I am getting faster - advice welcome
Comments
-
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
It never gets easier. It is a test to exhaustion, irrespective of the protocol.musto_skiff wrote:Ah right, well as a 41 year old newbie I will go for the later and try again ... I guess it will be a little easier.
I guess what I ment was that I may get a higher result as the power notches up faster ... that said I will probably stick with the other one as I have worked out all the cadences.0 -
Going back to sports specific training, if you are sailing a Musto Skiff, then you are already one-up on another beginner who doesn't sail. My sailing has helped my cycling enormously and vice versa and that isn't. As it's a trapeze boat, the quads don't get quite the workout they do in a hking boat, but keep up the sailing as that's a plus
0 -
What are you sailing?
Sailing the Musto gives me a pretty good all over workout; probably easier on the legs than a hiker but more upper body & heart & lungs on the corners ...0 -
Just done my first eveing 10TT.
There were 25mph easterly winds so it was a bit of a slog ...
Managed 27:58 which I guess isn't bad for a first go.
Some of the guys had some pretty fandango bikes, I think I was the only one with a standard road bike :shock:0 -
Still improving; dunno if anyone is interested but it kind of motivates me to post here ...
Only been at it 6 months and progress is pretty good. No structured training due to personal circumstances but just riding when I can.
Hope to get a plan together soon - I have entered my first Sportive for next Sunday; 88 miles, no idea if I can sit on a bike that long ...
Progress log here .http://www.force5marketing.co.uk/private/bike/index.htm
0 -
10 watt improvement in 10-mile TT power. Always a good sign.
The increase in the ramp test result looks rather large though but I didn't look that hard at the numbers.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:10 watt improvement in 10-mile TT power. Always a good sign.
The increase in the ramp test result looks rather large though but I didn't look that hard at the numbers.
On the ramp test I overlayed the graphs and I think I may have just quit a bit early first time I tried it ... once I got over 380w I was struggling to keep it steady with the recorded power varing quite a bit.0 -
remind me, what wattage ramp rate are you using?0
-
Whats the variation / accuracy between the different power meter types?0
-
That's not such a simple question to answer as there are many, many facets to the possible answer which need to be considered:SteveR_100Milers wrote:Whats the variation / accuracy between the different power meter types?
What are you getting at and perhaps I can answer it?
The better models (PT, SRM) provided they are installed properly and calibrated (and you check the zero offset) will be at worst 2% out. PT's calibration spec limit is 1.5%. Some models of SRM (e.g. Science model) are 0.5%. But an individual meter won't vary by that much ride to ride. If it is absolutely out by 1% say, it will pretty much stay that way. They are very consistent.
A perfectly calibrated PT and SRM on the same bike will give different wattage numbers simply because they a measuring power delivery at different ends of the drive train. SRM at the crank, PT at the hub. A PT will read 2-3% lower than an SRM due to losses in the drivetrain.
As for other models of on bike power meter, it can be a bit of a lottery, primarily because PT & SRM are the only meters on which you can perform a calibration test. Everything else needs to be checked against a PT or SRM.
As for ergos/trainers, they typically can be calibrated with a known meter (PT/SRM) but need a warm up time to settle down to a consistent power curve. I certainly know that a calibrated Computrainer is accurate and consistent once warmed up. I can't say for a Tacx trainer, never used one, but others with PTs on board have and get quite repeatable results AFAIK.
Velodynes are very accurate and is why they find their way into sports science labs (as do SRMs).0 -
I don't lke the ida of PT - on the basis that hubs are a pretty key part of a wheel, and I cant imagine that a PT hub is as good as a Campag or a Dura-Ace hub. SRM would be the way fr me but is the £1000 that's the obstacle, I simply couldnt ever justify spending that much money given my current ability, and lack of potential. I have read that te polar system that runs off chain tension is not very reliable, are there any other alternatives?0
-
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:remind me, what wattage ramp rate are you using?
20w increase every minute; starting at 120w.
Once I got to the 400w minute the power was difficult to put down and I was ranging between 390 & 430w as I struggled through the last minute.
The average for the last minute before I gave up was I think 412w0 -
OK, cool.musto_skiff wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:remind me, what wattage ramp rate are you using?
20w increase every minute; starting at 120w.
Once I got to the 400w minute the power was difficult to put down and I was ranging between 390 & 430w as I struggled through the last minute.
The average for the last minute before I gave up was I think 412w
20W/min is a ramp rate for testing MAP with elite riders.
25W/min for non-elite males and
15W/min for females.
(I didn't pick 'em, that's what British Cycling settled on as a protocol and is what there are lots of data on). MAP is a solid physiological indicator of performance potnential (esp MAP/kg^0.67).
So MAP = 412W and 10-mile TT power = 312W.
TT / MAP = 76%
Most riders fall into the 75% - 81% range.
I tried a MAP test last night on my own new home trainer, installed on the weekend. I was on a 25W/min rate and I got 246W as the 1-min max. I was pretty happy with that, all things considered.
Here are some pics of my trainer. It's a little ripper.
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/06/ ... re-go.html0 -
The hub components are not at the same quality of the hubs you mentioned but they are not that bad. There are 10s of thousands of these units out there and working after many years of service (my buddy has one still going strong after 7 years). Certainly the bearings can use replacement/service after plenty of riding. But that's true of any hub.SteveR_100Milers wrote:I don't lke the ida of PT - on the basis that hubs are a pretty key part of a wheel, and I cant imagine that a PT hub is as good as a Campag or a Dura-Ace hub. SRM would be the way fr me but is the £1000 that's the obstacle, I simply couldnt ever justify spending that much money given my current ability, and lack of potential. I have read that te polar system that runs off chain tension is not very reliable, are there any other alternatives?
The wireless PT is by far the easier power meter to set up and use. It literally is plug and play. The PTs which use the wiring harness are the best value.
BTW - I don't sell power meters. I personally use PT (x3) and SRM (x2).
Apart from PT/SRM, the other options are:
Polar:
Works well if you know how to make it work properly. If you are someone that would need someone else to install it then it is not the meter for you as it will require ongoing checking of set up. If you ride on a turbo a lot, the the Polar's don't generally work on turbos. No way to calibrate (need to run against another meter PT/SRM). Of the 10 ride buddies/clients I personally know that have used the Polar PM, nine have moved onto PT or SRM as they simply couldn't get reliable data. The other is saving up for a PT.
ergomo:
set up is trickiest of all meters (e.g. need to face the bottom bracket before install). CPU is very nice and function rich. No way to calibrate. Measures left leg power only and doubles that. Back up service can be unreliable or non existent in some markets. I have one client left still using ergomo. Others have since moved onto PT, due to too many problems with ergomo. but many users love it.
Quarq:
not really on the market yet in any quantity. spider based system. since it is very new, then early adopters will feel the pain of bugs. but certainly looks promising and the developers sought the input of the power meter using community for design input.
iBike:
most argued about option. Users generally love 'em. I have no experience with iBike data.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
OK, cool.musto_skiff wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:remind me, what wattage ramp rate are you using?
20w increase every minute; starting at 120w.
Once I got to the 400w minute the power was difficult to put down and I was ranging between 390 & 430w as I struggled through the last minute.
The average for the last minute before I gave up was I think 412w
20W/min is a ramp rate for testing MAP with elite riders.
25W/min for non-elite males and
15W/min for females.
(I didn't pick 'em, that's what British Cycling settled on as a protocol and is what there are lots of data on). MAP is a solid physiological indicator of performance potnential (esp MAP/kg^0.67).
So MAP = 412W and 10-mile TT power = 312W.
TT / MAP = 76%
Most riders fall into the 75% - 81% range.
I tried a MAP test last night on my own new home trainer, installed on the weekend. I was on a 25W/min rate and I got 246W as the 1-min max. I was pretty happy with that, all things considered.
Here are some pics of my trainer. It's a little ripper.
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/06/ ... re-go.html
I only use the 20w step as that is what I first read and worked out all the gear cadence figures for the i-Magic.
Do you think the power figures I get from the i-Magic are accurate?0 -
Can't say really, would need to do several rides on it with a calibrated SRM or PT.musto_skiff wrote:Do you think the power figures I get from the i-Magic are accurate?
The numbers are certainly plausible. What do you weigh?0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Can't say really, would need to do several rides on it with a calibrated SRM or PT.musto_skiff wrote:Do you think the power figures I get from the i-Magic are accurate?
The numbers are certainly plausible. What do you weigh?
I'm 77kgs, 41 years old and biking 6 month.
I can do a 10TT in 27mins.
I did a 25TT in 1;01 20 years ago when I last rode.
I have no access to any proper power meters to check the i-Magic numbers but wondered if they look too good ...0 -
Well, like I said, they are plausible numbers and represent good fitness but I'd have thought 10's in less than 27 mins were highly probable with that sort of power.0
-
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Well, like I said, they are plausible numbers and represent good fitness but I'd have thought 10's in less than 27 mins were highly probable with that sort of power.
I suspect the i-Magic is being over gernerious; but if I just use it for relative measurement to track progress that would be fine.
If I use this site
http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html
The average 312w gives a 10TT 24min time; but then if you add some undulations, junctions & wind into the equation they probably costs a couple minutes ... so it's probably not far off...
I think I pace poorly on the road 10TT where as on the trainer you have all the figures you need to keep steady.0 -
Providing the unit is consistent, then that is a completely reasonable approach.musto_skiff wrote:I suspect the i-Magic is being over gernerious; but if I just use it for relative measurement to track progress that would be fine.
The only issue then becomes if you ever move to using a power meter, then your historical data can be off and make season to season data assessment difficult. There are analyses of historical power meter data that can be exceptionally valuable for forward planning, so having accurate data helps in that regard.
Essentially it is the difference between "accuracy" and "precision" or consistency/repeatability. Although in most cases, accurate equipment tends to be precise as well.
I don't have personal experience with them, although Ric Stern has/does. He did not find the i-magic to be all that accurate back in 2005 when he tested them against calibrated power meters (and they varied considerably unit to unit). I am not sure though about how consistent any individual unit is. However things may have changed since 2005 as tacx may have upgraded things or provided better calibration process/methods - I really don't know.
Still, it is an excellent training tool.
That's probably a pretty crude model and of course as you note, the course and conditions make a big difference (can make it faster too though).musto_skiff wrote:If I use this site
http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html
The average 312w gives a 10TT 24min time; but then if you add some undulations, junctions & wind into the equation they probably costs a couple minutes ... so it's probably not far off...
Well pacing is a big deal for TTs and for a novice it requires a deal of practice. Most common mistake is going out too hard (even thought it doesn't feel that way initially). I wrote a discussion paper about this recently following on from the development of a pacing optimisation model. Here's a paper you can download on the topic:musto_skiff wrote:I think I pace poorly on the road 10TT where as on the trainer you have all the figures you need to keep steady.
POI Discussion~v.Word97.doc:
http://www.thelinkup.com/shared/iiw7dyh2nkh80 -
Thanks for the link; I think II always go off too fast on the road TT's.
As for the i-Magic I am pretty sure it gives repeatable results; and I suspect it over reads which is good for my ego
0
