bruce

Oom H, I think you should go back and check up on your history and order of events Here is a clue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate_monitor and another one http://www.srm.de/usa/mobileleistung.html

Ivanb I think the issue that I have is that you guys are making claims without properly published research. There are numerous biomechanical and medical science journals in which to publish findings that can then be peer reviewed - not only in terms of the conclusions drawn, but also in terms of testing methodology. The usual path that is followed is that someone tries something new. From various pieces of anecdotal evidence, it "appears" that this new technique or piece of equipment does in fact provide some improvements. While this technique or piece of equipment may appear to violate various laws of physics, it should be investigated - because it may improve efficiency or economy in a process. It is important to understand that the "burden of proof" lies with the party making the claims, not the party or parties disputing this new invention. Now, "proof" means proper scientific testing! Not more anecdotal evidence. Your published research acknowledges this very fact! Proper scientific testing has a well defined methodology - it is this way because it has to be in order to sift out real progress from dead ends. Going to war with your so-called "scientists" (i.e. people that have an understanding of the fundamental laws of physics) when you are still fundamentally in the anecdotal evidence phase is not going to win you any arguments with the scientific community. And banging your drum and shouting that science is wrong and doesn't understand well, millions have done this before you and failed - as I have said before, the reason why the laws of physics are called laws is because they are exactly that. When an invention comes along that appears to confound that laws of physics, it is because our understanding of the mechanics of the invention is not complete, not because the laws of physics are wrong. I personally am prepared to accept that q-rings may improve efficiency or economy, thereby allowing more of the power produced by the body to reach the road. I have offered to test the concept myself - I ride with powermeters and computrainers so I have access to tools that would allow some evidence based testing, rather than all the experience based testing that you are currently performing.

Yes' date=' or put another way, greater power output (or work performed over a period of time) for the same kilojoules used. At the end of the day, there is a difference between the power put into the pedals, and the power that reaches the road - if the same power reached the road as was put into the pedals, the drivetrain would be 100% efficient.[/quote'] Sorry guys, but the shape of your chainring cannot affect the efficiency of the power your foot affects on the chain. That power is almost a 100% transfer of the force you exert (minus crank/BB flex and lateral shoe movement maybe?). Newton and his blerrie laws are pretty clear on that. You loose power due to fiction and wind resistance (another form of friction) and the shape of your chainring does nada to change that. What the chainring DOES do is vary your gear during the pedal stroke which aids riders who are inefficient pedallers (that means you lot!) to have smoother stroke and therefore maybe have a more even (i.e. smoother) power distribution, but the power output improvement is technical bs! Which is my point exactly.

Yes, or put another way, greater power output (or work performed over a period of time) for the same kilojoules used. At the end of the day, there is a difference between the power put into the pedals, and the power that reaches the road - if the same power reached the road as was put into the pedals, the drivetrain would be 100% efficient.

Ivan, the problem here is that this is not a proper scientific study - i.e. it could not be published in a scientific journal. This is a preliminary study to assess whether further study is warranted - which it appears to be. So, they are saying exactly what I am saying, that the hypothesis needs to be tested using an adequate control group and subject pool. Quote: Results obtained are displayed as an average of all data for each of the analyzed circumstances, and are displayed on the following charts (1,2,3). For explanation of the results, statistical variations of results were not considered, due to this being a preliminary study, so more attention was focused on evidential biological characteristics. Obviously, for a bigger group of test subjects and with control of parameters considered as optimal, it would be necessary to do a statistical analysis of the results, so they could be properly published in a scientific publication.

I can understand the logic behind the hypothesis - but I'd like to see some proper peer reviewed publications that support the hypothesis (on a greater than n=1 subject pool). Unfortunately my knowledge of biomechanics is weak, and muscle physiology is even weaker. Can you guys provide links to the research behind the Q-rings?

I can certainly understand that the Q-rings would even out the torque cycle - which should help mountain bikers with traction problems particularly on steep ascents. Whether that translates to an improvement in overall efficiency, I am not convinced!

Have fun Kobie! It is a really cool piece of kit!

Ivanb I have been reading the last 9 pages with some interest. The only way that Q-rings could have a positive effect on power output is if they reduce the power losses in the drive train in some way. The important principle that nobody has referred to is the law of conservation of energy. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy ). It is not possible that the Q-Rings are providing more energy into the system, to enable more work to be performed and hence more power to be produced. So, the only possible explanation could be that they somehow change the efficiency of the drivetrain. By drive train I mean all the mechanical points from where the body makes contact with the bike, to where the wheel makes contact with the road. Any user of a power meter knows that power = cadence x torque. So, by altering torque through the pedal cycle (by effectively changing the gearing in the dead spots), the Q-Rings would also be altering the angular velocity (or cadence) through the cycle. How this could possible change the efficiency of the drivetrain in my mind would violate the law of conservation of energy. I ride a Computrainer - and do a timetrial once a week on it. I would be happy to give the Q-Rings a go and try to understand what their effect is. My disclaimer would be that I am sure that they will have no effect - but maybe the numbers would tell us otherwise, and we would need to understand why Q-Rings change the efficiency of the human/bicycle interface.

Golfers, even at Club Champs level, have been using beta-blockers for years. Just offer a dodgy doctor a nice bottle of whiskey and the prescription will be yours!

Seems like ur a legend in the making. People will tell tales of you someday Nah, wait until the other Bulk Pack guys start publishing their training rides, then you will see "legends".

Man this is insane! Before work ?? Or dont you have a day job? Agreed. Can I send my wife over so you can explain to her that this is normal and can be done? What?? I was at work by 08:30!

Sorry Fanny Bruce - why would SSI not interpret results, even informally? Because the absolute value of Max HR would not be of significance. They would be interested in what work you are able to perform at that HR. The value of max HR provides no indication of performance ability or potential - it's just a number.

Yes' date=' think the model number is X9, but I haven't the foggiest idea about features. [/quote'] Cool, didn't know that! Steve Saunders is going to slap me!

Does Suunto do a GPS? I know the Edge is rated for submersion to a depth of 1m for 30minutes.