Power Meters and Pedaling Effectiveness
- Thread starter RapDaddyo
- Start date
bozy said:
George, i'm not hiding anywhere, i answered your post before. We all have better things to do, such as helping cyclists or going cycling, rather than responding to your demeaning and bullying questions.
I suggest you find a nice bit of countryside in NY to ride through, and take a nice ride on your bike along with a few deep breaths, and try and calm down.
Ric
bozy said:
No one was hiding, i was working. Perhaps that's something you should do, or go for a bike ride.
Ric
bozy said:
I asked where you were from because it might give some indication of how familiar you are with the situation.
"legal status"? Well, I would imagine that both the BCF and the ABBC are their equivalent of our 501c3 non-profit corporations, but what do I know?
Is Chris Carmichael not a coach because he doesn't hold a USAC coaching license?
I doubt that the BCF told you that - more likely, they told you that they weren't BCF certified coaches.
What "elusiveness"? I don't see how Ric or Lindsay could have explained things any more clearly.
Indeed, it is - only I'd say that you're the one whose credibility - or sanity - is questionable.
I have drawn my conclusions on the questions I posed in this thread. The purpose of this posting is to share those conclusions (and my thinking for each) and thank everyone for their contributions.
I have decided to buy the PT Pro. I ordered it today. Basically, it was a process of elimination. I have some serious concerns about the consistency of the Polar and the ergomo. Further, the Polar doesn’t provide usable power data on a trainer, limiting its value to riding on the road. As to SRM Pro vs. PT Pro, I have concluded that both are sufficiently accurate and consistent for my purposes and that any discrepancies in accuracy have no practical value to me. Originally, I felt that the optional torque analysis feature of the SRM Pro was a plus, but I have concluded that any attempt to balance my pedaling stroke would probably require lab analysis with force-instrumented pedals and is probably a waste of time anyway due to the power level-to-power level and day-to-day variability of cyclists who have been tested. If price weren’t part of the equation, I would probably get the SRM Pro with the Dura-Ace cranks. But, price is part of any purchase decision and I don’t think I can exploit any small advantages of the SRM Pro vs. the PT Pro. When the SL begins shipping again and after a few months of field use, I may choose to buy an SL hub for the weight savings. I am having an entire new wheel built on the PT Pro hub, retaining my current wheel in the event that I have any problems with the PT hub. If so, I’ll just pull it off and send it back for a replacement and keep on riding on my current wheel and with only HR data. No big deal – that’s more than I used to have. As to the reliability issues with the PT Pro, I have attempted to get hard numbers from the manufacturer but they have declined to share that data. Specifically, I asked for the warranty return rate of the PT Pro hub and receiver and computer, as a percentage of units shipped, in the last, say, year. In the absence of hard data, I have called a few dealers and others here on the West Coast and have found that there have been very few returns of the hubs and somewhat higher returns of the receivers. I’m not overly concerned about replacing the receiver – it’s only $60. Even if I bought a spare at the outset, the PT Pro is still less than a third the cost of the SRM Pro. As to software, I plan to buy the CyclingPeaks software package because it looks as though it has the most robust set of features. If there’s anything else I want that it doesn’t provide I’ll do myself, with SPSS and an export of the training files.
I look forward to having access to power data, both during and after my rides, especially when I’m working on producing high power levels for a sustained period. I’ll probably experiment a bit with pedaling mechanics and riding positions, mainly to find by trial and error the formula for producing the highest power levels for specific durations. I’m particularly looking forward to building my own MP/duration curve. After a few months of use I’ll post my experience, especially whether use of a PM has improved my training or performance.
Thanks to all for your input. I have learned a lot and, most importantly, have received answers to my questions.
I have decided to buy the PT Pro. I ordered it today. Basically, it was a process of elimination. I have some serious concerns about the consistency of the Polar and the ergomo. Further, the Polar doesn’t provide usable power data on a trainer, limiting its value to riding on the road. As to SRM Pro vs. PT Pro, I have concluded that both are sufficiently accurate and consistent for my purposes and that any discrepancies in accuracy have no practical value to me. Originally, I felt that the optional torque analysis feature of the SRM Pro was a plus, but I have concluded that any attempt to balance my pedaling stroke would probably require lab analysis with force-instrumented pedals and is probably a waste of time anyway due to the power level-to-power level and day-to-day variability of cyclists who have been tested. If price weren’t part of the equation, I would probably get the SRM Pro with the Dura-Ace cranks. But, price is part of any purchase decision and I don’t think I can exploit any small advantages of the SRM Pro vs. the PT Pro. When the SL begins shipping again and after a few months of field use, I may choose to buy an SL hub for the weight savings. I am having an entire new wheel built on the PT Pro hub, retaining my current wheel in the event that I have any problems with the PT hub. If so, I’ll just pull it off and send it back for a replacement and keep on riding on my current wheel and with only HR data. No big deal – that’s more than I used to have. As to the reliability issues with the PT Pro, I have attempted to get hard numbers from the manufacturer but they have declined to share that data. Specifically, I asked for the warranty return rate of the PT Pro hub and receiver and computer, as a percentage of units shipped, in the last, say, year. In the absence of hard data, I have called a few dealers and others here on the West Coast and have found that there have been very few returns of the hubs and somewhat higher returns of the receivers. I’m not overly concerned about replacing the receiver – it’s only $60. Even if I bought a spare at the outset, the PT Pro is still less than a third the cost of the SRM Pro. As to software, I plan to buy the CyclingPeaks software package because it looks as though it has the most robust set of features. If there’s anything else I want that it doesn’t provide I’ll do myself, with SPSS and an export of the training files.
I look forward to having access to power data, both during and after my rides, especially when I’m working on producing high power levels for a sustained period. I’ll probably experiment a bit with pedaling mechanics and riding positions, mainly to find by trial and error the formula for producing the highest power levels for specific durations. I’m particularly looking forward to building my own MP/duration curve. After a few months of use I’ll post my experience, especially whether use of a PM has improved my training or performance.
Thanks to all for your input. I have learned a lot and, most importantly, have received answers to my questions.
Excellent choice Sir!RapDaddyo said:
(and your reasoning is pretty similar to mine). I have a PT-Pro built onto a Velocity Deep-'V' rim and it is pretty much bullet-proof. Anything I can do to help you get started please let me know.I will of course charge you a ton of cash, 50% of which I have to pay to the pixies at ABCC headquarters.
L.
RapDaddyo,
It sounds like you got a good grasp of the issues and made good choices. The SRM Pro is great, I'm sure, but much more expensive.
If you have more than one bike, just get an extra receiver for $60 and you'll have power on 2 bikes for the price of (almost) one. CyclingPeaks is the only way to go, too. Good luck, jws
It sounds like you got a good grasp of the issues and made good choices. The SRM Pro is great, I'm sure, but much more expensive.
If you have more than one bike, just get an extra receiver for $60 and you'll have power on 2 bikes for the price of (almost) one. CyclingPeaks is the only way to go, too. Good luck, jws
To paraphrase Ann Elk, here's my theory and it is mine. I think there is pedaling efficiency and then there's pedaling efficiency. The former being minimizing the amount of force wasted on elongating the cranks. The latter being optimizing the timing and sequence of muscle contraction and relaxation. I think what most people perceive as good pedaling both visually and physically is the result of the latter; the optimal sequencing of contraction and relaxation to minimize energy spent fighting yourself, rather than the normal sense of fighting the cranks. I suspect this would have a much higher correlation with metabolic cost and efficiency as well, but little if anything to do with the distribution and direction of the force applied to the pedals.
Unfortunately it's no more easily monitored than the forces applied to the pedals since it would require a number of electrodes and biofeedback apparatus to give appropriate feedback.
[Unless you are Noel Crowley and have non-invasive remote sensing oxygen consumption/force/strain/bioelectric sensors in your eyesockets that allow you to directly perceive all the forces generated and the costs of producing them, even on video ;-)]
Unfortunately it's no more easily monitored than the forces applied to the pedals since it would require a number of electrodes and biofeedback apparatus to give appropriate feedback.
[Unless you are Noel Crowley and have non-invasive remote sensing oxygen consumption/force/strain/bioelectric sensors in your eyesockets that allow you to directly perceive all the forces generated and the costs of producing them, even on video ;-)]
[QUOTE=mises
The former being minimizing the amount of force wasted on elongating the cranks. The latter being optimizing the timing and sequence of muscle contraction and relaxation. I think what most people perceive as good pedaling both visually and physically is the result of the latter; the optimal sequencing of contraction and relaxation to minimize energy spent fighting yourself, rather than the normal sense of fighting the cranks. I suspect this would have a much higher correlation with metabolic cost and efficiency as well, but little if anything to do with the distribution and direction of the force applied to the pedals.
You believe you know sufficient about force distribution and direction of application, there are researchers round the world searching for the perfect pedal stroke, what do you "suspect" the perfect pedal stroke to be and what advantages should it be able to offer ?
The former being minimizing the amount of force wasted on elongating the cranks. The latter being optimizing the timing and sequence of muscle contraction and relaxation. I think what most people perceive as good pedaling both visually and physically is the result of the latter; the optimal sequencing of contraction and relaxation to minimize energy spent fighting yourself, rather than the normal sense of fighting the cranks. I suspect this would have a much higher correlation with metabolic cost and efficiency as well, but little if anything to do with the distribution and direction of the force applied to the pedals.
You believe you know sufficient about force distribution and direction of application, there are researchers round the world searching for the perfect pedal stroke, what do you "suspect" the perfect pedal stroke to be and what advantages should it be able to offer ?
Noel -
I think the best pedaling depends on the individual's physical characteristics and there is no universal "perfect pedaling" style any more than there is a universal perfect cadence between individuals or even for a single individual in varying circumstances.
Research I have seen has found no correlation between distribution of pedal force and maximum sustainable output, if anything mashers came out the best. The more meaningful differences are in economy. While small they can be significant enough to allow riders to achieve results that their lab numbers wouldn't predict. So perfect pedaling to me would be getting out of your own way as much as possible and how that would be accomplished would depend on the pedaling style you use (presumably because it's most comfortable for you).
It still leaves the problem of determining the best pedal stroke for an individual but here's my solution: head out the door and ride as far away from home as you can get, then turn around and head back. The body monitors an amazing array of physiologic processess and attempts to keep things in homeostasis; do enough of those death rides and your body will figure out the easiest way possible to achieve them. Not much fun (and don't worry about feeling like falling into the ditch sobbing, it's normal) but it does enforce a certain economy of effort without the need for a mobile exercise lab.
I do agree with you on the alternating sides when pedaling. I always synchronize breathing with pedaling and try to use odd patterns to alternate sides on the exhale.
But using arms to pedal? My power meter (and death rides) tells me I not only do better when I relax my arms, but my hands, fingers, feet, stomach, neck, face, and let my mouth hang open like a slack jawed rube from Kentucky (I do make exceptions in heavy bug seasons). But that's just me and, as all my doctors like to remind me when I bring up this or that study, all the statistics in the world don't tell you what is going to happen in a particular case.
I think the best pedaling depends on the individual's physical characteristics and there is no universal "perfect pedaling" style any more than there is a universal perfect cadence between individuals or even for a single individual in varying circumstances.
Research I have seen has found no correlation between distribution of pedal force and maximum sustainable output, if anything mashers came out the best. The more meaningful differences are in economy. While small they can be significant enough to allow riders to achieve results that their lab numbers wouldn't predict. So perfect pedaling to me would be getting out of your own way as much as possible and how that would be accomplished would depend on the pedaling style you use (presumably because it's most comfortable for you).
It still leaves the problem of determining the best pedal stroke for an individual but here's my solution: head out the door and ride as far away from home as you can get, then turn around and head back. The body monitors an amazing array of physiologic processess and attempts to keep things in homeostasis; do enough of those death rides and your body will figure out the easiest way possible to achieve them. Not much fun (and don't worry about feeling like falling into the ditch sobbing, it's normal) but it does enforce a certain economy of effort without the need for a mobile exercise lab.
I do agree with you on the alternating sides when pedaling. I always synchronize breathing with pedaling and try to use odd patterns to alternate sides on the exhale.
But using arms to pedal? My power meter (and death rides) tells me I not only do better when I relax my arms, but my hands, fingers, feet, stomach, neck, face, and let my mouth hang open like a slack jawed rube from Kentucky (I do make exceptions in heavy bug seasons). But that's just me and, as all my doctors like to remind me when I bring up this or that study, all the statistics in the world don't tell you what is going to happen in a particular case.
If that's the case Noel why didn't you take up the offer of free lab time and financial assistance that I believe was offered to you?n crowley said:
L.
Holy Smokes! I had just heard of Power Meters and started reading up just a half hour ago. My God. First of all, I've always been kind of a geek about measuring things in my life and have found it both interesting and helpful, but all these posts on power meters, different length cranks, and basically just pulling every single bit of data out of your workout has me kind of bummed. Every person of course has his or her own things that keep him or her entertained and interested. I wouldn't be surprised if within the next few months I have a power meter myself, but for now, I wonder if all of this data isn't just overkill. I can certainly see all of this for a professional racer or Olympic contender/athlete. By all means it sounds like an excellent tool. However, if you’re riding and even competing because you love to ride and compete, is all this once again overkill? Please don't make tons of angry posts I'm just asking a couple of questions. For now I just don't understand the whole thing.Woofer said:
I will end this particular post with this observation. I've been riding on and off for about ten years with most of my riding being on a cheap, heavy, low tech, mountain bike with combination tires. I used to come in contact often with road bikers and or racing clubs on my rides. The majority of which had expensive rides with apparently every gadget available. (I’m currently riding a carbon fiber bike with top of the line components so I’m not just ****** that I can’t afford nice equipment.) Here's my observation. 90 + percent of the time I passed these guys up and stayed ahead for the duration. This was on flats as well as hills and mountains. I say this not to boast but to make a point. That point, or maybe I should pose it as a question, it this. Are we (myself included) spending too much energy (and money) on technology and not enough on just plain enjoying the ride? Just a question/observation. Don't write me an angry letter because you just spent thousands on Power Monitoring equipment please. Remember I said earlier that I might just be the type to do the exact same thing.
P.S. Maybe this is a better question. How do you know when you’re crossing the line between enjoyment of the sport and just wanting all the latest technology?
P.S. # 2 I've read several more posts since writing this original. I know that it appears that I'm oversimplifying the argument/s. That has its purpose. I've found that keeping ANYTHING you do as simple as is possible to be the best plan of attack. Maybe a power meter is your way of achieving this. (See, I'm not against them) This even applies to something as complex as computer programming. The more I'm able to approach a problem by simplifying it the better luck I have with it’s operation. Of course these are just my opinions and you know what they say of opinions. They’re like a certain sphincter, and everyone has one.
Overkill - maybe. Fun, absolutely. It really depends on the kind of person you are. I love sports and the whole science behind it. Without a doubt, a PM requires some knowledge, but you learn a lot about yourself and cycling during the ramp up process. I don't race that much, but I still tremendously enjoy learning more about my body and how to push myself to the limit. And yes, I have improved my riding beyond what I thought was possible. Did I enjoy riding before, yes. Do I enjoy riding more now, yes.NORECUMYET said:
I see a hint of fangs. For the third or fourth time now, I AM NOT knocking power meters. The whole idea is foreign to me. That's all. And from the little I've learned so far it appears as if the meter that's rated very high is about $3600.00. I am not opposed to spending money for an invaluable tool. I'm trying to learn about these things.beerco said:Some of us enjoy the sport most when we're winning races. A PM and a good Plan is a great way for us to get more enjoyment
I'm extremely mechanically adept so I completely understand what is being measured here that isn't directly and exactly being measured in other ways. What I wonder is this. Is it possible to get virtually the same information from a couple of other sources? I.E., CADENCE, MPH or KPH, %GRADE, and HEART RATE. I'm confused that's all. Don't get ANGRY I may just be uninformed. Is this yet another electronic device that's going to cost 1/10 of today's cost within the next eighteen months?
Believe me, if I become convinced that a power meter will give me the ability to improve my performance in ways that what I already have CAN NOT, I'll be out there hunting down the best deal as soon as possible.
Maybe someone could give me an overview of exactly how one of these things can give me information that I can use to improve my performance in ways that the measurements I mention above simply can not give me.
And for all you that already have them and are now winning races that you could not of won before, CONGRATULATIONS! You should be proud of yourselves.
I just don't get it yet that's all. I'm not trying to bust anyone's huevos as much as doing just that is usually entertaining. It's just that I already know how many RPM my pedals have to turn to go a certain speed and I know that everyone is different and I know that I need to continually go faster than I am now and that means faster cadence for the most part. Experiance and the data I now collect tells me how far I went, the average speed, cadence, MPH, heartrate, as well as the maximums and minimums of the same, how many feet I climbed, how many I descend, devided by distance, time, location etc. along with many others that I just can't remember off hand. You mean with all that information I still need to know the exact torque I'm producing too? I'm overwhelmed. Or is it that once I can measure my torque and how fast that propels me that I won't need all the other stuff?
If you know all the appropriate data you can use this or this (amongst others).
If you check ebay you'll see that most PM's hold their value quite well. The past is no predictor of the future however...
Try CyclingPeaks site. There's a wealth of information on the benefits of PM usage there.
The other "stuff" you are referring to is very dependent upon many variables (weather conditions, hydration, altitude, and such). Power (torque*angular velocity) is independent of all those variables. Again, I encourage you to check out the CyclingPeaks site and to search this forum. There's much information on the benefits of PM's to be gleaned there.
Dave
Similar threads
