I’m sure you’re right about the 4 second peak - the minute or whatever it was seemed like an eternity. Right about the time I started seeing double the guy said “great…30 seconds to go”. LOL.
I’m still running a frame with an American BB but should get a new one in the Fall with a Euro bracket and will see if I can bum an HRM machine from the local roadie crowd and see what comes of it (the aforementioned test was on a rigged up spin class bike from the kid’s school, gym, not a real bike).
[quote]KombatAthlete wrote:
If mechanical advantages do not matter, why aren’t you accepting NASCAR as an answer? Cyclists pedal their bike, NASCAR drivers step on the pedals.[/quote]
Because even if you want to consider pushing the pedal “work”, the time component is dictated by the engine doing its thing, not the driver.
I guess I would understand the question better if I knew the frameowrk of the testing alittle better.
So here is the question:
In the cyclist test, is the power measured by how much power the cyslist puts into the pedals, or by how much power output is produced after the cranks and gears and tires have done their thing?
Because there is a huge difference in how much power goes into the pedals and how much is displayed at the back end… so how much power is being delivered into the pedals?
[quote]KombatAthlete wrote:
If mechanical advantages do not matter, why aren’t you accepting NASCAR as an answer? Cyclists pedal their bike, NASCAR drivers step on the pedals.[/quote]
you are kidding right?
A bike doesn’t move itself. A car does. Hell, you could rig up a remote gas pedal to a car and it would move.
That ain’t going to happen on a bike.
The rider is the bike’s power source. The driver of a car is NOT the cars power source.
you got to be joking
[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
Yes, the bike adds leverage.
You push on the pedal, and will get more or less overall power depending on what gear you’re in. There’s mechanical leverage helping to increase the power output. Would the guy on the bike be able to go as fast on (or even produce as much power on) a BMX bike? No.
[/quote]
Power does not inherently depend on speed, it depends on acceleration of the mass, and wind resistance.
Since cyclists are pushing the limits of wind resistance (most of their work is against wind resistance at higher speeds) it is probably a self regulating system which would produce the most power.
A sprinter’s power is limited primarily by the fact that his reflexes don’t let him push faster.
Max power occurs at INTERMEDIATE limb/muscle speeds.
But, power is a crappy quantity to measure for human performance, because the limbs are always accelerating, the heart is always accelerating, and there are opposing reflexive forces in the body.
The real “biological” question would be who burns the most calories in a given unit of time.
Anyway, “simple” physics, if the cyclist could out accelerate the sprinter he would be producing more power, and no simple machine has any “physical” effect on power-only a biological effect.
[quote]Deinabolic wrote:
I’m sure you’re right about the 4 second peak - the minute or whatever it was seemed like an eternity. Right about the time I started seeing double the guy said “great…30 seconds to go”. LOL.
I’m still running a frame with an American BB but should get a new one in the Fall with a Euro bracket and will see if I can bum an HRM machine from the local roadie crowd and see what comes of it (the aforementioned test was on a rigged up spin class bike from the kid’s school, gym, not a real bike).[/quote]
A heart rate monitor will do you no good for sprint training. An SRM powermeter will! Although they are very expensive at $1500+
Perhaps you should invest in a road bike for training. You could install a relatively cheap Powertap powermeter on it, and get just as good wattage readings.
I also garrantee you that you will have higher peak wattage on a properly set up road/track bike (on which you are accostomed to) than a spin bike. Also, do a 5 second balls-to-the-wall sprint, not a 60 second time trial. You will see yet an even higher peak reading.
[quote]Jumanji wrote:
I guess I would understand the question better if I knew the frameowrk of the testing alittle better.
So here is the question:
In the cyclist test, is the power measured by how much power the cyslist puts into the pedals, or by how much power output is produced after the cranks and gears and tires have done their thing?
Because there is a huge difference in how much power goes into the pedals and how much is displayed at the back end… so how much power is being delivered into the pedals?
[/quote]
Good question. Power is either measured at the bottom bracket of the bike (SRM. fairly close to the pedals), or at the back wheel(powertap). In the latter, the wattage will be about 2-5% lower because of power loss through the drivetrain of the bike.
For practical purposes, it is agreed that both measurements are nearly as accurate.
Kilo~
You are right in that regard, they produce power in pulses of explosion, with intermittent relaxation. In fact to get from the advanced to elite, it is often the ability to master tension control that makes the biggest difference.
In the end, I would tip my hat to cyclists for producing more power than any other athlete over 10-20s.
But, you still have a 17 in vertical…
I will keep my high 30" vertical and go try to sleep knowing you produce more power… LOL.
The last two statements just shows you that the focus is totally different. Our response to the displays are based on what we hold as important…
I do think the topic is interesting though, since the constant tension is definitely the differentiator…
This would be a kool bar bet…
Kinda like the one where you take and elite sprinter and a jav thrower and have them see who broad jumps further…
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
SWR-1222D wrote:
Yes, the bike adds leverage.
You push on the pedal, and will get more or less overall power depending on what gear you’re in. There’s mechanical leverage helping to increase the power output. Would the guy on the bike be able to go as fast on (or even produce as much power on) a BMX bike? No.
Power does not inherently depend on speed, it depends on acceleration of the mass, and wind resistance.
Since cyclists are pushing the limits of wind resistance (most of their work is against wind resistance at higher speeds) it is probably a self regulating system which would produce the most power.
A sprinter’s power is limited primarily by the fact that his reflexes don’t let him push faster.
Max power occurs at INTERMEDIATE limb/muscle speeds.
But, power is a crappy quantity to measure for human performance, because the limbs are always accelerating, the heart is always accelerating, and there are opposing reflexive forces in the body.
The real “biological” question would be who burns the most calories in a given unit of time.
Anyway, “simple” physics, if the cyclist could out accelerate the sprinter he would be producing more power, and no simple machine has any “physical” effect on power-only a biological effect.[/quote]
thanks for your input.
I believe the only half-accurate way of comparing a cyclist and runners power output is by having them do a sprint up a very steep hill (20% grade)
You could then get into the physics of who gains the most vertical meters per second.
[quote]KiloSprinter wrote:
KombatAthlete wrote:
If mechanical advantages do not matter, why aren’t you accepting NASCAR as an answer? Cyclists pedal their bike, NASCAR drivers step on the pedals.
you are kidding right?
A bike doesn’t move itself. A car does. Hell, you could rig up a remote gas pedal to a car and it would move.
That ain’t going to happen on a bike.
The rider is the bike’s power source. The driver of a car is NOT the cars power source.
you got to be joking[/quote]
You’re asking what athlete produces the most power in their sport. The 2 changing variables are the person and the sport. The bike gives a mechanical advantage to produce more power than the athlete puts out.
The car uses mechanical and electrical and cumbustable leverage to produce much more power than the driver puts out. The sport of NASCAR doesn’t allow a remotely powered car, just as biking doesn’t allow motors.
Going back to lugers, they use gravity in their sport to make their heavy equipment, and themselves go faster, so why take out the car’s engine from NASCAR, and take out gravity from lugers, but don’t take out the mechanical leverage that a bike gives?
You want to know what person + sport produces the most power, right?
Or are you looking for the person who can produce the most power in the same sport.
Maybe a strongman or olympic lifter would produce more power on a bike that’s in a gear to optimully utilize the lifter, or strongman’s fast twitch muscles.
If it’s person AND sport, then any sport that uses a motor is going to produce more power. There’s your answer.
Asking about the athlete’s ability to produce the most power under the same conditions is another question.
[quote]Jumanji wrote:
So here is the question:
In the cyclist test, is the power measured by how much power the cyslist puts into the pedals, or by how much power output is produced after the cranks and gears and tires have done their thing?
Because there is a huge difference in how much power goes into the pedals and how much is displayed at the back end… so how much power is being delivered into the pedals?
[/quote]
You are thinking of force, not power. The very slight resistance of the mechanical parts of the bike means you will measure slightly less power at the wheels than at the pedals (if you could somehow measure it at the pedals). The bike does not generate power, but it does consume some.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
The real “biological” question would be who burns the most calories in a given unit of time.
Anyway, “simple” physics, if the cyclist could out accelerate the sprinter he would be producing more power, and no simple machine has any “physical” effect on power-only a biological effect.[/quote]
The problem with measuring an accleration is that it will only be able to gauge peak power, not sustained. The acceleration of a runner on flat ground is what, 2 seconds?
wattage and work done in period of time is the same thing. 1500watts for 20 seconds is 30,000 joules of work. That equals about 30 calories of energy used by a human.
steep hill sprints are the only way.
or even sprinting up a long staircase would be a good way. You need to measure vertical distance gained per second, and add in the horizontal speed of the athlete.
[quote]KiloSprinter wrote:
Deinabolic wrote:
I’m sure you’re right about the 4 second peak - the minute or whatever it was seemed like an eternity. Right about the time I started seeing double the guy said “great…30 seconds to go”. LOL.
I’m still running a frame with an American BB but should get a new one in the Fall with a Euro bracket and will see if I can bum an HRM machine from the local roadie crowd and see what comes of it (the aforementioned test was on a rigged up spin class bike from the kid’s school, gym, not a real bike).
A heart rate monitor will do you no good for sprint training. An SRM powermeter will! Although they are very expensive at $1500+
Perhaps you should invest in a road bike for training. You could install a relatively cheap Powertap powermeter on it, and get just as good wattage readings.
I also garrantee you that you will have higher peak wattage on a properly set up road/track bike (on which you are accostomed to) than a spin bike. Also, do a 5 second balls-to-the-wall sprint, not a 60 second time trial. You will see yet an even higher peak reading.
[/quote]
Typo on my part…I meant SRM machine.
Will eventually get another road bike once they finish a rails-to-trails project by my house (had one 10-ish years ago and got tired of dodging ATL traffic), but only for recovery and social rides. Otherwise, it’s counterproductive to train on a road bike b/c of the biomechanical differences in sprinting on it v. a 20". besides, right now I have a 20", an full sus. XC bike and two DH bikes so the Mrs. isn’t too in to the thought of another bike purchase right now.
[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
KiloSprinter wrote:
KombatAthlete wrote:
If mechanical advantages do not matter, why aren’t you accepting NASCAR as an answer? Cyclists pedal their bike, NASCAR drivers step on the pedals.
you are kidding right?
A bike doesn’t move itself. A car does. Hell, you could rig up a remote gas pedal to a car and it would move.
That ain’t going to happen on a bike.
The rider is the bike’s power source. The driver of a car is NOT the cars power source.
you got to be joking
You’re asking what athlete produces the most power in their sport. The 2 changing variables are the person and the sport. The bike gives a mechanical advantage to produce more power than the athlete puts out.
The car uses mechanical and electrical and cumbustable leverage to produce much more power than the driver puts out. The sport of NASCAR doesn’t allow a remotely powered car, just as biking doesn’t allow motors.
Going back to lugers, they use gravity in their sport to make their heavy equipment, and themselves go faster, so why take out the car’s engine from NASCAR, and take out gravity from lugers, but don’t take out the mechanical leverage that a bike gives?
You want to know what person + sport produces the most power, right?
Or are you looking for the person who can produce the most power in the same sport.
Maybe a strongman or olympic lifter would produce more power on a bike that’s in a gear to optimully utilize the lifter, or strongman’s fast twitch muscles.
If it’s person AND sport, then any sport that uses a motor is going to produce more power. There’s your answer.
Asking about the athlete’s ability to produce the most power under the same conditions is another question.[/quote]
This topic is about HUMAN power. Sliding down a iced track down a mtn does not require ANY power. Pushing a gas pedal of car requires a few watts of power. BUT! READ THIS CAREFULLY…
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER!
Now, read that statement over 10 times.
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER!
HUMAN POWER.
NOT engine power.
NOT stored kinetic energy at the top of hill for lugers
HUMAN POWER
get it?
What sport allows for the most production of HUMAN POWER?
Is that phrased better for you?
please, Mertdawg, or someone else help me out here and explain this.
I need to go, and do my workouts today.
[quote]Deinabolic wrote:
KiloSprinter wrote:
Deinabolic wrote:
I’m sure you’re right about the 4 second peak - the minute or whatever it was seemed like an eternity. Right about the time I started seeing double the guy said “great…30 seconds to go”. LOL.
I’m still running a frame with an American BB but should get a new one in the Fall with a Euro bracket and will see if I can bum an HRM machine from the local roadie crowd and see what comes of it (the aforementioned test was on a rigged up spin class bike from the kid’s school, gym, not a real bike).
A heart rate monitor will do you no good for sprint training. An SRM powermeter will! Although they are very expensive at $1500+
Perhaps you should invest in a road bike for training. You could install a relatively cheap Powertap powermeter on it, and get just as good wattage readings.
I also garrantee you that you will have higher peak wattage on a properly set up road/track bike (on which you are accostomed to) than a spin bike. Also, do a 5 second balls-to-the-wall sprint, not a 60 second time trial. You will see yet an even higher peak reading.
Typo on my part…I meant SRM machine.
Will eventually get another road bike once they finish a rails-to-trails project by my house (had one 10-ish years ago and got tired of dodging ATL traffic), but only for recovery and social rides. Otherwise, it’s counterproductive to train on a road bike b/c of the biomechanical differences in sprinting on it v. a 20". besides, right now I have a 20", an full sus. XC bike and two DH bikes so the Mrs. isn’t too in to the thought of another bike purchase right now. [/quote]
Thats true. You probally are better off doing most of your training on your race bike. But, you could still work on your anearobic capacity doing long sprints on a road bike. It’s much easier to maximally push your limits on a road bike than it is on a bmx bike.
I doubt many roadies have an SRM, unless they are very weathly or on a pro team. SRM is just too expensive.
We do 10-15 cranks at the most between jumps and there’s no reason to train by sprinting for more than 50 yards. Like I said, I’ve had a road bike in the past and it was a great recovery tool and nothing more. Now, as far as it’s carryover to XC performance, that’s a different story. For shits and giggles, I hit the road once in a while on my 20" with the seat jacked up and ride with my wife on her MTB. I can sustain 13ish MPH no problem for 20 miles (50/50 mix of hills and flats). There’s a 10 mile TT in a nearby town each year and next year I may jump in on the 20" just to piss peoople off.
To hell with it anyway, I’d rather spend the money on a Nascar rig and become THE MOST POWERFUL MOTHERFUCKER ON THE PLANET!!! FEEL MY BEASTLY FUCKIN’ PULL AS I PRESS DOWN ON THE PEDAL!!!
[quote]KiloSprinter wrote:
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER! With the assistance of the bike’s leverage!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER! With the assistance of the bike’s leverage!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER! With the assistance of the bike’s leverage!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER! With the assistance of the bike’s leverage!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER! With the assistance of the bike’s leverage!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER! With the assistance of the bike’s leverage!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER! With the assistance of the bike’s leverage!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER! With the assistance of the bike’s leverage!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER! With the assistance of the bike’s leverage!
Pushing the pedals of a bike requires power, which is solely produced BY THE RIDER! With the assistance of the bike’s leverage!
HUMAN POWER With the assistance of the bike’s leverage!
NOT engine power.
NOT stored kinetic energy at the top of hill for lugers
HUMAN POWER With the assistance of the bike’s leverage!
get it? GOT IT!
What sport allows for the most production of HUMAN POWER? POWER LIFTING, OLYMPIC LIFTING, SPEED SKATING!
Is that phrased better for you? YES
please, Mertdawg, or someone else help me out here and explain this.
I need to go, and do my workouts today. [/quote]
With the assistance of the bike’s leverage!
Now I’m gonna workout! Arrrghhhh!
Oh wait, it’s my off day.
Maybee I’ll go beat off because everyone won’t agree that my sport produces the most power (while limiting all other sports) 
As far as the NASCAR driver, he is actually removing chemical potential energy from the environment so he is doing negative work on the fuel.
Ah, I finally get what you’re trying to say. It’s not the leverage of the bike, per se, it’s the resistance (load) sprinting on a bike adds. Your argument eariler was kinda convoluted but I gotcha now.
Agreed - just as strongman guys push too much of a load load but too slowly to generate power in a true P=W/T sense, track runners don’t have to overcome enough load (i.e. don’t do enough work) to rate either. I think we’re all on the same page and just aren’t articulating things clearly enough.
All this is academic, anyway, since it’s clear that BMXers generate the most power 
Going back to your old lady example:
[quote]KiloSprinter wrote:
The bike is just a lever. Yes it matters, but it won’t turn an old lady into a 2000watt generator.
[/quote]
Wouldn’t the old lady be able to produce a LOT more power with the bike than without?
THAT’S my point, that you’re missing.
If you want to compare the athlete’s power, you need all other variables the same.
The biker would produce more power on a bike than a strongman. The strongman would produce more power pulling a truck. The speed skater will produce more power with skates on ice.
Get the point yet?
If you want to know how much power one’s legs can produce, you have to measure the power output of the legs of the athlete doing the same motion, with the same resistance.
The biker would produce more power on a bike than a strongman.
The strongman would produce more power pulling a truck.
The speed skater will produce more power with skates on ice.
The biker would produce more power on a bike than a strongman.
The strongman would produce more power pulling a truck.
The speed skater will produce more power with skates on ice.
The biker would produce more power on a bike than a strongman.
The strongman would produce more power pulling a truck.
The speed skater will produce more power with skates on ice.