|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Beware of PowerCranks
On Mon, 28 May 2007 09:35:02 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote: In article .com, " wrote: On May 27, 2:12 pm, Ride Faster wrote: I had the same experience with PowerCranks. This product is garbage. It's really outrageous for them Powercrank to charge so much for a faulty design. The proprietor of PowerCranks used to post here to rebut criticisms, but I haven't seen anything from him for a while. Basically I suspect that the price is high because (1) he promises that his product will make you faster for which competitive people will pay lots of money and (2) his business is small enough that he doesn't get much by way of economies of scale to bring his production costs down. That is likely true. Plus, the "design flaw" is specifically addressed in the instruction manual. Maybe the O.P. didn't read it thoroughly - I didn't and had my non-drive side crank arm come off during a ride early this spring. Since I also lost the oversized crank bolt, I called the company to order a new bolt and ask what was up. The owner personally returned my call left on voice mail, and asked if I has used lock tite on the bolt when I installed it. Uh, no, I replied (lock tite on a crank bolt?). It's in the manual he replied: they do tend to vibrate off, so we recommend blue lock tite (or similar non permanent thread adhesive) . Plus, he also suggested this: remove the crank bolt from your old cranks, which is used when the Powercrank is first installed; this allows the Powercrank bolt a few extra turns for tightness. So I followed those instructions and have had no further issues. About the product: the cranks ARE hugely expensive (the above explanation makes sense to me), but they are uniquely beneficial in terms of building leg strength and "muscle memory". You are moving the mass of the bike and rider one leg at a time, so you must pedal in the proverbial circle, and you must use muscles you don't normally use to accomplish that feat. They are so hard on the legs that the first time most people try them (I definitely recommend on a trainer), you don't last more than 5 minutes before pain and fatigue ends your ride. You slowly build up endurance and learn to equalize your leg speed and timing so that you can pedal "normally", and then you can take them on the road. I found that spinning at higher cadences was more painful than big gears at low cadence. Climbing a steep hill slowly hurt LESS than flat tempo with a cadence above even 80 rpm (on these puppies, even a molasses like 70 rpm is a bitch ). To be honest, now that the season is in full swing I haven't been using them much, and that contradicts the manual. It would take a long, painful effort to adjust to high cadences. Maybe next year :-) Even with the curtailed training, there is no question that my pedal stroke improved after many trainer miles over the winter and spring: I can get the "feel" of a rounder stroke. And, no question that my climbing was better early season as well. So I'm keeping mine and will be interested to see how far I get on them next season. If anybody is interested in them and saving (a bit of) money, there are always 3 or 4 for sale on e-bay. People seem to either really like them or really hate them. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Beware of PowerCranks
On 26 May 2007 07:08:06 -0700, Eggs Ackley wrote:
On May 25, 10:29 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote: wrote: A *grand*?!? Anyone that dumb deserves a little grief... Boy, I'll say. I've got an Ava stem I'd like to sell this guy. Only 500 bucks! Contact me offline. Heck, he can save money by buying my one bolt Icon stem for only $100! Leaves that much more for the survivors. Ron |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Beware of PowerCranks
"Tim McNamara" wrote in message ... In article .com, " wrote: On May 27, 2:12 pm, Ride Faster wrote: I had the same experience with PowerCranks. This product is garbage. It's really outrageous for them Powercrank to charge so much for a faulty design. The proprietor of PowerCranks used to post here to rebut criticisms, but I haven't seen anything from him for a while. Basically I suspect that the price is high because (1) he promises that his product will make you faster for which competitive people will pay lots of money and (2) his business is small enough that he doesn't get much by way of economies of scale to bring his production costs down. Frank Day. His last posts here were after a scientific study showed a statistically significant 1.5% gross efficiency improvement. The experts here still wouldn't buy it. Phil H |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Beware of PowerCranks
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:39:13 -0700, "Phil Holman"
piholmanc@yourservice wrote: "Tim McNamara" wrote in message ... In article .com, " wrote: On May 27, 2:12 pm, Ride Faster wrote: I had the same experience with PowerCranks. This product is garbage. It's really outrageous for them Powercrank to charge so much for a faulty design. The proprietor of PowerCranks used to post here to rebut criticisms, but I haven't seen anything from him for a while. Basically I suspect that the price is high because (1) he promises that his product will make you faster for which competitive people will pay lots of money and (2) his business is small enough that he doesn't get much by way of economies of scale to bring his production costs down. Frank Day. His last posts here were after a scientific study showed a statistically significant 1.5% gross efficiency improvement. The experts here still wouldn't buy it. Phil H Dear Phil, No offense, but that sounds like 200 watts rising to 203 watts. Cheers, Carl Fogel |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Beware of PowerCranks
wrote in message ... On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:39:13 -0700, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote: "Tim McNamara" wrote in message ... In article .com, " wrote: On May 27, 2:12 pm, Ride Faster wrote: I had the same experience with PowerCranks. This product is garbage. It's really outrageous for them Powercrank to charge so much for a faulty design. The proprietor of PowerCranks used to post here to rebut criticisms, but I haven't seen anything from him for a while. Basically I suspect that the price is high because (1) he promises that his product will make you faster for which competitive people will pay lots of money and (2) his business is small enough that he doesn't get much by way of economies of scale to bring his production costs down. Frank Day. His last posts here were after a scientific study showed a statistically significant 1.5% gross efficiency improvement. The experts here still wouldn't buy it. Phil H Dear Phil, No offense, but that sounds like 200 watts rising to 203 watts. Hi Carl, Run the calculation again going from 23.5% to 25% efficiency. Phil H |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Beware of PowerCranks
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:22:45 -0700, "Phil Holman"
piholmanc@yourservice wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:39:13 -0700, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote: "Tim McNamara" wrote in message ... In article .com, " wrote: On May 27, 2:12 pm, Ride Faster wrote: I had the same experience with PowerCranks. This product is garbage. It's really outrageous for them Powercrank to charge so much for a faulty design. The proprietor of PowerCranks used to post here to rebut criticisms, but I haven't seen anything from him for a while. Basically I suspect that the price is high because (1) he promises that his product will make you faster for which competitive people will pay lots of money and (2) his business is small enough that he doesn't get much by way of economies of scale to bring his production costs down. Frank Day. His last posts here were after a scientific study showed a statistically significant 1.5% gross efficiency improvement. The experts here still wouldn't buy it. Phil H Dear Phil, No offense, but that sounds like 200 watts rising to 203 watts. Hi Carl, Run the calculation again going from 23.5% to 25% efficiency. Phil H Dear Phil, Ah, so it was a 6.4% difference. As I recall, the theory was that the PowerCrank forced riders to use muscles to raise each leg that normally weren't recruited because the riders let their other leg do most of the work. With more muscles involved, the theory went, things improved. Am I right in thinking that there was an implied assumption that no placebo effect encouraged the PowerCrank group to train harder with their new toy for weeks than the other group, which used the same old equipment? That is, was there any consideration of whether the effect was due mostly to independent crank arms or whether it was due to the crank arms encouraging more training effort? Cheers, Carl Fogel |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Beware of PowerCranks
On Jun 3, 5:46 am, wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:39:13 -0700, "Phil Holman" Frank Day. His last posts here were after a scientific study showed a statistically significant 1.5% gross efficiency improvement. The experts here still wouldn't buy it. No offense, but that sounds like 200 watts rising to 203 watts. Well, the difference was in gross efficiency, not in power. Frank Day calls them PowerCranks, not EfficiencyCranks. Phil may know whether there has been a published RCT that shows an increase in power. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Beware of PowerCranks
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:42:15 -0600, wrote:
Am I right in thinking that there was an implied assumption that no placebo effect encouraged the PowerCrank group to train harder with their new toy for weeks than the other group, which used the same old equipment? I don't know, but no one who has just started using PowerCranks can ride the same distance/time/speed on them as with normal cranks for at least several months until they are used to them. -- JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com **************************** |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Beware of PowerCranks
On Jun 3, 6:42 am, wrote:
Am I right in thinking that there was an implied assumption that no placebo effect encouraged the PowerCrank group to train harder with their new toy for weeks than the other group, which used the same old equipment? In the study, in-lab training time was equal between the PowerCranks and control group (1 hr per day, 3 days per week, 6 weeks of training). I guess you have to assume that the subjects weren't spending their unobserved free time doing extra workouts in an effort to screw with the results. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Beware of PowerCranks
wrote in message ups.com... On Jun 3, 5:46 am, wrote: On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:39:13 -0700, "Phil Holman" Frank Day. His last posts here were after a scientific study showed a statistically significant 1.5% gross efficiency improvement. The experts here still wouldn't buy it. No offense, but that sounds like 200 watts rising to 203 watts. Well, the difference was in gross efficiency, not in power. Frank Day calls them PowerCranks, not EfficiencyCranks. Phil may know whether there has been a published RCT that shows an increase in power. I just checked their website and found another study of trained cyclists that showed a 15.6% increase in VO2max and an 11.6% icrease in max power. http://powercranks.com/assets/pdfs/C...dixon_2006.pdf A test of maximum sustainable aerobic output would be nice. I see on their website they have several more top pros using them. Phil H |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Beware of PowerCranks | [email protected] | Racing | 205 | August 4th 07 07:23 PM |
Beware of PowerCranks | [email protected] | Techniques | 202 | August 4th 07 07:23 PM |
FS: POwerCranks- | Mike | Marketplace | 0 | December 24th 05 04:52 AM |
FS: Powercranks | steve | Marketplace | 0 | December 19th 05 04:53 AM |
POWERCRANKS | Marketplace | 0 | January 20th 04 01:33 AM |