I think arguing with Frank has turned into more of sport than the wanting to exchange ideas.
I disagree… With all respect to Frank, he should stop protraying these sort of things as “experiments” which produce real data. I think he knows as well as anyone that there is absolutely no validity to the comparison he’s trying to make between his rider and AC. Wait until a controled study is done, and then talk science.
After you explained to me your victorious attempt to complete Iroman NZ and the subsequent iron clm - I reflected on how I have struggled to run a 5k race (5 years ago) and how (in contrast) I have managed to complete the full monty three times since. So I thought my doggy name definitely deserve an upgrade.
I am now in the process of planning my next season races. My plan includes le etape de tour or an Italian race in June (Gran Fondo Campagnolo), and some running races. Then, I will be doing another Ironman.
don’t want to give you a reason not to sell them, but if you put a decent enough price tag on them, I will buy them from you. I want a pair but just can’t afford them at this point. I want a pair because I know they will help my running and my riding and if you don’t think they are helping you, dump them.
“PC controversy”, isn’t that redundant?
JHC writes: “Wait until a controled study is done, and then talk science.”
but a controlled study was done and has been “discussed” here (do a search for Luttrell) and the AC’s (and his aliases) of this list totally bashed it and the journal it was published in and everything else about it. The study meant nothing to them, they know everything. They may as well retire from the academic life as there is nothing more to learn.
Next year when AC looses by 20 seconds or so (instead of just 12) let him bash that result. Or, if the opposite occurs, of course, I will be here for the bashing. That darned confidence in the product will get me into trouble one of these days.
Or, you can wait until the studies currently in progress are published and then bash each of them also, as no study is without flaws. Perhaps after a hundred studies are done then you can do a meta analysis. Of course, by then your competitive days will probably be over so why bother?
Frank
I can’t speak for the whole of slowtwitch readers, only for myself. In the real world your test is meaningless. How does your test differ from my assertion that beaking your collarbone is beneficial?
For me to decide to try something new I need either A) Data from a well designed test. B) A reasonable theory why the product may work. C) A perponderance of anecdotal evidence that it does work.
I’ve never seen A from you (and frankly I don’t hold that against you - It would be very difficult to do a scientific test on your products effectiveness), I see your point on B (it makes some sense that training the muscles which lift the leg would be beneficial), and as far a C goes - the tesatimony of many slowtwitchers carraries some weight, but this example is utterly without meaning. I would say the same if AC kicks your riders a** this year.
Styrrell
I actually dont dig, or not dig PCs. I am apathetic. I did have the priviledge (not being sarcastic) if meeting Frank at IMFLA. He is a very nice, smart man and we had a few good conversations. I will say that it was an honor to be able to speak to one of the original Ironmen.
Hey, I agree with you. Studies are difficult to do for a product like this.
Anyhow, track racing doesn’t have all the variables of road racing (weather, wind, etc.) and times and rankings tend to be pretty predictable compared to winning times by the same person in a 100 mile road race or IM race. It is easy to have a bad day and go slower. But, it is hard to have a “good” day and go faster, just because you want to or “will” it.
If AC picks up 12 seconds next year I look forward to hearing about it as to what he attributes his success. Most people at that level are working hard just to maintain so any improvement deserves analysis If Bob picks up substantial time one might be interested in in analyzing what he did also.
Perhaps if Bob next year takes .5 seconds off his time that would be without meaning. However just a 10% increase in power should increase his average speed about 3%, which should get him down to 3:32, seven seconds off his previous winning time. Such an increase is not without meaning at this level. Further, it is not unprecedented as Sam Whittingham increased the HPV speed record from 72 mph to over 80 after just one year on the PC’s. Of course, Sam’s improvements were credited solely to aerodynamic improvements by the nay sayers. Let us see what happens.
At least I have the confidence to announce to the world ahead of time what I expect instead of waiting for the results, just to be sure. Maybe it will be like the US first attempt at putting up a sateliite. First, the Russians beat us to it, then our first attempts with civilian craft explode in our face.
Stay tuned.
Francois,
Wait until you see how someone who has an adequate base does actually racing on them, before you make a judgement about the benefits of racing on them. If they do better than expected that may open a few eyes. If they don’t, well, as you know, lots of things can cause a bad performance.
I don’t really care if people race on them or not as long as what they do is optimum for them as the word will get out. I just happen to think that there is good evidence to suggest there is a period of time during the adaption where racing on them may be optimum for the individual. It would be silly for me to adovcate for people to race on them for the exposure if I thought I was going to cause them to have a bad performance. Now that would really be bad marketing on my part.
Most here who have trained on them would state I haven’t led them wrong yet and I currently think performance will be optimized, if one has an adequate base, by racing on them. When we see what happens when people actually do then I may revise my recommendations.
Anyhow, racing on them would never be optimum for someone who is only using them a couple of times a week for maintenance, as you currently are or those who are trying to optimize performance training with PC’s and racing on RC’s, as you currently are. As some start racing on them we may find it is not optimum for anyone. Until a few actually try, we will never know. Nic Sacco has what I consider to be the bare minimum base to race a hard IM distance on them (two years). We will see how he does in a couple of weeks.
Frank
Francois writes: “I think both Olaf and I have adequate bike base…”
I understand you like the PC’s. I was responding to one aspect of your post, other than the criticism of my “marketing style”. Gee whiz, this is an interest group. I could sell a pair to every person here and still not make a lot of money. I don’t see my discussing something that interests a fair proportion of the population here as a “marketing style”. The head butting between the good Dr. AC and myself have entertained quite a few here. Thought I might stir the pot a bit. But, let us move on.
There is a big difference between an adequate bike base and adequate PC base. You once probably had an adequate PC base and could have probably raced on them and done well. I suspect you have lost it (the racing PC base, that is, at least for an IM). Perhaps not. If not, then try a little race on them (IM FLA perhaps?) and report back. Or not. Whatever you do I wish you the best of luck in the future. You deserve it.
Frank
Just wondering how you know what is in the training bag of all the age group winners?
One of my very first customers who was involved in my “beta” testing (that was the basis for my 40% increase in power claims) had a biopace on his bike. The elippicalness of the ring was so slight he couldn’t tell any difference whether it was lined up with the cranks “properly” or not. Certainly didn’t affect his improvement.
PC’s and RC’s are completely different and do different things. I believe the benefits are probably additive. Biopace would not do the PC thing. The only way to do the PC thing is with PC’s. There are at least a few PC/RC athletes here including Francois and Yaqui who could better answer your question about the strengths and benefits of using both based upon their own experience.
Rotors are only “better suited” for the aero position because it is so hard to lift up the foot all the way over the top in the aero position without help. Rotors allow you to get help from the other foot. Makes them seem “better suited” only because they are ridable from the get-go but that doesn’t mean it isn’t costing power, despite the claims of Rotors that they “eliminate” the dead spot. This ability to ride aero can be trained with PC’s but it takes substantial time.
Joe,
I haven’t done any training on RC’s, although I have ridden them, which is the same position the Oracle finds himself in regarding PC’s. (and AC stands for Andy Coggan).
I don’t think you understand the energy requirements of getting the leg up on the back stroke. Even though the “time” on the upstroke is “reduced” the speed on the upstroke is increased. The faster the leg is required to go up, the more energy is required to get the foot and leg up to the increased speed. This energy must come from somewhere. Why on earth would one presume that it is coming from the pulling up muscles on RotorCranks, when they don’t work completely on regular cranks at slower speeds. Therefore, this energy must come from somewhere, which can only come from transferring energy from the downward pushing muscles through the axle to the other crank.
I believe there would be an advantage to having a hybrid of the two devices but I am not smart enough to figure out how to do it. The only alternative is to train on PC’s and race on RC’s, as some are doing. The only “risk” of this approach is, if the brain is not completely retrained to pedal in this fashion unconsciously even when tired, one might revert to the old less powerful style as the race goes on, slowing down. This “problem” also potentially occurs to people racing on regular cranks. It is this reason that causes me to recommend the appropriately adapted PC’er to race on the PC’s, where reverting is prohibited.
Hopefully Francois and Yaqui will chime in.
Frank
How long have you trained on PC’s Frank, surely if
there is a permanent advantage from pulling up,
you must have discovered the genuine percentage
value of it by now. I mean a value that you would
be prepared to bet on when it is scrutinised by
the experts, $5000 for example. That value could not include the additional power one naturally gains
by the correct unweighting action of the idling leg.
Mr. Perfection.
Even though I have been riding PC’s pretty much exclusively for about 6 years now I am not sure I would call it training, nor would I consider myself an example of what is possible. Further, what is possible or expected varies considerably based upon where each person is starting from. So, it would seem, the only real test of what the cranks can do over ordinary cranks would be what we can do for the already elite (the very best pros or older amateurs) who have pretty much maximized their potential using regular training techniques. In these individuals I think the overall potential of the PC’s is less and the ability to reach the end potential will take longer. However, I believe the benefit of the cranks (assuming, of course, that they are used exclusively in training and possibly in testing or racing), even in this elite group, will eventually be proven or demonstrated to be the following:
cycling power: increase peak or 1 hour sustained power of 25% in two years or increase peak or 1 hour sustained power of 40% in 5-10 years.
Again, the same holds for runners, the proof will be in what we can do for elites. based upon our limited experience in this group I expect the following
running speed: a 2-4% increase in speed in one years seems easily doable. This means 0.2 seconds off a 100 meter time, about 5 seconds off a 4 minute mile, and 6 seconds off a marathon pace.
The potential after longer periods of time with the cranks seems greater but I would not wish to hazard a guess just now.
Regarding making a bet. Not a problem, at least as regards cycling where I have substantial experience. $5,000 would be easy. Who is going to put up $5,000 against me saying it can’t be done? Of course, we would have to agree upon a testing criteria. Or, what if I offered $5,000 to an elite who could demonstrate such improvement (to the satisfaction, of course, of the critics here)? Would that be satisfactory? What about Bob Black? He seems motivated to use the cranks right and seems reasonably elite? I will need AC or some of the other nay sayers here to agree that such a test would be “useful” and convincing or, otherwise, what is the purpose?
Anyhow, I am not afraid of such a test. Make a proposal that is acceptable to the academic naysayers hear and we will make it happen.
Frank
.
Joe, I train and race on Rotors, but, I also train on PC’s…25-50% of the time. I have about 1400 miles on Rotors, and am just now getting where I’m faster up steep hills on Rotors than PC’s. On long flats, I’m slower on PC’s because I simply have not recently trained on them enough to be very aero and/or adapted well enough to keep on cranking at an economical rpm for longer than 15-20 minutes at a time. Last time I checked, on a rolling course, I’m faster on PC’s than regular cranks, because a rolling course provides the short breaks my hip flexors need to recover.
If my hip flexors tire when on PC’s, I’m going to slow down, so having a fixed crank system of any sort is an obvious bail-out benefit in a race. I’m faster on Rotors on the flats compared to anything else I’ve ridden, I actually use a 54X11 on Rotors; yesterday I did a long ride where I had no wind and was able to ease along for extended periods of time (upper 70’s-low 80’s rpms) in the upper 20 mph range at a heart rate below 125…I don’t do that on any other crankset. I think to make full use of Rotor Cranks, you have to do two things…change your timing to take advantage of the potential to lessen the so-called “dead-spot”, and train your extensors to benefit from the increased “dwell time”: a phrase I just made up to describe the slight slowing of the downward moving leg (coinciding with a speeding-up of the upward moving leg). If the extensors are the best muscles for moving the cranks around and around, take advantage of this benefit as by extending the time the extensors are working during each pedal stroke.
Although it takes some time and work, it was apparent from the very first ride that Rotors had immediate benefits. But, they aren’t a majic bullet…notice it takes time and work.
It has taken me over 1000 miles to get faster up steep hills (8-12 mph at near maximum HR) on Rotors compared to PowerCranks. I think this is because PowerCranks absolutely prevent any backpressure on the rising crank. Pushing so hard at relatively low rpms (60-70) while eliminating backpressure must be difficult for me to do, so I was faster on PowerCranks. I think the reason I’m finally faster on Rotorcranks than PowerCranks up these monster hills is due partly to my continued PowerCrank training (I’ve gotten better at eliminating any backpressure on the cranks when on non-PC bikes), and partly due to the work done on Rotors in order to benefit from the characteristics of the Rotorcranks.
To make a crankset that could combine benefits of both sets of cranks, I would envision a PowerCrank-type clutch on an eccentric bearing, or, a sliding crankarm system that would effectively lengthen the crankarm on the downstroke and shorten it on the upstroke. This way, zero backpressure on the upward moving pedal would be enforced by the clutch, combined with more dwell time on the downstroke (like Rotors) or a longer effective crankarm on the downstroke with faster-moving shorter effective crankarm on the upstroke (with the sliding mechanism). Could it be built? Sure. How much would it weigh and cost? I have no idea. I guess you could make a sliding crankset like this without the clutch, but you wouldn’t have the deadspot-reduction possibility that and eccentric system might provide, so the eccentric might be the better way to go.
I’ll always train some on PowerCranks for their run benefits, as well as to minimize/eliminate what I perceive be a flaw in my pedal stroke (I know there are those that don’t think backpressure on the rising pedal is a flaw, or that you can sufficiently “learn” to eliminate the backpressure just by working on your pedal stroke…fine. You may be right. I happen to think I do better with a PC-style stroke, and I’ve found no better way to engrain the PC-style stroke than to ride on PC’s). However, racing on Rotor Cranks doesn’t prevent me from performing a PC-type stroke (although I don’t have the immediate feedback like you do with PC’s), and it allows me to keep pedalling if my flexors tire. Plus, I think Rotors offer timing and biomechanical advantages matched by no other crankset I’ve ridden.
I like 'em both. I think the (alleged) benefits of each crankset system are real, and additive. I think it’s possible to combine the two crankset characteristics, but, at what cost and what level of reliabilty? And, you’d still do well to have a lockout in case you lost a hip flexor during a race.
Titan wrote: “On long flats, I’m slower on PC’s because I simply have not recently trained on them enough to be very aero and/or adapted well enough to keep on cranking at an economical rpm for longer than 15-20 minutes at a time.”
You have hit on the crux of the PC/rotor “problem”. It is clear if one stops training on PC’s or only trains partially on them that one can revert right back to old pedaling dynamics. How fast this occurs probably depends upon the PC base, and you have a pretty good one, although it is clear it is happening to you. This is the basis of my “exclusive” use in training recommendation and the basis for my “race on PC’s if you have a good enough base” recommendation.
The dilemma for those training on PC’s and desiring to race on Rotors is determining the optimum mix of the two cranks in training, to avoid losing the benefits of the PC’s while gaining the benefits of the RC’s. Is it possible that you are now faster climbing on RC’s simply because you have lost climbing ability on PC’s? This is a difficult question for those trying to mix and match. It can only be answered by those of you who are trying to do both. The rest of us are only guessing. Of course, if the discussion is carried out here, then I will try to learn from your experiences.
Frank Day wrote "It is clear if one stops training on PC’s or only trains partially on them that one can revert right back to old pedaling dynamics. "
I think that alone says a lot about the effect of PC’s on pedaling dynamics.