Ankling

I take it one step further with my "toeing" technique. Toes are deceptively strong. Just stand on your toes and you can see that they can easily support your body weight. Of course, you need to raise your saddle a few more cm and wear a shoe with a flexible sole, such as SPD sandals.

Combined with ankling, you can double your power output. I don't train at all now and just use my magical top secret pedaling style. Walking up a flight of stairs nearly kills me but on a bike I can just ride away from the cat 1/2 field.

😉

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
I stand corrected on relative size (I'll check you r figure out though). The effect you describe here is surely a factor in why most ankle opening tends to take place towards the bottom of the stroke.

[QUOTE][i]Let me make the point better: for the calves to do work the ankle needs to open (neglecting elasticity effects) but an opening ankle doesn't necessarily indicate a calf that is doing work.[/B][/QUOTE]

This is true.


[QUOTE][i]Complicated question though since the soleus and the gastrocnemius can't both be "cables"
For the joint to lock as in maintain the same angle (within elasticity limits) the soleus would presumably lock and the gastroc stretch. A seemingly less wasteful solution would be to block the gastroc with the soleus either switching off or continuing to shorten. With this you would still see "ankling" but it doesn't tell you calf work being done.[/B][/QUOTE]

Can't block the calf and still have the soleus working. These two muscles are fed by the same nerve branches. This may seem to be more efficient, but I would think the opposite. You would need a very strong soleus muscle for a technique like this. As the rider moves further into the downstroke, we know that he can more forcefully move the pedals becuse the leg is in a more biomechanically stronger position. You would need the gastrocs to help the soleus deal with these rising tension forces in the muscle. Also, as the leg opens up, the gastrocs can contract stronger, aiding to the ankle flip, so why not use them when you need them most? The cable analogy is only meant to represen the way that the calves mostly transfer upper thigh power and contribute little to the power of pedalling.


[QUOTE][i]At very high sprinter cadence little ankle movement could well be the norm (and a lot of road riders seem to do this in their normal style) but Lance Armstrong still does noticable stuff with his ankles at his sort of "high cadences". Eyeball method says he starts his downstroke toe down (which presumably stresses the shins) then the heel goes down closing the ankle and (assuming they are fired up) stretching the calves, then you get a quick flip at the bottom.[/B][/QUOTE]

Bang on about LA's pedalling techinique. He seems to be a very good ankler, even by track sprintier standards (although maybe a little high at the top). Would like to see how he spins at the 160-180 rpm that the ankle normally locks out at with track sprinters.

[QUOTE][i]It's interesting how riders can appear to do quite different things in accomplishing the same task. [/B][/QUOTE]

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Squint
I take it one step further with my "toeing" technique. Toes are deceptively strong. Just stand on your toes and you can see that they can easily support your body weight. Of course, you need to raise your saddle a few more cm and wear a shoe with a flexible sole, such as SPD sandals.

Combined with ankling, you can double your power output. I don't train at all now and just use my magical top secret pedaling style. Walking up a flight of stairs nearly kills me but on a bike I can just ride away from the cat 1/2 field.

😉

Are you serious about this. I knkow your toes are strong, but really, never thought about this.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by beerco
Oh, so you're going to sacrifice knee (quad) motion to get more ankle effect?

Complex situation but you seem to be assuming that force will be the same over a decreased range of movement. Remember that the slower a muscle contracts (as it will over reduced range at a given cadence) the stronger it can contract (refer to the definition of power). This could be relevant to sprinting.

You could fit longer cranks if you're worried about range of motion although, as it happens, "traditional" ankling has only a small effect on knee range as compared to a "locked ankle" style. It has a larger effect on hip range which is why it can help with aerodynamics.

The reason your thighs can feel relief during a spell of ankling (nice up hill) is perhaps as much to do with the way their leverage is varied as with reduced range of motion which only affects the rectus femoris (crosses the hip also) to any degree.

In aerobic work there could well be no power advantage to ankling, but not for the reason you cite (it is a similar debate to that over Powercranks).

Incidentally I have a study in front of me finding that the calves contribute 20% to an average pedallers power production (at 120W)!
I am a little surprised by that figure because it seems the only chance most calves get to contribute is during a small ankle flip at the bottom of the stroke (and perhaps a bit on the upstroke).

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Squint
I take it one step further with my "toeing" technique. Toes are deceptively strong. Just stand on your toes and you can see that they can easily support your body weight. Of course, you need to raise your saddle a few more cm and wear a shoe with a flexible sole, such as SPD sandals.

Combined with ankling, you can double your power output. I don't train at all now and just use my magical top secret pedaling style. Walking up a flight of stairs nearly kills me but on a bike I can just ride away from the cat 1/2 field.
😉

Rigid soles on cycling shoes effectivly removes any individual action of your toes. Setting the cleat further forward would alow you to lengthen the 'lever' between ancle and pedal; however this cleat position would be far from optimal.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by taras0000
Can't block the calf and still have the soleus working. These two muscles are fed by the same nerve branches. This may seem to be more efficient, but I would think the opposite.

Not sure of where we are now (did you mean you can't have one muscle on and one off?). At any rate "lock" was a bad choice of word on my part in relation to a muscle I meant "be like a cable" ie in isometric tension.

Quoted post said:

He seems to be a very good ankler, even by track sprintier standards (although maybe a little high at the top)

He is very good, and he does stuff with his ankles, but I don't have him down as an "ankler". Legend would have it that ankling came about in the days before cleats as an attempt to increase pedal-stroke length, I'm not sure LA could pedal like he does without cleats. The climbing Ullrich looks more like an ankler to me.

Quoted post said:

As the rider moves further into the downstroke, we know that he can more forcefully move the pedals becuse the leg is in a more biomechanically stronger position. You would need the gastrocs to help the soleus deal with these rising tension forces in the muscle. Also, as the leg opens up, the gastrocs can contract stronger, aiding to the ankle flip, so why not use them when you need them most?

Totally agree, but a fixed ankle angle would mean a forcibly lenghtened gastrocnemius and a soleus in isometric tension - or do you mean something different by "the ankle pretty much locks itself". There seems to be a continuum of possibilities from both being forcibly lengthened to both shortening and doing work. (I speculate some riders mix of all these during the stroke - LA?).

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
Not sure of where we are now (did you mean you can't have one muscle on and one off?). At any rate "lock" was a bad choice of word on my part in relation to a muscle I meant "be like a cable" ie in isometric tension.

Yes, you are correct in that i meant you can;t have onemuscle on and one off. i think we are both on the same page know as far as cable meaning isometric contration.

[QUOTE][i]He is very good, and he does stuff with his ankles, but I don't have him down as an "ankler". Legend would have it that ankling came about in the days before cleats as an attempt to increase pedal-stroke length, I'm not sure LA could pedal like he does without cleats. The climbing Ullrich looks more like an ankler to me.[/B][/QUOTE]

I would say that Ullrich is a better ankler than Lance, much more efficient I would think (or maybe i'm just saying that becasue is ankle movement is more like mine?). A lot of Lance's toe flip is designed to get his pedal spindle back so that the hamstrings can pull easier on the upstroke (move pedal spindle closer to knee:ie ,drop heel, is more efficent on downstroke, while a spindle back is mechanically wasier for the hams.).

[QUOTE][i]Totally agree, but a fixed ankle angle would mean a forcibly lenghtened gastrocnemius and a soleus in isometric tension - or do you mean something different by "the ankle pretty much locks itself". There seems to be a continuum of possibilities from both being forcibly lengthened to both shortening and doing work. (I speculate some riders mix of all these during the stroke - LA?). [/B][/QUOTE]

I did mean an isometric soleus and a lenghening gastrocnemius. I would assume though, that a mix of this is happening. If we are reffering to LA's style, then the Isometric soleus/lengthening gastroc would be happening at the top half of the downstroke, with concentric contraction of both happening in the bottom half. I would think this is what lends to the drop heel.toe flip pedalliing style.

[QUOTE][i]

Incidentally I have a study in front of me finding that the calves contribute 20% to an average pedallers power production (at 120W)!
I am a little surprised by that figure because it seems the only chance most calves get to contribute is during a small ankle flip at the bottom of the stroke (and perhaps a bit on the upstroke). [/B][/QUOTE]

Interesting, although i would have to agree with your viewpoint. Where did you find this study?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by taras0000
Interesting, although i would have to agree with your viewpoint. Where did you find this study?

Power output and work in different muscle groups during ergometer cycling
Ericson et al
Eur J Appl Physiol 1986 55:229-235

I haven't attempted to get into the detail to see if I can spot a flaw (it is complex stuff) but wouldn't be too surprised if there is one.
Biomechanists sometimes use methods which are OK for other activities but give crazy results when applied to cycling.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley


Incidentally I have a study in front of me finding that the calves contribute 20% to an average pedallers power production (at 120W)!
I am a little surprised by that figure because it seems the only chance most calves get to contribute is during a small ankle flip at the bottom of the stroke (and perhaps a bit on the upstroke).

You know those little diagrams that they use with the vector arrows that they use to show pedal forces? Well, as long as the software is recording the forces accurately during each part of the pedal stroke, you can compare the size of the vectors. As long as the rider is hooked up to an EMG, then you can determine when calf contraction starts, compare it to the real time vector recordings, measure the differences between the vectore, and voila! you have the calf contribution to your pedalling.

This would seem to work, would it not?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
Power output and work in different muscle groups during ergometer cycling
Ericson et al
Eur J Appl Physiol 1986 55:229-235

I haven't attempted to get into the detail to see if I can spot a flaw (it is complex stuff) but wouldn't be too surprised if there is one.
Biomechanists sometimes use methods which are OK for other activities but give crazy results when applied to cycling.

I'd be curious to see that study as well...I think that there might be a flaw.

Power contribution can be dissected into it's vectors as Taras stated.

Simply put, the power provided by Ankling is going to be the amount of force provided by the ankle at the pedal, times the distance moved by the toe as a result of ankling, over the time it took to do so.

e.g. Let's say you're pedaling at 60rpm for simplicity's sake. You begin in a mildly "heel down" position at around 1:00. you end in a mildly heel up position at around 5:00 every rev. It takes you about 0.5s to do so.

Power contribution by Ankling is therefore force from ankling (probably quite difficult to measure independently) times the 4 to 6cm of movement over .5s.

I imagine that this is a very small number of watts.

Now, this doesn't mean that your calf isn't in a strong, ATP consuming isometric contraction the whole power stroke, it just means that it's not being translated into power propelling you forward (i.e. the energy is spent fixing the pivot point).

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by beerco
Power contribution can be dissected into it's vectors as Taras stated.

Simply put, the power provided by Ankling is going to be the amount of force provided by the ankle at the pedal, times the distance moved by the toe as a result of ankling, over the time it took to do so.

All you need to do now is calculate it.

Quoted post said:

Power contribution by Ankling is therefore force from ankling (probably quite difficult to measure independently) times the 4 to 6cm of movement over .5s.
I imagine that this is a very small number of watts

This can be calculated (non trivial mind) - they did it in the study and it wasn't small. In fact, the assumption you make above is where you and the study may have slipped up!

I've just ploughed through the study-speak so I'll tell you what they did.

They calculated all instantaneous joint angular velocities(via analysis of a film of pedalling). They recorded all pedal forces, estimated the weight and moment of inertia of each leg segment then solved equations to calculate the torques at the joints. Scary stuff to the innocent bystander but pretty standard.

To estimate the power generated by the muscles surrounding each joint they multiplied angular velocity of the joint by torque on it. As you suggested.

So they seem to have discounted the mechanism I was discussing with Taras000 ie that the gastrocnemius can torque the ankle open by transfering thigh power and none of it's own.

They sort of address this point by claiming that it is likely to be the soleus that does the great part of any positive or negative work at the ankle.
They also say "the possible coupling effect of the gastrocnemius and other 2-joint muscles [...] might influence power output and needs investigating further.

Quoted post said:

Now, this doesn't mean that your calf isn't in a strong, ATP consuming isometric contraction the whole power stroke, it just means that it's not being translated into power propelling you forward (i.e. the energy is spent fixing the pivot point).

Oh, I may have got you wrong earlier.

Has anyone measured the effects of Powerpedals? power.nopower.noOpen ↗ I use them and wouldn't be without.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Roy Gardiner
Has anyone measured the effects of Powerpedals? http://www.power.no/ I use them and wouldn't be without

Gobsmacked's the word. An inverse ankling machine!

I don't know if there's money in all these new systems around at the moment but maybe we could get together and invent the AnquetilPedal. Pedals are maintained near vertical. We could also do the LancePedal - makes you use your ankles like Lance Armstrong.
You will pedal like Lance Armstrong guaranteed...

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Roy Gardiner
Has anyone measured the effects of Powerpedals? power.nopower.noOpen ↗ I use them and wouldn't be without.

In August '97, the German Tour magazine used an SRM to test Power Pedals. They found that power and speed on the same climb were the same, i.e., the pedals did nothing. All these cranks and pedals are based on the same flawed assumption.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Squint
In August '97, the German Tour magazine used an SRM to test Power Pedals. They found that power and speed on the same climb were the same, i.e., the pedals did nothing. All these cranks and pedals are based on the same flawed assumption.

How could powerpedals increase overall power. For as long as
the same (mental) basic round pedalling style is used, the power
will be the same.
Powercranks are a great invention but too expensive, they can
help beginners to get a good round pedalling style from the
start of their competitive cycling years.
Rotorcranks are the nearest any rider can get to benefitting from
the elimination of the dead spot area, this is done by mechanical
compensation for a small portion of the area but the advantages
are very limited.
Anquetil's linear pedalling can completely eliminate the dead spot
area with natural pedalling and normal equipment in addition to
its many other advantages that make it invincible in time trials
or track pursuits, but for me the complete elimination of the root
cause of all "on the bike" lower back pain is by far its best
advantage.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by n crowley
How could powerpedals increase overall power. For as long as
the same (mental) basic round pedalling style is used, the power
will be the same.
Powercranks are a great invention but too expensive, they can
help beginners to get a good round pedalling style from the
start of their competitive cycling years.
Rotorcranks are the nearest any rider can get to benefitting from
the elimination of the dead spot area, this is done by mechanical
compensation for a small portion of the area but the advantages
are very limited.
Anquetil's linear pedalling can completely eliminate the dead spot
area with natural pedalling and normal equipment in addition to
its many other advantages that make it invincible in time trials
or track pursuits, but for me the complete elimination of the root
cause of all "on the bike" lower back pain is by far its best
advantage.

N Crowley, without appearing rude, your posts amount to SPAM.

The problem is...
1. Despite being asked you have never been able to explain the technique in a way that makes sense to any reader... only you know how to do it.
2. What you describe actualy sounds like normal cycling to me.
3. You have no evidence that the technique works and frequently makes claims/put down others posts (like above) based on 'your evidence'.
4. You have turned down offers from people that will help you do research on the technique (to finaly prove you right or wrong).
5. You claim it eliminates on the bike back pain... How? Why? Prove it? Why keep your technique to yourself if its so great?
6. You claim it makes you win TT's or Pursuits, yet never once has your name appeared at the top of a podium or has a rider associated with you.
7. You have argued with top coaches and researchers about your technique yet don't listen to them and claim they have closed minds. Where are your top riders? What credentials do you have?
8. You make similar claims on several forums and always get the same response, yet never address 1 to 7.

While we are all free to post on this site; I think another replay of last years threads on your technique is best avoided.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 2LAP
N Crowley, without appearing rude, your posts amount to SPAM.

The problem is...
1. Despite being asked you have never been able to explain the technique in a way that makes sense to any reader... only you know how to do it.
2. What you describe actualy sounds like normal cycling to me.
3. You have no evidence that the technique works and frequently makes claims/put down others posts (like above) based on 'your evidence'.
4. You have turned down offers from people that will help you do research on the technique (to finaly prove you right or wrong).
5. You claim it eliminates on the bike back pain... How? Why? Prove it? Why keep your technique to yourself if its so great?
6. You claim it makes you win TT's or Pursuits, yet never once has your name appeared at the top of a podium or has a rider associated with you.
7. You have argued with top coaches and researchers about your technique yet don't listen to them and claim they have closed minds. Where are your top riders? What credentials do you have?
8. You make similar claims on several forums and always get the same response, yet never address 1 to 7.

While we are all free to post on this site; I think another replay of last years threads on your technique is best avoided.

As I have already stated, all in good time. Just stating the facts
which for some can be hard to swallow. Perhaps A. Bradley
could explain, why when discussing or researching pedalling
styles, Anquetil's has always been completely ignored. Does
he like everybody believe that Anquetil's success was not
entirely due to his pedalling style or to what would he attribute
the successful cycling career of this rider.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by n crowley
As I have already stated, all in good time.

How about you don't SPAM until the 'good time' is up? Check the forum rules on SPAM.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by n crowley
Just stating the facts which for some can be hard to swallow.

As yet you haven't posted any facts. Its the mystery that I find hard to swallow.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by n crowley
Perhaps A. Bradley would explain, why when discussing or researching pedalling styles, Anquetil's has always been completely ignored.

Please read the points 1 to 7 again. You have done no research and seem unable to describe or discuss this 'technique' in any way. Andrews posts contribute positively to this thread, yours do not.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by n crowley
Does he like everybody believe that Anquetil's success was not
entirely due to his pedalling style or to what would he attribute
the successful cycling career of this rider.

This comment shows how little you know about cycling; Anquetil was not only a great cyclist because of the way he pedaled... he was also very fit and wasn't he a drug user? Given that you can do this technique, why are you not a rider of Anquetil's level?

I'm not trying to argue or be rude; just trying to avoid you SPAMING and TROLLING.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by n crowley
As I have already stated, all in good time. Just stating the facts
which for some can be hard to swallow. Perhaps A. Bradley
could explain, why when discussing or researching pedalling
styles, Anquetil's has always been completely ignored. Does
he like everybody believe that Anquetil's success was not
entirely due to his pedalling style or to what would he attribute
the successful cycling career of this rider.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/bicycles-faq/part4/section-26.html

Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 14:04:39 PST

Ankling, a topic of much discussion, has been claimed to improved
performance in bicycling, although not by racers and coaches. It has been touted as one of the techniques for excellence that appeals to bicyclists mainly because it requires no additional effort. That there are different ankle motions while pedaling is apparent, although most of these are not by choice nor do they effect efficiency. Because so much attention was given the subject in the 1960's, it prompted a study in Italy, in which some leading racers noted for their abilities as well as a distinct pedaling style were fit with instrumentation to numerically capture the stroke. Among them was Jacques Anquetil who had a noticeably different ankle motion.

The study determined that there was no consistency among those tested and that ankling, much like people's walking gait, is caused by physical individuality rather than any advantage. Typically, some walking gaits are so pronounced that a person can be recognized by it at a distance. Some people raise their heel before stepping off on the next stride while others "peel" the foot from the floor in a continuous motion. To artificially emulate someone's ankle motion or lack thereof, while pedaling, is as useless as emulating a walking gait. The study laid ankling to rest for a while, but because urban legends have a life of their own, rising again at the slightest opportunity, ankling, with its lore, is assured a long life.