Poor man's Powercranks? (PPC)

Originally Posted by acoggan

Yup - which is what makes Kautz's analysis of the cost of unloaded pedaling so important to understand.



That is your hypothesis. However, said hypothesis isn't consistent with the available data. For example, if what you claim were true, then the subjects in Coyle's group 2 (who unweighted more...some completely/all the time) would have been more efficient than the subjects in group 1. They were not, though, thus proving the saying:

"Ah, the great tragedy of science: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by one ugly fact."

Originally Posted by acoggan

As it so happens, my "bias" is shared by 90%+ of exercise scientists...but anyway...

Originally Posted by Fday

So, you are wrong, spreading money over several accounts, when it comes to biological systems, can mean there is more money to work with.

Frank

Originally Posted by Piotr

Well, there's only one thing left to do. Why insist on hip flexors and hamstrings? Train an elite cyclist to ride a special bicycle that incorporates the use of both his legs AND arms (or as many different muscle groups as possible) and see if he can ride faster for the same amount of time (eg. 40K TT) than using his legs only. I'd really like to see a study like that done.

Originally Posted by Fday

I will leave the design of such a bicycle up to you. It would probably work (except UCI would disallow it for the purposes of records but the HPV association would accept it if you want to go for that record) because the athlete who have the highest VO2 max when tested are those who use both their upper and lower extremities, such as XC skiers and rowers.

Originally Posted by Piotr

Well, there's only one thing left to do. Why insist on hip flexors and hamstrings? Train an elite cyclist to ride a special bicycle that incorporates the use of both his legs AND arms (or as many different muscle groups as possible) and see if he can ride faster for the same amount of time (eg. 40K TT) than using his legs only. I'd really like to see a study like that done.

Originally Posted by Piotr

I want to follow-up by expressing my surprise that HPV people have not attempted it yet. Is it perhaps that they know better?. UCI aside, if what you claim is true then that experiment would have to work. It simply extends your philosophy to other muscle groups. Further, it would show that the bicycle as we know it is not the most efficient human powered vehicle.

Originally Posted by Fday

I agree with points 1 and 2 plus I would add that they also have the potential to change the general pattern of force application to the pedals further increasing pedaling efficiency.

Regarding point 3, the adaption period is generally over stated. People only see slowing when riding PowerCranks. Most see no detriment and some see almost immediate benefit when going back to regular cranks for racing. It seems people gain efficiency faster than they lose "training" in the "prime movers" as you refer to them. Anyhow, almost everyone who makes a concerted effort is back to regular training distances and efforts within a month to 6 weeks of getting on PC's.

I am not sure I understand your other points. Let me say this. potential energy put into the upward moving leg is recovered as kinetic energy on the downstroke whether that potential energy is put in by the upward pulling muscles or the downward pushing muscles.

So, it seems to me the key to the improvements seen by PowerCrankers comes from training more muscle mass and improving the pedal force dynamic to something much more efficient.

Because of the concerns you have expressed here many seem afraid to start them during the season. We just got an anecdotal report from someone in Spain that might put those fears to rest. Customer started them in March at beginning of season. Rode them during the week in training, raced on regular cranks during weekend. Got tested at the end of the season. The results were so amazing the doctor running the test refused to believe them and repeated it. Anyhow, he had increased his VO2 max 30% in this period.

Anyhow, I don't believe your proposal for training the HF's would work very well. Making it harder to get over the top doesn not mean you will use the HF's more. Rather, most will just compensate by simply pushing harder.

Frank

Originally Posted by Laflore

Just outta curiosity... are there any pics available of pro's riding with PCs?

I have seen photos of PCs on bicycles, but I'd be more impressed seeing an actual pro cyclist in the act of using them.

Thx.

edit: I'm not interested in anecdotes from anonymous internet posters

Originally Posted by Fday

In this thread, http://www.cyclingforums.com/t237131.html is a picture of the bike ridden by Stephano Garzelli on a rest day at the TDF a few years ago. The black tape over the name does not mean they are not PowerCrank

http://www.cyclingforums.com/attach...tachmentid=4134

Another picture is on our home page. Thia one of Magnust Bacstedt on his PuwerCranks bike.

Originally Posted by Laflore

Sorry, I thought it was clear: "..in the act of using"

After all, I've seen lots of pics of pros out training. Assuming they spend any time at all training on PCs (beyond the initial experimenting period), I'd think there should be some photos. Thx again.

Originally Posted by Piotr

You are very particular in your request, so no "pro", but I did post an article with pictures of a Cat. 1 in the act of winning a hill climb on PC's on the "Pushing\Pulling" sticky thread recently. Just FYI.

Originally Posted by Fday

I will leave the design of such a bicycle up to you. It would probably work (except UCI would disallow it for the purposes of records but the HPV association would accept it if you want to go for that record) because the athlete who have the highest VO2 max when tested are those who use both their upper and lower extremities, such as XC skiers and rowers.