|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Armstrong's Tour De France Time Trials | Rik O'Shea | Racing | 33 | November 6th 03 04:46 AM |
Ergomo and Power Tap comparison | Robert Chung | Racing | 169 | November 5th 03 05:25 AM |
LA seen motorpacing in Austin | Tom Paterson | Racing | 104 | September 12th 03 01:22 PM |