Ad Rock said:
Pretty amateur test I must say.... His wattage was highest for the climb in which he was on the lightest bike, so that could have accounted for some of the time difference as well... Working the other way, wouldn't his times be likely to decrease (as he warms up) then increase (as he fatigues)? Running 4 tests in one day seems kinda ridiculous....I'd say the results are pretty rough!
agree it was an amateurish test but i would not dismiss it's value out of hand as you did because the author did not pretend it was anything of academic pedigree and, most importantly, it did provide some valuable comparative data.
where i'd criticize or better said wished it was mentioned or studied is the following:
(i) the article never mentioned specific details about the wattage. if it was average wattage (which i suspect was the case) it can be tricky and fraught with errors. For example the relative contribution of of standing on the pedals can skew the wattage considerably.
(ii) all tested scenarios are pretty easy to capture quite accurately by the modern formulas. after all, it's just a newtonian physics case. the real issue worth studying is the
effect of biomass not the static dead weight. it makes a big difference.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram