Power Meters

[Zofo]

virtually all authorities on cycling performance agree it matters not one iota how you deliver your power, so long as you deliver it.

Do they?...some examples please

 

[VamP]

Just because it might seem like it's obvious doesn't mean it is. I'll dig some literature up when I'm not on the iPhone but TBH this comes up a lot on the various power forums so if you really wanted to explore it you could have done.

Smoothness of pedal stroke and left right balance are just ideologies with no evidence backing them up. Regardless of what watt bike and now Garmin might peddle in their sales literature.

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

good article on power over at slowtwitch

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Power_Meter_101_3643.html
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Power_Meter_201_3672.html
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Power_Meter_301_3696.html

thought it was interesting that wheel based power meters produce the most accurate data of all the systems when used with a ovalised chain ring

 

[Dusty Bin]

Do they?...some examples please

Surely the onus is on you to provide evidence that pedalling efficiency does affect power delivery?

 

[Andrew_P]

As a fence sitter and non power metre user the Garmins look quite good.

Often price is quoted but apart from the Stages all the others seem to come in at a max of £300-400 saving but come with some disadvantages to the Vector, or am I completely wrong? Powertap to get anywhere near my current rear wheel would come in at 700-900 pounds and then I have read issues with spokes and buckles. Power2max looks like it is around 1100 euros and the first generation had a few issues with changes in temp. Quark are around 1200 to 1500, then SRM £1400+ So if the Vectors are as accurate as the others and if they are fit and forget then why the downer on them? Amazingly the Vector forum seems to be well serviced by a Vector Garmin tech support and is just a tad over 2 pages. Seem to me with all the delays, lack of choice on pedals they knew they had to nail it on day one with just one choice of pedal, and not do their normal beta release?

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

Surely the onus is on you to provide evidence that pedalling efficiency does affect power delivery?

Team Sky believe pedalling efficiency does affect power delivery does and as previously mentioned state......... "You have to put a lot of power down the front end of the pedal stroke which has a negative effect on the smoothness and balance of your pedal technique. Having a good pedal technique means you can produce more power for the same physiological effort (HR)."

British Cycling also offer information and training on efficient pedalling and stating ......... "Souplesse is a word often used for silky smooth pedalling, but how do you develop that efficient motion. To make sure you are getting the most from your pedalling strokes, come into the Insight Zone, where British Cycling coaches will tell you how."
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/insightzone/techniques

I would hope and assume that British Cycling and team Sky with their marginal gain ideology has done research into this and although its not evidence, these are statements which come from credible source's

I'm also yet to see a quote from a credible source or successful team stating that pedalling efficiency does not affect power delivery. Can you show any?

 

[Rob3rt]

I think you need to be careful here, does pedalling efficiency in the intuitive sense correlate to what Garmin claim to be able to measure?

It is like L/R balance..... I am yet to see anyone put this measurement to any real use.

If people like the Garmin Vector and it works for them, great. Sure it has some advantages and some disadvantages vs other systems, like they all do. You weigh up the specs and reviews and buy what you like and what works for you.

My opinion is very simple in that as a performance driven cyclist, the Vector does not offer anything that makes me desire it, or see it as an upgrade over my Quarq, that is pretty much where it ends for me.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Team Sky believe pedalling efficiency does affect power delivery does and as previously mentioned state......... "You have to put a lot of power down the front end of the pedal stroke which has a negative effect on the smoothness and balance of your pedal technique. Having a good pedal technique means you can produce more power for the same physiological effort (HR)."

British Cycling also offer information and training on efficient pedalling and stating ......... "Souplesse is a word often used for silky smooth pedalling, but how do you develop that efficient motion. To make sure you are getting the most from your pedalling strokes, come into the Insight Zone, where British Cycling coaches will tell you how."
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/insightzone/techniques

I would hope and assume that British Cycling and team Sky with their marginal gain ideology has done research into this and although its not evidence, these are statements which come from credible source's

I'm also yet to see a quote from a credible source or successful team stating that pedalling efficiency does not affect power delivery. Can you show any?

Quoting people who happen to hold the same opinion as you is not proof that pedalling efficiency has any material impact on power output though, is it? Furthermore, the absense of evidence that it does not improve power delivery is not proof that it does improve it.

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

Quoting people who happen to hold the same opinion as you is not proof that pedalling efficiency has any material impact on power output though, is it? Furthermore, the absense of evidence that it does not improve power delivery is not proof that it does improve it.

I did state, 'although its not evidence' in my response.
I was pointing out/suggesting that when experts in a field with far greater resources and knowledge than myself believe that cycling efficiency has enough virtue to work on improving it I take interest.
There as been considerable resources, placed into cycling efficiency and if improving it offered no value, I would assume that the data would be available to say this.... I'm yet to see such data.

I have presented information which explains why I feel improving pedalling technique may have value, and although not scientific evidence. I feel it presents a more reasoned view than simply standing in the corner shouting 'no it does not' which seems to be what is being presented by the pedalling efficiency myth camp at this time.
Attempting to discredit one persons view without presenting any information does not increase the weight of the alternative view, so nothing is gained or learned.

 

[VamP]

@Zofo and @Pedrosanchezo

Sorry, work got in the way

Here is a superficial article in case it's just a passing interest.

And here is a long winded internet fight between Dr A Coggan and the inventor of Power Cranks, pertinently paused at the point where Dr Coggan highlights the state of science on pedalling efficiency. Spend as long as you like on this one, but it does go on.

 

[Dusty Bin]

I did state, 'although its not evidence' in my response.
I was pointing out/suggesting that when experts in a field with far greater resources and knowledge than myself believe that cycling efficiency has enough virtue to work on improving it I take interest.
There as been considerable resources, placed into cycling efficiency and if improving it offered no value, I would assume that the data would be available to say this.... I'm yet to see such data.

I have presented information which explains why I feel improving pedalling technique may have value, and although not scientific evidence. I feel it presents a more reasoned view than simply standing in the corner shouting 'no it does not' which seems to be what is being presented by the pedalling efficiency myth camp at this time.
Attempting to discredit one persons view without presenting any information does not increase the weight of the alternative view, so nothing is gained or learned.

Stating (quite correctly) that there is an absense of evidence to support pedalling efficiency and power gains is not the same as discrediting it, because such anecdotal statements have no scientific credibility in the first place. However, there are studies which show that pedalling on flats does not produce any more power than pedalling clipped-in - which kind of destroys the 'upstroke' argument. Like I say, I don't think there's anything out there which concludes that pedalling technique actually helps you produce more power or go faster.

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

I think you need to be careful here, does pedalling efficiency in the intuitive sense correlate to what Garmin claim to be able to measure?

It is like L/R balance..... I am yet to see anyone put this measurement to any real use..

Good question.. I have emailed British Cycling to see if they have a view on the L/R balance they are willing to share.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Good question.. I have emailed British Cycling to see if they have a view on the L/R balance they are willing to share.

They will probably tell you that most people have a L/R imbalance - but that it doesn't matter anyway, because what actually matters is the power produced, and for how long.

 

[VamP]

This is anecdotal but interesting. Post borrowed from another forum.

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons/RST
Here's some N=1 longitudinal data. It represents my personal best 5-minute mean maximal power to weight ratio for each year from 2006 to 2011.

In early 2007 I had two legs. In May 2007 I had a trans tibial amputation.

Since then I've pedaled with a prosthetic and can do nothing other than push down. My pedaling technique with a prosthetic means pull up, pull over, scrape mud etc is simply impossible.

So how come my W/kg is better with 1.5 legs?
Maybe pushing down is more efficient?

Note that in terms of race performance comparisons (masters racing):

In 2007, I (and my team) set a State record in wining the team pursuit championships and I was on podium at national points race and 4th place at States.

In 2011, I (and my team) set a State record in winning the team pursuit championships and I bombed the points race at nationals (going for a lap mind you with two world champs in the field) and was 4th at States (with two world champs in the field).

Seems to me that something as drastic to one's pedaling "technique" as removing an entire lower leg hasn't actually had much impact on ability to generate useful power.

 

[amaferanga]

Are you sure VamP? Delivering power is one thing but delivering it consistently for a duration is another. Pedalling efficiency is not a myth, it is in the interest of every competitive cyclist to find out how to pedal most efficiently. Just as with something like pre ride nutrition - you don't have to eat wisely before a ride or race but you could improve performance by doing so.

That pedalling efficiency (whatever that is and whether the Garmin Vector claims to provide some measure of it or not) will make you a better cyclist (i.e. be able to produce more Watts for longer) is the myth.

So I don't agree at all that it's in the interests of every competitive cyclist to find out how to pedal more efficiently. Just like we all have a preferred cadence, we also have a preferred cycling style and provided there's nothing exceptional about it (e.g. knees out like a mountain biker or seat too high/low/forward/back) then I don't think there's any actual evidence to show that there's much to gain from trying to be really smooth. Lot's of anecdotes and assumptions that smooth must equal better, but no real evidence.