, so that I can ride with Dr. Tommy, Macca and Craig Alexandar…I figure that 60% improvement can get me there…then again, maybe not.
I don’t know the answer to any of those questions as I don’t speak Italian. It really doesn’t matter. It is the improvement he has reported. whether the PC’s is responsible for all of it or we are simply responsible for motivating him to get out on the bike more, or some combination, do you think he really cares? Further, this is just his improvement climbing, where I think the increases tend to come quicker and are more pronounced. I don’t know what he has seen on the flat.
Further, it is unlikely that you would see a further 60% increase - although you might see a little more if you were to train on them as I suggest - nor will you ever become the equal of any of those who you mentioned, all of whom train on the same product but they are pros and you are not. It is unlikely that the PC’s would give an amateur enough improvement that they would pass or equal a pro using the same training advantage.
In addition, we would expect that those with the most room to gain will see the biggest improvements. Those already at the top of the game cannot expect the same level of improvement. Why on earth do people seem to think I claim that everyone will see the same improvement? This is simply one anecdotal report of someone who was a pretty slow climber become a much better climber. He is by no means an expert climber because I understand the good climbers do this climb in 12-13 minutes. But, he has taken 12 minutes off his climb.
It is somewhat akin to Pinotti’s comments. A national TT champion who sees unexpected climbing improvements. Anyone who hopes to become a GC contender has to excel in everything. Improving a weakness is a big deal whether you are at the top of the pack, in the middle, or at the back.
I’m guessing that most adult males at 2 w/kg have a good bit of room for improvement.
Yes, and the more room for improvement there is the more improvement we would expect them to see for two reasons. The weak are more likely to see training effect improvements (that would occur whether they are on PC’s or not) and the weak probably have more room for form improvement, that come from the PC’s. Add them together and you get stuff like this.
I guess that clarifies it…I’m at 4.3W per Kg for an hour (well I was at the end of last year based on my hillclimb times…but that’s just Analytical Cycling plug in values…no SRM data)…with a twisted illusion of jacking that up to 6.88…I figure that can get me a pro cycling contract (even if I am 42) and starting spot in the TdF
What do ya say Frank?
Dev
Ain’t gonna happen unless all the pros out there using them stop and you quit your job and start training just a little more. Then we have the age thing. Come on, get real.
How many times have we had someone here post an improvement and people say, “Well, it wasn’t 40%”. When we have had people claim results that come close to 40% people call them liars. Well, this one was more than 40% and in less than 6 months. Want to call him a liar though you will have to learn to speak Italian and do it somewhere else.
Again, the 40% thing is an “average” improvement in our typical user (who is not a pro) who uses them exclusively. This guy seems to have exceeded it.
“I don’t know the answer to any of those questions as I don’t speak Italian.”
C’mon, Frank…
You don’t need to speak Italian to look at those numbers and see that an untrained-level athlete was able to drop some weight and train up to the point that they are now firmly middle of the back of the pack.
Great for him (sincerely,) but I’ve got news for you - I could give you power records from a whole slew of folks who did the exact same thing without fancy cranks. This level of improvement has a lot more to do with less doughnuts than it does with fancy gizmos…
“How many times have we had someone here post an improvement and people say, “Well, it wasn’t 40%”. When we have had people claim results that come close to 40% people call them liars. Well, this one was more than 40% and in less than 6 months. Want to call him a liar though you will have to learn to speak Italian and do it somewhere else.”
Pure, sweet, sophistry.
This is like claiming to manufacture a vitamin-enhanced chocolate milk guaranteed to grow hair on a test subject’s balls, and then producing a 14 year old boy for evidence…
“I don’t know the answer to any of those questions as I don’t speak Italian.”
C’mon, Frank…
You don’t need to speak Italian to look at those numbers and see that an untrained-level athlete was able to drop some weight and train up to the point that they are now firmly middle of the back of the pack.
Great for him (sincerely,) but I’ve got news for you - I could give you power records from a whole slew of folks who did the exact same thing without fancy cranks. This level of improvement has a lot more to do with less doughnuts than it does with fancy gizmos…
I look forward to seeing that “whole slew” of records of already experienced cyclists showing that kind of improvement in less than 6 months. By “whole slew” do you mean this kind of improvement should occur 90% of the time,or what? I am sure those who might be thinking of giving PC’s a try wold love to seem them also so you can save them the bother.
"I look forward to seeing that “whole slew” of records of already experienced cyclists showing that kind of improvement in less than 6 months. "
It’s your choice, Frank. Either the cyclist you are using to validate your gizmo was categorically of the “untrained” type, or your numbers are total BS. You can’t have it both ways.
If the numbers are to be believed, then yeah - I can show you a boatload of similar results. This is not an unexpected level of improvement for a dedicated novice cyclist.
"I look forward to seeing that “whole slew” of records of already experienced cyclists showing that kind of improvement in less than 6 months. "
It’s your choice, Frank. Either the cyclist you are using to validate your gizmo was categorically of the “untrained” type, or your numbers are total BS. You can’t have it both ways.
If the numbers are to be believed, then yeah - I can show you a boatload of similar results. This is not an unexpected level of improvement for a dedicated novice cyclist.
If your numbers are false, well…
.
I don’t believe he is “categorically of the untrained type” since he did this climb with his “old team”. Unless that was his old chess team I suspect he is a trained cyclist. Italians tend to take this cycling stuff a little more seriously than the average American it also seems so I doubt he qualifies as a “dedicated novice”. So, I am looking to see your slew of data for similar types.
And, I don’t think the numbers are BS. I told you how I got them based upon his reported time improvements.
"I don’t believe he is “categorically of the untrained type”
Of course you don’t.
“…Italians tend to take this cycling stuff a little more seriously than the average American…”
I’ve raced in Italy. I’m pretty familiar with the environment there, thanks.
"I don’t think the numbers are BS. I told you how I got them based upon his reported time improvements. "
The numbers are only questionable if you continue to maintain that this rider should be viewed as a “trained cyclist.” Really, all this obstinance does is reaffirm your lack of credibility.
It’s pretty damn simple, Frank, but let me break this down for you; If your numbers are correct, this guy was really, really G-damn weak prior to using the gizmo. He’s improved. The level of improvement you show is not outside of the normative improvement seen in equivalent riders given a structured training program.
It’s pretty damn simple, Frank, but let me break this down for you; If your numbers are correct, this guy was really, really G-damn weak prior to using the gizmo. He’s improved. The level of improvement you show is not outside of the normative improvement seen in equivalent riders given a structured training program.
End of story.
.
I am looking forward to your slew of data that proves your point.
"I am looking forward to your slew of data that proves your point. "
Someone already posted it for me. 2W/Kg.
I do actually believe that you don’t understand the significance of the point, so let me clarify a bit for you; It is not uncommon for me to see W/Kg ratios like this, in fact I see them with some frequency… they typically belong to 13 year old juniors and 50 year old women on Nexus bikes.
let’s forget about the 2 w/kg for a second (honestly, I’ve never actually seen power output that low, including from me after 2 months off and my leg in a cast, or from Cat 6 women’s files–seriously).
He rode a climb in 32 minutes that top guys were riding in 12–and that’s your definition of a ‘trained cyclist’?
I’d suggest that most recreational cyclists are capable of doing the same.
Look, I’m glad he’s improving and having fun on the bike. That’s what it’s all about. However, if you feel the ‘average user’ is putting out 2 w/kg, then your 40% claim suddenly makes perfect sense to me.
Frank I’m a loyal customer and I like your product. Where you lose credibility is when you given these types of examples, like an untrained guy at 2W per Kg and then show a 60% improvement.
Seriously, if you are going to lay claims, start with guys already at 3.5W or 4W per Kg and then show us the gains per and post powercranks.
If you don’t want to go through that hassle, just keep pointing to the successes of guys like Chris McCormack, Craig Alexandar and Tom Evans…no one will argue with podium results…those are hard facts and I can’t believe that you don’t market those harder and waste time talking about 95 kg Italian dudes starting from 2W per Kg.
Craig Alexandar just finished 2nd at Oceanside…that should be a better marketing blurb.
