Fun with Power #s

[benb]

I'm starting to have enough power #s to see some interesting stuff in my riding.

E.x a few weeks ago I did 12 minute threshold intervals. I did the first 7 minutes on an easy dirt trail to avoid car traffic, interruptions, etc.. there is a gentle uphill on this trail. It's mostly non technical, but just dangerous enough I would not feel safe doing this effort level downhill without switching to my MTB (which does not have a PM). If I do the uphill, I can take a right turn at the end and finish the interval without any intersections to worry about. This is also very close to where I live & work so t's very convenient.

Anyway, 2 weeks ago:
#1 Average 248 watts, time 7:32
#2 Average 268 watts, time 7:12 (turned out I tied the KOM)


Today (slice of 15 minute intervals):
Average 258 watts, time 8:16
Average 266 watts, time 8:03

Same bike and setup.. what was the difference? It was raining today. My first effort I could feel my tires getting bogged down and it probably made my power output yo-yo. Second effort I made big efforts to find the dry spots to avoid bogging down. My perception was that I was going much faster the 2nd time up, but it wasn't much at all. Very interesting to see how much of a difference the wet sand makes.

Here is the other one, a favorite local hill. This one is interesting due to bike setup. I did this same hill last week during a threshold interval when I was not feeling good, and again today when I was feeling good. Wind is not really a factor most of the time on this hill as it's pretty heavily wooded.

Last week:
Avg. Power 237w, time 3:59

Today:
Avg. Power 300w, time 4:09

Difference there is the bike... shocking unless my two power meters are reading really different, and I doubt they would explain it. The time last week was on my Domane with 28c tires, today was my Space Horse with 38c tires and fenders.. about a 10lb difference in the two bikes. Interestingly I've done a 3:52 on the Space horse with the wheels and tires from the Domane, but I don't have a power reading for that day, that was more of an all out effort though I think, not part of a 15 minute interval. 60 watt difference seems huge, and I was feeling really terrible last week.

[rnhood]

Seems almost meaningless since you are not using any standard test protocols. Do a 2X20 or other accepted FTP test to find out your threshold, and then derive your zones. If you are concerned about accuracy then check other rider readings after a good Saturday group ride of about 60 or 70 miles. If your weights are close then the readings should be close.

[wasfast]

You didn't mention which PM you're using but Quarq's should have the zero offset set before each ride. They will vary with temperature also.

[carpediemracing]

Your numbers, relative to each other, seem to be in line with one another. Your long dirt hill numbers are lower the first time, higher the second (so warm up more for the first?), and about the same wattage (time is not as relevant, although you do note the difference wet sand made).

The two different bikes thing is more interesting, but, again, your notes on the two efforts seem to make sense.

Power numbers do vary from powermeter to powermeter - at 270w, for example, a 2% margin of error is over 5 watts, so you could be as far as 10w off from one effort to another (+2% on the higher, -2% on the lower). This means that a 10w difference may not actually be a 10w difference, it could be close to 0 watts. Other powermeters may vary as much as 5%, making your margin of error for 270w +/- 13.5w. That means that comparing two different readings you could be off as much as 27w.

I find that it's useful to have an idea of my FTP but also an idea of what I can do for, say, 30s, 60s, 5m, 10m, for a given FTP. I don't train or even race using power but I do review power data after races and the more extreme training rides.

Because I hate intervals and calculating FTP sort of requires doing some kind of interval I rarely measure my FTP. However, when I do, I have all sorts of data from around that time. At some level I can say, okay, I'm seeing such-and-such numbers, which are similar to the ones I saw when my FTP was 208w, so I'm realistically on the lower end of my FTP scale. Or, oh, now I see stuff that I saw when I was 218w, so I'm realistically as fit as I get. Etc.

I think as you get a feel for what you can do you'll start to see a "reasonable" range of numbers and a "more extreme" range of numbers (high and low). You may be able to spot a trend before you feel it, like "oh, my power seems low for such and such effort but my HR was high... I wonder if I'm getting sick".

[benb]

They are both stages... I do the zero offset fairly often but not every day. Stages don't need to be zero offset for temperature changes. My #s seem to come out pretty darn similar most days on the two different bikes, I'm sure the two PMs have variance from each other but it doesn't appear to be horrible.

rnhood these were not tests, I've done the standard test 2X this year, last time was about a month ago. This is just 4 data points from Strava segments when I was doing intervals in the exact same places and my power was supposed to be in the same range. All of these 6 data points I should have been riding about the same average power, and all of these 6 data points have no stoplights, stop signs, intersections, etc.. that screw with data.

I have been doing way more intervals since I got the power meters, I am finding I like doing them a lot, particularly on weekdays when I would otherwise just be riding unstructured around the same areas over and over again and it's easy to get bored since you can't go ride somewhere new and interesting. Carpediem I do find my first interval is usually lower.

[wallymann]

even on an MTB the slightest favorable/unfavorable breeze can have meaningful effect on power.

[kramnnim]

Something seems wrong with the 60w/10 second comparison.

[Ti Designs]

I'm really trying to wrap my head around the use of a power meter, but I'm struggling with it. As the coach who's worked in the bike shop for 30 years and doesn't see the need for a power meter on most bikes, I've been given a number of them (probably just to shut me up or get me on board - clearly that failed...)

I do use two power meters, neither of them are mounted on bikes. One is my trainer, which is magnetic and pretty close to linear across most of the range I'm interested in, so rear wheel speed = power. I don't really care about how many watts I'm producing, just the gains I can make or how quickly it's falling off as I get older. Knowing the number would be depressing. The other is on my isolation test bike which replaces the inertia of a moving wheel with a stack of weights. At any given time I know the mass and displacement, so I can calculate torque, which is the component of power I care about on that device.

I get testing in controlled settings. I don't get the endless discussions about wattage or training with power meters, given that there are different power meters, non-controlled conditions, and the response to a certain type of training varies wildly from one person to the next. It's like accurately measuring a block of jello. Worse, it's like accurately measuring jello and then comparing your numbers with your friend's numbers.

The real problem with numbers is that they suck your intelligence out your eye sockets. Anything on a glowing screen does that to most people, but your own numbers have a special draw that can't be resisted. It's so easy to lose track of the big picture and focus on your numbers. I had a math teacher who would always have us graph an equation first, what he called "getting a first look at this thing". He didn't care if the graph was accurate, he wanted a feel for what it looked like, so when we did get answers we could compare them to the graph to see if it made sense. That's what's missing when living by the numbers.

I'm far more interested in baked goods than I am in watts.

[ergott]

I'm really trying to wrap my head around the use of a power meter, but I'm struggling with it.

I really reaped the benefits the last time I went up Bear Mtn. (last Saturday). I was able to confidently crush my PR by keeping within a range of power I knew I could hold for the duration. It helped me push a little harder when the road flattened and I also knew to back off a bit when I was pushing too hard. I really put myself out there and left nothing more in the tank. That kind of pacing is priceless for me. I wouldn't have put in as hard of an effort worrying I would blow up.

The PM also helped me both pace myself for the rest of the ride (112 miles) and also help pace my buddies home with me. I kept the pace smooth on the front (4 riders) as they tucked in behind me on 9W. Didn't drop anyone and there were no conversations either so I know the pace was right in the zone. Easier to keep the average speed up with more power on the flats/downhills where they can benefit from the draft and easier over the rollers with no power spikes.

[leftyfreak]

I'm far more interested in baked goods than I am in watts.

Yes, but how many watts does it take to bake a salted caramel cupcake or a double chocolate muffin or a cider donut?

benb, I should let you know that Ti Designs is actually much nicer in person than he appears to be on the internet. Don't let the persona discourage you from joining us on a ride at some point. And yes, we can find baked goods, if that is desired, which does tend to make everything better.

A question for you, benb. What routes did you use for your two tests, the dirt trail and the favorite hill? I'm curious.

[ripvanrando]

I have two Powertap hubs. One is 3% high and the other is 1% low for a 4% variance.

Some bikes are faster.

I very recently joined Strava and did a couple segments on my randonneuring bike. I rode hard. My time was well below average. I got my racing bike out the next morning and wore lycra instead of wool. KOM on two segments and top ten on a couple more. I certainly did not get stronger overnight.

I use the power meter to titrate my output on long ride. At 225watts or lower, my lactate levels are low (below 2 mmol), my fat burning percentage is high, and I'm not producing a lot of difficult to recycle byproducts that contribute/cause fatigue. Without the meter it is very easy for me to put too much power out on long gradual hills. I think of it like a governor.

[nooneline]

The extent to which power readings are correlated with speed is affected by a ton of other variables - your bike, your body conditions, the temperature and air pressure and moisture level. That's why power is useful for training when speed isn't - because speed is an output affected by many things (some of which you can control, some of which you cannot), but power is your input. It's totally normal to see higher power numbers result in lower speeds sometimes.

[benb]

Haha.. lots of others have already explained the benefits of the PM so I don't have to say anything.

It's been really useful for me pacing myself on long rides, up climbs, and normalizing efforts between 2 bikes that are pretty different in terms of speed potential.

I know Ti Designs is a nice person, I've met him a few times.. I used to go on some of the Harvard team rides that went by Belmont Wheelworks like 12 years ago. I went and looked at his Jewelry once too.

[ripvanrando]

I'm really trying to wrap my head around the use of a power meter, but I'm struggling with it.

Maybe you just aren't a numbers guy? Some like RPE and focus on breathing and feel. I like to ride without any electronics sometimes but not when the ride is for training. Just me.

I do not care about another rider's numbers.

I don't care whether my power meter is different than yours.

I only care that my meter is repeatable.

With the tiniest amount of analysis of power data, riding with a power meter can help maximize performance whether the objective is a 24 hour race or a 8-10 minute breakaway effort during a RR. This ain't rocket science.

How power data is used in training is a separate can of worms.

If a rider's training plans call for an endurance ride, how does a coach know whether they are riding at the correct intensity unless it is by looking at the power data?

I wonder if any professional cyclists race or train without a PM?

[Ti Designs]

I really reaped the benefits the last time I went up Bear Mtn. (last Saturday). I was able to confidently crush my PR by keeping within a range of power I knew I could hold for the duration. It helped me push a little harder when the road flattened and I also knew to back off a bit when I was pushing too hard. I really put myself out there and left nothing more in the tank. That kind of pacing is priceless for me. I wouldn't have put in as hard of an effort worrying I would blow up.

The two riders I've coached who have turned pro use their power meters the same way. Heart rate or even how you feel is a trailing indicator, by the time you get the warning it's too late. Both of them also had problems in racing adjusting to the tactics of others...

From the time I was racing as a junior I've practiced time trialing. It's a matter of learning your body well enough to set a pace in the first two minutes that can be sustained for almost an hour (we did 40K's back then). Now I have the climbers I coach doing the dreaded 4x8's. It's four 8 minute segments in increasing gears. There's two speeds: Sustain is just getting the body weight on the pedals and letting gravity and position dictate cadence. Up tempo is what I call throwing the body weight at the pedals, trying to get the upper body to reverse direction by the time the pedal crosses 3:00. Sustain lowers the HR, up tempo raises it beyond a sustainable limit. The first time it's all sustain - kinda boaring. The second time two 30 second up tempo segments are added to each 8 minute part - the idea of a binary system where one's too easy, the other is too hard takes hold. After that every 4x8 is an experiment. In theory, 60% up tempo is the best you can hope for, but over time people learn to close the gap between the two. The end result is someone who can hold a power output without using a power meter. The up side of this is that good days or bad days are taken into account. You FTP doesn't factor in that 8000 feet of climbing you did the day before... When it comes to reacting to tactics, knowing how to play the over/under game is a huge advantage over the preset rev limiter.

[berserk87]

even on an MTB the slightest favorable/unfavorable breeze can have meaningful effect on power.

Help me understand this - isn't your power output just what it is, regardless of wind? I could see wind effecting one's speed. Shouldn't power output be the same, albeit at a slower speed, for having more wind resistance?

[Ti Designs]

If a rider's training plans call for an endurance ride, how does a coach know whether they are riding at the correct intensity unless it is by looking at the power data?

Well the coach could ride with their riders...

[livingminimal]

I do not care about another rider's numbers.

I don't care whether my power meter is different than yours.

I only care that my meter is repeatable.

This is all that matters. Thats why the conversations around Stages only being LS or which PM is better than the other is kind of fruitless and people just want justification for their purchase.

The singular factor that matters, seriously, the only thing that makes any difference whatsoever with a power meter is consistency. Left, right, crank, hub, etc make zero difference provided your meter is consistent, and you're consistently using it.

It's 2016, I would run away screaming from any coach in the current era not working with you with power as a foundational basis for tailoring your workouts and measuring your progress.



If a rider's training plans call for an endurance ride, how does a coach know whether they are riding at the correct intensity unless it is by looking at the power data?

well. some people are still using BPM...but ahhh, no. Not good enough.



I wonder if any professional cyclists race or train without a PM?

Train unlikely. Race? Yes, there are some. I saw a list once, forgot where it was. Basically the whole idea was you'd train up to a certain FTP etc and then race by feel, recognizing that your w/kg at threshold was enough to keep you competitive and freeing you to race more by instinct. The theory, anyway.

[ergott]

The two riders I've coached who have turned pro use their power meters the same way. Heart rate or even how you feel is a trailing indicator, by the time you get the warning it's too late. Both of them also had problems in racing adjusting to the tactics of others...


You assume that riding by feel and using power are mutually exclusive. A good rider can use both and know when one method is more appropriate than the other for a given situation.

[benb]

When you're an idiot like me and you go out and do 8000 feet of climbing, knowing your FTP is still useful. Obviously the day after you do a super hard ride you're not going to have the same power, and the power meter screams at me that I'm exhausted the next day and I instantly understand what's going on. Before it I would try really hard to go just as hard the 2nd day even though a different part of my brain was well aware that I was tired. The problem is that "lizard brain" would still be whispering, "go harder."

Ed might have advantages in riding by RPE based on tons of experience and living a cycling lifestyle more so than most of us. It is nice to have one more tool to use along with RPE and HR.

Yah if I rode every day with a coach or team that might work too but that's a fantasy.

[echappist]

I'm starting to have enough power #s to see some interesting stuff in my riding.

E.x a few weeks ago I did 12 minute threshold intervals. I did the first 7 minutes on an easy dirt trail to avoid car traffic, interruptions, etc.. there is a gentle uphill on this trail. It's mostly non technical, but just dangerous enough I would not feel safe doing this effort level downhill without switching to my MTB (which does not have a PM). If I do the uphill, I can take a right turn at the end and finish the interval without any intersections to worry about. This is also very close to where I live & work so t's very convenient.

Anyway, 2 weeks ago:
#1 Average 248 watts, time 7:32
#2 Average 268 watts, time 7:12 (turned out I tied the KOM)


Today (slice of 15 minute intervals):
Average 258 watts, time 8:16
Average 266 watts, time 8:03

Same bike and setup.. what was the difference? It was raining today. My first effort I could feel my tires getting bogged down and it probably made my power output yo-yo. Second effort I made big efforts to find the dry spots to avoid bogging down. My perception was that I was going much faster the 2nd time up, but it wasn't much at all. Very interesting to see how much of a difference the wet sand makes.

Here is the other one, a favorite local hill. This one is interesting due to bike setup. I did this same hill last week during a threshold interval when I was not feeling good, and again today when I was feeling good. Wind is not really a factor most of the time on this hill as it's pretty heavily wooded.

Last week:
Avg. Power 237w, time 3:59

Today:
Avg. Power 300w, time 4:09

Difference there is the bike... shocking unless my two power meters are reading really different, and I doubt they would explain it. The time last week was on my Domane with 28c tires, today was my Space Horse with 38c tires and fenders.. about a 10lb difference in the two bikes. Interestingly I've done a 3:52 on the Space horse with the wheels and tires from the Domane, but I don't have a power reading for that day, that was more of an all out effort though I think, not part of a 15 minute interval. 60 watt difference seems huge, and I was feeling really terrible last week.

three letters for you: CRR. Otherwise known as coefficient of rolling resistance.

This is usually contributes ~15-20% of total drag force (which also include aero drag, gravity, and drive train efficiency); however, there are situations when force due to rolling resistance begin to contribute significantly, and the two situations that you mentioned are exactly the types of situations where it matters.

In your first scenario, only difference is the surface on which you ride, and muddier surface is a slower surface. All the other parameters can be the same, but if rolling resistance (due to surface) is higher, then you will go slower.

For the second, increasing tire width increases rolling resistance, and rolling resistance force is further proportional to both speed and mass. You increased not only the crr of the system (increased tyre size) but also the mass.

Look at it another way, Paris Roubaix is almost pancake flat, and the contenders travel at speeds of 22-25 mph on the flat paves. Force due to gravity is almost negligible, and if aerodynamics were the only other significant drag force, then everyone would be able to keep up. Power needed to drive at 25 mph on flat grounds should be ~300W, so those drafting need about ~200W; piece of cake for pros with threshold in the 400-450W range. Heck, you can't even shed a cat-5 field when driving at 25 mph on flat terrain. But why is the leader heavily laboring at 450W to go a measly 23mph, and why do people get shredded on the pave at 23mph? That difference is due to CRR. In effect, the bumpy road surfaces are so bad that CRR is about 4-6 times what it is on smooth tarmac,; as a result, almost half of that 450W is used to overcome force due to rolling drag whereas usually, less than 20% is used to overcome force due to rolling drag.

[MattTuck]

I heard from Paul Sherwan that when it rains, there is more oxygen in the air and you can go faster. Paul said it many times. Every time it rained during a bike race.

Also, there are still people who train with RPE to good effect.

[shovelhd]

When you're an idiot like me and you go out and do 8000 feet of climbing, knowing your FTP is still useful. Obviously the day after you do a super hard ride you're not going to have the same power, and the power meter screams at me that I'm exhausted the next day and I instantly understand what's going on. Before it I would try really hard to go just as hard the 2nd day even though a different part of my brain was well aware that I was tired. The problem is that "lizard brain" would still be whispering, "go harder."

Ed might have advantages in riding by RPE based on tons of experience and living a cycling lifestyle more so than most of us. It is nice to have one more tool to use along with RPE and HR.

Yah if I rode every day with a coach or team that might work too but that's a fantasy.

Just FYI, your HRM can tell you the same thing. If your HR pegs around LTHR and won't go any higher, that's a sign of fatigue. I find value in all three metrics.

[nooneline]

Help me understand this - isn't your power output just what it is, regardless of wind? I could see wind effecting one's speed. Shouldn't power output be the same, albeit at a slower speed, for having more wind resistance?

Yes, but a lot of conditions can affect whether or not you can put out power comfortably. For example, it feels easier to keep the power up on an uphill, but it can be really hard to keep the power up on a downhill - and rolling hills can make it very difficult to keep stable power outputs. Wind can also be a factor - especially gusty wind.

Basically conditions that change the amount of resistance you experience means that your constantly fluctuating your power output, which is both mentally and physically stressful, and provides ample opportunity to over-extend and blow.

[ripvanrando]

Well the coach could ride with their riders...

Only in the Ivy league endowment "world"

[leftyfreak]

Only in the Ivy league endowment "world"

Well, he does coach the Harvard cycling team! You wouldn't believe the amount of money in collegiate club sports...

Would you make the same argument that only in the Ivy League endowment "world" do violinists or pianists take weekly lessons with their teachers?

[berserk87]

Yes, but a lot of conditions can affect whether or not you can put out power comfortably. For example, it feels easier to keep the power up on an uphill, but it can be really hard to keep the power up on a downhill - and rolling hills can make it very difficult to keep stable power outputs. Wind can also be a factor - especially gusty wind.

Basically conditions that change the amount of resistance you experience means that your constantly fluctuating your power output, which is both mentally and physically stressful, and provides ample opportunity to over-extend and blow.

I have heard this from numerous sources, just via discussion, but I don't understand it.

If I am riding an interval and aiming to put out between 250 and 275 watts for the effort, why would wind or road grade change the wattage? The speed might change, and I get that.

The only reason that I can see for variance is that a hill might be so steep that the rider would have to exceed the wattage goal to simply stay upright, or perhaps a downhill is so steep that a rider spins out, and watts are limited because of that. And of course, wind gusts can see spikes in power up or down.

If a rider has a 20mph headwind, or a similar tailwind, the speed should logically change, but the watts can easily be the same, if he is targeting a range.

Perhaps the other element that I am not considering is the psychological element? Some folks find a headwind kind of daunting, and maybe watts decrease?

[ripvanrando]

Well, he does coach the Harvard cycling team! You wouldn't believe the amount of money in collegiate club sports...

Would you make the same argument that only in the Ivy League endowment "world" do violinists or pianists take weekly lessons with their teachers?

Music teachers are a dime a dozen.

Good coaches are scarce as hen's teeth.

Isn't the more typical coaching arrangement more like creating a training plan, reviewing power files, and weekly communication via phone, e-mail, or skype? I personally would never hire a coach that did not review my power files and discuss with me periodically. Aren't most riders working fulltime with a family? With so much focus on time crunched workouts, is someone going to drive an hour or two in order to have their pulse felt or hand held by a coach? Professionals or elite college riders are so far from my world that I cannot relate. I just cannot understand why a coach would not want to monitor their athlete's power and HR in addition to blood testing periodically.

[ripvanrando]

I have heard this from numerous sources, just via discussion, but I don't understand it.

If I am riding an interval and aiming to put out between 250 and 275 watts for the effort, why would wind or road grade change the wattage? The speed might change, and I get that.

The only reason that I can see for variance is that a hill might be so steep that the rider would have to exceed the wattage goal to simply stay upright, or perhaps a downhill is so steep that a rider spins out, and watts are limited because of that. And of course, wind gusts can see spikes in power up or down.

If a rider has a 20mph headwind, or a similar tailwind, the speed should logically change, but the watts can easily be the same, if he is targeting a range.

Perhaps the other element that I am not considering is the psychological element? Some folks find a headwind kind of daunting, and maybe watts decrease?

I note that you are from Plain field, Indiana. I suppose it is flat there.

I'm from Hillbilly Hollow so to speak.

I think you just need to spent some time riding in truly hilly terrain and see how hard if not impossible to maintain a consistent power output in up and down terrain.

I can go from 50 mph to 5 mph in about 30 seconds. It is just really, really hard to keep a constant power output even on less extreme terrain

[MattTuck]

I note that you are from Plain field, Indiana. I suppose it is flat there.

I'm from Hillbilly Hollow so to speak.

I think you just need to spent some time riding in truly hilly terrain and see how hard if not impossible to maintain a consistent power output in up and down terrain.

I can go from 50 mph to 5 mph in about 30 seconds. It is just really, really hard to keep a constant power output even on less extreme terrain

Yes, and let's point out the obvious. The whole point of riding up a hill is so that you can glide down the other side. Having to keep up a given intensity on a downhill is one of the most antithetical things I have experienced on a bike.

[nooneline]

I have heard this from numerous sources, just via discussion, but I don't understand it.

If I am riding an interval and aiming to put out between 250 and 275 watts for the effort, why would wind or road grade change the wattage? The speed might change, and I get that.

The only reason that I can see for variance is that a hill might be so steep that the rider would have to exceed the wattage goal to simply stay upright, or perhaps a downhill is so steep that a rider spins out, and watts are limited because of that. And of course, wind gusts can see spikes in power up or down.

If a rider has a 20mph headwind, or a similar tailwind, the speed should logically change, but the watts can easily be the same, if he is targeting a range.

Perhaps the other element that I am not considering is the psychological element? Some folks find a headwind kind of daunting, and maybe watts decrease?

It's not so much that the road or wind would change the target wattage - it's more that frequent changes in grade and wind (or other variables that affect resistance) are difficult to deal with - particularly in an acute sense. Factor in a difficult 10 minutes over the course of a 3-hr ride, and you're not going to see much difference. But compare a difficult 10 minutes of variable terrain and conditions to 10 minutes of super-flat, super-straight, no-changes riding, and, well, it will be a lot easier to hold precise target watts on the later.

Power readings fluctuates wildly. Few people use 1-second power readings on their head units because it's just a chaotic jumble of changing numbers - since a PM doesn't read all of your power, it samples it, and it changes a lot. So most people use 3-second average power, or 10-second average power, and a lot of TTists or TT-style riders will use up to 60-second average power.

So when conditions also fluctuate wildly, requiring a rider to fluctuate their gearing, pedaling style, body position on the bike, etc ... since power readings fluctuate, it's not like the numbers respond immediately. Your terrain changes and all of a sudden what feels the same is, a few seconds later, jumping up 25w and putting you into a different zone, and as soon as you shift again to accommodate, you're over the crest and going downhill and your power drops, a lot, and you have to shift-shift-shift again.

Basically, hitting precise power numbers is hard enough on the trainer - it's harder on open roads, and the more the conditions change acutely, via gusty wind, rollers, or riders around you, the harder it is to be steady.

[wallymann]

Help me understand this - isn't your power output just what it is, regardless of wind? I could see wind effecting one's speed. Shouldn't power output be the same, albeit at a slower speed, for having more wind resistance?

that's correct.

however, refer back to the OP. he was riding at differing speeds (slower) getting differing wattages (higher) on the same course.

if he's on the same bike and hasnt gained alot of weight, the only way i can explain that is a change in wind-direction between the 2 rides, with a less favorable wind on the later rides.

[shovelhd]

Yes, and let's point out the obvious. The whole point of riding up a hill is so that you can glide down the other side. Having to keep up a given intensity on a downhill is one of the most antithetical things I have experienced on a bike.

You won't be winning many road races, then. :banana:

[Spdntrxi]

You won't be winning many road races, then. :banana:



Yep unless it's a 45mph + capable glide you better be peddling

[Ti Designs]

You assume that riding by feel and using power are mutually exclusive. A good rider can use both and know when one method is more appropriate than the other for a given situation.

No, I assume that thinking and pedaling at intensity are mutually exclusive. When I do intervals I have a big piece of paper in front of me with the start time and the stop time of the interval. I know the interval is 30 seconds long, so you would think I could figure out the stop time, but at that intensity I can't. I coach some rather intelligent kids who make some really dumb decisions during races. Decisions made in competition need to be preprogrammed, so it's the skill set you've learned and made second nature. In my case that's knowing myself and not looking for the numbers. You would think that being on the bike for 5 hours, there would be some time that I'm thinking clear enough to use the power meter, but that's never the time I need it.

[Ti Designs]

Music teachers are a dime a dozen.

Good coaches are scarce as hen's teeth.

Isn't the more typical coaching arrangement more like creating a training plan, reviewing power files, and weekly communication via phone, e-mail, or skype?

So why can't music teachers use the same methods as the typical cycling coach? Give them music, have them send back MIDI files to be reviewed, communicate via phone...

[ergott]

So why can't music teachers use the same methods as the typical cycling coach? Give them music, have them send back MIDI files to be reviewed, communicate via phone...

It is done although it's more like Skype lessons (or similar app). Of course it's in its infancy, but it's happening.

As with anything, the program has to be right for the end user.

[leftyfreak]

So why can't music teachers use the same methods as the typical cycling coach? Give them music, have them send back MIDI files to be reviewed, communicate via phone...

It is done although it's more like Skype lessons (or similar app). Of course it's in its infancy, but it's happening.

As with anything, the program has to be right for the end user.

No doubt, it's all good if the program is right for the end user, and since different people inevitably want different programs, then variety is a good thing.

As for addressing Ti Designs' question, I think you've inadvertently made his point, ergott. You're absolutely right that skype lessons are happening--there's even a person in my household who will teach that way occasionally--but there's one crucial element that skype adds that is missing from the training plan/data file/phone call method of coaching, and that's the ability to lay eyes on the student/athlete. A good instrumental teacher knows how important it is for a student to develop good technique. That can't be done without seeing the student in action. I think Ti Designs' point is that a cycling coach should be able to see the rider in action because good cycling technique is a critical part of developing strong riders. Of course, there are so many threads on the forum here that suggest not everyone believes that to be true. :)

My take on it is that the current dominant coaching model for cycling is one that assumes all riders have good technique and form on the bike, so the training is all about increasing power, gaining fitness, and the like. Those things are important, obviously. The parallel in music would be something like having saxophonist take improv lessons on the internet: the teacher could give assignments/exercises to practice chords, scales, or patterns, with the assumption that the student already knows how to play the horn well.

In either case, this could work out well, or it could not. Does the rider fit well enough on the bike and pedal in such a manner that he/she can take the training load without injury? Does the saxophonist play the instrument well enough that he/she can work through the patterns successfully and smoothly?

In the end, it all comes back to ergott's point. If the consumer is getting what he/she wants and is happy, then it's all good, even if we as observers see the situation differently.

[benb]

There is a different balance of technique vs fitness in music vs cycling. I love cycling but for most of our disciplines as far as I'm concerned it has one of the lowest technique bars compared to most sports. Music meanwhile has huge amounts of technique and form. The only exceptions to this really are some types of MTB, some parts of cyclocross, and some of the trials & stunt riding. Regardless of the value of some of the stuff Ed teaches everyone has seen that guy who starts racing and just crushes everyone due to genetic gifts skills be damned. You know the guy who comes in as a Cat 5 and is a Cat 2 in like a year.

We also have a pretty good setup for data collection with cycling. Remote music lessons might take off when there is really good VR stuff out there that would allow a remote music teacher to see the student from many angles. One video camera is not real great.

Some riders are also not using a coach to win mass start races and some of the technique and race craft stuff doesn't come in. If they're just using the coach for help in finishing a long fondo style ride, triathlon, getting ready for a tour, etc.. they don't really need that on bike assistance in how to read a pack, position for a sprint, team tactics, etc..

[nooneline]

I love cycling but for most of our disciplines as far as I'm concerned it has one of the lowest technique bars compared to most sports.

I don't agree, but I do see the distinction that you're pointing out...

In cycling there's a lot of technique - it's just that deficiencies in technique can be overbalanced by power (or power/strength/fitness/physical ability)... and I think that's what you're getting it.

[Tactics can also be thrown in with technique and power - deficiencies in any of those can be covered up or made up (up to a point) by the others.]

I've seen Cat 5s who blast up to Cat 2s, but I've also seen Cat 5s who have the power of Cat 2s but can't seem to figure out how to win a race. I've seen Cat 1 roadies who can't figure out how to win a Cat 3 track race - and Cat 2 trackies who can't figure out a Cat 4 crit. In those cases, it's giant holes in technique - both the physical technique as well as the conceptual technique of understanding the choreography of races - that power/strength/fitness can't overcome.

[leftyfreak]

Ti Designs also insists that there are more power gains to be made by improving efficiency (ie. good pedaling technique) than by increasing fitness. The concept as I understand it is that by improving pedaling technique, you can increase power at the rear wheel, which is different than power at the crank, because of how difficult it is to always push the pedal perpendicular to the crank arm. In other words, without increasing your power output, you can increase your "effective" power output at the rear wheel, which is what moves you forwards, after all.

Maybe Ti can chime in and describe his calculations more thoroughly.

The best of both worlds, from my perspective, is to improve both your technique AND fitness/power. There's no reason why they have to be mutually exclusive!

[Ti Designs]

There is a different balance of technique vs fitness in music vs cycling. I love cycling but for most of our disciplines as far as I'm concerned it has one of the lowest technique bars compared to most sports. Music meanwhile has huge amounts of technique and form.

It's a simple skill set to be sure - push tangentially to the crank, or not at all. So how close do you come to that?

Most people see the pedals turning and assume they know how to pedal. How do you fail at that test? If your overall efficiency is a positive number, the pedals turn in the right direction. Power is a function of force x efficiency. Humans are very limited in their force production, so if you're interested in power you should also be looking at efficiency, but nobody seems to be.

In cycling I've noticed a common belief that you can't really chance your efficiency - your pedal stroke is natural. So let me get this straight, I learned how to play piano (all 10 fingers working independently while staying in sync) but I can't learn how to fire the muscles of my lower body in a timing sequence?

[leftyfreak]

In cycling I've noticed a common belief that you can't really chance your efficiency - your pedal stroke is natural. So let me get this straight, I learned how to play piano (all 10 fingers working independently while staying in sync) but I can't learn how to fire the muscles of my lower body in a timing sequence?

With the presumption of a "natural" pedal stroke, the logical conclusion is that you don't need to learn a muscle firing sequence for the lower body because you can already do it just fine. So, it's not that I *can't* learn, it's *what's the point in trying?* because I can already do it. If that presumption is false, however, then it might be worth the effort to try to figure it out. Of course, you're the "Idiot Who Doesn't Know How to Pedal a Bike"™ so I know you've drawn your own conclusion!