Power meter vs. Pedal stroke

[Ti Designs]

Most people who are serious about training now have power meters and base their training on that. The claim is that the best way to make the most of your training time is to do it accurately, and power is a more accurate metric than speed or heart rate or the old butt dyno (how hard you feel you're going). Any program starts with an Functional Power Threshold or FTP test, and then assigns training zones based on the number of watts the rider can sustain.

Here's my question: When did the rider taking the FTP test learn how to pedal the bike? That question is a tough one because it challenges a cognitive bias - everybody thinks they know how to pedal a bike. How many people test how effectively they can push the pedals? The answer is very few, and it's probably a good thing 'cause the results would probably piss most people off as much as the question.

At this point the idea that you can't teach pedal stroke gets introduced. I've seen the published studies, I just haven't seen one that acknowledges that there's a learning process to gaining or improving motor skills. So, if you're saying that you can't learn new motor skills, you're right - you can't change your pedal stroke. For those of us who can learn, there's some hope.

Cycling is odd in that it can be efficient, but the interface between rider and machine doesn't make it that easy. To create an efficient interface you would want to look at the muscle groups that can deliver the most force, and isolate where in the pedal stroke that force can be used. I break it down to two muscle groups - glutes and quads. Glutes extend from the hip, so they push down. Quads extend from the knee, so they push forward. That's it, learn how to push down only where the pedal is going down, or forward only where it's going forward and you're going to be more efficient and powerful (over time) than most. There are a number of power meters that can test this, but the data is being ignored. I saw a vector map from one rider with long arrows pointing almost straight down at 6:00, he was proud of his power, I'm thinking there's at least 20% loss in that system...

What I really don't get is the focus on power numbers while ignoring pedal stroke. If you stop wasting energy from pushing the pedals in the wrong direction, your FTP goes up. More to the point, power is force applied to the pedals times COS(90 - vector angle) times the cadence. If the vector angle is at or near 90 degrees from the crank, the force you apply to the pedal is power. If that force is 90 degrees out of phase (pushing forward at 3:00 or pushing down at 6:00) you're just wasting energy. Being efficient means you get to keep your fitness gains...

I've been riding with a few people who do power meter based training, but haven't really learned how to pedal the bike. They think my fitness level is just that much higher, so I never struggle. What I am is old (I'm 20 years older than most of them), but I've learned how to pedal. The same thing was said about my coach when he was 70. Still, they stick with the numbers and the assumption that you can't change how you pedal the bike. I have no problem with using power meters for training, but building a house before you build the foundation just isn't gonna work.

[topflightpro]

First, you can re-learn to pedal a bike. It just takes time. This video is a pretty good explanation of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0

Second, there are some people starting to look at power throughout the stroke. Hunter Allen recently held a webinar discussing how that could be analyzed in WKO, but it requires the use of specific PMs to do it.

[AngryScientist]

i think what you're saying makes plenty of sense, but it's still only one component of becoming a better cyclist. there are plenty of things that most of us could change to become better cyclists, for example:

-ideal body weight
-ideal diet tailored to caloric daily burn and nutritional needs
-ideal hours/week dedicated to training
-optimal rest duration
-optimal sleep
-most efficient pedal stroke...

would i probably be a whole lot faster and stronger if i stopped drinking scotch beer and wine 7 nights a week, got a lot more sleep and dedicated more hours to being on the bike? of course! but i already know that, just like i know i could probably pedal a bike more efficiently.

there are so many more examples of this. go check out an amateur triathlon. how many people have expensive aero tri bikes but their position on them needs major improvement?

[AngryScientist]

edit to my above:

it's a good reminder that we all have lots of room for improvement in our cycling. thanks to Ed for pointing out some areas we can all improve, and helping us do so :beer::beer:

[ripvanrando]

Nobody ever taught me. How do I know if I'm doing it right?

I wAs tested at Fitwercx and there was some colored cycle graph with percentages. He told me I had no real gains to be made. I use rotor qxl rings and mid sole cleat position.


I'm intrigued because at my age I'm not going to make more power or much more and if I can get even a little more efficient. I've never found good studies that scientifically analyze pedal stroke efficiency.

[chiasticon]

would i probably be a whole lot faster and stronger if i stopped drinking scotch beer and wine 7 nights a week, got a lot more sleep and dedicated more hours to being on the bike? of course!same.

[carpediemracing]

In a different forum the idea of "smooth pedal stroke" came up. More accurately, "efficient pedal stroke". The conflicting thoughts were that the "stamp" method (focus on downstroke at expense of everything else) appears to have more power output than a smoother pedal stroke. This is based on studying elite athletes, I think US national team and similar riders.

I was doing intervals Tuesday and struggling like mad to hold my minimum power goal. I was a bit desperate and tried various things to recruit fresher muscles. I sat further back, further forward, pulled up more, pushed down more, short/sharp efforts within the pedal stroke, easier longer effort, tops, drops, etc. I found that the stamp method allowed me to increase power without changing HR or perceived exertion.

I was arguing in favor of the smooth pedal stroke in the above argument. I think that's true for easier riding still, meaning for easy rides etc. I think that riders need to know how to lift their feet. On flat pedals I lift my foot slightly off the pedal on each upstroke. I may not be putting in much power but there's no negative power at least.

However when in trouble or at the limit the stamp method seems to have some validity. Today I'm going to do the same intervals and I'll see how it goes.

[MattTuck]

^^

I find the distinction to be real, and applies both to pedaling and position. When someone is fresh, it is pretty easy to adopt a given pedaling style, or even a new position. When you are in extremis, either fatigued or at the limit, I find that is when pedal stroke and position reveal a rider's true nature. That is when you're searching for any positional or pedal stroke change to get a bit more energy. It seems like these are the times that should be used when doing fittings.

[ripvanrando]

I only apply power between 12:30 and 5:30 on the pedal stroke. I tend to ride long distances at moderate power (180-220 watts) and low cadence (70-75 rpm). My testing using a PM on a trainer was N = 1 unscientific. Would be interested in reading real studies.

[RowanB]

Not sure where this idea of wasted power is coming from. Where do you propose the energy goes?
To expand on that, it doesn't matter if you're applying a downwards pedal force at 6 o'clock, because you can't move the pedal in that direction, ergo no work done.

[nooneline]

Not sure where this idea of wasted power is coming from. Where do you propose the energy goes?
To expand on that, it doesn't matter if you're applying a downwards pedal force at 6 o'clock, because you can't move the pedal in that direction, ergo no work done.

When you pedal down with your left foot, you lift your right foot. This is spinning.

If you don't lift your right foot, then pedaling down with your left foot has to accomplish two things: it has to move you forward, and it has to push the weight of your right leg up.

The work required to do the latter is subtracted from the former. So you go less fast for the same amount of power.

[Ti Designs]

In a different forum the idea of "smooth pedal stroke" came up. More accurately, "efficient pedal stroke". The conflicting thoughts were that the "stamp" method (focus on downstroke at expense of everything else) appears to have more power output than a smoother pedal stroke. This is based on studying elite athletes, I think US national team and similar riders.

This is where we get into the cognitive bias - the difference between what you think you're doing and what you're actually doing. Every study I've seen on pedal stroke has their sample population pedal one way, then pedal another way. In some cases they make equipment changes to ensure the method change (GCN's test between flat pedals and clip-in pedals), but they either forget that there's a learning process, or they assume there isn't one. The cognitive bias I'm most interested in is why people assume they can do things they never learned how to do. Pedaling a bike is a trick case, the machine controls the movement for the rider - you can't make the pedals go in anything but a circle, so you assume you know how to pedal.

In doing fittings I noticed something about most riders, when they try to push down their hip moves back. Pushing down should lift the riders weight, not push it back - something is going wrong. They're using the first skill set they learned, lifting their body weight. When you learn how to walk you learn that firing the quad creates that force at your feet that lifts your body weight. It works because your hip is directly above your foot, and the quad extends the leg at the knee. Your brain maps that, force on foot = quad firing. When I do fittings I stop the pedal at 3:00 and have the person push down on the bike. 99% of the time the quad fires and the hip gets pushed back. The same skill set you use to walk doesn't work on the bike, your hip has setback and the resulting force is mostly forward. That's not what your brain is telling you, it's still saying "I'm pushing down"

Pedaling in circles is 16 times more complex than pushing down. The chances of someone being able to pedal in circles just by trying are pretty close to nil. The chances of them thinking they can pedal in circles just by trying are pretty good.

The other issue I have with most of the studies are they like to do them on elite athletes. The true elite athlete has a much faster motor skill learning curve, and has the ability to turn off their own defenses. Putting your full body weight on a pedal that's moving away from you is something most people can't do at first, elite athletes can make that happen in seconds. Something that took me 4 weeks to learn took one of my riders 30 minutes. The only thing worse than assuming you can do something without a learning process is assuming you can do something 'cause you watched an elite athlete doing it.

[dustyrider]

I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the asymmetric chainring.

[chiasticon]

This is where we get into the cognitive bias - the difference between what you think you're doing and what you're actually doing.
...not discounting all that you wrote, but I'm interested into your thoughts on what you quoted. it's not so involved as what you went into, to me. just pedal smoothly for a bit (as smoothly as you can, likely not perfectly, as you've established), then mash for a bit. try to keep your heart rate and gearing the same with both. are the power numbers higher for one method than the other?

that's what I took his original statement to mean, at least. that the power numbers differ between the two methods.

[RowanB]

When you pedal down with your left foot, you lift your right foot. This is spinning.

If you don't lift your right foot, then pedaling down with your left foot has to accomplish two things: it has to move you forward, and it has to push the weight of your right leg up.

The work required to do the latter is subtracted from the former. So you go less fast for the same amount of power.

I disagree. In the second case, while your left leg needs to lift the right, you're also not needing to do that work with the right leg. Over a complete revolution of the cranks, the total work is the same.

Obviously this changes the distribution of power through the stroke for each leg, (similar to the arguments for asymmetric chainrings), but I don't think it's necessarily obvious what the optimum distribution is.

The point I'm making is you can only move the pedals in a way that moves the bike forwards. You can't move them in any other direction, and because work is force x distance, no non useful work can be done against them.

[Ti Designs]

The point I'm making is you can only move the pedals in a way that moves the bike forwards. You can't move them in any other direction, and because work is force x distance, no non useful work can be done against them.

Going on what I've seen from testing people and looking at force vectors around the pedal stroke, I'm going to have to disagree. You're making the case that in terms of energy used, it doesn't matter if the right leg lifts the right leg, or the left leg lifts the right leg, the same energy is used. What really happens is different. You spend much of your life with weight on your feet, that's a normal condition, not something you would notice. Most people do the same thing on the bike, they put a percentage of their body weight - not just the weight of the leg resting, on the pedal that's coming up over the back of the pedal stroke. Tests also show that the body normalizes force magnitude, so the harder the pedal is being pushed down, the more weight is put on the other side. It may not be displacement in the wrong direction, but there is force subtracted from the system.

[Dead Man]

So what's the right way to pedal?

[54ny77]

Faster, apparently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO7iCbtlcIc

:banana:

So what's the right way to pedal?

[Ti Designs]

So what's the right way to pedal?


The answer to that is useless, the better question is how do you learn how to pedal? There's a step between knowing what has to happen and making it happen that people like to skip...

As I've said, I break it down to two muscle groups, glutes and quads. Glutes extend from the hip, so they push down, quads extend form the knee, so they push forward. The key to the learning process is to start in isolation, you learn best when focusing on just one thing. Set the bike up on a trainer and isolate each muscle group, and limit the use of that muscle group to where it's pushing the pedal in the right direction. Quads fire from 11:00 to 2:00, glutes fire from 1:00 to 4:00. Make a video of yourself, see what goes wrong, make corrections. Most people don't know their own reaction timing, they think "push forward from 11:00 to 2:00, they really push forward from 12:00 to 3:00 - pushing forward at 3:00 is a total waste of energy...

Getting to that point alone is a huge win. Most people never question how they pedal the bike, they just try to pedal harder. As soon as you start testing how you pedal you realize how much there is to gain.

'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the asymmetric chainring.

The earliest data I could find from power meters was hub based. The studies showed the elite riders put more force into the pedals - the strain gauge in the hub doesn't know where the crank is. Pedal based power meters have a bit more data, they show that elite level riders put more force on the pedal in the right direction. When I teach riders how to recruit their glutes I have them fall into the pedals from 1:30 to 4:30, or 45 degrees up to 45 degrees down. Assuming gravity is pulling the rider's weight straight down (it's hinged at the hip, so this isn't exactly correct) the system goes from 70% efficient at 1:30 to 100% efficient at 3:00 back to 70% efficient at 4:30. The advanced pedal stroke class is learning how to tighten that impulse by making it more of plyometric push off the pedal at 3:00. Asymmetric chainrings cheat that system a little as they can slow the pedal in the range that it's going down, giving more time in an effective range. If you must use one muscle group, asymmetric chainrings make some sense. That said, I can't think of many cases where I only use one muscle group...

[rockdude]

I think this is a red herring, I have not seen any research to back it. There is a old paper that did a study on elite TTer showing that the better TTer pushed down more but that would only be for TTer not Road biking and it only showed a correlation not a causal effect. There has been research on left/right balance pedaling where they take people with big imbalances and get the pedal balanced over time and guess what the FTP stayed the same. The difference on how to apply pressure on the pedal depends on the activity. Hill climbing is different than TTing, TTing is different than road riding, etc.

[nooneline]

I disagree. In the second case, while your left leg needs to lift the right, you're also not needing to do that work with the right leg. Over a complete revolution of the cranks, the total work is the same.

Obviously this changes the distribution of power through the stroke for each leg, (similar to the arguments for asymmetric chainrings), but I don't think it's necessarily obvious what the optimum distribution is.

The point I'm making is you can only move the pedals in a way that moves the bike forwards. You can't move them in any other direction, and because work is force x distance, no non useful work can be done against them.

Hmmm, that's a good point.

I think that the action you're describing (of lifting your right leg) would not be measured by a power meter. It obviously takes some physiological work.

But if we're talking about the relationship of measured watts to speed, then what I described is a way to look at how much speed you're getting from your measurable wattage output.

[Ti Designs]

I think this is a red herring, I have not seen any research to back it. There is a old paper that did a study on elite TTer showing that the better TTer pushed down more but that would only be for TTer not Road biking

This is the typical argument for not taking a closer look at how you're pedaling. They do tests on a few elite athletes and find differences in how they pedal, so how I'm pedaling the bike is just fine...

Starting with an elite athlete and testing for what works for them is starting at the wrong end. I have one good argument that trounces that plan - you're not them.

I've always started at the other end, you have a model of a human, you have a bicycle, how do you use the large muscles to power the bike? Each muscle extends or contracts one pivot, it's really not that hard to grasp how force is generated in any given direction. The pedal goes around in a circle, the correct direction of force is the crank angle plus 90 degrees. From these two things you can generate a timing sequence for each muscle, and it starts looking like what I explained earlier - glutes push down, quads push forward, both are limited to a 25% duty cycle.

It's the actual learning process where I lose people. You've learned all kinds of skills in your life, how to walk, how to tie your shoes... Some people have learned much more complex skill sets. I play piano, I watch my hands hit keys, but I don't know which ones or even how many I hit. It's a learned skill set, I'm in the autonomous learning stage, it just happens. So how hard can it be to learn how to use two large muscle groups in a timing sequence?

[Mark McM]

The problem with the "People need to learn how to pedal correctly because it is not a natural action" argument is that it has never been demonstrated that different pedaling styles makes a difference in efficiency/power production. And it is not because nobody has tried to look for a difference.

As you note, there have been many papers published where either the pedaling techniques of a sample of cyclists has been measured to see if the more powerful cyclists use a different technique, or whether power or efficiency change when cyclists purposely try to use different pedaling techniques. These papers appear to show that there is no significant difference.

But as you also note, many of the studies did not incorporate an adaptation period for cyclists to learn and practice a new pedaling technique before their power/efficiency was measure. However, this one did: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21127899. In this paper, a group of recreational cyclists were for pedaling efficiency. Then half the participants were given a series of pedaling technique coaching sessions (the Pose method (https://posemethod.com/)). After the coaching period, all the participants were tested again. No significant difference was found in the coached and uncoached cyclists.

While you may complain that none of the studies is looking at the right things, that's probably because in the studies that have been done, there's been no inkling that there's a significant difference between natural and coached pedaling technique.

Unlike, say, running, swimming, X-country skiing, etc., the pedaling motion is highly constrained - the pedals can only move in circles. This naturally constrains the variation in the ways one can pedal. Human beings are generally fairly good at maximizing the efficiency of motion of repetitive tasks as demonstrated in this paper (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00958-6). This paper dealt with walking rather than pedaling, but as there are far more variables in walking than in pedaling, it seems reasonable to assume that humans can naturally adapt to the simpler motion of pedaling as well.

[ergott]

Ti, have you looked into the Garmin Vector pedals? They will visually demonstrate where in the circle power is inputted as well as the direction of force. They would make it easy to communicate this to a rider you are working with.

[carpediemracing]

I rode the trainer late last night and looked in the mirror to see if I was moving around differently depending on how I thought I was pedaling, i.e. "circles" or "stamping". When I "stamp" I feel like I'm definitely not as smooth, meaning from my perspective. But when I looked at the mirror (I have a set up sort of like a gym, 4' tall mirrors for 12' on one wall and 4' on another wall).

To my surprise I really couldn't tell visually if I was stamping or not. I was doing VO2 Max intervals and suffering pretty badly so I expected to be really rough, i.e. moving around a lot.

I think that riders, as they get fatigued, automatically get more efficient. It's a natural reaction to "I'm exhausted, I'm feeling really weak now, but I need to get home". I think this is one of the reasons newer riders should go out and do some very long days. When I started out I'm sure I was pretty inefficient. I was still learning little tricks to keep going when I was tired, ways to recruit new muscles. I realized on various long rides that if I stood this way or sat that way then suddenly I had fresh muscles available. I also stopped bobbing and weaving a lot because I was simply too tired to do so.

Rollers help also, artificially, because rollers tend to punish rough riding. One must focus on pedaling form though, to try and make the band look still (not bouncing it around). I know rollers helped me a lot but it was an artificial process that took a lot of effort. I still get on them every now and then to remember how to ride once again.

At the same time long rides or rollers are not a catch all. I know one rider who developed some poor pedaling habits while focusing purely on short workouts for a number of years (he subscribed to the "one hour a day but do intervals or something like that for that hour" training plan). It seems that he's fresh enough and strong enough to do his efforts without needing to smooth out his pedal stroke. He has somehow managed to keep riding with these very obvious inefficiencies for literally decades, even while trying half heartedly to eliminate them. He admitted he's unwilling to give up part of a season to work on pedal form. He wants to be more fit but doesn't see fixing the poor pedaling form as a way to gain that fitness. Instead he keeps focusing on doing short but really hard rides which don't penalize his poor pedaling technique.

[carpediemracing]

One more thought. My friend has a computrainer. On that his pedal stroke looks pretty good. However he bounces so high on his saddle that I have to believe that he's literally losing traction if he pedals through a turn.

On the same spin scan thing I was pretty peaky. I could smooth it out when I revved it up or focused on turning circles but my natural tendency was to be peaky even when I was "pedaling easy but in circles".

That's a calculated vector analysis. I haven't ridden any power pedals / etc that would actually measure force/etc around a pedal stroke.

[William]

Faster, apparently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO7iCbtlcIc

:banana:


There's fast, and then there's Keirin fast... :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVbwngNoHm0







William

[rockdude]

T

But as you also note, many of the studies did not incorporate an adaptation period for cyclists to learn and practice a new pedaling technique before their power/efficiency was measure. However, this one did: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21127899. In this paper, a group of recreational cyclists were for pedaling efficiency. Then half the participants were given a series of pedaling technique coaching sessions (the Pose method (https://posemethod.com/)). After the coaching period, all the participants were tested again. No significant difference was found in the coached and uncoached cyclists.

This is spot on. I haven't seen any studies showing changes in threshold based on pedaling styles.

I believe cadence can make a difference such as taking a person who's average threshold cadence is 70 rpms and making them do 100 rpms, you will see a drop in their threshold. But if you train them at 100 rpms their threshold power will come up an match their 70 rpm power.

Threshold power is very closely related to the cardio system and the supply of oxygen and not muscular force or coordination.

[ripvanrando]

Efficiency is better at lower cadence. Hasn't this been proven in the lab? And on the road? Triathletes and ultra endurance riders tend to have lower cadence. As one approaches threshold, higher cadences are more efficient. I'll see if I can find the studies. I have never read a study demonstrating improved efficiency based upon technique. I have to say looking into a mirror while pedaling tells you nothing about power output, metabolic efficiency, or the onset of lactate. For years we were told nonsense to pull up using hamstrings.

I suspect more gains can be made for some riders if the had proper orthotics made than focusing on pedal technique since none of the studies I've read demonstrate any differences between pedaling fashions.

[PJN]

Uh, does everyone here realize that TiDesigns isn't saying pedal faster or pedal smoother or pedal circles? Nor does he say that one pedaling technique will allow you to increase lactic threshold.

He is advocating for firing the right muscles in the right order at the most efficient (in terms of mechanical leverage) time of the pedal stroke.

He is claiming that you can pedal a bicycle at the same speed with less wasted energy if the force that you are applying to the pedal is in the right direction and that the force is being generated by the BEST muscle at that point in time.

IE - if you learn to pedal correctly the way we measure FTP will not go up (it may even go down) but you will put more force into the pedals when it actually matters and in a way that allows you to (possibly) propel a bicycle faster at a given RPE.

[beeatnik]

IE - if you learn to pedal correctly the way we measure FTP will not go up (it may even go down) but you will put more force into the pedals when it actually matters and in a way that allows you to (possibly) propel a bicycle faster at a given RPE.

Studies don't back this.

[ripvanrando]

It is unclear what tidesigns is advocating. There are more than two muscles activated during pedaling. I read what he wrote.

[makoti]

I rode the trainer late last night and looked in the mirror to see if I was moving around differently depending on how I thought I was pedaling, i.e. "circles" or "stamping". When I "stamp" I feel like I'm definitely not as smooth, meaning from my perspective. But when I looked at the mirror (I have a set up sort of like a gym, 4' tall mirrors for 12' on one wall and 4' on another wall).

To my surprise I really couldn't tell visually if I was stamping or not. I was doing VO2 Max intervals and suffering pretty badly so I expected to be really rough, i.e. moving around a lot.

I think that riders, as they get fatigued, automatically get more efficient. It's a natural reaction to "I'm exhausted, I'm feeling really weak now, but I need to get home". I think this is one of the reasons newer riders should go out and do some very long days. When I started out I'm sure I was pretty inefficient. I was still learning little tricks to keep going when I was tired, ways to recruit new muscles. I realized on various long rides that if I stood this way or sat that way then suddenly I had fresh muscles available. I also stopped bobbing and weaving a lot because I was simply too tired to do so.

Rollers help also, artificially, because rollers tend to punish rough riding. One must focus on pedaling form though, to try and make the band look still (not bouncing it around). I know rollers helped me a lot but it was an artificial process that took a lot of effort. I still get on them every now and then to remember how to ride once again.



I agree that rollers will help a lot to get you to ride smoothly. I like to climb on them every now and then for easy days to remind me that it's more than turning the cranks over. You can't be sloppy and ride rollers well.
I'm not sure I get the part about being naturally more efficient when you're tired. I would think the opposite happens. When I get tired, I get very sloppy. I just push because I'm too tired to worry about or manage to pedal in any way other than just getting the wheels to move. I wish I got more efficient. That'd be great.
The other thing is that none of this is a one size fits all. People are efficient in different ways because of many factors. What works for me may be horrible for you.

[Russian bear]

Sounds like someone is short on clients.

;)

[MattTuck]

It is unclear what tidesigns is advocating. There are more than two muscles activated during pedaling. I read what he wrote.

To fully grasp his philosophy, you need to go back several years and read his posts.

As others have said, oxygen is limiting factor in general. I believe there may be gains to made in more optimal muscle firing. I say this as someone who has some L/R strength imbalances, and am maybe more aware of how that impacts my left leg's pedal stroke.

That being said, I have no idea if we're talking anything significant. In other words, are we talking about a 1% improvement when other types of training are 10x as effective? And, I suspect that if there are improvements to be had, that you achieve them pretty quickly. The old 80/20 rule. You'll get 80% of the benefit by fixing 20% of your pedaling stroke (3 o'clock and 6 o'clock). You may then continue to optimize after that, but I really think it would be diminishing returns after that.

Like I said, with a L/R imbalance, I am perhaps more aware of how my two legs have different patterns of muscle activation, so this stuff is intriguing. No idea if someone with a balanced and average pedal stroke would gain much.

[Ti Designs]

IE - if you learn to pedal correctly the way we measure FTP will not go up (it may even go down) but you will put more force into the pedals when it actually matters and in a way that allows you to (possibly) propel a bicycle faster at a given RPE.

It seems like such a simple concept, but it runs into so much resistance... It's also testable, but people would rather say there's no proof than actually test anything.

Let's see if we can agree on anything. The efficiency at any given point in the pedal stroke is the force * COS(crank angle - 90) in other words, pushing at a tangent to the crank is 100% efficient, pushing 90 degrees from that is 0% efficient. Can we agree on that? If not, put your crank at the bottom of the pedal stroke and push straight down on it - does it move the bike?

Once you grasp what is or isn't efficient in force vectors you can use a power meter that shows force vectors and compare what you think you're doing at the pedals with the truth. Or you could just assume that how you pedal is just fine.

[11.4]

So there seem to be a couple broad issues underlying this discussion: First, how pedal stroke drives power output, and second, whether pedal stroke can obscure measured power output so one's recorded wattage doesn't really reflect power applied to speed.

Here are a few thoughts. First, Ti's equation for power isn't really sufficient. A powermeter calculates power based on deflection of a test device as measured on a consistent basis around the entire rotation of the pedal. If you push straight down at the top of the pedal stroke or straight down at the bottom, you likely deform the sensor and produce a reading, even if you aren't actually generating incremental forward speed at the time with that particular power output. It isn't really correct to view power output based on the circulate pattern (and circular path limitation) of the pedal, because your legs are actually applying power based on their strength at different vector angles determined by leg position. Your foot is trapped in a circular path, but your actual power output isn't so trapped -- you simply can't use some of the power so generated.

Second, it isn't just about angles of attack for the glutes versus the quads (or soleus, which we shouldn't ignore). Besides the various issues implicated in the previous paragraph, there's also the physiological and kinesiological difference between the two muscles. The glutes have a short compact fiber structure and are positioned to deliver high power, but not at high repetition rates for prolonged periods. The glutes are much better at the latter -- high cadence, endurance, but not as much power. This becomes very evident in track -- when initiating a standing start, one uses the glutes to get into the first banking and up to a cadence where the glutes can take over as one sits down. The same applies to climbing or sprinting in road racing. This fundamental difference between the two muscles is what really drives how and when they are each used.

Third, the studies of pedaling efficiency are, pretty much without exception, so flawed technically that no one should rely on them. The biggest issue is that they don't allow for individual variability -- some people can adapt very effectively and others not at all, and adaptability is not necessarily correlated with overall athletic success (despite a comment made above). One pretty much has to consider whether an individual subject or client can adapt and go from there. And most people can't adapt without really understanding how and what they need to adapt -- just saying to pedal in circles doesn't give one a more effective pedal stroke, but instead one has to address each small aspect of how to achieve that effective pedal stroke. There is some limited amount that is self-learnable, but the major elements depend on an extended analytic of an individual rider.

Fourth, much of the issue has to do with matters of muscle activation and propensity for deactivating muscles.

Fifth, performance is very dependent on matters such as cadence. And here again, individuals differ in terms of their modal cadence, so studies and average numbers don't have much relevance.

And last, the argument that one is imposing drag by having to use a downward leg motion on one side to raise the leg on the other is both right and wrong. It's right insofar as resistance to a complete pedal stroke caused by lifting the passive leg is detrimental to power. It's wrong because the system is actually much more complicated than that, and the biomechanics prevent such a simple model.

This is an interesting subject. It's unfortunate that the answers are not readily amenable to being generalized to everyone. Every rider needs a unique analysis.

[weisan]

Ti pal, can you explain this unique pedal stroke to me?
www.gifs.com/gif/chris-froome-epic-descent-descente-stage-tape-8-tour-de-france-2016-ERgZ24

I can't figure out whether his glute or quad is firing and when.

[Ti Designs]

The glutes have a short compact fiber structure and are positioned to deliver high power, but not at high repetition rates for prolonged periods. The glutes are much better at the latter -- high cadence, endurance, but not as much power. This becomes very evident in track -- when initiating a standing start, one uses the glutes to get into the first banking and up to a cadence where the glutes can take over as one sits down. The same applies to climbing or sprinting in road racing. This fundamental difference between the two muscles is what really drives how and when they are each used.

Proof reading...

Glutes generate torque, quads generate leg speed.

https://edsasslercoaching.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/strength-to-speed-1.jpg


This argument often falls short because most people don't understand that there's more than one way to pedal a bike. With all the talk about FTP testing, show me one case (other than myself) of how different ways of pedaling come into play. They never do, according to the power meter (and lots of people who use them) a watt is a watt. According to that, the method you described of getting a track bike up to speed is pointless, just pedal the bike...


And if I might point out one more thing:

The glutes have a short compact fiber structure and are positioned to deliver high power, but not at high repetition rates for prolonged periods.

The coaching intervention resulted in decreased gross efficiency at 110 rpm (P < 0.05); at this pedaling rate the intervention resulted in a slight increase in the non-muscular contribution to pedal power in the experimental group and a decrease in the control group.

Here we have the same observation, but different conclusions. 11.4 understands that the glutes are used to generate the torque to get a bike moving in a large gear, but don't work well at high repetition rates - that's what the quads are for. On the other hand, the study reports that there is decrease in efficiency at higher RPMs and reaches a conclusion that there's no point in learning how to use the glutes.

[dnc]

Second, it isn't just about angles of attack for the glutes versus the quads (or soleus, which we shouldn't ignore). Besides the various issues implicated in the previous paragraph, there's also the physiological and kinesiological difference between the two muscles. The glutes have a short compact fiber structure and are positioned to deliver high power, but not at high repetition rates for prolonged periods. The glutes are much better at the latter -- high cadence, endurance, but not as much power. This becomes very evident in track -- when initiating a standing start, one uses the glutes to get into the first banking and up to a cadence where the glutes can take over as one sits down. The same applies to climbing or sprinting in road racing. This fundamental difference between the two muscles is what really drives how and when they are each used.



It looks like a mix-up between glutes and quads.

[RowanB]

Here are a few thoughts. First, Ti's equation for power isn't really sufficient. A powermeter calculates power based on deflection of a test device as measured on a consistent basis around the entire rotation of the pedal. If you push straight down at the top of the pedal stroke or straight down at the bottom, you likely deform the sensor and produce a reading, even if you aren't actually generating incremental forward speed at the time with that particular power output. It isn't really correct to view power output based on the circulate pattern (and circular path limitation) of the pedal, because your legs are actually applying power based on their strength at different vector angles determined by leg position. Your foot is trapped in a circular path, but your actual power output isn't so trapped -- you simply can't use some of the power so generated.


Good points, I agree with much of what you've written in this post.

However, I've got to take issue with this section, because it's key to the whole discussion. It seems like you're not being precise enough about the distinction between force and power.

If a component of the force applied to the pedal is not aligned the direction of the pedal displacement, this force transfers no power to bike (ignoring for the moment the complications of rocking the bike from side to side, which are interesting but not the key point here). Secondly, this off axis component doesn't necessarily require metabolic energy to sustain.

Imagine the pedal of your bike in the 6 o'clock position, with a dumbbell hanging from it. The dumbbell will exert a downwards force on the pedal all day long, but there is no transfer of power. It's exactly the same as applying this force with your leg.

I'm not saying you can't improve your power output by changing pedaling technique, but I have to disagree with this idea of wasted power. If you apply power to the pedals, it moves the bike forwards. If you apply force off the pedaling axis, it doesn't move the bike forwards, but there is no power transfer involved, so no possibility of wasted power.

[11.4]

It looks like a mix-up between glutes and quads.

Oops. You're correct. My typo. The quads support lower power but at high cadence and endurance.

[11.4]

Good points, I agree with much of what you've written in this post.

However, I've got to take issue with this section, because it's key to the whole discussion. It seems like you're not being precise enough about the distinction between force and power.

If a component of the force applied to the pedal is not aligned the direction of the pedal displacement, this force transfers no power to bike (ignoring for the moment the complications of rocking the bike from side to side, which are interesting but not the key point here). Secondly, this off axis component doesn't necessarily require metabolic energy to sustain.

Imagine the pedal of your bike in the 6 o'clock position, with a dumbbell hanging from it. The dumbbell will exert a downwards force on the pedal all day long, but there is no transfer of power. It's exactly the same as applying this force with your leg.

I'm not saying you can't improve your power output by changing pedaling technique, but I have to disagree with this idea of wasted power. If you apply power to the pedals, it moves the bike forwards. If you apply force off the pedaling axis, it doesn't move the bike forwards, but there is no power transfer involved, so no possibility of wasted power.

This is where the two commingled issues in this thread get confusing. If we're talking about whether power readings are really representative of actual ability to create forward speed, then one can produce deflection in a crank arm that results in a wattage reading, but the actual power created by the leg is greater, but only that part is read by the power meter that reflects the direction in which power is read by the power meter. An inefficient pedaler may put out much more actual power than the power meter shows.

Second, if this is about whether a pedaling style can be inefficient but improvable, we have the same conclusion. The power meter reads power as it's transferred to the bike. The legs may be generating more power that isn't transferred to the crank arms efficiently. Imagine putting a power meter in the legs directly and measuring what it would read. Then inefficiencies such as pedal stroke would create power losses just as rolling resistance, gearing losses, etc. would do.

[11.4]

Here we have the same observation, but different conclusions. 11.4 understands that the glutes are used to generate the torque to get a bike moving in a large gear, but don't work well at high repetition rates - that's what the quads are for. On the other hand, the study reports that there is decrease in efficiency at higher RPMs and reaches a conclusion that there's no point in learning how to use the glutes.

On the one hand it's entirely correct that at higher cadence the glutes contribute less direct power. However, we come to the issue that high cadence at high power and high cadence in lower gears are very different creatures. High cadence in lower gears has less need for glutes, and this kind of spinning may be one of the big contributors to the whole issue of glute inactivation. Among non-racing riders and among many tourist racers, it's like an epidemic.

On the other hand, if you're riding 90 rpm in a 102 inch gear for a prolonged period, you absolutely need the glutes to stabilize the work of the quads. The glutes need to be working and tensioned to prevent the quads from wobbling the hips back and forth.

The place where glutes really come to the fore in a road ride is when you are pumping over a rise or are climbing out of the saddle. Think about a proper deadlift -- you start with legs bent in a near-squat and use your glutes to do the first part of the deadlift, and then do the last bit of straightening out with your remaining glute range of motion and with your back. Climbing out of the saddle or pumping over a rise are the same -- your cadence may be lower and you need to generate high power for a shorter period of time. If you aren't actually relying on your glutes for short term low-cadence power, you are using them to stabilize the work your quads are doing. Watch a rider climbing out of the saddle for a prolonged period like Contador does -- he's definitely using his glutes to keep his hips stable so his quad contractions are being applied to turn the pedals, not to move the hips.

I'd agree that there are studies that don't show this benefit. But they aren't measuring it correctly and the experimental protocol is invalid anyway. They don't differentiate these uses of the glutes or test in realistic riding situations.

[carpediemracing]

There's fast, and then there's Keirin fast... :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVbwngNoHm0

William

I've seen that clip dozens of times and I'm still super impressed with the form/speed the riders show in it. The frames/second makes it look a little faster than it is but to me the amazing thing is just how smooth the guy is at the high rpm, on rollers.

With a freewheel I found it's easier to pedal fast because there's no issues with bailing out at the end. With a fixed gear it's harder because there's the problem of "how do I slow down" when you're kind of tired.

On 175 cranks to mimic my road bike, wide Q factor due to BMX cranks, fixed gear, flywheel, light resistance, hitting 230-245 rpm each time, at the beginning of the clip here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSRsauBHAQA). With 170s I was able to get into the mid 280 rpm range. My goal was to do 300 rpm for 5 seconds, something I read that Scott Berryman did, a US Olympic team track sprinter (technically the article said he did 30 revolutions in 6 seconds, which is 5 rpm/second or 300 rpm). I never even broke 290 rpm, forget about holding 300 rpm for 6 seconds.

[makoti]

according to the power meter (and lots of people who use them) a watt is a watt.

You love this phrase. It makes no sense, but you repeat it in every discussion about this as if it's some sort of hidden truth. So please, enlighten me - when is a watt NOT a watt? When is this: "(A watt) is defined as 1 joule per second and can be used to express the rate of energy conversion or transfer with respect to time." not true? How is a watt you & the other 5% of this forum different from the watt produced by the other 95% of us who don't know what we're doing?

[jr59]

You love this phrase. It makes no sense, but you repeat it in every discussion about this as if it's some sort of hidden truth. So please, enlighten me - when is a watt NOT a watt? When is this: "(A watt) is defined as 1 joule per second and can be used to express the rate of energy conversion or transfer with respect to time." not true? How is a watt you & the other 5% of this forum different from the watt produced by the other 95% of us who don't know what we're doing?

Don't worry about this. Ed has his belief and no one can be considered opposed to it.

I thought the trip to Fl would make him rethink things, but I see it did not.

And no Ed, bringing a bigger gear won't really help, b/c we too can install bigger gears. Most of us riding down here in flat land use 53 and more than a few use a compact and still wind it up pretty quick.

I just want to know why Ed is not in France? I mean if his coaching is all of that, shouldn't the best in the world be employing him?

There are many different ways to skin a cat.

[11.4]

You love this phrase. It makes no sense, but you repeat it in every discussion about this as if it's some sort of hidden truth. So please, enlighten me - when is a watt NOT a watt? When is this: "(A watt) is defined as 1 joule per second and can be used to express the rate of energy conversion or transfer with respect to time." not true? How is a watt you & the other 5% of this forum different from the watt produced by the other 95% of us who don't know what we're doing?

Ti should speak for himself, but from my perspective, a watt is very subjective from a practical cycling standpoint. Of course it's a precisely defined measure for the change of an energy state. But we're using it carelessly. We're using it as a proxy for the energy we can apply to a pair of pedals to make a bike go forward.

That's not very precise, as far as cyclists are concerned, because one rider putting out 320 watts can ride at 33 mph and another at the same wattage can only do 24 mph. Or to take it one step closer, a 80 kg rider putting out 320 watts can do 4 watts/kg and another rider also weighing 80 kg can show 320 watts on the power meter but can't ride faster than 24. We see this all the time. This is because first of all, power is only one variable in a multivariate prediction of speed (and speed is all we're really interested in when it's all said and done). We also have aerobic capacity, endurance, peak power, and plenty of other measures as well. But most intrinsically, one rider with inefficient pedaling may input 420 watts but the powermeter only shows 320 watts. So which is the right number? 420, because that's a measure of the rider's fitness and strength, or 320 because that's the wattage that actually contributes to driving the bike forward?

[Mark McM]

That's not very precise, as far as cyclists are concerned, because one rider putting out 320 watts can ride at 33 mph and another at the same wattage can only do 24 mph. Or to take it one step closer, a 80 kg rider putting out 320 watts can do 4 watts/kg and another rider also weighing 80 kg can show 320 watts on the power meter but can't ride faster than 24. We see this all the time.

Wait a minute - how can we know how much total power the rider is expending? We can measure the power that is transmitted to/through the drivetrain fairly accurately. But if the rider is expending more power, how can we know this?

In the various ergometer studies that tested different pedaling styles, they typically measure efficiency by measuring respiration gasses, calculating the metabolic energy consumed, and comparing this to the energy/power measured by the ergometer. These tests haven't found any significant differences in gross efficiencies with pedaling style.

But you seem to be talking about rider power during real world riding situations. How do you measure actual rider energy/power in those situations? It is just a guess, based on how hard it appears the rider is working, or have you actually measured it?


This is because first of all, power is only one variable in a multivariate prediction of speed (and speed is all we're really interested in when it's all said and done). We also have aerobic capacity, endurance, peak power, and plenty of other measures as well. But most intrinsically, one rider with inefficient pedaling may input 420 watts but the powermeter only shows 320 watts. So which is the right number? 420, because that's a measure of the rider's fitness and strength, or 320 because that's the wattage that actually contributes to driving the bike forward?

As far as I can tell, in this situation which number is the right one to use is rather moot, since in most cases we can't actually measure the power the rider is expending, only the power that actually gets into the drivetrain. Trying to draw conclusions from data that doesn't actually exist requires a leap of faith, which often leads us in the wrong direction.

[fuzzalow]

Some of the snide or snarky comments are unfair and discourteous. Ti Designs is posting here trying to help others in making things better. And in so doing he is neither shilling a business nor asking for money or roping for clients.

Many different ways to solve a problem or acquire a skill. If you think yourself an expert and have a better way, then let's hear it. If you think yourself a student then don't be so thin skinned and defensive in an expert's calling your own technique, or lack thereof, into question.

I'm not taking sides. I am however mindful of keeping the quality of the interactions in this place high.

Take what you need and leave the rest.

[carpediemracing]

Or to take it one step closer, a 80 kg rider putting out 320 watts can do 4 watts/kg and another rider also weighing 80 kg can show 320 watts on the power meter but can't ride faster than 24.

On flatter terrain it's really about w/CdA or watts/aero-drag.

Colby Pearce set the US hour record at over 31 mph doing 311 watts (50.1 kph). That's almost exactly 100 watts less than what Jens Voigt did (412 watts according to something I read, doing 51.1 kph). 100w power difference at 31 mph will net you way more than 1 kph. The difference is in the aero drag between the two riders. There are a lot of varying numbers for power / hour record, a reflection of the different amounts of drag the different riders (and their equipment) produced.

[11.4]

On flatter terrain it's really about w/CdA or watts/aero-drag.

Colby Pearce set the US hour record at over 31 mph doing 311 watts (50.1 kph). That's almost exactly 100 watts less than what Jens Voigt did (412 watts according to something I read, doing 51.1 kph). 100w power difference at 31 mph will net you way more than 1 kph. The difference is in the aero drag between the two riders. There are a lot of varying numbers for power / hour record, a reflection of the different amounts of drag the different riders (and their equipment) produced.

Exactly. Watts measured on a power meter are ok for measuring improvement on an individual basis, but don't have much significance in terms of actual cycling performance. So many other issues come into play -- again, the multivariate function of which wattage is only one number that isn't necessarily particularly significant.

[11.4]

Wait a minute - how can we know how much total power the rider is expending? We can measure the power that is transmitted to/through the drivetrain fairly accurately. But if the rider is expending more power, how can we know this?

In the various ergometer studies that tested different pedaling styles, they typically measure efficiency by measuring respiration gasses, calculating the metabolic energy consumed, and comparing this to the energy/power measured by the ergometer. These tests haven't found any significant differences in gross efficiencies with pedaling style.

But you seem to be talking about rider power during real world riding situations. How do you measure actual rider energy/power in those situations? It is just a guess, based on how hard it appears the rider is working, or have you actually measured it?




As far as I can tell, in this situation which number is the right one to use is rather moot, since in most cases we can't actually measure the power the rider is expending, only the power that actually gets into the drivetrain. Trying to draw conclusions from data that doesn't actually exist requires a leap of faith, which often leads us in the wrong direction.

My point isn't that one number is right and one is wrong. Back to Ti's comment, it's that neither number is necessarily any more than a rough proxy of performance, because both get filtered by issues such as (for purposes of this discussion) pedal stroke efficiency. Measurements such as respiratory load aren't necessarily all that good in terms of training purposes, because someone with a particular VO2max will have different data from someone else. Watching two riders doing a VO2max test at Colorado Springs, one can have much stronger leg power and much weaker respiratory performance than another, and a coach needs to differentiate training strategies for each rider.

This isn't a philosophical discussion. In coaching at the elite level, especially where you can control many variables as one can on the track, it's really important to be able to identify and quantify the elements that need improvement in an athlete. Working with elite track and field athletes (and others with similar athletic issues such as football or soccer players), where power is one important element of overall performance, one can get down to taking muscle plugs to measure the biochemical status of the muscle so even issues such as psychological pain tolerance and actual muscle composition can be differentiated and worked on. This kind of work is being translated into studies on cyclists, and part of how riders like Froome have matured and tailored their training regimens has been by adopting such testing. Muscle plugs don't measure watts but they do measure one of the contributors to measured wattage. Sports performance science is moving from a macro level to an increasingly differentiated analysis of performance, and some of the discoveries are quite intriguing and already being applied in major track and road teams. Not much gets published but it is quite striking. We've subdivided speed down into aero, power, respiratory, kinesiological, and other variables and each of those is broken down as well. Respiratory is not just lung capacity any longer but mitochondrial density, mitochondrial phosphate recapture rates, cellular membrane transport rates, and so on. Power is undergoing the same kind of differentiation and will lead to much better understanding of what power means.

[ripvanrando]

One watt is one watt on my power tap hub.

I don't think anyone would argue with the HS Physics. Of course a 90 degree force vector applies more torque than a zero degree one.

The more important concept of efficiency is metabolic not the mechanical dynamics. We aren't electric motors. Ankling has been disproven.

I have found climbing long mountains of consistent grade to be very useful in that working on posture and saddle position while observing the power meter to be very enlightening. Activating or deactivating the hip flexor a has a huge impact.

As my power output increases I need to increase my cadence to recruit different muscle types.

Pedaling is far more dynamic than drawing force vectors. The studies that I have read indicate cadence and crank length determine metabolic efficiency and that pedaling technique is a minor component. I do think how a rider comes over the top of the stroke is underestimated but if OP is suggesting a oiling as a means of maintaining a 90 degree relationship to the crank arm direction of travel, hasn't ankling been disproven?

[jamesau]

If you apply force off the pedaling axis, it doesn't move the bike forwards, but there is no power transfer involved, so no possibility of wasted power.

This is plainly not true. A force applied that is not normal (square) to the axis of the crankarm simply produces a strain. Think stress/strain; stress is a force per unit area while strain is a measure of deformation. This deformation occurs to your bicycle and your tissues. Ultimately, it only generates heat, and then sweat, and then fatique; it doesn't help produce forward motion.

[weisan]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_12i8zjpBVaI/R_WOA-CZ2YI/AAAAAAAAAOU/Zt0LxOb09ZA/s400/bear_bike.gif

[RowanB]

This is plainly not true. A force applied that is not normal (square) to the axis of the crankarm simply produces a strain. Think stress/strain; stress is a force per unit area while strain is a measure of deformation. This deformation occurs to your bicycle and your tissues. Ultimately, it only generates heat, and then sweat, and then fatique; it doesn't help produce forward motion.

I'm referring to power transferred to the bike here. As far as I'm aware, at normal loads, the types of aluminium and steel used in bike components are basically elastic with no significant hysteresis loss. I suspect they are also stiff enough that the energy stored in elastic deformation is negligible. CF behaves a bit differently.

You make a good point about additional stress/strain on the body. As Mark McM alludes to above I think this would be a difficult effect to isolate and quantify.

[Ti Designs]

You love this phrase. It makes no sense, but you repeat it in every discussion about this as if it's some sort of hidden truth. So please, enlighten me - when is a watt NOT a watt?

When it can't be applied to the load. The statement is about different ways pedaling based on different muscle groups, or those who don't understand that there's more than one way to pedal a bike. using the glutes against a large load will produce and sustain the most wattage, but it can't be applied beyond 90 RPMs. The quads can generate lots of power by rapidly increasing the cadence, but at lower cadence they're not effective. FTP tests don't take this into account, it's simply a question of that number, blind to the conditions that produced it.

Some of the snide or snarky comments are unfair and discourteous. Ti Designs is posting here trying to help others in making things better. And in so doing he is neither shilling a business nor asking for money or roping for clients.

I'm always wrong on the internet, usually right on the bike...

[Charles M]

First, you can re-learn to pedal a bike. It just takes time. This video is a pretty good explanation of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0

Second, there are some people starting to look at power throughout the stroke. Hunter Allen recently held a webinar discussing how that could be analyzed in WKO, but it requires the use of specific PMs to do it.

Yep...

Lots of people and several power measuring hardware providers provide force analytics (kinda like the Spin scan for Computrainer has had for what, 20 years?)

The thread premis kinda seems short as it brings up a question answered multiple ways by folks making everything from trainers to power meters to fit bikes.

A more detailed view of the question might be by DJ... http://djconnel.blogspot.com/2013/08/proposed-pedal-stroke-smoothness.html


To dial it all in, some local folks have a fairly complete solution where they can measure force vectors while measuring watts and also Drag... But not everyone has a wind tunnel in their neighborhood.

All that said, you can absolutely change your stroke... Sometimes not for the better.

Watching people use Q rings and what happens when their pedal stroke inevitably adjusts/adapts to the power curve is always fun... Making a dead spot even weaker over time when people are out training on Q rings and then going through force analytics to figure out why they're developing painful issues is a treat.

[11.4]

Yep...

Lots of people and several power measuring hardware providers provide force analytics (kinda like the Spin scan for Computrainer has had for what, 20 years?)

The thread premis kinda seems short as it brings up a question answered multiple ways by folks making everything from trainers to power meters to fit bikes.

A more detailed view of the question might be by DJ... http://djconnel.blogspot.com/2013/08/proposed-pedal-stroke-smoothness.html


To dial it all in, some local folks have a fairly complete solution where they can measure force vectors while measuring watts and also Drag... But not everyone has a wind tunnel in their neighborhood.

All that said, you can absolutely change your stroke... Sometimes not for the better.

Watching people use Q rings and what happens when their pedal stroke inevitably adjusts/adapts to the power curve is always fun... Making a dead spot even weaker over time when people are out training on Q rings and then going through force analytics to figure out why they're developing painful issues is a treat.

This is the next logical step in this thread that will have some people getting out their blowtorches. That's primarily because some pretty crappy studies have claimed to demonstrate that riders can't be trained to improve their utilization of power through modified pedal strokes. Those studies aren't worth much, for several reasons already discussed at length here and elsewhere.

However, what's interesting is how teams are trying to improve rider performance. Yes, this is about pro or elite riders, but the evidence overall is that they aren't any better than the rest of us at adapting to an improved position, cadence, pedal stroke, or whatever. Just look at any number of top riders today. It all comes down to the combination of factors present in one individual rider. The best you can get is a scatter diagram of data, but it's not relevant as anything more than a scatter of data. There's no curve or proof of adaptation or whatever that can be derived by analysis of that data.

A few pro and national teams have done extensive work evaluating data with much more sophisticated power meters than we even dream of. They can look at (and differentiate) both positive and negative thrusts on any vector -- does your foot actually resist an upward movement and thus create a negative force vector or does it get carried passively or does it actually help lift that leg into the next downward pedal stroke, for example. They can also differentiate non radial power output -- someone who pushes straight forward at 1 o'clock may only be devoting 30% of their power to turning the pedals and the rest is wasted on a push against an immovable constraint. Computer modeling has become rather sophisticated -- enough to make Retul and Spinscan look like a bit of a joke. It also can take into account how the body changes position as a rider is at maximal output and certain weaker muscles are giving way in what would otherwise support more efficient power transfer. And so on. These studies are very promising, partly because they ask critically what is being measured, and how, and because they are breaking down basic data like wattage into various components to understand what can be improved and to determine when wattage is a misleading number.

For most of us, watts are pretty good indicators of power delivered. But when you're trying for that extra 5 watts that wins a pursuit or a 200m time, and you've already plucked the low-hanging fruit, this kind of study not only becomes incrementally valuable, but it also highlights options for improvement that have only been glimpsed dimly before. What we're going to have in the way of improved coaching and performance measurement over the next ten years is going to be nothing less than amazing.

[beeatnik]

Some of the snide or snarky comments are unfair and discourteous. Ti Designs is posting here trying to help others in making things better. And in so doing he is neither shilling a business nor asking for money or roping for clients.

Many different ways to solve a problem or acquire a skill. If you think yourself an expert and have a better way, then let's hear it. If you think yourself a student then don't be so thin skinned and defensive in an expert's calling your own technique, or lack thereof, into question.

I'm not taking sides. I am however mindful of keeping the quality of the interactions in this place high.

Take what you need and leave the rest.

But, Fuzz, ,the concept of being a "good" rider is anachronistic.

Al, The Good Rider

[makoti]

When it can't be applied to the load. The statement is about different ways pedaling based on different muscle groups, or those who don't understand that there's more than one way to pedal a bike. using the glutes against a large load will produce and sustain the most wattage, but it can't be applied beyond 90 RPMs. The quads can generate lots of power by rapidly increasing the cadence, but at lower cadence they're not effective. FTP tests don't take this into account, it's simply a question of that number, blind to the conditions that produced it.


No, it's still a watt. That's why the numbers you see don't have "-ish" after them.
An FTP test don't have to take it into account. It doesn't care. You are missing the fact that the test is designed to measure your max power output. That is all. It does not care how you get there. Pedal fast, pedal slow, stomp on the pedals, no matter. Whatever works for you. In fact, I would say that the test allows you to pedal however you want to so that you can be most efficient (which is what you are trying to talk about, I think). The fact that 3 people go different speeds at the same power output speaks to all sorts of intangibles, but not to the fact that a watt is, in fact, a watt.

[ripvanrando]

This is the next logical step in this thread that will have some people getting out their blowtorches. That's primarily because some pretty crappy studies have claimed to demonstrate that riders can't be trained to improve their utilization of power through modified pedal strokes. Those studies aren't worth much, for several reasons already discussed at length here and elsewhere.

However, what's interesting is how teams are trying to improve rider performance. Yes, this is about pro or elite riders, but the evidence overall is that they aren't any better than the rest of us at adapting to an improved position, cadence, pedal stroke, or whatever. Just look at any number of top riders today. It all comes down to the combination of factors present in one individual rider. The best you can get is a scatter diagram of data, but it's not relevant as anything more than a scatter of data. There's no curve or proof of adaptation or whatever that can be derived by analysis of that data.

A few pro and national teams have done extensive work evaluating data with much more sophisticated power meters than we even dream of. They can look at (and differentiate) both positive and negative thrusts on any vector -- does your foot actually resist an upward movement and thus create a negative force vector or does it get carried passively or does it actually help lift that leg into the next downward pedal stroke, for example. They can also differentiate non radial power output -- someone who pushes straight forward at 1 o'clock may only be devoting 30% of their power to turning the pedals and the rest is wasted on a push against an immovable constraint. Computer modeling has become rather sophisticated -- enough to make Retul and Spinscan look like a bit of a joke. It also can take into account how the body changes position as a rider is at maximal output and certain weaker muscles are giving way in what would otherwise support more efficient power transfer. And so on. These studies are very promising, partly because they ask critically what is being measured, and how, and because they are breaking down basic data like wattage into various components to understand what can be improved and to determine when wattage is a misleading number.

For most of us, watts are pretty good indicators of power delivered. But when you're trying for that extra 5 watts that wins a pursuit or a 200m time, and you've already plucked the low-hanging fruit, this kind of study not only becomes incrementally valuable, but it also highlights options for improvement that have only been glimpsed dimly before. What we're going to have in the way of improved coaching and performance measurement over the next ten years is going to be nothing less than amazing.

Could you recommend a lab with this sophisticated equipment.

I have very modest goals.

I want to increase my FTP 5 watts over the next 3 years and complete Paris Brest Paris in under 50 hours as a 60 year old. Pretty mundane. I honestly am looking for any gains.

[Ti Designs]

No, it's still a watt. That's why the numbers you see don't have "-ish" after them.
An FTP test don't have to take it into account. It doesn't care. You are missing the fact that the test is designed to measure your max power output. That is all. It does not care how you get there. Pedal fast, pedal slow, stomp on the pedals, no matter. Whatever works for you. In fact, I would say that the test allows you to pedal however you want to so that you can be most efficient (which is what you are trying to talk about, I think). The fact that 3 people go different speeds at the same power output speaks to all sorts of intangibles, but not to the fact that a watt is, in fact, a watt.


OK, a watt as a unit of measurement is exactly a watt. Much like a Kg is a Kg and a henway is a henway...

[11.4]

No, it's still a watt. That's why the numbers you see don't have "-ish" after them.
An FTP test don't have to take it into account. It doesn't care. You are missing the fact that the test is designed to measure your max power output. That is all. It does not care how you get there. Pedal fast, pedal slow, stomp on the pedals, no matter. Whatever works for you. In fact, I would say that the test allows you to pedal however you want to so that you can be most efficient (which is what you are trying to talk about, I think). The fact that 3 people go different speeds at the same power output speaks to all sorts of intangibles, but not to the fact that a watt is, in fact, a watt.

Right. As a physical unit, a watt is a watt. But we're not really measuring watts. We're measuring deflection on strain gauges that isn't necessarily reflective of actual power generated or applied by the cyclist. This whole thread, and Ti's original comment, have to do with the fact that the experimental setup, as it were, to measure wattage from a cycling effort is not that efficient and not a direct translation of cyclist power to bike to speed. We're not talking about the definition of a watt. We're talking about the same intangibles you mention and some very definite tangibles that affect the experimental setup.

[11.4]

Could you recommend a lab with this sophisticated equipment.

I have very modest goals.

I want to increase my FTP 5 watts over the next 3 years and complete Paris Brest Paris in under 50 hours as a 60 year old. Pretty mundane. I honestly am looking for any gains.

It would be fun if this were available widely. Some advanced shops bring in clinicians who can test lactate and even take muscle plugs, but the interpretation of the data and the scope of what really needs to be tracked goes far beyond that.

This is all really in the province of a handful of pro and national teams. And they aren't publishing or sharing all their data as they used to -- this is critical to their competitiveness and they safeguard it carefully.

[Ti Designs]

I thought the trip to Fl would make him rethink things, but I see it did not.

I rethink everything all the time. My conclusions are based on observation. In the case of my trip to Florida, I did the A ride on a rental bike (everyone else had their go-fast bikes with carbon wheels), coming from a new england winter where I was doing base mileage. It was all about flat speed, so I focused on using the quads to push over the top. About 25 started the ride, only 6 finished in the lead group, I was one of them. I doubt that many riders from Florida could do that well on my hill loop...

And no Ed, bringing a bigger gear won't really help, b/c we too can install bigger gears. Most of us riding down here in flat land use 53 and more than a few use a compact and still wind it up pretty quick.

I'm not sure how this fits into the argument...

I just want to know why Ed is not in France? I mean if his coaching is all of that, shouldn't the best in the world be employing him?

I'd like to think I am working with some of the best [clean] riders in the world.


There are many different ways to skin a cat.

But why would you want to?

I started this thread about pedal stroke knowing that some would take offense at my questioning their ability to pedal. Having anything you do scrutinized isn't easy, it points out flaws in what you're doing and how you see yourself doing it. The pedal stroke I scrutinize most is my own, I have hundreds of hours of video and data, I've even built a test rig to learn how to push in specific directions. I don't see my flaws as embarrassing or frustrating, I see them as a chance to learn how to do it better, to make gains that other people would never make. At 52 I'm still finding ways of making myself faster, which I then have to teach to my clients.

If you can't question yourself, you are probably not all that you assume you are.

[11.4]

I'd like to echo a previous post. Ti raised some interesting questions and made for an interesting discussion. He echoed a recent personal experience but he didn't identify it or personalize it. If you don't like or disagree with what was read, respond with courtesy. This thread picked up some rather negative venom and "snarky" (good word, fuzz) comments. We're better than that. The discussion is valuable to many and you are welcome to add your perspectives or disagreements in a courteous and informed manner.

[Tandem Rider]

I've been thinking about this, I know that's dangerous, BUT, I have always thought that watts at the rear wheel is only part of the equation. Knowing when to apply power, as Ed says, is a big part of the equation. So is knowing how to lower one's aerodynamic resistance. So is knowing how to be efficient on the bike. So is having lower mechanical resistance. So is knowing where to be in the pack. So is knowing how to fuel properly for the event, and the list goes on and on.

We all get wrapped around the axle about watts because it is easily measureable, trainable, and easily comparative. Energy and effort expended is still, at the end of the day, energy and effort expended, whether one went faster down the road or attempted to stretch out their crankarm.

One can do "proper" training and achieve a measured increase in power, lets say 20 watts at FTP just for discussion, this gets you an increase in speed. What if one could save 20 watts by keeping more of the pedal stroke perpendicular to the crankarms? What if one could save 20 watts at 25 mph through aerodynamics? What about the much bigger gains available from drafting properly? These would also give you the same increase in speed.

Races are much more than watts. Otherwise, we'd all line up, compare power files, declare a winner, and go home.

[carpediemracing]

Races are much more than watts. Otherwise, we'd all line up, compare power files, declare a winner, and go home.

+1

I'd be leaving for home quicker than most.

[Splash]

.....The pedal stroke I scrutinize most is my own, I have hundreds of hours of video and data, I've even built a test rig to learn how to push in specific directions.

What software and hardware tools do you use to analyse your pedal stroke and also to learn how to push in specific directions?

SPlash

[Sierra]

I rethink everything all the time. My conclusions are based on observation. In the case of my trip to Florida, I did the A ride on a rental bike (everyone else had their go-fast bikes with carbon wheels), coming from a new england winter where I was doing base mileage. It was all about flat speed, so I focused on using the quads to push over the top. About 25 started the ride, only 6 finished in the lead group, I was one of them. I doubt that many riders from Florida could do that well on my hill loop...



I'm not sure how this fits into the argument...



I'd like to think I am working with some of the best [clean] riders in the world.




But why would you want to?

I started this thread about pedal stroke knowing that some would take offense at my questioning their ability to pedal. Having anything you do scrutinized isn't easy, it points out flaws in what you're doing and how you see yourself doing it. The pedal stroke I scrutinize most is my own, I have hundreds of hours of video and data, I've even built a test rig to learn how to push in specific directions. I don't see my flaws as embarrassing or frustrating, I see them as a chance to learn how to do it better, to make gains that other people would never make. At 52 I'm still finding ways of making myself faster, which I then have to teach to my clients.

If you can't question yourself, you are probably not all that you assume you are.


I'm a classical musician. My god, how this reminds me of this one chap in another forum who has spent tens of thousands of hours making videos of himself, as well as of the movements of other notable musicians playing music and analyzing their most minute movements and making all sorts of critical commentary. Never mind that this guy, as it turns out, has focal dystonia and can't play a lick of music to save his own life; but, he is one to pontificate mightily nonetheless. This amounts to the same kind of pernicious mental masturbation in my view. What are your actual bonafides--your palmarès--if you will, sir? Pray tell us! And, besides, how in the F*** do you know what it is that we are doing in the first place that apparently gives you the liberty to vent such condescension??? This is laughable.


And, to Fezziwig (AKA the "Fuzz") who admonishes us all to remain the quality: that would carry more weight with me if he did not so easily fall into the trap of calling everybody he disagrees with "stupid" just about every chance he gets. ;)

[11.4]

On that last note, could a mod please lock this thread. If people can't understand courtesy and politeness on a forum ...

[Sierra]

On that last note, could a mod please lock this thread. If people can't understand courtesy and politeness on a forum ...

Pusillanimous. Yes, Mods, please lock the thread. Some simply cannot take the criticism. And, frankly, I find this place rather inbred. Delete my account while you're at it if you will be so kind. Ciao, babies. Enjoy yourselves.

[daker13]

i think what you're saying makes plenty of sense, but it's still only one component of becoming a better cyclist. there are plenty of things that most of us could change to become better cyclists, for example:

-ideal body weight
-ideal diet tailored to caloric daily burn and nutritional needs
-ideal hours/week dedicated to training
-optimal rest duration
-optimal sleep
-most efficient pedal stroke...

would i probably be a whole lot faster and stronger if i stopped drinking scotch beer and wine 7 nights a week, got a lot more sleep and dedicated more hours to being on the bike? of course! but i already know that, just like i know i could probably pedal a bike more efficiently.

there are so many more examples of this. go check out an amateur triathlon. how many people have expensive aero tri bikes but their position on them needs major improvement?

This still seems to me to be the wisest thing written in this thread. There are many postings that demonstrate a staggering knowledge of the science of the pedal stroke, but for most of us, basics like sleep, diet, and miles on the bike present plenty enough challenges.

I do think the whole 'everyone thinks they're doing it right, but they're all doing it wrong' schtick is hard to take. The axe grinding gets in the way of the message. One of these days I do intend to watch some of the videos, which sound informative, even enlightening. Clearly there's some hostility to what Ti is saying, but also a fair amount of condescension on both sides, I think.

[Dead Man]

Mebbe better solution to locking the thread would be for those being antagonistic to stop

[dnc]

I rethink everything all the time. My conclusions are based on observation. It was all about flat speed, so I focused on using the quads to push over the top.



Some riders describe their muscle action around TDC as if trying to roll their foot over a barrel, others to kicking a football. How would you describe your technique over the top and what percentage of tangential force at 3 o'c do you believe you are applying at TDC.

[Cicli]

Today I am going to train for nothing. I am going to ride my bike and enjoy myself. I am going to go over there and then come back. I am going to smile and have fun. Somehow I will get it done. Most likely by pedaling in some form or another.
Have fun and ride your bike.
Lock? No.
Delete? Yes. This forum is better than the internet. This thread makes it like the rest of the internet.
Have a nice day. Save this arguing for winter time.

[makoti]

Right. As a physical unit, a watt is a watt. But we're not really measuring watts. We're measuring deflection on strain gauges that isn't necessarily reflective of actual power generated or applied by the cyclist. This whole thread, and Ti's original comment, have to do with the fact that the experimental setup, as it were, to measure wattage from a cycling effort is not that efficient and not a direct translation of cyclist power to bike to speed. We're not talking about the definition of a watt. We're talking about the same intangibles you mention and some very definite tangibles that affect the experimental setup.

You're talking about input. The wattage we speak of is output. If wattage equals X, then you change the variables however you want to get X, pedal fast/slow/stomp/whatever. You're talking efficiency, not wattage. The result of your efforts is the wattage. So the watts he produces are the same as anyone else. If you're going to extol a process, you should get the terms right. You should understand the difference between what you put in and what you get out.
Yes, all of us could be more efficient in how we produce wattage & produce more for the same effort (which is what this is all about), but as has been stated before, there isn't any research to back up what he says. Saying that 95% of us here don't know what were doing is pretty inflammatory, don't you think?
Want to see how these variables can mess with your speed at a given power output? Here: http://www.bikecalculator.com/
And...lock the thread? Seriously?

[Ti Designs]

I'm a classical musician. My god, how this reminds me of this one chap in another forum who has spent tens of thousands of hours making videos of himself, as well as of the movements of other notable musicians playing music and analyzing their most minute movements and making all sorts of critical commentary. Never mind that this guy, as it turns out, has focal dystonia and can't play a lick of music to save his own life; but, he is one to pontificate mightily nonetheless. This amounts to the same kind of pernicious mental masturbation in my view.

One of the down sides of the internet (one of many) is that you really don't know the background of the person venting their opinions. It's more likely that I'm an obese 13 year old sitting at my computer than someone who can ride a bike well.



And, besides, how in the F*** do you know what it is that we are doing in the first place that apparently gives you the liberty to vent such condescension??? This is laughable.

I'm a bike fitter at a large shop, I do as many as 6 fittings a day, 5 days a week. I've been doing this for 15 years. You could say I've seen a few people on bikes... Fitting to me isn't just about adjusting the bike, it's getting the rider to understand where the weight is supported. More than 90% of the time they have a significant portion of their upper body weight supported by the handlebars. These are people who walk down the street on their feet, not their hands - they don't do this to themselves in anything else they do. What makes the bike different? The bike is the one case where the rider is asked to put their body weight on something that's moving. Most people can't just shut off their own defenses, given the choice between a moving pedal and a solid handlebar, they go for the handlebar.

How I know (I'd give it a 90% chance) what you're doing wrong? Aside from a massive amount of data, it goes back to the question I keep asking - when did you learn how to do it right? You learned how to walk, how to raise your body weight by firing the quad and extending at the knee. That works fine as long as the hip is directly above the foot. You learn how to do that by mapping that muscle, force on foot = fire the quad, and you practice that skill set a lot. Then you get on a bike and you try to push down on the pedal. Why does your hip move back in the saddle - you're pushing down, right?

There are two possibilities here. One is that I've found a common cognitive bias, and I'm trying to do something about it. The other is that I'm bat $hit crazy, and when the meds wear off I can be found in Harvard square yelling at the pigeons 'cause they're flying all wrong. I can only gauge which one is closer to the truth by the reactions of the people around me. I've had a number of people tell me they've tried what I teach and it's changed their riding for the better. On the other hand, pigeons do seem to be avoiding me...

[weisan]

This is a good thread, thanks to Ti pal for initiating the discussion, don't need to talk about closing it down.

There's a lot to glean from the things said by Ti, 11.4, Carpiem and many others.

Do yourself a favor... take the time to read and ponder over, don't rush through it like everything else going on in our lives, seek to understand first rather than be understood. Listen more than talk.

[Ti Designs]

Saying that 95% of us here don't know what were doing is pretty inflammatory, don't you think?

If that's how you're reading it, it's downright insulting.

I've tried to explain it as a learning process that somehow got skipped, or a cognitive bias that allows people to overlook how they are doing something. I've even taken the time to make videos to explain and correct the issue. It's not like I'm insulting your mother here...

[CNY rider]

Today I am going to train for nothing. I am going to ride my bike and enjoy myself. I am going to go over there and then come back. I am going to smile and have fun. Somehow I will get it done. Most likely by pedaling in some form or another.
......

This is EXACTLY what I'm going to do today as well.
But I also feel like I learned something reading this thread.
So why can't we have both?

[AngryScientist]

This is EXACTLY what I'm going to do today as well.
But I also feel like I learned something reading this thread.
So why can't we have both?

i agree with this. eventually, if you cycle enough, even if you're just cycling purely for leisure and enjoyment, you'll ask yourself how you can get better. how can i climb that hill more comfortably? how can i hang with my younger pal? how can i get to that ice cream shop 100 miles away?

these types of threads give me at least something to think about while i'm on the bike. i think fuzz's quote is a good one "take what you need, leave what you dont"

i dont think we're at the point of locking the thread, and i think there continues to be some good discussion here. let's try and keep this respectful, and remember it's always OK to disagree with someone, but you don't have to be a jerk when you do.

that brings up the basic #1 rule we have here: "dont be a jerk".

carry on!

[William]

I'm a classical musician. My god, how this reminds me of this one chap in another forum who has spent tens of thousands of hours making videos of himself, as well as of the movements of other notable musicians playing music and analyzing their most minute movements and making all sorts of critical commentary. Never mind that this guy, as it turns out, has focal dystonia and can't play a lick of music to save his own life; but, he is one to pontificate mightily nonetheless. This amounts to the same kind of pernicious mental masturbation in my view. What are your actual bonafides--your palmarès--if you will, sir? Pray tell us! And, besides, how in the F*** do you know what it is that we are doing in the first place that apparently gives you the liberty to vent such condescension??? This is laughable.


And, to Fezziwig (AKA the "Fuzz") who admonishes us all to remain the quality: that would carry more weight with me if he did not so easily fall into the trap of calling everybody he disagrees with "stupid" just about every chance he gets. ;)


There are many ways of asking questions and responding without toeing the lines in the user agreement...



• The Golden Rule: "Don't be a jerk."...
• Harassment: Respect toward fellow members is expected and required. You agree not to harass, flame, insult, taunt, or otherwise disrespect any member of this forum. Polite and intelligent disagreement is expected and inevitable in this type of forum. Personal attacks are not permitted at any time.


Your response is toeing the line. Keep it cordial/respectful without being rude.

In the case of "snarky" comments and locking threads, so far it has been mostly interesting dialogue and back and forth. At this point I'll hand out time-outs if the rudeness keeps up before I'll lock the thread. Again, make your points without being rude or disrespectful.

A warning has been thrown down.







Have a good day and go pedal your bikes. :)
William

[jamesau]

This is a great thread and I find it kinda surprising that pedaling mechanics isn't discussed more here. I accept that there's no certainty as to how the best do it or how best to do it. That's fine as it provides another thing to contemplate and practice on my rides.

I accept TiD's premise that the quads and glutes are the principle drivers; I've applied some of his ideas over the years and they've helped me.

For those who are disturbed by this thread: don't take up golf and then take to the web for trying to understand/apply swing mechanics.

[rockdude]

Colby Pearce set the US hour record at over 31 mph doing 311 watts (50.1 kph).

Norm Alvis is the US hour record holder in the Elite at 51.505

[OtayBW]

OK, a watt as a unit of measurement is exactly a watt. Much like a Kg is a Kg and a henway is a henway...
I would just like to point out that while 1 kg is indeed 1 kg, a henway is actually 'about 2 or 3 lbs'.

Thank-you. :rolleyes:

[fuzzalow]

Please note that my response is directed to the accusation and is not an entreaty to a dialogue with the author of this quote.
And, to Fezziwig (AKA the "Fuzz") who admonishes us all to remain the quality: that would carry more weight with me if he did not so easily fall into the trap of calling everybody he disagrees with "stupid" just about every chance he gets. ;)

There is a difference between making out a point of argument or a thrust of humor as being stupid versus leveling an actual insult at the person making that point of that humor as being stupid. That distinction, however subtle, is what separates debate from ad hominem. Though the possibility certainly exists that any comment betrays the person making it. Capish?

I'll concede that my use of the word "stupid" in the original exchange in question might sound indelicate. But for the posted absurdity which was being responded to, IMO such wording was completely appropriate.

[93legendti]

this is a good thread, thanks to ti pal for initiating the discussion, don't need to talk about closing it down.

There's a lot to glean from the things said by ti, 11.4, carpiem and many others.

Do yourself a favor... Take the time to read and ponder over, don't rush through it like everything else going on in our lives, seek to understand first rather than be understood. Listen more than talk.

+1

this is a great thread and i find it kinda surprising that pedaling mechanics isn't discussed more here. I accept that there's no certainty as to how the best do it or how best to do it. That's fine as it provides another thing to contemplate and practice on my rides.

I accept tid's premise that the quads and glutes are the principle drivers; i've applied some of his ideas over the years and they've helped me.

For those who are disturbed by this thread: Don't take up golf and then take to the web for trying to understand/apply swing mechanics.

+1

[11.4]

You're talking about input. The wattage we speak of is output. If wattage equals X, then you change the variables however you want to get X, pedal fast/slow/stomp/whatever. You're talking efficiency, not wattage. The result of your efforts is the wattage. So the watts he produces are the same as anyone else. If you're going to extol a process, you should get the terms right. You should understand the difference between what you put in and what you get out.
Yes, all of us could be more efficient in how we produce wattage & produce more for the same effort (which is what this is all about), but as has been stated before, there isn't any research to back up what he says. Saying that 95% of us here don't know what were doing is pretty inflammatory, don't you think?
Want to see how these variables can mess with your speed at a given power output? Here: http://www.bikecalculator.com/
And...lock the thread? Seriously?


I am actually being quite clear that I'm talking about rider output. If I need a unit to measure it in, watts are fine. I think that some participants are thinking that if a powermeter delivers readings in watts, that terminology can't be used to measure the actual output of the rider with all her/his power losses before power gets read at the powermeter strain gauges. One can measure wattage at several points and the differences measure the very efficiency losses that we're talking about in this thread.

[Tony]

Pusillanimous. Yes, Mods, please lock the thread. Some simply cannot take the criticism. And, frankly, I find this place rather inbred. Delete my account while you're at it if you will be so kind. Ciao, babies. Enjoy yourselves.

Loner insults our forum and rides off into the sunset, to the next forum. A must.

[Sierra]

Please note that my response is directed to the accusation and is not an entreaty to a dialogue with the author of this quote.


There is a difference between making out a point of argument or a thrust of humor as being stupid versus leveling an actual insult at the person making that point of that humor as being stupid. That distinction, however subtle, is what separates debate from ad hominem. Though the possibility certainly exists that any comment betrays the person making it. Capish?

I'll concede that my use of the word "stupid" in the original exchange in question might sound indelicate. But for the posted absurdity which was being responded to, IMO such wording was completely appropriate.

Hmmm . . . why do your commentaries always sound suspiciously like those same disputations that the Church fathers used to have, during the Holy Inquisition, centered on how many angels could be found to dance on the head of a pin?

But, more to the point . . . MODS, why have I not been banished as I had requested?

[Sierra]

Loner insults our forum and rides off into the sunset, to the next forum. A must.

Oh, I'm not really a loner. But, l do tire of these types of pseudo-scientific pomposities that are now so common on the internet. In any case, and more to the real point, I guess my feelings towards cycling and cyclists is not unlike Ghandi's towards Christ and Christians (I like your Christ; but your Christians, Meh--not so much; to paraphrase with certain license. I notice that this attitude is hardly unique--it actually finds resonance in something the Dead Man said, himself, in another thread).

At any rate, what is apparently clear to me from having worked with world class musicians, is that it is perfectly possible to become a world-class virtuoso (read, a Merckx; a Contador; a Froome; etc. vis-a-vis cycling) by employing a very unorthodox technique that defies this type of armchair analysis, no matter how "exhaustive." Mastery at these levels is always a mysterious thing; each virtuoso/master is unique. And, finally, there is no getting over the fact that a very few of us are just incredibly more talented than most of us.

[Mark McM]

How I know (I'd give it a 90% chance) what you're doing wrong? Aside from a massive amount of data, it goes back to the question I keep asking - when did you learn how to do it right? You learned how to walk, how to raise your body weight by firing the quad and extending at the knee. That works fine as long as the hip is directly above the foot. You learn how to do that by mapping that muscle, force on foot = fire the quad, and you practice that skill set a lot. Then you get on a bike and you try to push down on the pedal. Why does your hip move back in the saddle - you're pushing down, right?

Okay, so how do we all learn how to walk without someone teaching us how to fire the right muscles at the right times? Did anyone ever teach you how to walk?

Most of us learn how to walk through many hours of practice, and using our natural ability to adapt and optimize our motions. Why can't this work for cycling as well? Since there are fewer degrees of freedom in the pedaling motion than the walking motion, it should be easier. (This might also explain why some athletes in other endurance sports, such as running, can transition rapidly to high levels in cycling, whereas that almost never happens the other way around.)

As far as pushing down on the pedals, why is pushing directy down on the pedals the only way to pedal? If it is, why do we position our saddles significally behind the pedals, shouldn't it be better to position the hips directly over the pedals? I'm not sure why it is bad to begin the pedal stroke by pushing forward - especially since our hip joints are behind the pedals. Pushing directly down is only effective over a short portion of the pedal stroke, when the cranks are nearly horizontal. By beginning the pedal stroke with a forward push we can lengthen the power phase of the pedal stroke.

A longer power phase has shown to be an advantage in many other spors. Look at some advances in some other sports with similar leg pushing motions: In speed skating, the Klapp skate has revolutionized skating speeds. These skates keep the blade on edge for a longer period during the push off, allowing the skater to increase the time and range of motion of the pushing motion. The use of these skates (and the change in skating technique they allow) has resulted in a leap forward in speeds. In cross-country skiing, the skating technique has a much longer power phase than the classical technique. Even though the skating technique requires the skier to push laterally and to move in a side-to-side diagonal path (whereas in the classical technique the skis are driven directly down the track), the advantages of the longer power phase makes skating faster and more efficient.

If pushing down is the be-all and end-all of the pedaling motion, why aren't treadle bicycles, such as the Alenax below, more popular:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2312/2123228530_73192648ec_b.jpg

The pedals on these bikes move only in an slightly arcing up and down path - there is no dead spot across the top or bottom of the circle. This allows the cyclist generate torque with downward pushing across the entire pedal stroke. (Another interesting feature of these bikes is that they often have infinitely variable gear ratios, which seems to be the holy grail of bicycle drivetrains).

[Ti Designs]

Okay, so how do we all learn how to walk without someone teaching us how to fire the right muscles at the right times? Did anyone ever teach you how to walk?

walking has failure states, do it wrong and you fall down. Watch a child learning how to walk, they learn how by eliminating the things that don't work. The difference between walking and pedaling a bike is freedom of movement. When walking you can move your feet anywhere, when pedaling a bike your feet go around in a circle dictated by the cranks and bottom bracket. While you can't make your feet move in anything other than a circle, you can still push in any direction - doing it wrong looks the same as doing it right, so people assume they're doing it right.

When someone gets on a bike and starts pedaling, it's still using a skill set. The skill set almost everyone uses is the one used to walk (which is why most people get it wrong). I know this because I had a severe back injury a few decades ago and lost the ability to walk. I learned to remap the large muscle groups, but relearning how to walk was intimidating. I watched kids learning how to walk, it's really cute when they do it, being an adult and flopping over like a drunk isn't as cute. Learning to ride a stationary bike seemed like a good first step, I could reduce it to pushing forward, down, back and up, and I wouldn't fall down in the process.



As far as pushing down on the pedals, why is pushing directy down on the pedals the only way to pedal? If it is, why do we position our saddles significally behind the pedals, shouldn't it be better to position the hips directly over the pedals? I'm not sure why it is bad to begin the pedal stroke by pushing forward - especially since our hip joints are behind the pedals. Pushing directly down is only effective over a short portion of the pedal stroke, when the cranks are nearly horizontal. By beginning the pedal stroke with a forward push we can lengthen the power phase of the pedal stroke.

I'm just gonna assume that Mark is arguing with someone else here...

[11.4]

To Mark: You're really well versed in much of these technical issues already, so I suspect a lot of your questions are rhetorical. But the one about the saddle being behind the bottom bracket is an interesting one because it's challenged somewhat by triathletes and for specialized events such as the hour record, world land speed record, even for derny racing on the track.

The basic argument for having the saddle pushed rearward goes back to the idea that as a pedal stroke we are supposed to be pushing through a full 360 degrees and in a direction tangential to the path of the pedals. If you consider the length of the femur as moving the source of the power vector forwards from the hips by X inches, and we all appreciate that pulling up behind the hips or pushing forward when the foot is behind the hips isn't all that efficient or trainable, we're simply arranging with a rearward saddle to be positioning the quads and secondarily the glutes at the right position to exert the most power over the greatest possible range of the pedal revolution. If we question whether there's any point in trying to pull the pedal around and upwards from, say, the 6 pm to 12 pm positions, then we can let the rearward foot move passively and not worry about as much of this issue. But if we're directly over the pedal, it's harder to get the 12 pm and 6 pm positions moving effectively, both because we'd just be exerting most of our force vertically (that old "scraping the dirt off the shoe" descriptor for ankling isn't taken seriously by most people any longer) and because our forward femur extension would push the knees well forward of the pedal and limit the effective force we can apply with the quads and glutes.

However, this is where it gets a bit circular (pun intended). If we lengthen the saddle to bottom bracket distance and bring the saddle well forward, we find ourselves in what some triathletes and a couple hour record holders have found to be more powerful. We just have to adopt a position that is, not to make too fine a point of it, outlawed by the UCI. Get away from UCI-regulated competition, and we see more creative bike design which in turn allows more creative positioning. And a lot of the evidence from triathletes and quote-unquote illegal hour record positions is that they actually produce faster cycling.

There's a lot of retraining needed to optimize one of these extreme positions, as various triathletes who espouse them have shown. They fundamentally change the tension and flexibility requirements of the glutes and lower extremities, which is an adaptation that these athletes can achieve but is a very measurable adaptation.

Now let's back up and talk about basic ankling. If you can learn to pedal differently for an extreme tri position, what says you can't learn to pedal better for a standard road position? One thing that's interesting here is what sports orthopedists and podiatrists are finding with orthotics. Orthotics have been treated like necessary crutches for weak or hyper mobile feet for decades, but now people with these problems are being trained to strengthen the various supporting musculature, especially in the calf and in the ankle and foot, to correct these problems without resorting to crutches. There are some remarkable cases among runners, and in cycling much of the work on varus wedges (a la Specialized shoe designs) is derived from what has worked with runners -- it simply isn't necessary to brace the foot completely with an orthotic because one can train the foot to be stronger. If that's the case, we have an example of how the foot can be trained to behave differently.

Sometimes we think of the pedal stroke as being simpler because the foot is constrained to a circular path. But let's face it, that's not necessarily a natural path, just one constrained by hundred-year-old engineering principles affecting bicycle design. I'm not arguing for elliptical or other crank designs per se, just observing that we all know that our pedaling force is anything but efficient or constant through the rotation of the pedal, and some of us have more problems than others. Elliptical chainrings are a very timid approach to correcting this issue, but there's a point where we each should be able to optimize our pedaling far beyond where it is currently, either with hardware changes or by fit changes or by specific training. The hard thing is that there's no general solution for all people. Medical practice is being driven right now by the concept of precision medicine, whereby care is delivered based on the specific morphological, genetic, or biochemical characteristics of one patient. I'd argue that training, coaching, and fitting are best addressed the same way. It demands a much higher level of analysis and understanding, and isn't the kind of thing that your basic bike shop mechanic turned fit guru is going to be up to. But those who can grasp the complexities and think through the multiplicity of issues will likely be able to bring about tremendous improvements. We draw most of our conclusions currently based on fitting and coaching wisdom that is collectively very sub-par and generalized. To figure out just what you, as a unique cyclist, need to do and to follow you through that adaptation will, I suspect, yield great results. We're just getting there. TiDesigns has been thinking through a number of these issues for a few years now. I've been following them because I've been pursuing the same issues, partly in conjunction with a couple major teams who have the technology and budget to explore this at the technological threshold. The evidence when investing heavily in a few pro athletes is pretty convincing. How to make this expertise available to every enthusiast who wants it is very difficult, but that will change. We're on the cusp of a major change in coaching, fit, and simply the geometry of how we design and ride bikes. And that's where Mark's questions, rhetorical or not, are important ones and right on the leading edge of where cycling is headed.

PS: Apologies for the wordiness. We're definitely into theoretical and philosophical discussions in part here, but they are relevant to the direction that cycling is headed.

[Bob Ross]

It is unclear what tidesigns is advocating.

I think it's pretty clear he's advocating we all sign up for his pedal stroke class. These threads are infomercials.

[11.4]

I think it's pretty clear he's advocating we all sign up for his pedal stroke class. These threads are infomercials.

I think he's talking out questions he has about what he does, and sharing what he's learning.

I don't think he's ever linked his classes to a post, or even supplied his own name or where he works.

[cmbicycles]

I think it's pretty clear he's advocating we all sign up for his pedal stroke class. These threads are infomercials.
I think he's advocating we do some self analysis and critical thinking about what we know or think we know. His pedal stroke classes, or at least the basics are on YouTube, so no tuition required. If you arent interested or have nothing to learn, great, watt ever, more pedal power to you. ;)
I find the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. It makes me try to learn more, but that's just me and ymmv.

[11.4]

i think he's advocating we do some self analysis and critical thinking about what we know or think we know. His pedal stroke classes, or at least the basics are on youtube, so no tuition required. If you arent interested or have nothing to learn, great, watt ever, more pedal power to you. ;)
i find the more i learn, the more i realize how little i know. It makes me try to learn more, but that's just me and ymmv.

+1

[makoti]

I think he's advocating we do some self analysis and critical thinking about what we know or think we know. His pedal stroke classes, or at least the basics are on YouTube, so no tuition required. If you arent interested or have nothing to learn, great, watt ever, more pedal power to you. ;)
I find the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. It makes me try to learn more, but that's just me and ymmv.

You're learning from a guy who doesn't understand why you don't use erg mode for an FTP test. Pick and choose carefully.

[Tony]

I think he's advocating we do some self analysis and critical thinking about what we know or think we know. His pedal stroke classes, or at least the basics are on YouTube, so no tuition required. If you arent interested or have nothing to learn, great, watt ever, more pedal power to you. ;)
I find the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. It makes me try to learn more, but that's just me and ymmv.

I agree. I've studied his videos, applied as much of what I think I understand to my pedal stroke, believe there is truth to what he's advocating.

[CunegoFan]

To be complete, this thread really needs Frank Day. His endless and tireless pimping of Power Cranks and their promised performance improvement [All research to the contrary be damned!] would fit right in.

[Ti Designs]

You're learning from a guy who doesn't understand why you don't use erg mode for an FTP test. Pick and choose carefully.

It's even worse, I don't coach using power meters. And I'm an a$$hole...


The hard part about coaching in person is you have to represent what you're teaching. I make no secret of who I am, how I ride is exactly what I teach. If you really want to know who you're learning from, come ride with me.

How 'bout it Sam, care to stack TrainerRoad against edsasslercoaching???

[Sierra]

It's even worse, I don't coach using power meters. And I'm an a$$hole...


The hard part about coaching in person is you have to represent what you're teaching. I make no secret of who I am, how I ride is exactly what I teach. If you really want to know who you're learning from, come ride with me.

How 'bout it Sam, care to stack TrainerRoad against edsasslercoaching???

Wow. What is this--Napa? The hot air balloons are aloft! Aren't you a bit old to be indulging in all of this bravado? It's unseemly; reminds one of Sunset Boulevard. ;)

[ripvanrando]

I went back over the years and read tidesigns posts and watched his videos

His advice makes sense and is how I "think" I pedal.

The best analogy for me is hitting a really long golf ball. Most golfers have the sequence and firing of muscles all wrong. As a skinny kid I could fly the ball 320 yards to the amazement of much more muscular fellows.

On my recent 4600 mile trek across the USA with 200,000+ feet of climbing I messed around with my power meter and climbing technique. It goes without saying lousy technique is inefficient

Another lesson to me from my cycling chiropractor is that muscles work in pairs and I've never thought of the saddle as the counter force to my glutes or quads; rather, the counteracting forces are core muscles and arms for really hard efforts

In my previous comments I was thinking the discussion about efficiency was more at the muscular level. In any case I am sure poor technique is inefficient but I am unclear if I pedal well or not. However I tend to require relatively low KJ to cover distances leading me to believe I'm pretty efficient. 23-30 kcal per mile is all I ever need depending on speed and terrain. I'd like to do metabic efficiency testing but don't hVe the time to do it.

[makoti]

It's even worse, I don't coach using power meters. And I'm an a$$hole...


The hard part about coaching in person is you have to represent what you're teaching. I make no secret of who I am, how I ride is exactly what I teach. If you really want to know who you're learning from, come ride with me.

How 'bout it Sam, care to stack TrainerRoad against edsasslercoaching???

No, the worst part is that you DON'T coach using power meters, yet you expound on them as if you have a base of knowledge for them. It's pretty clear to me that you don't understand how to use one or what information you actually get from one. Then you say stuff like "You should use erg mode for your FTP test. It's the only way to get an accurate test". :crap:
Stick to what you know. If you've noticed, I've never commented on your pedaling technique (well, until now). Seems pointless to me, but hey, if someone wants to worry that they can't figure out how to make the pedals go round, fine. Watch the videos. If someone thinks it helps them, congratulations. You've done someone some good. They are not pedaling my bike, so I don't care.
Thank you for the offer, Ed, but I'll pass. I'm very happy with my program right now. Coming back from an ugly brush with Lymes last season, I've done very well focusing on power & rest. Stronger now than I've been for a while.
I know you may not think so (or a few others here, right now), but I have nothing against you. You've said some things recently that I just felt you needed to be called on.
Peace out, brother.

[Ti Designs]

Thank you for the offer, Ed, but I'll pass. I'm very happy with my program right now. Coming back from an ugly brush with Lymes last season, I've done very well focusing on power & rest. Stronger now than I've been for a while.
I know you may not think so (or a few others here, right now), but I have nothing against you. You've said some things recently that I just felt you needed to be called on.

Calling someone on something on the internet is lame. You say you know something, I say I know something else - who's right?

You train with a power meter, you claim to know what you're doing, you even say you're stronger now than you've been for a while. I don't have a power meter, wouldn't know how to use it if I did, all I do is practice moving my feet around. We should go for a ride, maybe strap a few GoPro cameras on to document it. You'll make me look like an idiot and discredit everything I've ever said, and the forum will finally be free of me.

[bewheels]

A quick 'thank you' to Ti, 11.4, and others for continuing to provide food for thought. Like many on this forum I have been at this a long time and I personally find this more interesting then the potential performance difference between a 25 & 26mm tire.

A suggestion - perhaps there could be a glossary of terms that can be referred back to for threads like this. That might save some time for all.

One other item - It is often the case that of the best coaches/managers were themselves people that sat on the bench during their playing careers. The job of a coach/manager/teacher is to make their players/students better. I have had coaches/teachers/career managers that were fantastic at helping me get to the next level. This had nothing to do with whether they were 'better' then me. And I have had coaches/teachers/managers that were 'better' then me but could not actually coach/teach/manage.

[rnhood]

A quick 'thank you' to Ti, 11.4, and others for continuing to provide food for thought. Like many on this forum I have been at this a long time and I personally find this more interesting then the potential performance difference between a 25 & 26mm tire.

+1
Good thread with some fresh thinking on a subject.

[Ti Designs]

One other item - It is often the case that of the best coaches/managers were themselves people that sat on the bench during their playing careers. The job of a coach/manager/teacher is to make their players/students better. I have had coaches/teachers/career managers that were fantastic at helping me get to the next level. This had nothing to do with whether they were 'better' then me. And I have had coaches/teachers/managers that were 'better' then me but could not actually coach/teach/manage.

Very true, but how many coaches/teachers/managers had to defend what they do against attacks from people who insist that what they teach is useless? The key elements to being a good coach are knowing/understanding the subject and being able to relate it to the client - it's far more about being a good teacher than being a good cyclist. In many cases the best athletes make the worst teachers because it all came too easily to them, they never had to figure it out so they can't explain the steps it takes to make it happen.

When coaching in person, being able to ride well helps out. It's mostly with the younger guys, there's always a "let's test the coach" period. If I pass that test I gain their respect and the coach/athlete relationship starts working. In coaching women it's a different story, it's all about trust. Just getting them to draft tight is a matter of having them trust my ability on the bike.

From what I've seen, cycling has become a game of misrepresentation because very little of it ever gets tested. While it's true that the fitness of the coach has nothing to do with coaching, we've taken that to a whole new level. Everything about cycling is viewed much like pedal stroke technique - it's simple, it's natural, you were born with it... So everybody thinks they are qualified to give advice, and they do. It would be nice to put these people on bikes once in a while, if for no other reason than entertainment.



I'm not talking about makoti here. We met along time ago when my wife crewed for Ed Kross in RAAM. I know he rides.

[makoti]

Calling someone on something on the internet is lame. You say you know something, I say I know something else - who's right?

You train with a power meter, you claim to know what you're doing, you even say you're stronger now than you've been for a while. I don't have a power meter, wouldn't know how to use it if I did, all I do is practice moving my feet around. We should go for a ride, maybe strap a few GoPro cameras on to document it. You'll make me look like an idiot and discredit everything I've ever said, and the forum will finally be free of me.

And they said we'd never agree on anything.
I'm sorry that you feel pointing out that you are posting nonsense is lame, but it was, in fact, nonsense. Maybe we can argue the meaning of "erg mode"? Remember this gem? "Here's where the definition of "ergometer mode" and TrainerRoad's use of ergometer mode differ. In order to test, you need control of that number, which is to say simply ergometer mode without anything else changing that on you." Wha...?
Or perhaps you can actually tell us why it's VS. between power meters & pedal stroke in the title of this thread? I always though that you did the latter & the former told you how effective the latter was, seeing how a power meter is nothing more than another tool. Don't see why that would be a VS. situation. It's your thread. Clarify? Remember, you don't own one & wouldn't know what to do with it if you did (as if that needed re-stating).
No, Uncle Rico. I'm sure you can throw that football all the way over the mountains. You go ahead. You're one of the 5%, ya know.
Yeah, I have nothing against you Ed, but after that response, I'm open to options..

[makoti]

I'm not talking about makoti here. We met along time ago when my wife crewed for Ed Kross in RAAM. I know he rides.

We did??? Well, that changes everything! How are ya, Ed! That was a long time ago! Seriously, you're memory is way better than mine. 1992? We got smoked. ;-)

[weisan]

Well, that changes everything!

See....!

Perspective. Perspective.

[93legendti]

The grief Ed gets for his great, free advice reminds me of this quote from Moneyball:

"John Henry: ... I know you've taken it in the teeth out there, but the first guy through the wall. It always gets bloody, always. It's the threat of not just the way of doing business, but in their minds it's threatening the game. But really what it's threatening is their livelihoods, it's threatening their jobs, it's threatening the way that they do things. And every time that happens, whether it's the government or a way of doing business or whatever it is, the people are holding the reins, have their hands on the switch. They go bat **** crazy..."

[Sierra]

The grief Ed gets for his great, free advice reminds me of this quote from Moneyball:



In my experience, if something is free there is usually a reason for it.

[Ti Designs]

Remember, you don't own one & wouldn't know what to do with it if you did (as if that needed re-stating).

I may have lied about that...

[makoti]

I may have lied about that...

Ok. So you have one.

[makoti]

The grief Ed gets for his great, free advice


Just wondering...which part of his advice on power meters was the great part?

[Ti Designs]

In my experience, if something is free there is usually a reason for it.

I have two reasons. First, John Allis was my coach for a few decades, and it was free. I now coach the Harvard team and do things like my website to pay that forward. The Harvard team did buy me an ice cream machine, and weisan offered to buy me a pizza...

The second reason is more selfish - I want more people I can ride with. Knowing how to pedal makes you faster, allows you to climb hills better, and eliminates a lot of excuses for not riding.

Just wondering...which part of his advice on power meters was the great part?

Don't use one until you've learned how to pedal.

[weisan]

weisan offered to buy me a pizza...


Ti pal, I want to do more than buying you a pizza...I want to invent a machine that can help you navigate and get around to places. :D

No wait, they already have that...it's called GPS.

[ripvanrando]

Using my Powertap rear wheel meter riiding up some long mountain road recently, I messed around with pedaling at threshold level climbing. Tilting the pelvis, sitting up, and focus on getting the pedal over the top using what I believe are the hip flexor muscles makes a noticeable difference at threshold for me

This was not a surprise. I was just entertaining myself to see the actual differences using different pedal and posture techniques.

My power meter does not care about 10th grade Trig. It took me quite some effort to understand what this thread was all about. It is a school yard pissing match.

[Sierra]

I have two reasons. First, John Allis was my coach for a few decades, and it was free. I now coach the Harvard team and do things like my website to pay that forward. The Harvard team did buy me an ice cream machine, and weisan offered to buy me a pizza...

The second reason is more selfish - I want more people I can ride with. Knowing how to pedal makes you faster, allows you to climb hills better, and eliminates a lot of excuses for not riding.



Don't use one until you've learned how to pedal.

Oh, this is rich. LOL.

I'm trying to imagine Yo Yo Ma complaining about not having anybody to play music with. He is rather at the top of his "game" too. No. He would never be that arrogant.

[Bruce K]

Sierra

You have been asked repeatedly by the mods to be respectful with your tone towards others

You have also (apparently) asked us to ban you.

We suggested that you either stay away from the forum, just hang out and not comment, or play by the rules.

Since you can't seem to make a choice that works, we will honor your request.

Sayonara!

BK

[ripvanrando]

I have two reasons. First, John Allis was my coach for a few decades, and it was free. I now coach the Harvard team and do things like my website to pay that forward. The Harvard team did buy me an ice cream machine, and weisan offered to buy me a pizza...

The second reason is more selfish - I want more people I can ride with. Knowing how to pedal makes you faster, allows you to climb hills better, and eliminates a lot of excuses for not riding.



Don't use one until you've learned how to pedal.


This makes zero sense. My power meter is a direct immediate precise feedback on pedaling efficiency. When you make statements like that it is very hard to get past them....guess it's time to check out. Thank you

[rnhood]

My power meter is a direct immediate precise feedback on pedaling efficiency.

No, that's not true. Reread the thread and the reasons are pretty well explained within the thread. It may be a relative indicator, but by no means is it precise. In fact monitoring heart rate is probably a better indicator of pedaling efficiency than power. Or a combination of heart rate and power. But again, there are some very good comments on power and its uncertainties/variables when used on a bicycle.

[fuzzalow]

Just step back for a minute and look at the big picture.

One guy is trying to do something positive, talk about stuff at a fairly esoteric level that befits the caliber of membership in this forum, maybe some folks get something out of it and some folks maybe not but it's all good and is given with positive intent.

The mob tries to tear this down and has nothing to add except snark, criticism and negativity - picking minutia on factual gotchas while not adding anything positive in moving people's understanding forwards to be better skilled at something then they were before. Maybe 'cos they don't know how to do anything other than tear stuff down.

It takes guts to do positive things. What can I tell 'ya, for every loudmouth bitchin' & pissing in this thread not one of those wankers has likely ever contributed something selfless and positive to this forum. Now that would take guts to put something out there and be judged by your work rather than yelling from the safety of the mob.

Ultimately, I don't care and I'm not trying to change anyone - sometimes you get to a point in life where you know who you won't associate with simply because those kind of people suck. It's so easy to be a schmuck in life and it saddens me to see so many take this easy way out. Some of the behaviour in this thread is embarrassing. See you at the next stop.

[daker13]

... it is perfectly possible to become a world-class virtuoso (read, a Merckx; a Contador; a Froome; etc. vis-a-vis cycling) by employing a very unorthodox technique that defies this type of armchair analysis, no matter how "exhaustive." Mastery at these levels is always a mysterious thing...

Just throwing something out there. The original post of this thread included the statement "everybody thinks they know how to pedal a bike" (and the suggestion that people get mad when they're told that they're not doing it right). I was in physical therapy last year, and one of the pt's told me that I was walking wrong. Another one told me that my running mechanics weren't good (which didn't surprise me). I heard Kelly Starret (his 'Supple Leopard' book has been mentioned on this board now and again, I've only flipped through it) on Joe Rogan's podcast, and his argument was that his children--toddlers--had naturally good form for squatting and lifting, but that people gradually forget these mechanics as they get older.

It seems that it's a pretty common claim that most people use poor form when doing many athletic tasks. (Or put another way, I'm walking wrong, I'm running wrong, I'm pedaling a bike wrong, and I'm lifting and squatting wrong. Why go outside at all?)

The question Rogan kept asking Starrett, which I don't think Starrett answered to my satisfaction, was: if what you say is true, then why do so many elite athletes have such apparently poor form? I think Rogan's example was Kenyan long distance runners (and some MMA fighters, naturally), but you could find many examples of virtuosity and "unorthodox technique" (in Sierra's phrase) in many fields.

I guess the response would be, these unorthodox and unnatural strides, strokes, pedaling motions only work for the very few? But how seriously is one supposed to take the idea that there is a 'right' way to perform a motion, when the very best at that activity don't even do it?

[Dead Man]

why does it have to be that someone is "pedaling wrong" or "walking wrong" or "running wrong?" Wouldn't it generally be more accurate to say "there's a learned better way to do that?"

I think calling what's normal "wrong" is just kind of a cheap way of gratifying the individual doing the wrong-calling.

[FlashUNC]

Just throwing something out there. The original post of this thread included the statement "everybody thinks they know how to pedal a bike" (and the suggestion that people get mad when they're told that they're not doing it right). I was in physical therapy last year, and one of the pt's told me that I was walking wrong. Another one told me that my running mechanics weren't good (which didn't surprise me). I heard Kelly Starret (his 'Supple Leopard' book has been mentioned on this board now and again, I've only flipped through it) on Joe Rogan's podcast, and his argument was that his children--toddlers--had naturally good form for squatting and lifting, but that people gradually forget these mechanics as they get older.

It seems that it's a pretty common claim that most people use poor form when doing many athletic tasks. (Or put another way, I'm walking wrong, I'm running wrong, I'm pedaling a bike wrong, and I'm lifting and squatting wrong. Why go outside at all?)

The question Rogan kept asking Starrett, which I don't think Starrett answered to my satisfaction, was: if what you say is true, then why do so many elite athletes have such apparently poor form? I think Rogan's example was Kenyan long distance runners (and some MMA fighters, naturally), but you could find many examples of virtuosity and "unorthodox technique" (in Sierra's phrase) in many fields.

I guess the response would be, these unorthodox and unnatural strides, strokes, pedaling motions only work for the very few? But how seriously is one supposed to take the idea that there is a 'right' way to perform a motion, when the very best at that activity don't even do it?

Just to throw another on the woodpile, you'd never teach anyone to box like Ali. And he's the best fighter of all time.

Sports are weird.

[makoti]

My power meter does not care about 10th grade Trig. It took me quite some effort to understand what this thread was all about. It is a school yard pissing match.

You may be right about all of that, but you are absolutely correct about the first part. Your PM does not care how you pedal your bike. Or trig. Well, maybe trig to get it to work at all. No idea what goes into building the thing.

[makoti]

No, that's not true. Reread the thread and the reasons are pretty well explained within the thread. It may be a relative indicator, but by no means is it precise. In fact monitoring heart rate is probably a better indicator of pedaling efficiency than power. Or a combination of heart rate and power. But again, there are some very good comments on power and its uncertainties/variables when used on a bicycle.

Your power meter gives you a (fairly, close enough for any of us) accurate reading of the POWER or wattage you produce by turning your pedals. It does not tell you efficiency. You are correct. You could glean that from the numbers if you properly & repeatedly tested yourself pedaling in different ways. Your meter does not care how it gets the watts, only what the number of watts are. Very useful, if you know what to do with it.

[makoti]

Just step back for a minute and look at the big picture.

One guy is trying to do something positive, talk about stuff at a fairly esoteric level that befits the caliber of membership in this forum, maybe some folks get something out of it and some folks maybe not but it's all good and is given with positive intent.

The mob tries to tear this down and has nothing to add except snark, criticism and negativity - picking minutia on factual gotchas while not adding anything positive in moving people's understanding forwards to be better skilled at something then they were before. Maybe 'cos they don't know how to do anything other than tear stuff down.

It takes guts to do positive things. What can I tell 'ya, for every loudmouth bitchin' & pissing in this thread not one of those wankers has likely ever contributed something selfless and positive to this forum. Now that would take guts to put something out there and be judged by your work rather than yelling from the safety of the mob.

Ultimately, I don't care and I'm not trying to change anyone - sometimes you get to a point in life where you know who you won't associate with simply because those kind of people suck. It's so easy to be a schmuck in life and it saddens me to see so many take this easy way out. Some of the behaviour in this thread is embarrassing. See you at the next stop.

Please. Making statements like "Stay in erg mode for your FTP test" is neither positive or helpful. It's wrong. Why do you have a problem with that being pointed out?
Some of the posts here have been embarrassing. I'm going to lead that list with yours. Stick your head in the sand. Don't call out factual mistakes. Let people spread nonsense. Be my guest. Feel better? Good. Sounds like you need to.

[makoti]

why does it have to be that someone is "pedaling wrong" or "walking wrong" or "running wrong?" wouldn't it generally be more accurate to say "there's a learned better way to do that?"

i think calling what's normal "wrong" is just kind of a cheap way of gratifying the individual doing the wrong-calling.

+1

[11.4]

why does it have to be that someone is "pedaling wrong" or "walking wrong" or "running wrong?" Wouldn't it generally be more accurate to say "there's a learned better way to do that?"

I think calling what's normal "wrong" is just kind of a cheap way of gratifying the individual doing the wrong-calling.

We're back to the meat of this thread. Thanks for the segue, B!

Someone is often pedaling in a way that is inefficient for that particular individual. It all comes down to the individual, not to a universal standard. The Italians tried to impose a universal standard via CONI and failed. The Japanese tried to do it with their formalized keirin training, and also failed (at least insofar as the best keirin riders have almost always been riders who didn't go through Japanese keirin schools). All the comments from Ti and several others here (including myself) have addressed the need to determine the optimum pedaling stroke for that particular individual. Some of these videos that try to tell you how to develop a master pedal stroke suitable for all riders are simply not effective. "Wrong" should always be footnoted as "wrong for the particular individual" if that would help.

This is all part of a bigger picture emerging in this and other forums which departs from all the old formulaic fit and style standards and simply asks what is the best for a particular rider, and how to get there. A rider can look bad on a bike but still ride faster than anyone else. In the end, what is the standard to compare performance by? Perhaps one wants to look like Anquetil even if speed suffers? I'd prefer the speed, but that's a personal decision.

[93legendti]

A quick 'thank you' to Ti, 11.4, and others for continuing to provide food for thought. Like many on this forum I have been at this a long time and I personally find this more interesting then the potential performance difference between a 25 & 26mm tire...


I agree. Very helpful and much appreciated.

[11.4]

Your power meter gives you a (fairly, close enough for any of us) accurate reading of the POWER or wattage you produce by turning your pedals. It does not tell you efficiency. You are correct. You could glean that from the numbers if you properly & repeatedly tested yourself pedaling in different ways. Your meter does not care how it gets the watts, only what the number of watts are. Very useful, if you know what to do with it.

Correct. That's been the argument all along. If one considers a hub-based powermeter, it's even clearer. Pedal stroke isn't translated at the hub at all, so whatever you do up front basically is translated into power applied at the wheel. Ironically, a Powertap provides the least amount of information about your pedaling style in a trend where everyone wants bilateral power readings, 360 degree power measurement (a la Spinscan and the like) and other measurements that we are starting to enjoy but don't quite know how to use. A leading edge problem.

[Mark McM]

walking has failure states, do it wrong and you fall down. Watch a child learning how to walk, they learn how by eliminating the things that don't work. The difference between walking and pedaling a bike is freedom of movement. When walking you can move your feet anywhere, when pedaling a bike your feet go around in a circle dictated by the cranks and bottom bracket. While you can't make your feet move in anything other than a circle, you can still push in any direction - doing it wrong looks the same as doing it right, so people assume they're doing it right.

There's far more to good walking technique that just not falling down. Even after being able to maintain our balance, we continue to improve our walking technique, making it more efficient and less demanding on our muscles. How do we do this? Through constant feedback. The human body can sense the how much energy we are expending, how hard individual musles are working, etc. Through constant repetition, we evolve a walking technique that produces the greatest speed or distance with the least effort and energy usage.



When someone gets on a bike and starts pedaling, it's still using a skill set. The skill set almost everyone uses is the one used to walk (which is why most people get it wrong). I know this because I had a severe back injury a few decades ago and lost the ability to walk. I learned to remap the large muscle groups, but relearning how to walk was intimidating. I watched kids learning how to walk, it's really cute when they do it, being an adult and flopping over like a drunk isn't as cute. Learning to ride a stationary bike seemed like a good first step, I could reduce it to pushing forward, down, back and up, and I wouldn't fall down in the process.

So, did someone have to teach you how to walk again? Or were you able to relearn it yourself, using feedback from your own body's reactions?

I have no doubt that when someone first learns to ride a bike, they have poor pedalling technique. But as noted above, the human body has far more feedback than just visual cues. As shown in several studies, humans readily adapt their muscles movements to optimize their efficiency and minimize fatigue.

I know this from experience when I was first learning to cross country ski. Cross country skiing is dependent on good technique, and that technique is quite different from walking or pedalling. I would often go out skiing with more experienced skiers, and I was able to keep up with them for some initial distance; but due to my poor technique, I was working much harder than my friendds were to go at a given speed. After some distance I grew fatigued, I found that I was struggling to keep up. In trying to keep pace without killing myself, I would try technique adjustments - varying timing of muscle contractions, modifying balance and weight shift, adjusting pole timing and extension, etc. The feedback was the changes in effort or muscle strain required to keep up. Through this variation and feedback, my technique gradually adapted to be more efficient and my speed and endurance improved.

Even though the pedalling motion is a simple circle, the body still gives feedback regarding effectiveness of technique. For example, if I fire a particular muscle group too early or for too long, I might sense that there was an increase in muscle fatigue with no gain in speed. My pedal motion might look the same to an outside observer, but I can readily tell through other feedback if a technique modification has a positive or negative effect.

Now, there is no doubt that there are some people who may not be able to learn on their own effectively, and who may need remedial help in various activities, be it walking or pedalling. But most of us have the tools to adapt and adjust to find the most optimized techniques for us, given the time to do so.


I'm just gonna assume that Mark is arguing with someone else here...

Perhaps I misunderstood this statement you made:

"Then you get on a bike and you try to push down on the pedal. Why does your hip move back in the saddle - you're pushing down, right?"

I took that to mean that if there is a rearward force at the hip during the pedal stroke, then you're not doing it right. But when the pedal is between 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock, the crank is perpedicular to the line between the hip and the foot, and so pushing straight at the pedal (at an angle forward and down), will be effective to generate drive torque, but will also have a backward force component of the hip in the saddle. So that's why your hip may try to move back in the saddle.

[11.4]

Please. Making statements like "Stay in erg mode for your FTP test" is neither positive or helpful. It's wrong. Why do you have a problem with that being pointed out?
Some of the posts here have been embarrassing. I'm going to lead that list with yours. Stick your head in the sand. Don't call out factual mistakes. Let people spread nonsense. Be my guest. Feel better? Good. Sounds like you need to.

I'll just comment here that the last two domestic riders I work with who went to Colorado Springs for testing and evaluation at the Olympic training center both commented that they ran FTP tests there in erg mode. Go figure.

[ergott]

Your meter does not care how it gets the watts, only what the number of watts are. Very useful, if you know what to do with it.

I think this is kinda of what Ti is getting at. Good technique can realize more power per stroke if you work at it. I think working in conjunction with a PM you can see if what you are doing results in more power or not. I routinely experiment with different pedaling sensations to see how it effects power output both in short efforts and over longer efforts.

I take issue with the vibe that almost everyone does it wrong, but there is truth to the fact that good technique can help. Yes there are athletes that overcome their less than stellar technique to perform quite well. That doesn't mean that someone up and coming should ignore good advice or at least give it a try.

:beer:

[gasman]

We're back to the meat of this thread. Thanks for the segue, B!

Someone is often pedaling in a way that is inefficient for that particular individual. It all comes down to the individual, not to a universal standard. The Italians tried to impose a universal standard via CONI and failed. The Japanese tried to do it with their formalized keirin training, and also failed (at least insofar as the best keirin riders have almost always been riders who didn't go through Japanese keirin schools). All the comments from Ti and several others here (including myself) have addressed the need to determine the optimum pedaling stroke for that particular individual. Some of these videos that try to tell you how to develop a master pedal stroke suitable for all riders are simply not effective. "Wrong" should always be footnoted as "wrong for the particular individual" if that would help.

This is all part of a bigger picture emerging in this and other forums which departs from all the old formulaic fit and style standards and simply asks what is the best for a particular rider, and how to get there. A rider can look bad on a bike but still ride faster than anyone else. In the end, what is the standard to compare performance by? Perhaps one wants to look like Anquetil even if speed suffers? I'd prefer the speed, but that's a personal decision.

Well said, thank you and Ti (and others) for your thoughtful contributions.

Good information and positive comments make this forum a positive place.

[ergott]

I know this from experience when I was first learning to cross country ski. Cross country skiing is dependent on good technique, and that technique is quite different from walking or pedalling. I would often go out skiing with more experienced skiers, and I was able to keep up with them for some initial distance; but due to my poor technique, I was working much harder than my friendds were to go at a given speed.

Swimming is another good example. I had someone I would normally consider far more out of shape than me blow my doors off in the water.

[superbowlpats]

Swimming is another good example. I had someone I would normally consider far more out of shape than me blow my doors off in the water.

since water is ~800X more dense than air, swimming is all about technique, much more so than cycling. but watch the swimming trials - every swimmer has a different technique. they adapt to what works for them best. and they simply work harder and are more driven than mere mortals. (and blessed with great genetics).

[William]

I'll also chime in that this has been an interesting thread...ignoring some of the low points of personal jabs. As far as disagreements on coaching styles, definitions, proprioperception, kinesiology, thermodynamics, anatomy, physics, physiology, and neurology of pedal movement and asthetics...that's up for constructive debate. :)

That said:
Many people here have benefited from Ed's comments and instruction over the years, and many of us have met and ridden with him in person so there is familiarity with him as well. Ed would probably be the first to tell you that he doesn't have much of a filter, he speaks and sometimes it comes out in ways that could be stated a little more tactfully and rubs people the wrong way. The fact is that he means well, knows his way around a bike and team, and he has helped many people with no request for monetary fulfillment or freebies.

Ed is Ed. He speaks his mind, shares freely, and asks for nothing in return. And, he probably has more experience as a legally dead person than anyone here! :)







Carry on...
William

[11.4]

I'll also chime in that this has been an interesting thread...ignoring some of the low points of personal jabs. As far as disagreements on coaching styles, definitions, proprioperception, kinesiology, thermodynamics, anatomy, physics, physiology, and neurology of pedal movement and asthetics...that's up for constructive debate. :)

That said:
Many people here have benefited from Ed's comments and instruction over the years, and many of us have met and ridden with him in person so there is familiarity with him as well. Ed would probably be the first to tell you that he doesn't have much of a filter, he speaks and sometimes it comes out in ways that could be stated a little more tactfully and rubs people the wrong way. The fact is that he means well, knows his way around a bike and team, and he has helped many people with no request for monetary fulfillment or freebies.

Ed is Ed. He speaks his mind, shares freely, and asks for nothing in return. And, he probably has more experience as a legally dead person than anyone here! :)







Carry on...
William


Never ridden with Ed. Never been fitted or coached by Ed. But he agrees with me in most things and that makes him a superb gentleman.

And thanks to the mods for your intervention and contribution here.

[carpediemracing]

I didn't read the middle stuff of this thread. I have thought about this stuff while I was on the trainer recently thought. Two things strike me.

First, the whole rollers "be smooth" thing really translates to "don't exert too much force in the wrong direction". If you are smooth on rollers you're not pushing too hard in a wrong direction, i.e. you're not doing enough work to slide your butt off the saddle. It seems like a pretty quick sanity check as far as pedal stroke efficiency goes.

Second, at some point you'll need to exert more force than your body weighs, typically on a hill, more probably when accelerating hard. At that point you'll move your body no matter how efficient you are, how accurately you apply your force vectors. This is because your body has a finite mass and your legs can move significantly more than that mass. If a rider is riding really hard and is moving their hips around a bit it doesn't mean they're inefficient or not smooth or whatever. It means that they are exerting enough force to move their body around.

[11.4]

Second, at some point you'll need to exert more force than your body weighs, typically on a hill, more probably when accelerating hard. At that point you'll move your body no matter how efficient you are, how accurately you apply your force vectors. This is because your body has a finite mass and your legs can move significantly more than that mass. If a rider is riding really hard and is moving their hips around a bit it doesn't mean they're inefficient or not smooth or whatever. It means that they are exerting enough force to move their body around.

Except that with properly developed strength, one doesn't have to move the rest of the body. Watch a pro climber on a major climb and you won't see that movement, even on a 20+% climb. You don't have to move excessively either.

This is also where lower gearing and higher cadence become more efficient. As long as you are, net, creating more speed, lower gears at faster RPM work better than mashing. We all know that, but this is one of the reasons why. Efficiency.

[Mark McM]

This is also where lower gearing and higher cadence become more efficient. As long as you are, net, creating more speed, lower gears at faster RPM work better than mashing. We all know that, but this is one of the reasons why. Efficiency.

Careful there .. what do you mean by "efficiency"? I hope you don't mean gross energy efficiency - lower cadences are generally better for this. But racing isn't about gross energy efficiency, it is about maximizing power output (while delaying fatigue as long as necessary).

[11.4]

Careful there .. what do you mean by "efficiency"? I hope you don't mean gross energy efficiency - lower cadences are generally better for this. But racing isn't about gross energy efficiency, it is about maximizing power output (while delaying fatigue as long as necessary).

I knew you'd bite at that worm, Mark. Haha.

When I'm talking about end product, I'm always talking about racing speed. Whatever that might be. Stand back and notice that the whole theme of this thread has been about increasing effective speed for racing or training conditions, the same measure you refer to. I'm just maintaining some consistency with that approach. Because that final measure has an element of ambiguity to it, as we've discussed here at length, I didn't try to force a specific definition because we frankly don't quite have one. We're asking what it is, but we don't quite have it.

[carpediemracing]

Except that with properly developed strength, one doesn't have to move the rest of the body. Watch a pro climber on a major climb and you won't see that movement, even on a 20+% climb. You don't have to move excessively either.

Although I'd debate the bit about "not moving the rest of the body on a 20% climb", I understand what you're saying. However the rider still needs to put in some counter forces, like pulling with his arms and such. This is to stabilize the hips on the bike. To say that "lifting your hips" indicates a poor pedal stroke isn't necessarily accurate at that point; without considerable other forces a rider on, say, a 20% grade will move their hips.

The fact that I'm putting down enough power to move my body isn't necessarily a bad thing. Other than rollers and whatever other old school stuff I'd done back in the day (mid-80s) I've never made a conscious effort to change my pedal stroke. I alluded to relying on fatigue to force myself into pedaling better. I get on rollers every now and then. Last time I was on them was in 2013 or 2014 I think, I'm pretty sure I wasn't on them in 2015 and definitely not this year.

In the following two clip links (early 2015), of the same bit of race and from one clip I made, I thought I was flailing a bit, especially at the beginning of the move. I didn't feel smooth, I was just concerned with staying on a wheel. This clip happens to be the only clip I know of that captures me for more than a few seconds while I'm working very hard. (There's another clip of me after racing something like 40 minutes while cramping and I drop out just as the rider passes me, but that was particularly horrendous).

In this clip I'm making a move here, in first person (my camera):
https://youtu.be/kbg4YluM6HE?t=11m51s

Another rider let me use his video; he captures my movement. The same spot in the race is about here:
https://youtu.be/kbg4YluM6HE?t=12m55s

Thing was that I was pleasantly surprised at how little I moved on the bike as I went up the hill. I had no idea because trainer is one thing, outside is another. I feel like I was bobbing and weaving like a boxer, I was doing some serious stamping of the pedals, my arms/shoulders/whatever were fully engaged. When I first saw the other rider's clip I was like, "Oh, it doesn't even look like I'm working." In reality I was making a pretty hard effort, way anaerobic, lots of upper body stuff happening.

[Ti Designs]

I always look at things from the standpoint of a somewhat simple mechanical model. In terms of the bike, efficiency is somewhat simple, it's Force * SIN(force angle - crank angle). In other words, if the force is 90 degrees to the crank, there is no loss. If it's at 0 or 180 degrees there is 100% loss.

From there I break it down to it's component muscle groups - this is an oversimplification. The image shows the force vectors for the two muscle groups and the vector addition that results in a force vector which is 90 degrees to the crank.

This is where the idea of pedaling in circles goes out the window. Muscles get very inefficient at their end range of motion, so while I do have another image that shows the crank at TDC and the hip flexor pulling all the way to the top, the cost of using that muscle is far greater than the power output it produces.

As for body movement, looking at individual cases doesn't tell you much. It's another cost/benefit analysis, how much energy does the displacement contribute, which muscle groups bring the body weight back to it's initial state before the next pedal stroke. This usually comes down to cadence...

[11.4]

Although I'd debate the bit about "not moving the rest of the body on a 20% climb", I understand what you're saying. However the rider still needs to put in some counter forces, like pulling with his arms and such. This is to stabilize the hips on the bike. To say that "lifting your hips" indicates a poor pedal stroke isn't necessarily accurate at that point; without considerable other forces a rider on, say, a 20% grade will move their hips.

The fact that I'm putting down enough power to move my body isn't necessarily a bad thing. Other than rollers and whatever other old school stuff I'd done back in the day (mid-80s) I've never made a conscious effort to change my pedal stroke. I alluded to relying on fatigue to force myself into pedaling better. I get on rollers every now and then. Last time I was on them was in 2013 or 2014 I think, I'm pretty sure I wasn't on them in 2015 and definitely not this year.

In the following two clip links (early 2015), of the same bit of race and from one clip I made, I thought I was flailing a bit, especially at the beginning of the move. I didn't feel smooth, I was just concerned with staying on a wheel. This clip happens to be the only clip I know of that captures me for more than a few seconds while I'm working very hard. (There's another clip of me after racing something like 40 minutes while cramping and I drop out just as the rider passes me, but that was particularly horrendous).

In this clip I'm making a move here, in first person (my camera):
https://youtu.be/kbg4YluM6HE?t=11m51s

Another rider let me use his video; he captures my movement. The same spot in the race is about here:
https://youtu.be/kbg4YluM6HE?t=12m55s

Thing was that I was pleasantly surprised at how little I moved on the bike as I went up the hill. I had no idea because trainer is one thing, outside is another. I feel like I was bobbing and weaving like a boxer, I was doing some serious stamping of the pedals, my arms/shoulders/whatever were fully engaged. When I first saw the other rider's clip I was like, "Oh, it doesn't even look like I'm working." In reality I was making a pretty hard effort, way anaerobic, lots of upper body stuff happening.

A little weight work and winter stabilization drills would help you a lot. Also looks like you're rocking on the saddle a bit and that telegraphs through your torso. I'd also venture that you might change your position a bit -- hard to tell your leg dimensions but you're pushing back a lot with your thrusts rather than pushing down. Overall you're moving more than you really want to, or need to. So I'd guess that justifying upper body movement because you do it is something you might rethink. You could be a lot more powerful focusing less on the legs and more on the hips and torso.

These issues all come to bear very prominently when one is coaching track riders. A rider putting out a 5 sec wattage around 2000 watts to start a kilo or 500m or team sprint needs to be very stable and we use a lot of track workouts to get them there. When we take a roadie, we usually have to do some rehabilitative stuff that the trackie was working on all winter.

Not saying your speed is bad, but you could be faster. Working on rollers to build speed hasn't helped any rider I've seen in recent years. It can smooth out some motions, but the resistance and load on rollers doesn't have much to do with helping build fundamental speed. I've tried to work a bunch of riders on rollers for part of the winter and the only benefit they show is the general aerobic one.

[carpediemracing]

A little weight work and winter stabilization drills would help you a lot. Also looks like you're rocking on the saddle a bit and that telegraphs through your torso. I'd also venture that you might change your position a bit -- hard to tell your leg dimensions but you're pushing back a lot with your thrusts rather than pushing down. Overall you're moving more than you really want to, or need to. So I'd guess that justifying upper body movement because you do it is something you might rethink. You could be a lot more powerful focusing less on the legs and more on the hips and torso.

These issues all come to bear very prominently when one is coaching track riders. A rider putting out a 5 sec wattage around 2000 watts to start a kilo or 500m or team sprint needs to be very stable and we use a lot of track workouts to get them there. When we take a roadie, we usually have to do some rehabilitative stuff that the trackie was working on all winter.

Not saying your speed is bad, but you could be faster. Working on rollers to build speed hasn't helped any rider I've seen in recent years. It can smooth out some motions, but the resistance and load on rollers doesn't have much to do with helping build fundamental speed. I've tried to work a bunch of riders on rollers for part of the winter and the only benefit they show is the general aerobic one.

This is interesting. I appreciate the feedback.

I do feel like I bob with my shoulders although I didn't see it until I looked for it here. In earlier days, like 2005, it was pretty obvious.

My position is very far forward; I'm curious how I'm pushing back more than down, I'll have to look again when I'm on the trainer. With the SLR saddle I had on in that clip I had 4mm of set back (bike (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-A28N0KMGXng/U5XqZozWbJI/AAAAAAAAGoc/xcKUTilJtlg/s1600/DSC_0657.JPG)). I've gone to an ISM Adamo saddle with about 4 cm set back but my hips are in about the same place as before. I have super short quads (position from front angle (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Zi-2XwCyOM4/U8SApNX5wRI/AAAAAAAAG0E/98zjRAJh3iA/s1600/DSC_0106.JPG)).

Generally speaking I slide forward from that position. I've inadvertently slid off the nose of the SLR; it's not a pleasant experience. Even the ISM I sit on the very front of it.

What's interesting relating to core/stability is that prior to this race I was doing a lot of core work (for me), part of a core/performance study I was doing (and that was publicized here). I was about as good as I ever get physically, 218w FTP as tested, I was pretty light (just under 160 lbs), and basically I felt really good that day. Those numbers got me enough points to upgrade to 2 in 2010. In 2015 I basically went downhill from April/May due to other time commitments.

I generally don't do weights anymore, nothing other than some shoulder stuff for joint stability. Maybe I should start.

I don't know what you mean about hips/core vs legs. I think I focus on hips/core but I don't know. I've been thinking about the stamp vs circle thing from this thread but my big seated efforts are hip centered. Out of saddle it's... well I think about pulling on the bars really hard and getting a solid downstroke. I'll have to think about that next time also.

Ha. Lots for me to think about.

[11.4]

Carpe,

Think about a problem we've talked about a lot on Paceline in recent months -- how to engage the glutes properly. I see you pushing your butt backwards when you pedal -- the angle of your femur as you contract your quads pushes your hips back and costs you stability and power. When in a very hard acceleration or fully maxed out in big gears, either with slower cadence or just a few pedal strokes to gain speed, think about the position you take in a good deadlift. Not bent over and lifting with your back, but squatting and bringing your hips forward at the same time you're bringing your knees backwards through quad contraction. Raising your back straight is only the last few inches of the lift, because your quads can out-power any other part of your chain. The Aussie coaches back around 2001- 2003 when Aussie track sprinters ruled the world would describe this as a monkey humping a football -- each pedal stroke literally involves pulling the hips forward in just that humping motion. That's how a track sprinter starts a sprint or begins a standing start. Now think about doing that on the road, on your road bike. You need a strong back to do this, but if you watch Peter Sagan, it's exactly how he does it -- right up a climb or finishing a sprint. You may only use two or three pedal revolutions of this action before you've accelerated and need to sit down and shift to using your quads more, with bracing and stability ongoing from your glutes.

The sense of sliding forward on the saddle is what happens when you start to engage your glutes and posterior chain, but you need more strength there. What happens is your quads allow your hips to push backwards, exactly the wrong direction. It limits the use of your glutes and also alters (for the worse) the rotation of your hips.

[jamesau]

...so while I do have another image that shows the crank at TDC and the hip flexor pulling all the way to the top, the cost of using that muscle is far greater than the power output it produces...

It seems to me that the hip flexors can/should play an accommodating role in the pedal stroke by helping to position the leg so that the power muscle groups can be used most effectively. For bicycles with freehubs, there's little flywheel effect (rotational inertia) to position the legs, no? As an analogy, my hip flexors do little to power me up a flight of stairs while carrying a heavy load, but they do lift my unloaded leg up to the next tread so that I can reach the top step.

[carpediemracing]

Carpe,

Think about a problem we've talked about a lot on Paceline in recent months -- how to engage the glutes properly. I see you pushing your butt backwards when you pedal -- the angle of your femur as you contract your quads pushes your hips back and costs you stability and power. When in a very hard acceleration or fully maxed out in big gears, either with slower cadence or just a few pedal strokes to gain speed, think about the position you take in a good deadlift. Not bent over and lifting with your back, but squatting and bringing your hips forward at the same time you're bringing your knees backwards through quad contraction. Raising your back straight is only the last few inches of the lift, because your quads can out-power any other part of your chain. The Aussie coaches back around 2001- 2003 when Aussie track sprinters ruled the world would describe this as a monkey humping a football -- each pedal stroke literally involves pulling the hips forward in just that humping motion. That's how a track sprinter starts a sprint or begins a standing start. Now think about doing that on the road, on your road bike. You need a strong back to do this, but if you watch Peter Sagan, it's exactly how he does it -- right up a climb or finishing a sprint. You may only use two or three pedal revolutions of this action before you've accelerated and need to sit down and shift to using your quads more, with bracing and stability ongoing from your glutes.

The sense of sliding forward on the saddle is what happens when you start to engage your glutes and posterior chain, but you need more strength there. What happens is your quads allow your hips to push backwards, exactly the wrong direction. It limits the use of your glutes and also alters (for the worse) the rotation of your hips.

Thanks for this. I have to assimilate what you've written.

[nooneline]

The Aussie coaches back around 2001- 2003 when Aussie track sprinters ruled the world would describe this as a monkey humping a football

But it's worth pointing out that Aussies will describe anything in terms of an animal humping an inanimate object.

[11.4]

It seems to me that the hip flexors can/should play an accommodating role in the pedal stroke by helping to position the leg so that the power muscle groups can be used most effectively. For bicycles with freehubs, there's little flywheel effect (rotational inertia) to position the legs, no? As an analogy, my hip flexors do little to power me up a flight of stairs while carrying a heavy load, but they do lift my unloaded leg up to the next tread so that I can reach the top step.

That's correct. You aren't generating much power but you are limiting resistance to continued pedal rotation which can inhibit power.

If you think about riding fixies through the winter as a training method, this is why the practice has become a bit less popular, especially at elite levels. Even elite trackies ride road bikes more on the road rather than a fixie. Fixies develop too many bad habits and as much as I have a couple and do ride them, I limit time on them and rarely include them in training recommendations for riders, even trackies.

[Mark McM]

I always look at things from the standpoint of a somewhat simple mechanical model. In terms of the bike, efficiency is somewhat simple, it's Force * SIN(force angle - crank angle). In other words, if the force is 90 degrees to the crank, there is no loss. If it's at 0 or 180 degrees there is 100% loss.

Yes, pushing down on the pedal when crank is at 6 o'clock produces no torque - but just what is being lost? As being discussed in the "right way to corner" thread, a common technique to corner is to stand on the outside pedal. in this case, although the rider is pushing down on the pedal with a force of their entire weight, is anything being lost? You can't just equate force and torque with energy and power. A force which produces no motion is also expending no energy.

Here is a typical pedal force vector diagram:

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/pioneer-vector-graph.jpg

The greatest forces are being exerted at the bottom of the stroke, nearly parallel with the cranks. Based on force alone, you might think that the rider is wasting most of their energy and power. But the reality is that it takes little energy to generate a force when the leg is at full extension, so there is not nearly as much waste as you imply. (And heck, if the rider is trying to fall on their pedals, this just shows they've fallen all the way down to the bottom.)

[makoti]

Mark, can you explain the differences in color on the chart? I figure longer trails mean more power. Or maybe torque? But colors? Also looks like there are some, though small, gains in pulling up.

[Mark McM]

Mark, can you explain the differences in color on the chart? I figure longer trails mean more power. Or maybe torque? But colors? Also looks like there are some, though small, gains in pulling up.

The image is a screen capture from the Pioneer power meter. The vectors (pointed lines leading from crank positions) show the direction and magnitude of forces applied to the pedals at various crank angles. Vectors that generate positive torques are red, vectors that generate negative torque are blue, and vectors that are neutral (generate no torque) are grey. Only vector components tangential to crank rotation generate torque.

[dnc]

Yes, pushing down on the pedal when crank is at 6 o'clock produces no torque - but just what is being lost? As being discussed in the "right way to corner" thread, a common technique to corner is to stand on the outside pedal. in this case, although the rider is pushing down on the pedal with a force of their entire weight, is anything being lost? You can't just equate force and torque with energy and power. A force which produces no motion is also expending no energy.

Here is a typical pedal force vector diagram:

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/pioneer-vector-graph.jpg

The greatest forces are being exerted at the bottom of the stroke, nearly parallel with the cranks. Based on force alone, you might think that the rider is wasting most of their energy and power. But the reality is that it takes little energy to generate a force when the leg is at full extension, so there is not nearly as much waste as you imply. (And heck, if the rider is trying to fall on their pedals, this just shows they've fallen all the way down to the bottom.)

What about rolling resistance ?

[makoti]

The image is a screen capture from the Pioneer power meter. The vectors (pointed lines leading from crank positions) show the direction and magnitude of forces applied to the pedals at various crank angles. Vectors that generate positive torques are red, vectors that generate negative torque are blue, and vectors that are neutral (generate no torque) are grey. Only vector components tangential to crank rotation generate torque.

Negative torque? Never heard that term, but after looking it up, I get it. At first I though it was subtractive, which didn't make any sense. So I guess the answer is yes, small gains.

[Ti Designs]

I don't have the screen shots from the Pioneer power meter, but watch the two videos at the bottom and you'll see that by learning to put more force right around 3:00, the downward force at 6:00 is all but eliminated.

https://edsasslercoaching.com/the-learning-process/advanced-pedal-stroke/

And ignore that I said anything about power - I don't know how to use one of those things...

[dnc]

I don't have the screen shots from the Pioneer power meter, but watch the two videos at the bottom and you'll see that by learning to put more force right around 3:00, the downward force at 6:00 is all but eliminated.


And ignore that I said anything about power - I don't know how to use one of those things...

This man is doing the opposite to how you believe pedalling should be done. Instead of isolating muscle use he is making maximal use of the combination of glutes, quads, lower leg muscles, ankle and foot to apply the same maximal tangential force from 12 to 3 o'c. There is no dead spot sector or effective idling of legs between 11 and 1 o'c. His power stroke extends from 11 to 5 o'c. How do I know, we both discovered the same semi circular technique. It cannot be copied because all other riders see is a toes down style of pedalling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hh2DcgpnkU

[11.4]

This man is doing the opposite to how you believe pedalling should be done. Instead of isolating muscle use he is making maximal use of the combination of glutes, quads, lower leg muscles, ankle and foot to apply the same maximal tangential force from 12 to 3 o'c. There is no dead spot sector or effective idling of legs between 11 and 1 o'c. His power stroke extends from 11 to 5 o'c. How do I know, we both discovered the same semi circular technique. It cannot be copied because all other riders see is a toes down style of pedalling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hh2DcgpnkU


Not to misquote Ti, but in my opinion you isolate the muscle uses for purposes of evaluation and training, but when actually riding you integrate the efforts. Different kinds of riding will benefit from very different proportions of contribution from each of the muscle types -- kicking off a steep uphill acceleration will employ glutes disproportionately, while riding at 30+ mph in a peloton on the flat will focus more on glutes, and even more on the "spinning" muscles which tend to be the gastroc, various tibialis muscles, and the muscles of the feet and ankle. A well-tuned pedaling style (referring to complete leg motion, not just ankling) will pick the right combination and integrate what's needed to meet the diversity of issues the rider faces. So you are right that all muscles are being used, but which ones contribute much will vary with the need. For me a standing start in a kilo is >85% gluteal, hip adductors, and hamstrings. Plus heavy use of shoulders, arms, and back. As soon as I'm two thirds of the way around the track and seated, I go to approximately 65% quad, 15% gluteal (mostly for stabilization rather than power generation), and 20% in the calf and foot. The is one of the most extreme cases of focusing one muscle for one particular situation.

[Ti Designs]

Not to misquote Ti, but in my opinion you isolate the muscle uses for purposes of evaluation and training, but when actually riding you integrate the efforts.

You don't see anyone else on a trainer that I was racing, do you??? My entire website is about training and isolating one muscle at a time to make sure you have the motion and direction right. In that case it's the glutes. By isolating the muscle and using the strain gauge built into my testing rig I can teach myself how to only put downward force when the pedal is going in that direction. The advanced technique is to shorten the impulse and center it around 3:00 to increase efficiency and power output. The down side is the peak strain on the muscle is higher, so it generates fatigue faster.

That's training, it's not how I ride. Learning how to pedal well is kinda like learning how to juggle, you don't start with three things, you start with one. When you can throw one ball consistently you move to two. When that starts working you move to three. I learn how to use each muscle individually before adding the parts together. If we go back to the force vector screen shot, how do you tell which muscle is doing what there?

Working individual muscle groups has another advantage in real riding. You learn how to use or not use any one of them. Last Tuesday I was teaching my girlfriend how to use the glutes to hold speed in a large gear. On the Wednesday morning hammer ride my glutes were useless. A combination of using the quads and changing my tactics kept me in that ride.

[dnc]

That's training, it's not how I ride.



Maybe you could explain how you ride, muscle use over the top and muscle use in your downstroke. How does your crank torque over the top compare with that in your downstroke ?