FrankDay wrote:Could you give more details as to the beginning wattage and ending wattage and when this occurred in the training cycle?
November 2012 at Oceania Track Cycling Champs in Adelaide. Rider was part of the NZ U19 Track Cycling Team.
February 2013 at New Zealand Elite/U19 Track Cycling Champs.
So both priority events and rider aspired to perform and prepared for both.
30 to 32 mph represents over a calculated 80 watt improvement (408 to 490 watts, about 20%) and 35 to 38 mph increase represents a calculated 168 watt improvement (633 to 801 watts, about a 27% improvement).
But you are holding everything else constant. You would think a former Engineer would know better than that considering it was outdoors.
I am glad your rider saw a 60 watt improvement but that doesn't sound that large compared to a calculated 168 watt improvement.
A wild ar*e guestimated 168 watt improvement. Again you would think a former engineer would know better.
60 watts [color="Magenta"]if everything was held equal[/color] would mean a 27 second improvement in the riders 3000m time which would be a World Record by 3 seconds. So as I said certainly more at play in terms of performance than just power or average speed.
And, it sounds like my technique may somewhat underestimate his real power (or over estimate his aerodynamic shape) because he wrote this: "The trainer is fairly accurate at this power level (500 watts), my best estimate is that its equivalent to at least 30 mph on the track."
Laughable! The Cateye makes a guess on power and does not take into account tyre resistance or changes in friction as the roller heats up under use. Again you would think a former engineer would know this.
You may not like the way I calculated that power improvement but since Holman was a PC skeptic and took the challenge to prove my claims to be false I suspect he was not interested in doing these tests on days that made them look better than they were.
I don't think a 10 year old with a limited understanding of cycling or science would like your guesstimation of power.
If one doesn't have SRM data one has to do something to estimate changes. Because these tests were run by the same person on the same track it seems these are reasonable estimates as to his power improvement.
Did the equation include the temperature for each effort, the wind speed for each effort, the equipment used, the gearing used, the clothing used, did the pacing strategy for each ride stay the same etc. 1000s of confounding variables that show how laughable your claims are. Again you would think a former engineer would know better.
So, how about some more details on that "measly" 60 watt increase your rider saw? :-)
At least I know mine is real. Yours is imagined, and done so badly. I wonder about the quality of the School that taught you engineering.