Powercranks

wrote in message
...
Bill who? writes:

Hi. I'm new the the group but thought this would be the right place
to ask. Just got a set of Powercranks and put them on the bike
I've been using on my Computrainer. Gee, I used to enjoy my
Computrainer! Now I can only ride it for about 3 miles! Anyone
else had experience with Powercranks? Does this get better or is
this why I see them on e-bay so often?

Here is some interesting feedback:

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=1882

The author, Josh Horowitz, should be comming upon his one month
update shortly.

That makes painful reading for me, having ridden Power Cranks on a
demo just long enough to understand what the concept is. No doubt it
is exhausting and it builds new muscles to do a task that ordinary
cranks make unnecessary. The easiest way to return the foot/pedal/leg
from the bottom of the stroke to the next power stroke is to let it
ride. That is, unless you don;t have two reasonably equal legs that
are balanced when you sit on the bicycle without a chain.

If you see two riders, one with weight lifter muscles and a slim, no
fat rider with big lungs, I believe that most riders will recognize
the bikie as the slender guy. That's because only for sprints are big
extra muscles useful. The limit of most fit bicyclists is not muscles
but cardiovascular. More muscles and using otherwise unused muscles
in propulsion is someone's dream of a speed secret.

This goes in the same bucket as round pedaling and ankling.

This sounds so much like patent medicine with no supporting evidence:

Save your debunking for Easter bunnies, Keebler elves and thinner thighs
in 30 days.

http://tinyurl.com/2nthp

There is plenty of empirical observation plus it is now supported by
some scientific testing which at the very least would require the most
cynical pundit to re-evaluate their position. With your demonstrated
bias and misconceptions of physiological function I wouldn't even
consider you worthy of that category.

Phil Holman

I hadn't though of it that way but now that you mention it, it is a
great act of faith, a type of religion. As long as there is that
faint thread of credibility there will be faithful followers, the
fainter the thread the greater the faith. People love to believe in
unbelievable things.

Jobst: "Faith" and "belief systems" aren't such a terrible thing; people do
tend to succeed at that which they believe in. I have no doubt that my
employee is now pedaling more smoothly, and developing power more equally in
both legs. He is probably even able to ride faster now because of it.

But... if he'd demonstrated the same amount of resolve at other types of
training, he may have accomplished similar or even better results. But
there is obviously something that appeals to him about the Powercranks,
something that caused him to buy into the religion as it were. For him,
it's possible they might be the best thing to come along. For someone else,
absolutely not. Particularly for the poster who expected to get used to
them in just a few rides!!!

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

wrote in message
...
Mike Jacoubowsky writes:

Hi. I'm new the the group but thought this would be the right
place to ask. Just got a set of Powercranks and put them on the
bike I've been using on my Computrainer. Gee, I used to enjoy my
Computrainer! Now I can only ride it for about 3 miles! Anyone
else had experience with Powercranks? Does this get better or is
this why I see them on e-bay so often?

One of our employees uses Powercranks; it's taken him months and
months and months to get proficient at them. This is apparently
normal; they require a degree of dedication that goes beyond simple
logic... you've really got to believe in them in an almost religious
manner.

I hadn't though of it that way but now that you mention it, it is a
great act of faith, a type of religion. As long as there is that
faint thread of credibility there will be faithful followers, the
fainter the thread the greater the faith. People love to believe in
unbelievable things.

Jobst Brandt

Tim McNamara wrote:

Terry Morse writes:

Even in a flat TT comparison, it's not Indurain's muscle mass that
makes him faster than Pantani. Indurain simply has a bigger
cardiovascular engine. Pantani's power-to-weight ratio is higher,
even though his max. power output is lower.

You also have to factor in aerodynamics; the two are not going to be
that much different but Indurain has more power available by having
much more muscle mass. So while Pantani's power-to-weight ratio is
better, Indurain's "power-to-drag" ratio is superior. The math has
been published on this, jeez, years ago.

Indurain's greater muscle mass would be of no consequence if he
didn't have the massive cardiovascular engine to drive them. Cycling
is an aerobic activity, not a strength activity; Indurain has more
power because his engine is bigger. Except for sprints, the limit of
performance in cycling is not the amount of leg muscle.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

Phil Holman writes:

This goes in the same bucket as round pedaling and ankling.

This sounds so much like patent medicine with no supporting evidence:

Save your debunking for Easter bunnies, Keebler elves and thinner
thighs in 30 days.

http://tinyurl.com/2nthp

There is plenty of empirical observation plus it is now supported by
some scientific testing which at the very least would require the
most cynical pundit to re-evaluate their position. With your
demonstrated bias and misconceptions of physiological function I
wouldn't even consider you worthy of that category.

The article is full of qualified claims that can mean almost anything.
Let's see how the same high level racers perform on TT's before and
after this regimen. For instance, how did they do on the Mt Evans
Hill Climb or on a flat one rather than "better gross efficiency on a
submaximal ride".

This like many gimmicks of the past will fade into obscurity after all
the hyperbole.

Jobst Brandt

Jim Riley wrote:

The verdict of the experts is in: sub-sprint-intensity cycling
performance is completely determined by cardiovascular capacity and
wind resistance, with weight also playing a role only on steep climbs.
Having thought this through to its logical conclusion, I hereby offer
three suggestions that I believe will revolutionize cycling as we know
it:

1. Lower your seat and handlebars by six inches; you'll probably have
to purchase a smaller frame, but it will be worth it. Sitting high
enough to straighten the legs to within 30 degrees or so of full
extension is a waste. People do it in the name of "efficiency" or
"muscular endurance" or some such pseudo-science, but obviously if you
sit six inches lower you'll still have the same cardiovascular
capacity, hence the same power. Your wind resistance will be
considerably less due to your lower profile, so you'll go faster.

2. The appropriate innovation in cranks is not PowerCranks but
ShortCranks -- the shorter the better, but something in the
neighborhood of 60 mm should suffice. Any machine shop should be able
to make this modification to your existing cranks, as long as they're
not carbon. This will further stabilize and reduce your aerodynamic
profile, and again your cardiovascular system will produce as many
watts as ever. The result, of course, is that you'll go faster still.
As an additional benefit, bicycles fitted with ShortCranks can have
lower bottom brackets, allowing you to sit closer to the ground and
achieve even less wind resistance; frame builders, however, will need
some time to catch up to this innovation....

Here is a bicycle that has taken reduced frontal area to the extreme of
using a video camera instead of a windshield. The limiting factor in
reducing frontal area in this case is the space required for the
reciprocating motion of the rider's legs.

The approach is effective, as the bike has exceeded 78-mph (125-kph) in
flat, no wind conditions, with an amateur rider.

http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2002/photos_sat/whpsc2002-sprints-kyleedge.jpg.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
"Andre" writes:

finally a scientific response.

Carl Fogel:

If it's a Hawthorne-style placebo effect (initial improvement
caused by being observed), then it will join many other
contraptions that motivated people to work harder and then credit
the contraptions with the results of their extra effort.

The Hawthorne effect is an interesting notion in this regard, although
it's not a placebo effect per se. There are similarities in the two
concepts that make them easy to confuse.

Here's some information on the Hawthorne effect for the bored:
http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/hawth.html

Dear Tim,

I agree that the two are technically different
effects, but I think that their similarities
combine quite nicely.

As in the true Hawthorne effect, the subject
seems to be motivated by being observed in
our typical stirring tales of bicycle improvement,
in which--sweet Jesus!--the subject is also the
observer.

(There is no Hawthorne effect when the subject
is observed secretly--you can watch me for weeks
through a telescope without motivating me to pedal
any faster.)

As in a true placebo effect, the subject also
has pre-existing expectations that whatever
contraption is being tested will help him,
which it often does, suggesting that expectations
have consequences when it's important how hard we
try.

(There is no placebo effect, for example, when
people are told that a daily sugar tablet will make
them grow taller--neither effort nor psychology has
any known effect on growth rate.)

Whatever the combined effects should be called,
it's remarkable how often a cleaned chain, new tires,
a different gear ratio, and a host of other tricks
produce improved times--for a week or so.

After that, we tend to drift back into slower times
because we've forgotten how fast that new piece of
equipment was going to make us and are no longer
"observing" ourselves closely enough during the ride
to motivate ourselves.

(Real mechanical advantages don't dwindle.)

I recently produced a marked improvement in my daily
times just by noting what my watch said at seven
check-points on my daily loop. I suspect that seven
new goals motivated me to pay attention and pedal.

When I stopped worrying about reaching each checkpoint,
I relaxed--and my overall time dropped noticeably.

Carl Fogel

wrote in message
...
Phil Holman writes:

This goes in the same bucket as round pedaling and ankling.

This sounds so much like patent medicine with no supporting
evidence:

Save your debunking for Easter bunnies, Keebler elves and thinner
thighs in 30 days.

http://tinyurl.com/2nthp

There is plenty of empirical observation plus it is now supported by
some scientific testing which at the very least would require the
most cynical pundit to re-evaluate their position. With your
demonstrated bias and misconceptions of physiological function I
wouldn't even consider you worthy of that category.

The article is full of qualified claims that can mean almost anything.
Let's see how the same high level racers perform on TT's before and
after this regimen. For instance, how did they do on the Mt Evans
Hill Climb or on a flat one rather than "better gross efficiency on a
submaximal ride".

Of course something like that is harder to control experimentally and in
my own case I've seen my performance improvements discounted so why
would anyone else's be different and why the need for high level racers?
A high level of performance isn't a requirement, in fact with all
uncertainty of enhanced performance supplements, I would think a
mid-pack rider out of the amateur ranks would be a better candidate for
such an experiment. I say this from a scientific viewpoint and not from
someone who has a marketing interest.


This like many gimmicks of the past will fade into obscurity after all
the hyperbole.

Possibly, although this won't have anything to do with whether they work
or not. There is no free lunch with the cranks and the fact that they
are such hard work may maintain their use by the more stalwart athlete.
Phil Holman

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never thought such an innocent question would
provoke such controversy! Clearly the group is quite divided on this
subject! As for me, I'm an age-group triathlete who usually finishes
in the top 20% or so of the pack. Strongest in the bike, worst on the
run. Looking forward to doing some TT's in the spring.

What intrigued me was the idea that the PowerCranks might wake up some
muscles that may have not been used for a while (or ever!) Took a look
on e-Bay and found some. So, I'll give them a try, keep a journal, and
see if I can make some scientific sense out of all of this (I'm a
Ph.D. physiologist/biomechanical engineer). If the experiment fails,
look for the on e-Bay! Also, time to dig up those articles on the
biomechanics and energetics of cycling! I'll be back again when I can
pedal for about an hour or so at a decent cadence. BTW - There is NO
WAY I'm going to ride these things on anything but the Computrainer!!
Meanwhile, I'll be an avid reader of this NG and chime in now and then
when I think I can make a contribution. Thanks for all the feedback.

John

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 00:45:54 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction
Bicycles" wrote:

I hadn't though of it that way but now that you mention it, it is a
great act of faith, a type of religion. As long as there is that
faint thread of credibility there will be faithful followers, the
fainter the thread the greater the faith. People love to believe in
unbelievable things.

Jobst: "Faith" and "belief systems" aren't such a terrible thing; people do
tend to succeed at that which they believe in. I have no doubt that my
employee is now pedaling more smoothly, and developing power more equally in
both legs. He is probably even able to ride faster now because of it.

But... if he'd demonstrated the same amount of resolve at other types of
training, he may have accomplished similar or even better results. But
there is obviously something that appeals to him about the Powercranks,
something that caused him to buy into the religion as it were. For him,
it's possible they might be the best thing to come along. For someone else,
absolutely not. Particularly for the poster who expected to get used to
them in just a few rides!!!

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

wrote in message
.. .
Mike Jacoubowsky writes:

Hi. I'm new the the group but thought this would be the right
place to ask. Just got a set of Powercranks and put them on the
bike I've been using on my Computrainer. Gee, I used to enjoy my
Computrainer! Now I can only ride it for about 3 miles! Anyone
else had experience with Powercranks? Does this get better or is
this why I see them on e-bay so often?

One of our employees uses Powercranks; it's taken him months and
months and months to get proficient at them. This is apparently
normal; they require a degree of dedication that goes beyond simple
logic... you've really got to believe in them in an almost religious
manner.

I hadn't though of it that way but now that you mention it, it is a
great act of faith, a type of religion. As long as there is that
faint thread of credibility there will be faithful followers, the
fainter the thread the greater the faith. People love to believe in
unbelievable things.

Jobst Brandt

"Phil Holman" wrote in message link.net...
wrote in message
...
Bill who? writes:

Hi. I'm new the the group but thought this would be the right place
to ask. Just got a set of Powercranks and put them on the bike
I've been using on my Computrainer. Gee, I used to enjoy my
Computrainer! Now I can only ride it for about 3 miles! Anyone
else had experience with Powercranks? Does this get better or is
this why I see them on e-bay so often?

Here is some interesting feedback:

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=1882

The author, Josh Horowitz, should be comming upon his one month
update shortly.

That makes painful reading for me, having ridden Power Cranks on a
demo just long enough to understand what the concept is. No doubt it
is exhausting and it builds new muscles to do a task that ordinary
cranks make unnecessary. The easiest way to return the foot/pedal/leg
from the bottom of the stroke to the next power stroke is to let it
ride. That is, unless you don;t have two reasonably equal legs that
are balanced when you sit on the bicycle without a chain.

If you see two riders, one with weight lifter muscles and a slim, no
fat rider with big lungs, I believe that most riders will recognize
the bikie as the slender guy. That's because only for sprints are big
extra muscles useful. The limit of most fit bicyclists is not muscles
but cardiovascular. More muscles and using otherwise unused muscles
in propulsion is someone's dream of a speed secret.

This goes in the same bucket as round pedaling and ankling.

This sounds so much like patent medicine with no supporting evidence:

Save your debunking for Easter bunnies, Keebler elves and thinner thighs
in 30 days.

http://tinyurl.com/2nthp

There is plenty of empirical observation plus it is now supported by
some scientific testing which at the very least would require the most
cynical pundit to re-evaluate their position. With your demonstrated
bias and misconceptions of physiological function I wouldn't even
consider you worthy of that category.

Phil Holman

Dear Phil,

I remember seeing that web page before, but was
disappointed to find that it's just the abstract.

Unless I missed something, the actual article
requires either a $105 subscription or else
twenty bucks for a single article.

Can you suggest any similar links that aren't
quite so expensive?

Or offer a quick interpretation for the layman
of what the somewhat dense abstract is saying?

Thanks,

Carl Fogel

"Carl Fogel" wrote in message
om...
"Phil Holman" wrote in message
link.net...
wrote in message
...
Bill who? writes:

Hi. I'm new the the group but thought this would be the right
place
to ask. Just got a set of Powercranks and put them on the bike
I've been using on my Computrainer. Gee, I used to enjoy my
Computrainer! Now I can only ride it for about 3 miles!
Anyone
else had experience with Powercranks? Does this get better or
is
this why I see them on e-bay so often?

Here is some interesting feedback:

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=1882

The author, Josh Horowitz, should be comming upon his one month
update shortly.

That makes painful reading for me, having ridden Power Cranks on a
demo just long enough to understand what the concept is. No doubt
it
is exhausting and it builds new muscles to do a task that ordinary
cranks make unnecessary. The easiest way to return the
foot/pedal/leg
from the bottom of the stroke to the next power stroke is to let
it
ride. That is, unless you don;t have two reasonably equal legs
that
are balanced when you sit on the bicycle without a chain.

If you see two riders, one with weight lifter muscles and a slim,
no
fat rider with big lungs, I believe that most riders will
recognize
the bikie as the slender guy. That's because only for sprints are
big
extra muscles useful. The limit of most fit bicyclists is not
muscles
but cardiovascular. More muscles and using otherwise unused
muscles
in propulsion is someone's dream of a speed secret.

This goes in the same bucket as round pedaling and ankling.

This sounds so much like patent medicine with no supporting
evidence:

Save your debunking for Easter bunnies, Keebler elves and thinner
thighs
in 30 days.

http://tinyurl.com/2nthp

There is plenty of empirical observation plus it is now supported by
some scientific testing which at the very least would require the
most
cynical pundit to re-evaluate their position. With your demonstrated
bias and misconceptions of physiological function I wouldn't even
consider you worthy of that category.

Phil Holman

Dear Phil,

I remember seeing that web page before, but was
disappointed to find that it's just the abstract.

Unless I missed something, the actual article
requires either a $105 subscription or else
twenty bucks for a single article.

Can you suggest any similar links that aren't
quite so expensive?

Or offer a quick interpretation for the layman
of what the somewhat dense abstract is saying?

A rough interpretation is "hand over your money and don't be such a
tight wad" :-)

Basically there was a gross efficiency improvement of around 2.6%. A
normal efficiency of say 22.5% means that of the total energy expended,
only 22.5% of it actually ends up propelling the rider. An increase of
2.6% means that now 26.1% is propelling the rider. This is somewhat
loosely confirmed by the lower heartrate at the same level of power
output. One could extrapolate this into a potential performance
improvement but it would have been nice if the test had included a TT
type effort. My own performance improvement at 2001 US Masters Nats was
+1mph (27.2mph) on my previous best ever TT speed. I estimated my power
increase at around 10%.

Phil Holman