PowerCranks Study

Werehatrack who? said:

Quoted message said:

Reading between the lines of the newsletter, it looks like the study will reveal that training
with the cranks will increase power output by 'x' amount.

Quoted message said:

Any bets that the gadget merely achieves what can be had by a clipless-pedal user (or toeclip
user, for that matter) with proper training *without* the freewheeling crank and its attendant
disadvantages?

Not so. PowerCranks get out of phase the instant you fail to put forward rotational torque into the
pedal and you must stop for lack of dynamic balance of your feet.

Quoted message said:

I have little doubt that high-level professional racers already employ the technique that this
gadget's makers claim can only be learned through the use of their device.

And I'm sure that none of them do this. As I said, unless you are practiced in this trainer, you
cannot pedal a stationary bicycle on which it is mounted for more than a revolution or so before
becoming entangled in two pedals down at the same time.

Quoted message said:

They seem to think there's magic in their alleged "positive feedback", but what I see is
*negative* feedback for a non-pull return stroke, and I'm sure there are ways to learn to pull
without their widgetry.

The point is this is not a worthwhile technique, so racers and tourists do not use it.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

may have said:

Quoted message said:

They seem to think there's magic in their alleged "positive feedback", but what I see is
*negative* feedback for a non-pull return stroke, and I'm sure there are ways to learn to pull
without their widgetry.

The point is this is not a worthwhile technique, so racers and tourists do not use it.

Are you saying that the training technique of using the freewheeling pedal is what is not used, or
that racers do not use a pedalling technique that involves a lift on the upstroke? I would have no
problem believing the former, and did not suggest that serious racers (or, if I wish to be honest, I
would have to say that I do not believe that any significant percentage of serious racers) use the
gadget; however, the latter possible interpretation of your comment is certainly not supportable.

Here's one statement:

"Steve Bauer, a pro racer and a Canadian silver medalist in the 1984 Olympics says on the topic of
climbing technique: "You may want to stand at first to rest the muscles you were using on the
flat," says Bauer. "The last thing you want to do is get into trouble early on a long climb."

"Bauer suggests doing most of your work in the saddle, as you don't waste energy suspending your
bady and you have a longer power cycle available. "At the bottom of the stroke, pull back with your
hamstrings," he explains. "Then use your hip flexors to lift upthrough the top of the stroke."

That's from bicyclesource.comroad climbing.shtmlOpen ↗, but there are others.

I believe that the core technique the Powercrank "teaches" is simply what Bauer describes...and I
have litttle doubt that is is independently learnable without the need for the superfluous and
frustrating device. To maintain 180-degree separation on the PC setup, the rider *must* lift on the
upstroke, without fail. I find the prospect of having a device sitting there ready to punish me for
such an omission to be needlessly abusive.

I stand by my statement that the core technique of lifting on the upstroke can be learned without
the need for the added gadget. I believe the statements of Bauer (et al) to be adequate evidence.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

"Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

may have said:

Quoted message said:

They seem to think there's magic in their alleged "positive feedback", but what I see is
*negative* feedback for a non-pull return stroke, and I'm sure there are ways to learn to pull
without their widgetry.

The point is this is not a worthwhile technique, so racers and tourists do not use it.

Are you saying that the training technique of using the freewheeling pedal is what is not used, or
that racers do not use a pedalling technique that involves a lift on the upstroke? I would have no
problem believing the former, and did not suggest that serious racers (or, if I wish to be honest,
I would have to say that I do not believe that any significant percentage of serious racers) use
the gadget; however, the latter possible interpretation of your comment is certainly not
supportable.

Here's one statement:

"Steve Bauer, a pro racer and a Canadian silver medalist in the 1984 Olympics says on the topic
of climbing technique: "You may want to stand at first to rest the muscles you were using on the
flat," says Bauer. "The last thing you want to do is get into trouble early on a long climb."

"Bauer suggests doing most of your work in the saddle, as you don't waste energy suspending your
bady and you have a longer power cycle available. "At the bottom of the stroke, pull back with
your hamstrings," he explains. "Then use your hip flexors to lift upthrough the top of the
stroke."

That's from bicyclesource.comroad climbing.shtmlOpen ↗, but there are others.

I believe that the core technique the Powercrank "teaches" is simply what Bauer describes...and I
have litttle doubt that is is independently learnable without the need for the superfluous and
frustrating device. To maintain 180-degree separation on the PC setup, the rider *must* lift on
the upstroke, without fail. I find the prospect of having a device sitting there ready to punish
me for such an omission to be needlessly abusive.

It takes one or two rides to master the technique. It takes several weeks/months to condition the
muscles to do this continuously for several miles. Independently learnable you say, extremely
unlikely I say, and especially for someone with limited trainability.

Quoted message said:

I stand by my statement that the core technique of lifting on the upstroke can be learned without
the need for the added gadget. I believe the statements of Bauer (et al) to be adequate evidence.

Seasoned cyclists (so called trained using one legged drills) can barely complete 200 meters without
hamstrings and hip flexors giving out. To think that these muscles can be called upon to provide
significant contribution in a sustained climb without being adequately trained is a stretch, don't
you think.

Phil Holman

Phil Holman' may have said:

"Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I stand by my statement that the core technique of lifting on the upstroke can be learned without
the need for the added gadget. I believe the statements of Bauer (et al) to be adequate evidence.

Seasoned cyclists (so called trained using one legged drills) can barely complete 200 meters
without hamstrings and hip flexors giving out. To think that these muscles can be called upon to
provide significant contribution in a sustained climb without being adequately trained is a
stretch, don't you think.

I agree, it's like an American football fan thinking they could hit a field goal from the 40
yard line themselves if they had a few practice shots first; it takes more than simply having
seen it done.

As for the PC's alleged benefits, I doubt that the average recreational cyclist either needs to, or
would, use the lift-on-upstroke technique, though some fraction very well may be doing so. But I
also doubt that the dedicated competitive cyclist would either not have heard of the technique, or
have failed to make the attempt to learn it; indeed, your comment about training seems to indicate
that the racer likely would. After that, it's like everything else, once the technique has been
acquired, it's a matter of repetitive application to maintain the facility. After all, the fact that
a cyclist *can* do something does not mandate that they *must* use it at all times; if the muscles
are only good for 200 yards (I'm sure that with judicious use instead of all-out application, a
longer run would be sustainable) then I have to think that the racer with that capability available
will use it where it will benefit the effort most.

For simple recreational riding, though, I wholeheartedly agree that there's no significant point in
spending time developing something that, as you are no doubt correct, would be of only infrequent
short-duration usefulness. And as such, I can't see any reason for a recreational rider to deal with
the PC's aggravation, particularly since if someone simply *wants* to develop flexor and hamstring
strength to use those muscles on the upstroke when riding recreationally, there's nothing that will
prevent them from employing it even if they've never heard of the gadget.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

may have said:

Werehatrack who? said:

Any bets that the gadget merely achieves what can be had by a clipless-pedal user (or toeclip
user, for that matter) with proper training *without* the freewheeling crank and its attendant
disadvantages?

Not so. PowerCranks get out of phase the instant you fail to put forward rotational torque into the
pedal and you must stop for lack of dynamic balance of your feet.

I was speaking of what they *claim* to achieve under ideal conditions and after much application,
not what occurs instantaneously during the process.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

Actually, rowers are _more_ efficient aerobically than cyclists. The limiting factor isn't the
lungs, but the circulatory system. Because rowers are able to recruit a larger number of "large"
muscles than a cyclist to do the work, they can put the same amount of blood through a larger number
of capillaries, and hence return a larger amount of blood back to the heart. (In engineering terms,
the impedence of their circulatory system is less.) The net result is that they can do more "work"
in the same amount of time -- i.e., produce more "power".

The primary reason why you don't see rowers doing very long rows is that there are no long rowing
races in elite events like the Olympics. As a result, rowers don't train for multiple hour races.

Similarly, cross country skiers also utilize a larger number of muscles, and since they _do_
regularly compete in very long races, they can produce large amounts of power for hours on end.

However, the rower can't apply the power efficiently to propel himself, which is why he is going at
the pace of a slow run, rather than 50kph. Most of his power goes into wakes in the water.

n crowley said:

Originally posted by Tim McNamara In article <[email hidden]>,

(n crowley) said:

Rowers combine arm and leg power to improve performance and it does not burden their heart and
lungs.

Yes it does. Rowers are far less efficient aerobically than cyclists, and cannot keep up
competitive efforts for an hour or more at a time, as can cyclists. It's very simple: more muscles
in use increases the burden on the cardiovascular system.

"Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Phil Holman' may have said:

"Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I stand by my statement that the core technique of lifting on the upstroke can be learned
without the need for the added gadget. I believe the statements of Bauer (et al) to be adequate
evidence.

Seasoned cyclists (so called trained using one legged drills) can

barely

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

complete 200 meters without hamstrings and hip flexors giving out. To think that these muscles
can be called upon to provide significant contribution in a sustained climb without being
adequately trained is

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

stretch, don't you think.

I agree, it's like an American football fan thinking they could hit a field goal from the 40
yard line themselves if they had a few practice shots first; it takes more than simply having
seen it done.

As for the PC's alleged benefits, I doubt that the average recreational cyclist either needs to,
or would, use the lift-on-upstroke technique, though some fraction very well may be doing so. But
I also doubt that the dedicated competitive cyclist would either not have heard of the technique,
or have failed to make the attempt to learn it; indeed, your comment about training seems to
indicate that the racer likely would. After that, it's like everything else, once the technique
has been acquired, it's a matter of repetitive application to maintain the facility. After all,
the fact that a cyclist *can* do something does not mandate that they *must* use it at all times;
if the muscles are only good for 200 yards (I'm sure that with judicious use instead of all-out
application, a longer run would be sustainable) then I have to think that the racer with that
capability available will use it where it will benefit the effort most.

For simple recreational riding, though, I wholeheartedly agree that there's no significant point
in spending time developing something that, as you are no doubt correct, would be of only
infrequent short-duration usefulness. And as such, I can't see any reason for a recreational rider
to deal with the PC's aggravation, particularly since if someone simply *wants* to develop flexor
and hamstring strength to use those muscles on the upstroke when riding recreationally, there's
nothing that will prevent them from employing it even if they've never heard of the gadget.

I agree with most of what you say here. These are a tough workout and I don't see much benefit for a
recreational rider. Those who race on the other hand and spend a lot of time dedicated to improving
their performance do have a potential for improvement. The *no pain, no gain* is the epitome of PCs.

Phil Holman

may have said:

The primary reason why you don't see rowers doing very long rows is that there are no long rowing
races in elite events like the Olympics. As a result, rowers don't train for multiple hour races.

No doubt partly because of the dearth of suitable venues; where would you hold a race of hours in
length? Crossing Lake Okeechobee early in the day, before the water has had a chance to develop any
chop? (Dodging the odd alligator in the process, and fleeing from the swarms of mosquitoes...)

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

Rowing is boring enough to watch already! I can't imagine the suspense in a race where one boat
finishes 1/2 hour before the next. (Yes, I know that the recent Oxford/Cambridge race was a
cliffhanger, but it's the first one in a century or so!)

Werehatrack said:

may have said:

The primary reason why you don't see rowers doing very long rows is that there are no long rowing
races in elite events like the Olympics. As a result, rowers don't train for multiple hour races.

No doubt partly because of the dearth of suitable venues; where would you hold a race of hours in
length? Crossing Lake Okeechobee early in the day, before the water has had a chance to develop any
chop? (Dodging the odd alligator in the process, and fleeing from the swarms of mosquitoes...)

Werehatrack writes anonymously:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They seem to think there's magic in their alleged "positive feedback", but what I see is
*negative* feedback for a non-pull return stroke, and I'm sure there are ways to learn to pull
without their widgetry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The point is this is not a worthwhile technique, so racers and tourists do not use it.

Quoted message said:

Are you saying that the training technique of using the freewheeling pedal is what is not used, or
that racers do not use a pedaling technique that involves a lift on the upstroke? I would have no
problem believing the former, and did not suggest that serious racers (or, if I wish to be honest,
I would have to say that I do not believe that any significant percentage of serious racers) use
the gadget; however, the latter possible interpretation of your comment is certainly not
supportable.

I mean pedaling with uninterrupted forward torque with both feet. No one does this sitting or
standing. If you don't believe it, I suggest you try riding Power Cranks for even short attempt. The
feet get out of synchronous (180 degree separation) almost immediately for anyone riding forcefully.
Keeping the cranks 180 degrees apart is a tedious trial fro anyone who isn't well trained in
demonstrating them. Doing any real work on them is essentially out of the question.

Quoted message said:

Here's one statement:

Quoted message said:

"Steve Bauer, a pro racer and a Canadian silver medalist in the 1984 Olympics says on the topic
of climbing technique: "You may want to stand at first to rest the muscles you were using on the
flat," says Bauer. "The last thing you want to do is get into trouble early on a long climb."

Quoted message said:

"Bauer suggests doing most of your work in the saddle, as you don't waste energy suspending your
body and you have a longer power cycle available. "At the bottom of the stroke, pull back with
your hamstrings," he explains. "Then use your hip flexors to lift up through the top of the
stroke."

Quoted message said:

That's from bicyclesource.comroad climbing.shtmlOpen ↗, but there are others.

Well too bad Lance Armstrong didn't know this. As you see, on the most important mountain stage, the
one on which he fell, he rode standing most of the way. You can be damn sure he didn't use the
PowerCrank method.

Quoted message said:

I believe that the core technique the PowerCrank "teaches" is simply what Bauer describes... and I
have little doubt that is is independently learnable without the need for the superfluous and
frustrating device. To maintain 180-degree separation on the PC setup, the rider *must* lift on
the upstroke, without fail. I find the prospect of having a device sitting there ready to punish
me for such an omission to be needlessly abusive.

Oh no! That's too simple. The rider must pull back, pull up and push forward over the top with no
lapse or he must stop and re-orient the cranks.

Quoted message said:

I stand by my statement that the core technique of lifting on the upstroke can be learned without
the need for the added gadget. I believe the statements of Bauer (et al) to be adequate evidence.

I don't think we need to quote anyone on that it is so obvious.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Phil Holman said:

It takes one or two rides to master the technique. It takes several weeks/months to condition the
muscles to do this continuously for several miles. Independently learnable you say, extremely
unlikely I say, and especially for someone with limited trainability.

So how long would it take the top professional bicycle racers to master these cranks? I believe your
estimate may be correct but why would one want to go through this bizarre learning drill? Are
proponents of the human flight project unaware that power output for humans was studied to death
there and that conventional pedaling in the upright position came out as the optimum. What you
suggest implies that McCready didn't know what he was doing with the gossamer albatross.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I stand by my statement that the core technique of lifting on the upstroke can be learned without
the need for the added gadget. I believe the statements of Bauer (et al) to be adequate evidence.

Quoted message said:

Seasoned cyclists (so called trained using one legged drills) can barely complete 200 meters
without hamstrings and hip flexors giving out.

So apparently a seasoned bicyclist doesn't need to do such work with his legs or they could do that.

Quoted message said:

To think that these muscles can be called upon to provide significant contribution in a sustained
climb without being adequately trained is a stretch, don't you think.

Have you talked to Lance Armstrong about this because it would most likely assure a sixth TdF win if
he were to avail himself of such a large advantage in pedaling power.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

N? Crowley said:

No but I have an interesting pedaling technique which almost reverses the rowing technique,
instead of the arms applying the power to the oars, the feet apply the power to the pedals while
making maximum use of arm pulling up power to increase that pedal power whenever the necessity
for this extra power arises.

That's interesting. Well trained bicycle racers do not pull up on the bars at all. The bars are
used in sprinting or steep climbing while standing in order to counter the torque of pulling up
on the rear pedal. This is done by pushing down with one hand and pulling up with the other, the
push being grater than the pull. If this were not down the rider would fall off the bicycle. This
is not work because the arms do not articulate while providing this counter force. However, for
the longer term, a gear is selected that does not require pulling up on pedals. That's the reason
for gears.

No cyclist pulls up on the bars when riding at speed in the saddle because when using the normal
round or natural pedaling style, it is impossible. By mentally switching to a linear technique when
generating and applying the power to the pedals, everything changes and what was impossible becomes
possible. The upper body arm power that you would use to power hand cranks can be biomechanically
combined with the leg power to not only increase the overall pedal power but also eliminate the 11
to 1 o'clock dead spot area, giving continuous power application to the pedals. But first you need
to be a good round pedaler because the most beneficial pedaling is as much mental as physical and
to get that message across to you Powercranks would be needed for a year or two.

Phil Holman said:

"Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:13:39 GMT, [email hidden] may have said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I stand by my statement that the core technique of lifting on the upstroke can be learned without
the need for the added gadget. I believe the statements of Bauer (et al) to be adequate evidence.

Seasoned cyclists (so called trained using one legged drills) can barely complete 200 meters
without hamstrings and hip flexors giving out. To think that these muscles can be called upon to
provide significant contribution in a sustained climb without being adequately trained is a
stretch, don't you think.

Phil Holman

My 2¢ ...

I don't think I get the point in the above but that has never stopped me yet...

I was trained using one legged drills ... I'm now old and way lame but I still can do much more than
200 meters... my biggest issue is pulling out of my SPD pedals on the upstroke.

At issue I suppose is what is significant, I don't think any increase is insignificant. I also don't
think you need a gizmo to learn to do this.

may have said:

Oh no! That's too simple. The rider must pull back, pull up and push forward over the top with no
lapse or he must stop and re-orient the cranks.

Well, the only part of that which apparently isn't already independently advocated by people who
have no apparent connection to Powercranks is the push forward. and somehow I don't think that one
small increment could make any difference. We're really on the same page about the idea that this
gadget is more of an aggravation than a boon, in any event. It's only the contention that the
learned technique is of value which you seem to maintain is inherently useless, and there are quite
evidently racers who do, in fact, use it. The fact that Lance Armstrong did something that appears
incompatible with its usage in some instance does not prove anything; he very well *may* be using it
where appropriate. I'm quite certain he does a lot of things that are not apparent at a distance of
a few yard behind him, let alone a separation of several thousand miles.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

Quoted message said:

Werehatrack writes anonymously:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's one statement:

Quoted message said:

"Steve Bauer, a pro racer and a Canadian silver medalist in the 1984 Olympics says on the topic
of climbing technique: "You may want to stand at first to rest the muscles you were using on the
flat," says Bauer. "The last thing you want to do is get into trouble early on a long climb."

Quoted message said:

"Bauer suggests doing most of your work in the saddle, as you don't waste energy suspending your
body and you have a longer power cycle available. "At the bottom of the stroke, pull back with
your hamstrings," he explains. "Then use your hip flexors to lift up through the top of the
stroke."

Quoted message said:

That's from bicyclesource.comroad climbing.shtmlOpen ↗, but there are others.

Well too bad Lance Armstrong didn't know this. As you see, on the most important mountain stage,
the one on which he fell, he rode standing most of the way. You can be damn sure he didn't use the
PowerCrank method.

I have no doubt that Bauer et al. themselves believe in the above technique. But athletes believe in
anything to get a mental edge, since margins at the top are so small. Finnish x-country skiers
believed a special cow milk did all kinds of wonders. (Please, no debates on that!) The perception
may have little to do with actual efficient power outpout.

Didn't someone on this group quote a study of pedaling technique and where in the pedal stroke the
power is generated, regardless of how circular the rider thinks he is?

Jan Lindström [email hidden]

N? Crowley said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No but I have an interesting pedaling technique which almost reverses the rowing technique,
instead of the arms applying the power to the oars, the feet apply the power to the pedals while
making maximum use of arm pulling up power to increase that pedal power whenever the necessity
for this extra power arises.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's interesting. Well trained bicycle racers do not pull up on the bars at all. The bars are
used in sprinting or steep climbing while standing in order to counter the torque of pulling up
on the rear pedal. This is done by pushing down with one hand and pulling up with the other, the
push being grater than the pull. If this were not down the rider would fall off the bicycle. This
is not work because the arms do not articulate while providing this counter force. However, for
the longer term, a gear is selected that does not require pulling up on pedals. That's the reason
for gears.

Quoted message said:

No cyclist pulls up on the bars when riding at speed in the saddle because when using the normal
round or natural pedaling style, it is impossible.

They don't pull up on the bars when standing either. As I said they push down and pull up on the
opposite sides of the bars to counter the torque of pedaling.

Quoted message said:

By mentally switching to a linear technique when generating and applying the power to the pedals,
everything changes and what was impossible becomes possible.

I don't know what your "linear technique" is but I am sure it makes no difference to the subject at
hand, which is that bicyclists do not introduce power to bicycle propulsion with their arms. Work is
done by moving a force through a distance. The arms supply a static counter force to pedaling but
the muscles do not extend or contract in that effort. The bicycle is leaned to the left or the right
in the neutral phase are the top of the pedal stroke and therefore does not constitute muscular work
although it requires strength.

Quoted message said:

The upper body arm power that you would use to power hand cranks can be biomechanically combined
with the leg power to not only increase the overall pedal power but also eliminate the 11 to 1
o'clock dead spot area, giving continuous power application to the pedals.

Can you explain how static arm force propels the bicycle.

Quoted message said:

But first you need to be a good round pedaler because the most beneficial pedaling is as much
mental as physical and to get that message across to you PowerCranks would be needed for a
year or two.

The case for "round pedaling" is a tenuous as that of ankling. If you observe proficient riders in a
TT, you'll notice that they don't "round pedal" something that is evident from upper body motion as
they throw their weight on the downward pedal.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

RE/

Quoted message said:

Let's not get pedaling rate confused with "round pedaling", a subject similar to the study of
ankling of the past.

I think I had "spin" mixed up with "round pedaling".
--
PeteCresswell

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Phil Holman said:

It takes one or two rides to master the technique. It takes several weeks/months to condition
the muscles to do this continuously for several miles. Independently learnable you say,
extremely unlikely I say, and especially for someone with limited trainability.

So how long would it take the top professional bicycle racers to master these cranks? I believe
your estimate may be correct but why would one want to go through this bizarre learning drill? Are
proponents of the human flight project unaware that power output for humans was studied to death
there and that conventional pedaling in the upright position came out as the optimum. What you
suggest implies that McCready didn't know what he was doing with the gossamer albatross.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I stand by my statement that the core technique of lifting on the upstroke can be learned
without the need for the added gadget. I believe the statements of Bauer (et al) to be adequate
evidence.

Quoted message said:

Seasoned cyclists (so called trained using one legged drills) can

barely

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

complete 200 meters without hamstrings and hip flexors giving out.

So apparently a seasoned bicyclist doesn't need to do such work with his legs or they could
do that.

Quoted message said:

To think that these muscles can be called upon to provide significant contribution in a
sustained climb without being adequately trained is a stretch, don't you think.

Have you talked to Lance Armstrong about this because it would most likely assure a sixth TdF win
if he were to avail himself of such a large advantage in pedaling power.

Fat cats don't hunt, Ulrich might be a better prospect. Check out the data I posted in a
later thread.

Phil Holman

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Jobst Brandt

BN? Crowley said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No but I have an interesting pedaling technique which almost reverses the rowing technique,
instead of the arms applying the power to the oars, the feet apply the power to the pedals while
making maximum use of arm pulling up power to increase that pedal power whenever the necessity
for this extra power arises.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's interesting. Well trained bicycle racers do not pull up on the bars at all. The bars are
used in sprinting or steep climbing while standing in order to counter the torque of pulling up
on the rear pedal. This is done by pushing down with one hand and pulling up with the other, the
push being grater than the pull. If this were not down the rider would fall off the bicycle. This
is not work because the arms do not articulate while providing this counter force. However, for
the longer term, a gear is selected that does not require pulling up on pedals. That's the reason
for gears.

Quoted message said:

No cyclist pulls up on the bars when riding at speed in the saddle because when using the normal
round or natural pedaling style, it is impossible.

They don't pull up on the bars when standing either. As I said they push down and pull up on the
opposite sides of the bars to counter the torque of pedaling.

Quoted message said:

By mentally switching to a linear technique when generating and applying the power to the pedals,
everything changes and what was impossible becomes possible.

I don't know what your "linear technique" is but I am sure it makes no difference to the subject at
hand, which is that bicyclists do not introduce power to bicycle propulsion with their arms. Work is
done by moving a force through a distance. The arms supply a static counter force to pedaling but
the muscles do not extend or contract in that effort. The bicycle is leaned to the left or the right
in the neutral phase are the top of the pedal stroke and therefore does not constitute muscular work
although it requires strength.

Quoted message said:

The upper body arm power that you would use to power hand cranks can be biomechanically combined
with the leg power to not only increase the overall pedal power but also eliminate the 11 to 1
o'clock dead spot area, giving continuous power application to the pedals.

Can you explain how static arm force propels the bicycle.

Quoted message said:

But first you need to be a good round pedaler because the most beneficial pedaling is as much
mental as physical and to get that message across to you PowerCranks would be needed for a
year or two.

The case for "round pedaling" is a tenuous as that of ankling. If you observe proficient riders in a
TT, you'll notice that they don't "round pedal" something that is evident from upper body motion as
they throw their weight on the downward pedal.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden] [/B]

Concentrate on the wheels, forget about the pedaling. Round
pedaling helps relax the muscles and leads to smooth pedaling
but for competitive purposes it is useless. But you need to have
that smooth style before moving on to the far more powerful
linear technique. The upper and lower body act as a unit, the
very discreet pulling and pushing on the bars have two main
advantages, the pulling supplies the resistance necessary for
the linear power generation technique while the pushing supports
all of the upper body weight. With all upper body weight suppported by the arm and all pedal power generating strain
absorbed by the hips, the lower back is left free of all strain and
the root cause of all cycling related lower back pain is removed.
If you want to see how linear pedaling is done, take a look at
the video of J Anquetil's racing years. There are some perfect
examples there and you will see how he starts his main power
stroke at 11 o'clock, eliminating the dead spot area in the process.

Jan Lindström <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>... [snip]

Quoted message said:

. . . Finnish x-country skiers believed a special cow milk did all
kinds of wonders. (Please, no debates on that!)

[snip]

Dear Jan,

Rec.bicycles.tech is no place to beg for mercy!

I demand to know what secret cow milk fuelled the Finnish cross-country ski team, what advantages
they obtained, and whether you're using it yourself to cross the finnish line first!

Full disclowsure!

Mooo!

Carl Fogel