why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
 

Since this comes up over and over and over again on multiple forums, I
thought I'd try to clear up some of the confusion:

http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html

why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
 

Lots of technical terms there, as befits a scientific article. As is typical
in scientific literature technical terms are also misused if they sound
more technical. In particular, the chart describes "circumferential pedal
velocity." As far as I know, the term "velocity" describes speed and direction,
so the correct term here is "speed", since the "velocity" of the pedal is
constantly changing. Moreover, the word "circumferential" is redundant,
given the natural assumption that pedal speed is taken with respect to the
bicycle as frame of reference.

-ilan

"Andy Coggan" wrote in message hlink.net...
Since this comes up over and over and over again on multiple forums, I
thought I'd try to clear up some of the confusion:

http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html

why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
 

The top-posting Ilan Vardi wrote:

Lots of technical terms there, as befits a scientific article. As is
typical
in scientific literature technical terms are also misused if they sound
more technical. In particular, the chart describes "circumferential pedal
velocity." As far as I know, the term "velocity" describes speed and
direction,
so the correct term here is "speed", since the "velocity" of the pedal is
constantly changing. Moreover, the word "circumferential" is redundant,
given the natural assumption that pedal speed is taken with respect to the
bicycle as frame of reference.

Conveying precise concepts requires precise use of terminology. While I
agree with you that simple "pedal speed" might be sufficient should it be
used within context, it might not be if, for example, the plot was presented
out of context. Hence, "circumferential pedal velocity", i.e, the speed and
direction that the pedal travels.

Andy Coggan

why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
 

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:56:21 GMT, "Andy Coggan" wrote:

Since this comes up over and over and over again on multiple forums, I
thought I'd try to clear up some of the confusion:

http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html

Great article.


--
Scott Johnson
"Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are
why they only open the top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen

why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:00:25 GMT, Andy Coggan wrote:
Conveying precise concepts requires precise use of terminology. While I
agree with you that simple "pedal speed" might be sufficient should it be
used within context, it might not be if, for example, the plot was presented
out of context. Hence, "circumferential pedal velocity", i.e, the speed and
direction that the pedal travels.

http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/s...gthvspower.gif

Bull****. It's a simple 2D plot, only the magnitude of the velocity is
used. How can "pedal speed (m/s)" be misinterpreted?! If you want to
be more precise you could say "Pedal turning speed (m/s)" or "Pedal
speed wrt. axle (m/s)", but "Circumferential pedal velocity", please.
I think you were just afraid of the alternative abbreviation PTS.

Btw, thanks for your efforts in writing the article.

why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
 

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:00:25 GMT, Andy Coggan wrote:

Conveying precise concepts requires precise use of terminology. While I
agree with you that simple "pedal speed" might be sufficient should it be
used within context, it might not be if, for example, the plot was presented
out of context. Hence, "circumferential pedal velocity", i.e, the speed and
direction that the pedal travels.


http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/s...gthvspower.gif

Bull****. It's a simple 2D plot, only the magnitude of the velocity is
used. How can "pedal speed (m/s)" be misinterpreted?! If you want to
be more precise you could say "Pedal turning speed (m/s)" or "Pedal
speed wrt. axle (m/s)", but "Circumferential pedal velocity", please.
I think you were just afraid of the alternative abbreviation PTS.

Btw, thanks for your efforts in writing the article.

This is the kind of discussion that turns many people off from science
and engineering. (I haven't read the paper yet but maybe a conversion
to angular velocity would've created a more unassailable text?)

"You call THAT punctuation?"

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
 

"Andy Coggan" wrote in message
link.net...
Since this comes up over and over and over again on multiple forums, I
thought I'd try to clear up some of the confusion:

http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html


Andy,

Thank you very much for the excellent technical essay. Am I correct in
concluding from your essay that my twice a week, three or four seated,
in-the-hooks, 4 minute climbs up a steep hill are the type of specificity to
which you refer? I'm doing these rather than weight-room leg exercises in
hopes of building bicycling specific strength and power.

Vol(tryingtobeabetterfattiemastersracer)taire

why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
 

"Voltaire" wrote in message
.. .

Am I correct in
concluding from your essay that my twice a week, three or four seated,
in-the-hooks, 4 minute climbs up a steep hill are the type of specificity
to
which you refer? I'm doing these rather than weight-room leg exercises in
hopes of building bicycling specific strength and power.

That would certainly be more specific than lifting weights. However,
depending on the cadence you do them at, vs. the cadence you actually (wish
to) climb at, they may still not be specific enough. It is well-established,
for example, that performing isokinetic training at a slow velocity only
improves force at a slow velocity, whereas doing isokinetic training at a
high velocity only improves force at a high velocity.

Andy Coggan

why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
 

"Andy Coggan" wrote in message k.net...

Conveying precise concepts requires precise use of terminology. While I
agree with you that simple "pedal speed" might be sufficient should it be
used within context, it might not be if, for example, the plot was presented
out of context. Hence, "circumferential pedal velocity", i.e, the speed and
direction that the pedal travels.

It looks like my previous critique was not quite accurate.
In order to make a graph of pedal velocity versus some other quantity,
you would actually need to make a four dimensional plot. This is
because pedal
velocity, as opposed to pedal
speed, is not roughly constant for a given value of the other
quantity, so you
must include time to make a plot. That is, you need to make a graph
with respect
to the scalars: speed, direction, time, quantity you used in your
graph.

To highlight the complication you introduce by insisting on using
pedal velocity, note that the graph of the speed of a pedal rotating
in a circle
at constant speed consists of a single point, while the graph of its
velocity
is a 3-dimensional figure, a helix (this is what I was thinking of
previously).

Once again, I use an opportunity to differentiate myself from most
scientists
by admitting when I have made a mistake.

-ilan

why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
 

"Ilan Vardi" wrote in message
m...

Once again, I use an opportunity to differentiate myself from most
scientists
by admitting when I have made a mistake.

Once again, you use an opportunity to aggrandize yourself by making trivial
criticisms.

Andy Coggan