WKO+ question

IanTrcp

A quick techy question that will be incomprehensible and entirely irrelevant to anyone other than WKO+ users if I may.....

Looking at my accumulated NP data, my best effort over 21:43mins is 3w HIGHER than my best effort over 19:42mins. This seems entirely couterintuitive; can anyone proffer an explanation???

Anonymous

+/- 3w is probably accounted for by range of error in the power meter... It's a tiny amount.

jibberjim

NP is pretty meaningless over 20 minutes, Don't bother looking at it.

Ride really hard for the first minute of a ride. Ride a little bit easier for 19 minutes, ride really hard for the last minute. 21 minutes ridden, both the AP and NP of a 20minute section is lower than the AP and NP for a 21 minute section.

Alex_Simmons/RST

jibberjim wrote:

NP is pretty meaningless over 20 minutes, Don't bother looking at it.

I think that one can gain some insight from NP from durations this short, but not the typical type of "normalised" equivalency to what's possible in AP terms.

e.g. it does have some merit in assessing "repeatability".

jibberjim wrote:

Ride really hard for the first minute of a ride. Ride a little bit easier for 19 minutes, ride really hard for the last minute. 21 minutes ridden, both the AP and NP of a 20minute section is lower than the AP and NP for a 21 minute section.

That's it in a nutshell.

Not sure if there's a mathematical term for it. I think it was mis-coined it a "double bump average power anomaly" or something like that for want of a better phrase.

You can sometimes see it in mean maximal power charts that display a short positive gradient part way along the curve when you would normally expect a neutral or negative gradient at all times.

jibberjim

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

NP is pretty meaningless over 20 minutes, Don't bother looking at it.

I think that one can gain some insight from NP from durations this short, but not the typical type of "normalised" equivalency to what's possible in AP terms.

e.g. it does have some merit in assessing "repeatability".

Oh I wouldn't disagree - but if you're so far from the concepts that you can't yet understand why your 19 and 21 minute may be different, I wouldn't say it's worth looking at as you're more likely to draw wrong conclusions than anything else.

IanTrcp

Thanks guys. What I can see is the bump in the curve that Alex refers to.

Mr Jibber, your explanation was great and no more was sought or needed.

Forums like this are wonderful places to get answers to technical questions. It's a shame that those answers are often provided by posters who simply can't resist an opportunity to assert their superiority along the way...

Alex_Simmons/RST

IanTrcp wrote:

It's a shame that those answers are often provided by posters who simply can't resist an opportunity to assert their superiority along the way...

?
Crickey, this place is relatively tame.

And the respondents are in total agreement on the matters raised, just a point of clarification in case it was referenced by others who do in fact have a slightly better grasp (at this stage) on the question raised, since one of the great things about forums is that everyone gets to read the answers, not just the OP.