Is it true that the "round pedalling stroke" is a myth?

[n crowley]

Originally Posted by danfoz .


I think we naturally find what works best for our own particular anatomies (i.e. femur/tibia-fibula length, etc.) in context wih our riding positions. It sounds like you have found yours. Personally i have always pedaled with my hips and not my legs, or at least my brain sees it that way. Any force vector that does not originate as an extension from my center is going to be sub par by comparison. And it's not mashing either, as my ride data indicates an average of around 95-105rpms with rock steady hips and upper body. But what do you mean by cannot be copied? Maybe there is video of another rider from the media era who rides similarly which we can compare against? Unless the pro peleton hasn't caught up to this new pinnacle of pedal power.

You will not naturally find a method of applying the same maximal torque at 12 and 1 as that applied at 3 o'c. By 'cannot be copied ' I mean, **** Fosbury created a new high jump technique with which he won an olympic gold, but his advantage was short lived because all changes were visable for all to see and copy. Anquetil's superior tt technique revealed absolutely nothing as to what was involved and how the muscles were used, which meant he could retain this advantage throughout all his racing years.

 

[alienator]

  I have the technique and that's all that matters, which I discovered (years before Anquetil's video became available)  when I succeeded in biomechanically combining upper and lower body muscles for increased power output when riding in the natural racing drops position.  It cannot be copied and it does not take long to detect if someone else is using it.

Total BS. Without data you have nothing. In fact, you have no clue, without data, what your power output as a function of crank angle is. You are certainly in no position to advise anyone else or to make proclamations from the mount about other riders. Here's a phrase that defines you: snake oil salesman. Yup, you're an outright fraud...or a witless loon......

 

[alienator]

 You will not naturally find a method of applying the same maximal torque at 12 and 1 as that applied at 3 o'c. By 'cannot be copied '  I mean,   **** Fosbury created a new high jump technique with which he won an olympic gold, but his advantage was short lived because all changes were visable for all to see and copy. Anquetil's superior tt technique revealed absolutely nothing as to what was involved and how the muscles were used, which meant he could retain this advantage throughout all his racing years.

The liar speaks more. He mouths words without actually understanding what he is saying. All that matters to him is that someone believe his ridiculous claims.

 

[fergie]

Originally Posted by vspa .

the bicycling magazine article cited above shows a study where improvement was 5 bpm for the same wattage,
that's quite a lot, like going from the 17 sprocket to the 16,

Well be a good chap and provide a link to that study. Highly unlikely that a lab based study would use heart rate as a proxy for efficiency when they could measure the real thing taking expired gases.

Wow, Noel, still harping on about your baseless observations which have never been proved. But still only 2nd most despised poster to cycling forums. What a claim to fame.

 

[n crowley]

Originally Posted by fergie .



Wow, Noel, still harping on about your baseless observations which have never been proved. But still only 2nd most despised poster to cycling forums. What a claim to fame.

Thanks CoachFergie, as I see it, the more unbelievable my claims, the more valuable my discovery. Now that cycling is being cleaned up and aerodynamic equipment improvement should be soon reaching its limit, scientists may turn to pedalling technique in search of that extra wattage in time trials.

 

[alienator]

 Thanks CoachFergie, as I see it, the more unbelievable my claims, the more valuable my discovery. Now that cycling is being cleaned up and aerodynamic equipment improvement should be soon reaching its limit, scientists may turn to pedalling technique in search of that extra wattage in time trials.

Actually, Noelle, the more unbelievable your claims the more it is apparent to everyone that you don't understand objective analysis, science, and embarrassing for you.......your own claims. You're either terribly misinformed and under educated or a liar. Which is it?

 

[dominikk85]

Originally Posted by alienator .


The liar speaks more. He mouths words without actually understanding what he is saying. All that matters to him is that someone believe his ridiculous claims.

guys, please keep that thread on topic. we already know that you are never going to agree. a further discussion will not solve that. if you believe that the anquetil pedalling theory is just speculation state that and move on. you all know a lot about cycling and can contribute a lot.

if you don't like what he throws into the room just ignore it and instead write you you feel riders are doing it. probably if you do the discussion will quickly dissapear.

sorry if I sound like a mom

 

[alienator]

guys, please keep that thread on topic. we already know that you are never going to agree. a further discussion will not solve that. if you believe that the anquetil pedalling theory is just speculation state that and move on. you all know a lot about cycling and can contribute a lot. if you don't like what he throws into the room just ignore it and instead write you you feel riders are doing it. probably if you do the discussion will quickly dissapear. sorry if I sound like a mom

You can buy into whatever theory without proof if you like, but that doesn't mean that such a theory shouldn't be challenged. For the record, crowley is making wild claims he can't support:

1. That Anquetil had a certain power delivery as a function of crank angle......something which cannot be proven from a video but which is pure blind speculation
2. That crowley has a certain power output as a function of crank angle.....something which cannot be proven without a power meter and polar plots that show power output as a function of crank angle
3. That he is doing things biomechanically, things for which he not only doesn't have any proof but also doesn't have the observational tools to observe

You should, by all means, ignore published studies about power output as function of crank angle and efficiency as a function of angular power output--in other words ignore the science--and instead invest in the credibility of a snake oil salesman with no ability nor desire to actually objectively analyze anything. For the record, crowley's theory is not a theory. This is theory. Crowley is speculating wildly without any objective reason to make such speculation. Given that there were no powermeters used by the peloton in Anquetil's time, it should painfully obvious that nothing regarding power output as a function of crank angle, or for that matter, anything about Anquetil's power output from watching films of Anquetil. Since this discussion has been completely about pedaling style and function, it has been absolutely on topic.

 

[fergie]

Originally Posted by n crowley .



Thanks CoachFergie, as I see it, the more unbelievable my claims, the more valuable my discovery. Now that cycling is being cleaned up and aerodynamic equipment improvement should be soon reaching its limit, scientists may turn to pedalling technique in search of that extra wattage in time trials.

Your discovery? That's funny. You and Frank Day have only contributed comic relief to the area of cycling performance.

 

[n crowley]

Originally Posted by fergie .


Your discovery? That's funny. You and Frank Day have only contributed comic relief to the area of cycling performance.

Fosbury could be added to that list, that was until he won gold at the olympics. In some papers he was described as the world's laziest jumper and a fish flopping around in a boat.. Discovery ? Yes I am satisfied I have found the perfect pedalling technique which experts claim does or could not exist. The proof is freely available to anyone interested in doing the testing. Maybe you could explain why so many road racers hate riding time trials.

 

[alienator]

 Fosbury could be added to that list, that was until he won gold at the olympics. In some papers he was described as the world's laziest jumper and a fish flopping around in a boat.. Discovery ? Yes I am satisfied I have found the perfect pedalling technique which experts claim does or could not exist. The proof is freely available to anyone interested in doing the testing. Maybe you could explain why so many road racers hate riding time trials.

That's actually proof of nothing, but hey, Peaches, you could video yourself pedaling in the form of your new "discovery" and post the video. Surely there's no reason to not do that, right? With all your friends, surely one has a video cam that would help you out. If you're discovery is real, it should stand up to scrutiny, shouldn't it? After all, that's how science--including biomechanics--is done. Think of all the fame and money you'd make.....

 

[fergie]

Originally Posted by n crowley .


Fosbury could be added to that list, that was until he won gold at the olympics. In some papers he was described as the world's laziest jumper and a fish flopping around in a boat.. Discovery ? Yes I am satisfied I have found the perfect pedalling technique which experts claim does or could not exist. The proof is freely available to anyone interested in doing the testing. Maybe you could explain why so many road racers hate riding time trials.

Yes very amusing. Comic relief at it's best.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

Originally Posted by n crowley .


Fosbury could be added to that list, that was until he won gold at the olympics....

Fosbury and his famous flop is a good example. No one believed he was onto a better technique just because he thought so. First he proved it with his own success, folks saw that success and found that when they emulated his style their own results improved dramatically. Same for Lemond using TT bars in the TDF or for Obree with both his egg and superman positions, they demonstrated dramatic improvement in results, others gave it a try, similarly demonstrated dramatic improvement in results and then wind tunnel testing quantified those results. Demonstrate some dramatic improvements with your style and then some may follow, fail to do the first part and you'll likely be ignored, continue to shout from your soapbox without any results or objective data to back it up and rather than be ignored you'll continue to be viewed as a crackpot.

You could speed up that process with objective data. How many times have you told us that this would all become clear when power measurement pedals hit the market? Well they're available now, you could buy these off ebay and demonstrate your theories: http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-LOOK-KEO-POLAR-Power-Pedals-Based-Power-Meter-Cycling-Bike-Cycle-Bicycle-/271099796837?pt=Cycling_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3f1ece9d65

What are you waiting for?

Demonstrate substantial improvement for a rider that switches to your techniques, demonstrate a rider that breaks records (as Fosbury did) after switching techniques, or show us some data that objectively demonstrates your ideas and then maybe some of us will risk our training and racing to try your ideas out. Until then you're offering wild theories with no evidence that they work and offer us no reason to risk our race results or training time for your ideas. Who knows, perhaps you are way ahead of the curve on this but continuing to assert that without any evidence to back it up isn't likely to change many minds.

-Dave

 

[frost]

Pretty much nailed it Dave.

 

[gudujarlson]

Sums up my thoughts on the subject...

 

[danfoz]

Originally Posted by n crowley .

Maybe you could explain why so many road racers hate riding time trials.

They hurt like the dickens, and as people generally enjoy doing what they are good at it means there's no upside for the fellas not in contention for the podium.

 

[n crowley]

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming .


Fosbury and his famous flop is a good example. No one believed he was onto a better technique just because he thought so. First he proved it with his own success, folks saw that success and found that when they emulated his style their own results improved dramatically. Same for Lemond using TT bars in the TDF or for Obree with both his egg and superman positions, they demonstrated dramatic improvement in results, others gave it a try, similarly demonstrated dramatic improvement in results and then wind tunnel testing quantified those results. Demonstrate some dramatic improvements with your style and then some may follow, fail to do the first part and you'll likely be ignored, continue to shout from your soapbox without any results or objective data to back it up and rather than be ignored you'll continue to be viewed as a crackpot.

You could speed up that process with objective data. How many times have you told us that this would all become clear when power measurement pedals hit the market? Well they're available now, you could buy these off ebay and demonstrate your theories: http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-LOOK-KEO-POLAR-Power-Pedals-Based-Power-Meter-Cycling-Bike-Cycle-Bicycle-/271099796837?pt=Cycling_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3f1ece9d65

What are you waiting for?

Demonstrate substantial improvement for a rider that switches to your techniques, demonstrate a rider that breaks records (as Fosbury did) after switching techniques, or show us some data that objectively demonstrates your ideas and then maybe some of us will risk our training and racing to try your ideas out. Until then you're offering wild theories with no evidence that they work and offer us no reason to risk our race results or training time for your ideas. Who knows, perhaps you are way ahead of the curve on this but continuing to assert that without any evidence to back it up isn't likely to change many minds.

-Dave

All that necessary proof does not apply in my situation. There is only one yes/no question to be answered by an accurate force vector powermeter, Can the same maximal torque be applied at 12 as that applied at 3 o'c. If the answer is yes, how can there not be a dramatic improvement. BrimBros PM should be able to answer that question when it becomes available. I hate computers and their attachments because at my age I don't have the patience to waste time doing the necessary study. I hope BrimBros will do the testing of the technique and supply the evidence which answers that question.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

Originally Posted by n crowley .....If the answer is yes, how can there not be a dramatic improvement.....

Many, many ways.

Many folks think that if you can 'pull up' on the backstroke then it's only common sense that you can engage more muscles, share the work and of course your power will increase. Trouble is, it's been shown repeatedly that this common sense theory does not work in practice and efforts to pull up on the back stroke do not lead to increased power sustained for any substantial periods. Classic fail for common sense approaches.

Similarly, even if you can apply the same peak torque at a different point in the pedal stroke it is not a given that this translates to either higher sustained power (which is what racers are really after) or higher efficiency for the same power (useful for endurance and fueling strategies but not necessarily faster in most racing situations). It might seem obvious to you, but if you want to convince anyone else you'll really want to demonstrate that this altered application of force in the pedal cycle actually leads to the results you're claiming.

The bottom line is that you've been swimming against the current on this one for the better part of the last decade and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why your very unconventional theories have any merit. You can continue to post on boards like these trying to verbally convince folks that you've discovered the holy grail of pedaling a bicycle but you aren't likely to convince many folks if you can't demonstrate your concepts with on the road results and ideally backed with hard data. Keep railing away with conjecture with no empirical data or real world race results to back it up and you'll continue to be ignored or ridiculed. Demonstrate your ideas in a convincing way and have others replicate those results and you get the last laugh.

-Dave

 

[alienator]

 All that necessary proof does not apply in my situation. There is only one yes/no question to be answered by an accurate force vector powermeter, Can the same maximal torque be applied at 12 as that applied at 3 o'c. If the answer is yes, how can there not be a dramatic improvement. BrimBros PM should be able to answer that question when it becomes available. I hate computers and their attachments because at my age I don't have the patience to waste time doing the necessary study. I hope BrimBros will do the testing of the technique and supply the evidence which answers that question.

Well, you should have just said in the beginning that you weren't any good with that whole scientific method thing. That explains everything, now.

 

[frost]

Originally Posted by n crowley .

All that necessary proof does not apply in my situation. There is only one yes/no question to be answered by an accurate force vector powermeter, Can the same maximal torque be applied at 12 as that applied at 3 o'c. If the answer is yes, how can there not be a dramatic improvement. BrimBros PM should be able to answer that question when it becomes available. I hate computers and their attachments because at my age I don't have the patience to waste time doing the necessary study. I hope BrimBros will do the testing of the technique and supply the evidence which answers that question.

How are you so fixated to this that you can't see that it is not about the application of the energy but production of it. If you have a fixed, limited amount of energy in use, where the supply is limited by the aerobic engine in the body, how does it change where you apply it? If you apply it at 12 o'clock it is simply away from somewhere else.