Isn't this what Ti-Designs has been saying all along?

[Exonerv]

At the risk of yet another contentious discussion, this article seems to support the notion that pro cyclists have learned/developed a more efficient pedal stroke...

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/toolbox/toolbox-pro-pedaling-technique/#.WDWP9iNOmBY

[leftyfreak]

Stunning, isn't it? It's hard to imagine that people could learn to do things better through practice!:)

[paredown]

Slightly inconclusive though--as the authors suggest, it may be partly lower limb mass, but my (admittedly amateurish) understanding is that the pros are not trying to power over with max power on the top of the stroke, and getting a more even output all the way round...

Best thing though--the Eddy on rollers video that accompanies the article

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

[stephenmarklay]

All it really says is that pros have a smoother pedal stroke. Not exactly rocket science. :)

[Mikej]

Its easy ...

[Exonerv]

Which would imply that a smoother, more efficient pedal stroke can be taught and learned...and be of benefit to non-pros.


All it really says is that pros have a smoother pedal stroke. Not exactly rocket science. :)

[stephenmarklay]

Which would imply that a smoother, more efficient pedal stroke can be taught and learned...and be of benefit to non-pros.

Surely. But that seems to be self apparent.

[tumbler]

All it really says is that pros have a smoother pedal stroke. Not exactly rocket science. :)

Which would imply that a smoother, more efficient pedal stroke can be taught and learned...and be of benefit to non-pros.

Just to play devil's advocate... I don't think that one has to follow the other. It could be that pros possess certain physical or biomechanical traits already (like the lower limb mass mentioned) that lend themselves to a smooth and efficient pedal stroke. There was nothing in the article to suggest that they started pedaling one way and were taught to pedal a better way. It's certainly possible that this is the case, but I didn't see anything in that article to suggest that this was tested. Correlation vs causation situation...

[jr59]

How on earth did they ever learn this? I mean Ti Design 'a coaching is the only way! Without his coaching, no one knows how to pedal a bike.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stephenmarklay]

How on earth did they ever learn this? I mean Ti Design 'a coaching is the only way! Without his coaching, no one knows how to pedal a bike.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Satire hmm.

I would argue they are the few successes with many more orders of magnitude of failures due to poor biomechanics.

A good coach is like a path of least resistance pun intended.

[stephenmarklay]

Just to play devil's advocate... I don't think that one has to follow the other. It could be that pros possess certain physical or biomechanical traits already (like the lower limb mass mentioned) that lend themselves to a smooth and efficient pedal stroke. There was nothing in the article to suggest that they started pedaling one way and were taught to pedal a better way. It's certainly possible that this is the case, but I didn't see anything in that article to suggest that this was tested. Correlation vs causation situation...

True. Having said that I do believe that being smoother on the bike is a direct result of good practice. I can pedal with lots of different outcomes. The most powerful (for any length of time) is the smoothest.

[makoti]

Which would imply that a smoother, more efficient pedal stroke can be taught and learned...and be of benefit to non-pros.

We need an article for that? It's really winter, isn't it?

Edit....Now that's I've actually read this, it appears to be saying the opposite of what TiD tells us. It talks about a smooth, even pedal stroke with less variation in torque than that of mere mortals like the rest of us. Never been up for debate that working on your pedal stroke can be useful, I think. It's more a question of what you are working towards.

[jr59]

Satire hmm.



I would argue they are the few successes with many more orders of magnitude of failures due to poor biomechanics.



A good coach is like a path of least resistance pun intended.



I would suggest that a "good" coach would know several different ways of reaching said goal, not just his way. But we probably disagree on what a good coach is and should be


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JStonebarger]

Most of what I've seen about pedal stroke mechanics suggests that the big difference with pros is how hard they push down rather than how smooth they are. That would seem to agree with TiD's "fall on the pedal" and dispute this particular article.

[Ti Designs]

How on earth did they ever learn this? I mean Ti Design 'a coaching is the only way! Without his coaching, no one knows how to pedal a bike.

http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/dunning_kruger.png

I never said "no one knows how to pedal", but it's a pretty safe bet that 75% of the bike riding population isn't as good at it as they think.

Never been up for debate that working on your pedal stroke can be useful...

Is there a method for working on your pedal stroke? More to the point, can you test to gauge improvement? I keep returning to the idea that the learning process has three steps, in order for the first two steps to work there must must also be the ability to fail. You can't make the pedal travel in anything but a circle, which means the only thing failing is the learning process...

[stephenmarklay]

I would suggest that a "good" coach would know several different ways of reaching said goal, not just his way. But we probably disagree on what a good coach is and should be


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm guessing that "good" is relative to the person. However, I am sure we would agree more than not.

[Ti Designs]

Most of what I've seen about pedal stroke mechanics suggests that the big difference with pros is how hard they push down rather than how smooth they are. That would seem to agree with TiD's "fall on the pedal" and dispute this particular article.

Another one of those things that I need to plug the other ear when I explain, otherwise it just goes right out the other side...

There's more than one way to pedal a bike. Climbing a hill requires more torque, which means larger muscles and body weight leveraged on the pedals. Acceleration requires a change in cadence, the quads have a much wider range of contraction speed. Those are two very different ways of pedaling with a whole range of part of each between them. When I accelerate on the flats it's all quads pushing the pedals forward from 11:00 - 2:00. No upper body movement, just smooth power right up to 130RPMs. When I'm climbing a hill I've got my center of gravity right over the pedal as it's going down, my cadence is slower, there's about 5" of up and down going on. I'm also producing a lot more power, but the cadence is limited to where the pedal is going down slower than gravity is pulling my body weight into it.

These tests never tell the whole story for the same reason that fitting on a trainer can't be that accurate - they're not real conditions. Let's say we set up a test where the rider is going to produce 300 watts, the average rider is on the rivet, trying to get all sorts of muscles into the action - pedaling ugly. The pro is well within their own limits, they pedal with some mix of glutes and quads. As the quads push forward and the glutes push down, each half of the pedal stroke has a 50% duty cycle, so both sides working looks really smooth.

Look at the vector data from a pro rider climbing a hill and it looks very different. They must have missed that part...

[dnc]

When I accelerate on the flats it's all quads pushing the pedals forward from 11:00 - 2:00. No upper body movement, just smooth power right up to 130RPMs.



How does this torque at 12 o'c compare to that at 3 o'c. I use mostly glutes plus the quads through TDC and quads take over from about 2 o'c, this gives continuous maximal torque from 12 to 3+ o'c. You have never said what technique you would use when riding a flat TT. It is noticeable on that diagram that peak torque is being applied before 3 o'c, it usually occurs after 3 o'c.

[Ti Designs]

I use mostly glutes plus the quads through TDC and quads take over from about 2 o'c, this gives continuous maximal torque from 12 to 3+ o'c.

This is what happens when you wear a digital watch...

[11.4]

As far as that article is concerned, let's be realistic about pros.

First, only the best become pros, so they likely had very efficient pedal strokes to begin with. Or after they've ridden a hundred thousand kilometers, they worked it out one way or another or they didn't survive.

Second, it's not clear just what "most efficient" pedaling amounts to. There are fast riders with bad pedaling strokes and fast riders with all kinds of different strokes, cadences, etc.

Third, pros generally have the advantage that they weigh a LOT less than any amateur and thus can generate far more watts per kg which completely alters how they use their body and their pedal stroke. That doesn't mean that a lean, low-body-fat rider will automatically have good pedal stroke, but a rider who is 30-40 lb heavier is going to have trouble managing body positioning, leg raises, and so on like a Chris Froome.

Fourth, the study showed power output around a pedal revolution, but then drew conclusions that went beyond the data. All they really showed is what we all know, which is that you pedal harder on the downstroke. The data didn't really show much beyond that.

As for training pedal stroke, I've found that much of what makes or breaks pedal stroke is actually positioning elsewhere -- getting hip angle right, position relative to the pedal, stability on the saddle, maintaining integrity in the lower back, and so on. As soon as any of those kinds of things go bad, the pedal stroke usually does too -- and that's why we all talk about riders "pedaling in squares" when they are tired, crashed, bonked, whatever. I can grant that pedal style can be trained to some extent, though I've noticed with elite riders that such training tends to evaporate when riders are at their extreme levels of output -- a kilo rider may have a graceful pedal stroke when riding long intervals but loses it completely in most of a kilo, for example. To be honest, I've gone from pedal stroke being untrainable to being trainable to being irrelevant to being trainable again. In the end, I'm reminded of a rider who puts in ten thousand kilometers over the winter on Powercranks and then is no faster in the sprint; he didn't do anything about bigger issues in his riding, and focused on one that may have an effect but is harder to quantify and that doesn't address the bigger issues. A general rule of thumb is to train your worst shortcoming, and in the universe of strength, core stability, hip flexibility, aerobic capacity, aero position, and so on, where does one particular pedaling style fit?

[makoti]

Most of what I've seen about pedal stroke mechanics suggests that the big difference with pros is how hard they push down rather than how smooth they are. That would seem to agree with TiD's "fall on the pedal" and dispute this particular article.

Seen where? This article and what lots of people say (every bit as persuasive as your statement) tell me the opposite. Watch the vid of EM on the rollers that's in the article. Does he look like he's falling?

[JStonebarger]

Actually, considering that he's the best ever and that he's on rollers I'd say Merckx's pedal stroke looks surprisingly bouncy. On the other hand, have you ever seen footage of him climbing? Yes, he looks like he's falling onto the pedals.

[fuzzalow]

This is what happens when you wear a digital watch...

:)

More like overlapping, seguewayed & superimposed torque curves, as it were if maintaining the clockface imagery.

[Peter P.]

Which would imply that a smoother, more efficient pedal stroke can be taught and learned...and be of benefit to non-pros.

Not necessarily. We don't know whether the more efficient pedal stroke was the result of training or part of the genetics (physiological makeup) which contributed to their overall higher performance than us mere mortals.

[mistermo]

You can't make the pedal travel in anything but a circle, which means the only thing failing is the learning process...

Is this the thread to ask about elliptical chain rings?

[Ti Designs]

Seen where? This article and what lots of people say (every bit as persuasive as your statement) tell me the opposite. Watch the vid of EM on the rollers that's in the article. Does he look like he's falling?

On the other hand, have you ever seen footage of him climbing? Yes, he looks like he's falling onto the pedals.

Another one of those things that I need to plug the other ear when I explain, otherwise it just goes right out the other side...

There's more than one way to pedal a bike. Climbing a hill requires more torque, which means larger muscles and body weight leveraged on the pedals. Acceleration requires a change in cadence, the quads have a much wider range of contraction speed. Those are two very different ways of pedaling with a whole range of part of each between them. When I accelerate on the flats it's all quads pushing the pedals forward from 11:00 - 2:00. No upper body movement, just smooth power right up to 130RPMs. When I'm climbing a hill I've got my center of gravity right over the pedal as it's going down, my cadence is slower, there's about 5" of up and down going on. I'm also producing a lot more power, but the cadence is limited to where the pedal is going down slower than gravity is pulling my body weight into it.

Try sticking a finger in one ear and read it again...

[11.4]

You can't make the pedal travel in anything but a circle, which means the only thing failing is the learning process...

Do we really think this is true. Or more to the point, relevant? Thanks to cleat position, flexion of the foot, and flexion of the ankle, the cleat may describe a perfect circle but the ankle may be anything but that. That's actually what good pedal action is about, right? You allow your long joints (thigh and calf) to optimize their performance and simply connect them to the pedal stroke via a somewhat modifiable linkage -- the foot.

[Ti Designs]

Do we really think this is true. Or more to the point, relevant? Thanks to cleat position, flexion of the foot, and flexion of the ankle, the cleat may describe a perfect circle but the ankle may be anything but that. That's actually what good pedal action is about, right? You allow your long joints (thigh and calf) to optimize their performance and simply connect them to the pedal stroke via a somewhat modifiable linkage -- the foot.

My point wasn't about actually pedaling a bike, it was about the learning process (which in this case is about pedaling a bike, but could be applied to any learned skill).

http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/excerpts/learning-process-when-acquiring-motor-skills-similar-for-all-individuals

Take away the ability to fail and the first two steps are pointless. This goes by the fact that the pedal is going around in a circle, so they assume they can pedal in a circle. This assumption is the basis for Dunning/Kruger's conclusions - few people ever test their own competence in the tasks they perform.

[dnc]

When I accelerate on the flats it's all quads pushing the pedals forward from 11:00 - 2:00. No upper body movement, just smooth power right up to 130RPMs.



For seated acceleration purposes why concentrate on this 11-2 sector when pedalling effectiveness is best between 2:00 - 4:00. At a cadence of 100+ how do you get enough time to generate most effective forward and downward torque. You did not answer that question, how does this torque at TDC compare with your 3 o'c torque, or the forces you believe you are applying at 12 and 3 o'c. Also which technique mashing (with or without unweighting) or circular do you believe is best for use in flat TT's or have you created a more effective one.

[weisan]

Ti pal, one consistent theme I keep hearing or reading from your posts about this subject is that most people were not taught how to do this from the beginning since they started riding a bike, they just assume they know how to pedal because they hop on it, push and it just goes...

so, my challenge to you then is how do you explain, impart or teach this to a group of 3-5 year olds, assuming that's the typical age when most of us start learning how to ride a bike...understand that all the terminology (vectors, cadence, torque etc), and concepts that you have used so far or posted here, at least to me, seems to require a higher maturity or caters more to an adult rider.

Assume for a moment, I am your nephew and I am four years old, I came to you, and I said, Uncle Ti, teach me how to ride a bike....what would you do?

[Ti Designs]

Assume for a moment, I am your nephew and I am four years old, I came to you, and I said, Uncle Ti, teach me how to ride a bike....what would you do?

You've found a task that I am incompetent at. I can't assume (as so many do) that I know how to teach young children, that in itself is a learning process. It would be an interesting long term experiment as one of the conclusions I've reached about most adults is that they have no active skill set that involves using the glutes - that's why I have to use the "fall into the pedals" method, 'cause it's a passive skill set. Cyclists and rowers learn that active skill over time, but the involvement of the largest muscle group could have a huge effect if taught early. I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not, but in retrospect, most things the health care industry does are in the same category...

[JStonebarger]

Maybe instead adults should watch young children to be reminded of the lessons we've forgotten.

Four year-olds stand and pump their arms to accelerate even without an adult teaching them to. Young people, if they actually ride, figure out on their own that when it gets hard you stomp -- up hill, for example.

I remembered this a few years ago when I got back on a unicycle after 40+ years: wheels are more stable when in motion; slow down at your peril. It's not rocket science, of course, but somewhere along the way I seem to have forgotten.