What fan

phreak

In the past I've been able to do my turbo stuff outside so it's been cool (enough), but I have to do it indoors now so I'm looking for a fan. At the moment I've got a desktop one to make do with but it's not much cop.

Would like therefore to get a floor fan. Suffice to say that most Amazon reviews aren't really written by cyclists so I'd be interested to know what folks here use.

napoleond

I have one of these bad boys but I only paid about 40 quid for it from Tesco. 3 Adjustment settings. Has a very marked effect on my ability to hit target power, particularly on longer intervals.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pifco-PE073-50c ... 78&sr=8-11

phreak

What is the tilt like on one of those? I have limited space to train in so any fan has maybe a couple of feet to fit into between my front wheel and the wall and so would need a reasonably high degree of tilt to hit all of me rather than my lower half.

StorckSpeed

I use this in the garage, cause it's at body height it blows cool air directly onto you. Can get a bit cold so I leave it on level 1 setting and use the oscillating feature too. Great fan and has a remote control to change the speed.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Honeywell-HS-10 ... d_sim_kh_6

Tom Butcher

Couldn't tell you what make mine is but get a big one - especially if you use the turbo beyond the winter or in a house rather than garage. £40-£50 as a minimum I'd say.

napoleond

phreak wrote:

What is the tilt like on one of those? I have limited space to train in so any fan has maybe a couple of feet to fit into between my front wheel and the wall and so would need a reasonably high degree of tilt to hit all of me rather than my lower half.

It tilts right back

phreak

Great, thanks.

bigpikle

NapoleonD wrote:

I have one of these bad boys but I only paid about 40 quid for it from Tesco. 3 Adjustment settings. Has a very marked effect on my ability to hit target power, particularly on longer intervals.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pifco-PE073-50c ... 78&sr=8-11

+1 - didnt pay anythng like that for it though either. Was about £50 delivered late last summer IIRC.

In the cold garage currently I rarely need it more than setting I/II and have it sat on the workbench at face level about 2' in front of me.

Wrath Rob

Get the biggest one you can. I got an 18" fan on NapD's recommendation and I'me very glad I didn't go for anything smaller.

phreak

Can you chaps quantify the differences it made in terms of performance?

danlikesbikes

Got myself one of these and it seems to do the job plus pretty cheap too bit like me then! - http://www.screwfix.com/p/18-high-veloc ... rome/54056

Wrath Rob

It will stop you overheating which will send your HR spiking. If you're training with HR only then this will obviously impact your workout. If you're training with power it will result in you probably not being able to complete your workouts properly, e.g. intervals.

Mostly though if you train without a fan on a turbo you'll make the whole experience really uncomfortable, which will decrease your motivation and result in you less likely to train. Trust us, its worth the expense.

napoleond

Put it this way, it's the difference between completing a threshold workout at target power and not completing it...

Trev The Rev

NapoleonD wrote:

Put it this way, it's the difference between completing a threshold workout at target power and not completing it...

Which illustrates one of downsides of training with power.

Tom Dean

because if you don't use power, the fan makes no difference? What a stupid comment.

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

because if you don't use power, the fan makes no difference? What a stupid comment.

The point is the fan did make a difference. 40 min @ 95% FTP without fan is a much harder session than than 40 min @ 95% FTP with fan, but all the power meter data shows is 40 min @ 95% FTP.

Tom Dean

'harder' does not mean the training effect is greater though does it? (assuming the goal is to increase power output in normal conditions, rather than when overheated) This is actually a benefit of using power over PE.

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

'harder' does not mean the training effect is greater though does it? (assuming the goal is to increase power output in normal conditions, rather than when overheated) This is actually a benefit of using power over PE.

The session without the fan would have created more stress which affects recovery. The power meter does not tell you how stressful the session was only the watts. The recorded data is the same for both sessions, unless of course you failed to complete one session due to heat exhaustion.

I agree there is no reason why you should not record power output. It is just of little value without context.

ShutUpLegs

Just the one fan :?:

Tom Dean

Trev The Rev wrote:

I agree there is no reason why you should not record power output. It is just of little value without context.

You seem to think no one considers the context. I think pretty much everyone does.

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I agree there is no reason why you should not record power output. It is just of little value without context.

You seem to think no one considers the context. I think pretty much everyone does.

That's OK then.

But does the software consider the context?

Perhaps I have been misled by Coggan and others in the past who were adamant only the power numbers counted and heart rate was irrelevant. I was assured the elite coaches at British Cycling do not even look at heart rate only power data so I'm confused as to the context?

mattshrops

Trev The Rev wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I agree there is no reason why you should not record power output. It is just of little value without context.

You seem to think no one considers the context. I think pretty much everyone does.

That's OK then. But does the software consider the context?

Why does it matter. Its a training ride and you are simulating riding outdoors i.e. with wind on your face.

Tom Dean

Trev The Rev wrote:

But does the software consider the context?

All the software I've seen incorporates HR data.

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

But does the software consider the context?

All the software I've seen incorporates HR data.

Now I have been told by some power meter experts (including Coggan) that heart rate data is irrelevant and that the elite coaches at British Cycling do not even look at it. Ric Stern says he has not looked at heart rate data seriously since the 1990s.

To quote Coggan, "I can't think of a single thing that knowing your heart rate tells you that knowing your power and your perceived exertion does not." And ""If you know your power, then at best heart rate is redundant but at worst it is misleading."

and Mr Stern, "i'm sure Gav can (as Thomo mentioned). Gav also works with us. While we're not BC we do work with some national federations and coach a current world champion. i think (other than for shits & giggles) i stopped looking at HR data towards the end of the late 90s.

in talking with some elite athletes there are definitely some national federations that still use HR data. however, these athletes/federations lag significantly behind those that have embraced this "new" technology (and other new techs)."


Consequently I was under the impression that heart rate was of no interest.

jotko

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Got myself one of these and it seems to do the job plus pretty cheap too bit like me then! - http://www.screwfix.com/p/18-high-veloc ... rome/54056

Nice - that looks like a bargain, I need to get something sorted before I sweat all the liquid out of my body.

My turbo is in a back bedroom in the house, the Mrs put heating on full whack just after I started my last trainer road workout and nearly tipped me over the edge.

Tom Dean

Trev The Rev wrote:

The session without the fan would have created more stress which affects recovery.

Is there actually any evidence for this? Is RPE or HR during a session a better predictor of subsequent fatigue than power?

bigpikle

I dont think it does either - you sweat more, think you're going harder as the RPE is higher due to the lackk of cooling, but the power numbers will be lower so the workout ends up being physically less demanding. Its just that the bigger pool of sweat makes it seem tougher...

Herbsman

Trev The Rev wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Put it this way, it's the difference between completing a threshold workout at target power and not completing it...

Which illustrates one of downsides of training with power.

*facepalm*

No, it illustrates the downside of training indoors without adequate cooling, and shows that overheating negatively affects power output.

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

The session without the fan would have created more stress which affects recovery.

Is there actually any evidence for this? Is RPE or HR during a session a better predictor of subsequent fatigue than power?

There is masses of evidence to prove that heat affects performance. As the heat affects the performance the athlete will be more fatigued for the same power in excessive heat than he would be in cool or normal temperatures.

The power meter only tells you the watts not how much the effort affected the athlete. Obviously if you normally can do 300 watts for 30 minutes then without a fan on a hot day you can only hold 300 watts for 15 minutes you have a nice measure of the detrimental effect of the overheating.


However as you are unlikely to be doing tests like that but holding a certain wattage for say 2 x 20 minutes at 300 watts, the session in the extreme heat would have taken more out of you. The power meter data would only tell you that you did 300 watts it does not tell you how much that 300 watt effort took out of you. You could well have improved fitness but this improvement was masked by the increased temperature. Your power meter data history will still be telling you there is no improvement so your training zones will be wrong.

Obviously you could always ignore everything other than the power number and convince yourself that 300 watts is 300 watts, effort was 300 watts at 10 Celsius and still 300 watts at 35 Celsius, so the fact one of those efforts left you in need of medical attention and the other did not is irrelevant.

Tom Dean

To clarify: I'm not interested in training in 'excessive' heat or conditions likely to cause heat exhaustion, and I was not asking whether heat affects performance.

Within the normal range of conditions RPE and HR vary when training at a given power.

Is there any evidence that RPE or HR during a session is a better indicator of the fatigue generated than a measure based on power, like TSS?

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

To clarify: I'm not interested in training in 'excessive' heat or conditions likely to cause heat exhaustion, and I was not asking whether heat affects performance.

Within the normal range of conditions RPE and HR vary when training at a given power.

Is there any evidence that RPE or HR during a session is a better indicator of the fatigue generated than a measure based on power, like TSS?

I think you should look at all 3 along with any other data you can collect rather than any one in isolation, but if I had to choose only one for cycling training, in a perfect world I would use power, but the world is not perfect and in the real world, given the unreliability of power meters, the cost, the amount of time I would be left with nothing but feel and heart rate anyway, I would use heart rate because it is cheaper, more reliable, does not need calibrating, and I know the numbers are correct rather than possibly correct if calibrated correctly, hopefully correct in the rain, hopefully correct but not calibrated recently, possibly accurate in the cold and damp, possibly data today or possibly no data at all.

If I were doing other sports as well as cycling, the watts data would not be much use if I were looking at total work done and related fatigue across those sports.

It is the very fact feel or PE and heart rate vary at any given power that makes them interesting, particularly if you know what to look for.