Big fat winter power training thread
Comments
-
Yup - try putting the numbers into this calculator, it seems to be fairly accurate. I pick the 'Triathlon Bicycle' option to approximate a full TT aero setup.
http://www.noping.net/english
That's interesting. It came out that I need about 10% more power than I thought my threshold was for my 25TT time, but I think I can go above it so it wasn't so far out really.
Shows you need alot lore to go a bit quicker!0 -
Not sure where you did your 25 but the calculator assumes no traffic. It's supposedly as much as a 10% reduction in your drag coefficient compared to traffic free conditions. Unfortunately I don't think you can tweak your CdA on this calculator - you're better off using analyticcycling.com.inseine wrote:Yup - try putting the numbers into this calculator, it seems to be fairly accurate. I pick the 'Triathlon Bicycle' option to approximate a full TT aero setup.
http://www.noping.net/english
That's interesting. It came out that I need about 10% more power than I thought my threshold was for my 25TT time, but I think I can go above it so it wasn't so far out really.
Shows you need alot lore to go a bit quicker!Jeff Jones
Product manager, Sports0 -
Not sure where you did your 25 but the calculator assumes no traffic. It's supposedly as much as a 10% reduction in your drag coefficient compared to traffic free conditions. Unfortunately I don't think you can tweak your CdA on this calculator - you're better off using analyticcycling.com.
I thought it was quite accurate for a 'guestimate' but it could be just luck.
The 25 was on a lumpyish traffic free course.
I assumed that it guesses your CdA from your weight/height profile, but of course it doesn't know how aero your position is. Without having it done professionaly I don't know how you do this.0 -
You can do aerodynamic field testing with a power meter to determine your CdA (and Crr - rolling resistance), although splitting the pair is a bit harder, it's possible.inseine wrote:Not sure where you did your 25 but the calculator assumes no traffic. It's supposedly as much as a 10% reduction in your drag coefficient compared to traffic free conditions. Unfortunately I don't think you can tweak your CdA on this calculator - you're better off using analyticcycling.com.
I thought it was quite accurate for a 'guestimate' but it could be just luck.
The 25 was on a lumpyish traffic free course.
I assumed that it guesses your CdA from your weight/height profile, but of course it doesn't know how aero your position is. Without having it done professionaly I don't know how you do this.
Also with analyticcylcing.com - I'd suggest using a bit higher Crr than advised as examples.
Good tyres on a reasonable road will be ~ 0.004 - 0.005.
on a good wooden indoor velodrome might be ~ 0.0025 - 0.0030 -
Jeff Jones wrote:
Not sure where you did your 25 but the calculator assumes no traffic. It's supposedly as much as a 10% reduction in your drag coefficient compared to traffic free conditions. Unfortunately I don't think you can tweak your CdA on this calculator - you're better off using analyticcycling.com.inseine wrote:Yup - try putting the numbers into this calculator, it seems to be fairly accurate. I pick the 'Triathlon Bicycle' option to approximate a full TT aero setup.
http://www.noping.net/english
That's interesting. It came out that I need about 10% more power than I thought my threshold was for my 25TT time, but I think I can go above it so it wasn't so far out really.
Shows you need alot lore to go a bit quicker!
Traffic is cheating Jeff!
You should come up and race a Scottish TT on rural roads - I had to overtake a tractor in Sunday's race...
Cheers, Andy0 -
andrewgturnbull wrote:Traffic is cheating Jeff!
You should come up and race a Scottish TT on rural roads - I had to overtake a tractor in Sunday's race...
Cheers, Andy
I do more TTs on quiet/hilly roads than on dragstrips. They're more of an all-round challenge.
That said, it's fun going fast on good roads...Jeff Jones
Product manager, Sports0 -
That said, it's fun going fast on good roads...
Time trialling is never fun! Gave it up years ago to be honest
0 -
Jeff Jones wrote:andrewgturnbull wrote:Traffic is cheating Jeff!
You should come up and race a Scottish TT on rural roads - I had to overtake a tractor in Sunday's race...
Cheers, AndyI do more TTs on quiet/hilly roads than on dragstrips. They're more of an all-round challenge.
That said, it's fun going fast on good roads...
Just interest in your VI on these and if the hills are longish steady efforts or if it is more rolling. I've got better trying to pace my efforts on rolling terrain but it's still hit and miss on my 2x20's as to how tight my VI is. I've found a slight headwind helps keep the downhills a little easier to put effort into.0 -
Back to the numbers....latest result from a one hour effort - 272W, 67 kg - 4.04 W/kg.
I've noticed that people with higher numbers tend to be the heavier riders. I could lose a bit more weight if I wanted but increasing power is much harder. Anyone think I need to beef up a bit? Given that most races in the UK aren't hilly, and powerful rides will be quicker on the flat....maybe I'm over-sensitive about being called chicken legs all the time
0 -
My first race (which was classed as a 'hilly' but I'd call it rolling - 300m of climbing in 47km) had a VI of 1.02. More typically it'd be 1.05 for a hilly TT.doyler78 wrote:Jeff Jones wrote:I do more TTs on quiet/hilly roads than on dragstrips. They're more of an all-round challenge.
That said, it's fun going fast on good roads...
Just interest in your VI on these and if the hills are longish steady efforts or if it is more rolling. I've got better trying to pace my efforts on rolling terrain but it's still hit and miss on my 2x20's as to how tight my VI is. I've found a slight headwind helps keep the downhills a little easier to put effort into.
Putting power out on downhills (and to a lesser extent in tailwinds) is hard work. It might be something to do with not having enough natural resistance to push against, so you're not engaging the same number of muscle fibres. But you can certainly train to improve it.Jeff Jones
Product manager, Sports0 -
I've noticed that people with higher numbers tend to be the heavier riders. I could lose a bit more weight if I wanted but increasing power is much harder. Anyone think I need to beef up a bit? Given that most races in the UK aren't hilly, and powerful rides will be quicker on the flat....maybe I'm over-sensitive about being called chicken legs all the time
No cyclists really wants to be heavier and there's no guarantee you'll be stronger anyway. Depends whether you're time trialing or road racing.0 -
By how much off would power readings be when there is a flat tyre.
Today there was a flat and it felt like I was wheel spinning, I averaged 304W but I know that is inaccurate due to the flat tyre.0 -
By how much off would power readings be when there is a flat tyre.
Today there was a flat and it felt like I was wheel spinning, I averaged 304W but I know that is inaccurate due to the flat tyre.
Classic. :?0 -
inseine wrote:By how much off would power readings be when there is a flat tyre.
Today there was a flat and it felt like I was wheel spinning, I averaged 304W but I know that is inaccurate due to the flat tyre.
Classic. :?
Classic?
What's so classic? The wattage was way higher than it should have being, it was overestimated due to the flat tyre. I never thought to check it, dumb I know, but I was told to get cycling as it's a tight schedule and I just thought the wheel was not on the roller enough as it felt like abit of wheel spin, so I just made sure I was not overpowering and spinning it and got on with it...0 -
Would you be shocked if someone said it was overreading by 6.39%?
There's no way of saying, but I think you've answered your own question.....The wattage was way higher than it should have being0 -
No, I was asking as in if it would be massivly off or something, just cause I know it was way off does not make my question silly, stop trying to nip pick, I wanted a straight answer, not not sh!t comment along the lines of "classic.
![:\](https://forum.bikeradar.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
" 0 -
stop trying to nip pick, I wanted a straight answer, not not sh!t comment along the lines of "classic."
I wasn't trying to be mean. I was late and I was having a bit of fun, don't take it to heart!
But you were there, no one else can judge whether the readings were way off or not.
I had a puncture on the turbo the other week and , hay, it was suddenly really easy. I didn't think 'what a coincidence, I've got a flat and at the same time massively fitter!'
It's morning now so I promise to paly nicely! 0 -
freehub wrote:No, I was asking as in if it would be massivly off or something, just cause I know it was way off does not make my question silly, stop trying to nip pick, I wanted a straight answer, not not sh!t comment along the lines of "classic. :"
I don't mean to NIT pick, but: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nit+pick
Anyway, don't see why a flat tyre would affect power readings - unless yours are speed-based?0 -
The power meter is in the actual unit on the computrainer I'm lead to believe, so if the tyre is flat, it's not in contact as much.0
-
very interesting Website Andyandrewgturnbull wrote:[
Cheers, Andy 0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST --- Sep -- 280watts -- 78kg -- 3.6 w/kg
Oct -- 280watts -- 78kg -- 3.6 w/kg
Nov -- 300watts -- 78kg -- 3.8 w/kg
Andy Turnbull
March -- 303watts -- 68kg -- 4.5w/kg
Amaferanga
March -- 280watts -- 68kg -- 4.1w/kg
Bhima
Oct -- 278watts -- 58kg -- 4.8 w/kg
Feb -- 286watts -- 62kg -- 4.6 w/kg
Mar -- 292watts -- 62kg -- 4.7 w/kg
Bronzie
Dec -- 260watts -- 74kg -- 3.5 w/kg
Jan -- 250watts -- 75kg -- 3.3 w/kg
Disgruntledgoat
Nov -- 332watts -- 76kg -- 4.4 w/kg
Dec -- 338watts -- 74kg -- 4.5 w/kg
Feb -- 346watts -- 74kg -- 4.67 w/kg
Jeff Jones
Oct -- 325watts -- 69kg -- 4.7 w/kg
Feb -- 315watts? -- 70kg -- 4.5 w/kg
Mar -- 334watts -- 69kg -- 4.85 w/kg
JibberJim
Nov -- 295watts -- 75kg -- 3.9 w/kg
Dec -- 300watts -- 75kg -- 4.0 w/kg
Feb -- 310watts -- 74kg -- 4.2 w/kg
Mar -- 320watts -- 75kg -- 4.3 w/kg
NapD
Sep -- 220watts -- 96kg -- 2.3 w/kg
Nov -- 277watts -- 89kg -- 3.1 w/kg
Mar --- 280watts--91kg -- 3.1w/kg
Phil S
Oct -- 305watts -- 71kg -- 4.3 w/kg
Rokkala
Nov -- 312watts -- 73kg -- 4.3 w/kg
Mar -- 341watts -- 73kg -- 4.67 w/kg
slunker
Feb -- 300watts -- 72kg -- 4.16 w/kg
Mar -- 310watts -- 71kg -- 4.36 w/kg
Mar---321watts--70.5kg--4.55w/kg
NickD
Jan -- 235watts -- 73kg -- 3.2 w/kg
Feb -- 255watts -- 73kg -- 3.5 w/kg
hopper1
Feb -- 220watts -- 76kg -- 2.89 w/kg
mididoctors
Feb -- 223Watts -- 83kg -- 2.68 w/kg0 -
Jeff Jones wrote:
My first race (which was classed as a 'hilly' but I'd call it rolling - 300m of climbing in 47km) had a VI of 1.02. More typically it'd be 1.05 for a hilly TT.doyler78 wrote:Jeff Jones wrote:I do more TTs on quiet/hilly roads than on dragstrips. They're more of an all-round challenge.
That said, it's fun going fast on good roads...
Just interest in your VI on these and if the hills are longish steady efforts or if it is more rolling. I've got better trying to pace my efforts on rolling terrain but it's still hit and miss on my 2x20's as to how tight my VI is. I've found a slight headwind helps keep the downhills a little easier to put effort into.
Putting power out on downhills (and to a lesser extent in tailwinds) is hard work. It might be something to do with not having enough natural resistance to push against, so you're not engaging the same number of muscle fibres. But you can certainly train to improve it.
Thanks Jeff for the info a apologies for the question and then running. Didn't get a chance to get back on again here but the info is much appreciated.
Those VI's are what I'm trying to stick to though I miss as many times as I hit at the minute but good to know what others that have more rolling terrain to contend with can manage.0 -
I've got meself a coach. Things should improve now!0
-
Might be of interest to you but I get Mark Renshaw's twitter updates and he recently mentioned he has 7w/kg at threshold.... no idea how long he can hold threshold for, but something to aim for Cycling never gets any easier, you just go faster - Greg LeMond0
-
Gav888 wrote:Might be of interest to you but I get Mark Renshaw's twitter updates and he recently mentioned he has 7w/kg at threshold.... no idea how long he can hold threshold for, but something to aim for
No, he said he would gladly trade his 22w/kg peak for a 7w/kg threshold...0 -
NapoleonD wrote:Gav888 wrote:Might be of interest to you but I get Mark Renshaw's twitter updates and he recently mentioned he has 7w/kg at threshold.... no idea how long he can hold threshold for, but something to aim for
No, he said he would gladly trade his 22w/kg peak for a 7w/kg threshold...
Doh :roll:Cycling never gets any easier, you just go faster - Greg LeMond0 -
7W/kg as an FTP would be ... impressiveJeff Jones
Product manager, Sports0 -
Yes., Very... :shock:
In fact -Mark Renshaw wrote:Some days I wish I could trade my 22watts/kg max power for a 7watts/kg threshold .0 -
It would be a lie.Jeff Jones wrote:7W/kg as an FTP would be ... impressive0 -
So I think winter is surely over by now, how do other people find their training has gone?
I've added 30 watts from my december weakest, my 1 hour power is now ~325 over a peak of last year at ~305, my 5minute is up from ~380 to ~440 and that again compares with a last year peak of 425. Not done any testing of shorter duration, but I'm actually not looking that good at the shorter durations compared to peak last year, but it's pretty hard to test 1 minute anyway without very specific motivation to really know. My 5-20seconds are all much the same as last year, maybe I should've spent more time in the gym.
A few races completed already this year and this added fitness has so far been completely useless for me, but that's likely more mental.Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0
