The Powermeter Thread

[Tapeworm]

Sky, say it ain't so! Odd choice for the team of marginal gains... but then money talks...

 

[CoachFergie]

Sky, say it ain't so! Odd choice for the team of marginal gains... but then money talks...

April 1st comes early this year?

 

[42x16ss]

Probably a training bike, looking at the wheelset

 

[oldcrank]

Announced on a couple of different sites that
they are using Stages power meters in 2014.

 

[42x16ss]

Power analysis of Gracie Elvin's (Orica-AIS) Nationals win last weekend.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/01/what-it-takes-to-win-a-nationals-road-race/

Worth a look.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Power analysis of Gracie Elvin's (Orica-AIS) Nationals win last weekend.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/01/what-it-takes-to-win-a-nationals-road-race/

Worth a look.

Impressive ride, for sure and great that Cycling Tips have been able to share the data.

A few comments, and this is only focussing on things I think need correction, I'm not commenting on stuff that's right (no need).

The explanations of NP and TSS are wrong (e.g. NP has nothing to do with relationship to threshold power and the explanation of TSS is more like an explanation of IF).

The explanation of why speed continued to increase in the sprint despite power dropping has nothing to do with momentum. It's just simple physics. Even though power is falling, speed continues to increase because the power is still above that required to maintain that speed in a steady state, hence the balance of power above that required to maintain that speed results in continued acceleration. The rate of acceleration however does decline.

Of course there are other factors, such as when the rider comes out of the draft and any terrain changes, although in this case it was a pretty consistent and relatively flat gradient for the sprint.

Terminology like "anaerobic threshold" should be laid to rest.

The FTP of the rider was entered as 270W (hence the listed IF of 0.92 with an NP of 248W), this writer suggested it was likely to be between 270 and 300W based on the power distribution plot. One needs to be very careful drawing conclusions from a power distribution chart, it can be quite misleading as it simply bins individual data points, rather than account for contiguous efforts over various durations.

But if her threshold was higher than 270W, then the initially stated IF and TSS values would be lower accordingly.

 

[Tapeworm]

Here's another power analysis from the Australian National Champs, this time for Simon Clarke:-

http://www.ridemedia.com.au/ride-features/the-power-of-simon-clarke/

Pro power is so pro.

 

[sciguy]

Another new power meter from the Aussies

The choices just keep expanding.


http://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/ne...ing-teases-2014-power-meter-first-look-39319/

 

[FrankDay]

The choices just keep expanding.


http://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/ne...ing-teases-2014-power-meter-first-look-39319/

This is the same system that will be put in the PowerCranks that I have been referring to as the iCranks. I know they have been getting close to getting to market. I can hardly wait.

 

[sciguy]

This is the same system that will be put in the PowerCranks that I have been referring to as the iCranks. I know they have been getting close to getting to market. I can hardly wait.

It's interesting that their web site doesn't seem to be promoting any of the 2nd generation features you've seemed so excited about.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

It's interesting that their web site doesn't seem to be promoting any of the 2nd generation features you've seemed so excited about.

Hugh

I get excited about a lot of things that others seem uninterested in and I tend to be bored about a lot of stuff that the masses seem to be excited about. The problem is they are called power meters so everyone focuses on the word power because most people are incapable of thinking of anything beyond the obvious. If one actually examines the usefulness of the tool one will find that knowing the power number offers little, if any, competitive benefit to the athlete (if you believe otherwise please provide some scientific support). Gives people something to talk about but not much more. Just adding left/right power does not have the ability to do much more (that I can see) despite almost doubling the cost.

The only real benefit of such devices comes from the potential to give riders real information regarding technique, in other words, information regarding how they are generating that power number that might help them to improve beyond just the usual training stuff. Unfortunately, most of these new units ignore this potential.

Anyhow, the company putting this power module into the PowerCranks will emphasize the benefits I speak of as they are believers (probably why they decided to incorporate the PM with the PC's).

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I get excited about a lot of things that others seem uninterested in and I tend to be bored about a lot of stuff that the masses seem to be excited about. The problem is they are called power meters so everyone focuses on the word power because most people are incapable of thinking of anything beyond the obvious. If one actually examines the usefulness of the tool one will find that knowing the power number offers little, if any, competitive benefit to the athlete (if you believe otherwise please provide some scientific support). Gives people something to talk about but not much more. Just adding left/right power does not have the ability to do much more (that I can see) despite almost doubling the cost.

The only real benefit of such devices comes from the potential to give riders real information regarding technique, in other words, information regarding how they are generating that power number that might help them to improve beyond just the usual training stuff. Unfortunately, most of these new units ignore this potential.

Anyhow, the company putting this power module into the PowerCranks will emphasize the benefits I speak of as they are believers (probably why they decided to incorporate the PM with the PC's).

Lord, same tired old nonsensical argument.

Does this mean you will apply the same evaluation standard to your own product? I mean that hasn't exactly gone well so far, but you know, don't let the science get in the way of a good story.

 

[FrankDay]

Lord, same tired old nonsensical argument.

Does this mean you will apply the same evaluation standard to your own product? I mean that hasn't exactly gone well so far, but you know, don't let the science get in the way of a good story.

Of course my product should be held to the same standard. Science rules. The problem is that scientific evaluation of such things is difficult because of the many confounding factors and time periods involved.

That having been said there is zero scientific evidence that having a speedometer and knowing ones speed helps one to ride faster. And, there is zero scientific evidence that having a power meter and knowing ones power helps one to generate more power (or pace oneself better).

Regarding my product, there is at least some scientific evidence that using it can actually change pedaling technique (and change some other seemingly important metrics also). Based on a theoretical analysis and anecdotal evidence I believe pedaling technique matters and the changes seen result in a better cyclist. Whether those changes are an advantage for the rider (or not) is still yet to be scientifically confirmed or debunked. When it is I will be sure to let you know just as, I suspect, you will let me know when there is actually some scientific evidence that a power meter (one that just gives power) provides the slightest bit of an advantage to the owner.

 

[Tapeworm]

That having been said there is zero scientific evidence that having a speedometer and knowing ones speed helps one to ride faster. And, there is zero scientific evidence that having a power meter and knowing ones power helps one to generate more power (or pace oneself better).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11083127/

"...Riders should choose a constant power when external conditions are constant, but when there are hilly or variable wind sections in the race, a variable power strategy should be planned. This strategy would be best monitored with 'power-measuring devices' rather than heart rate or subjective feelings as the sensitivity of these variables to small but meaningful changes in power during a race is low..."

Zero evidence? You're welcome.

 

[FrankDay]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11083127/

"...Riders should choose a constant power when external conditions are constant, but when there are hilly or variable wind sections in the race, a variable power strategy should be planned. This strategy would be best monitored with 'power-measuring devices' rather than heart rate or subjective feelings as the sensitivity of these variables to small but meaningful changes in power during a race is low..."

Zero evidence? You're welcome.

My friend, that is an opinion that a PM should provide a benefit. Scientific evidence requires an actual comparison to other alternatives (HR, perceived effort) and statistical "proof" that, in fact, it does result in better outcome. At least two people have tried to do this that I know of and came up with there being no difference.

edit: I might add that this author is advocating using a PM for optimum racing strategy. Unfortunately for this view the number of people who continue to win world championships without PM's on their bike (or with the number taped over or not caring about the number) is substantial.

 

[Tapeworm]

My friend, that is an opinion that a PM should provide a benefit. Scientific evidence requires an actual comparison to other alternatives (HR, perceived effort) and statistical "proof" that, in fact, it does result in better outcome. At least two people have tried to do this that I know of and came up with there being no difference.

TWO people? Two whole people found no benefit? Astounding! That's a statistically significant outcome if ever I saw it.

I think you need to read the study again.

edit: I might add that this author is advocating using a PM for optimum racing strategy. Unfortunately for this view the number of people who continue to win world championships without PM's on their bike (or with the number taped over or not caring about the number) is substantial.

By substantial do you mean "very few"? Have a look at the men's time trial champions over the last few years... I think power meters were well in use. And in the road race champs too.

Edit: and the women's TT too.

 

[FrankDay]

TWO people? Two whole people found no benefit? Astounding! That's a statistically significant outcome if ever I saw it.

I think you need to read the study again.




By substantial do you mean "very few"? Have a look at the men's time trial champions over the last few years... I think power meters were well in use. And in the road race champs too.

Edit: and the women's TT too.

Many of those champions who have power meters on their bikes have also trained on my product and you don't find that compelling. So, my friend, show me a study showing a benefit then we can discuss. Until then all you are espousing is opinion. You might be right but there is no scientific support for the argument.

And by two people I meant at least two studies have been done that attempted to show a benefit/difference and both showed no difference.

 

[Tapeworm]

I show a study, you have an opinion.

 

[elapid]

I show a study, you have an opinion.

+1. All studies comparing PM to HRM for training improvement have used a PM to establish a baseline and measure improvements. So saying that there is no benefit to a PM is not quite correct. Tapeworm has shown you a study showing the benefit of PM in racing, which is supported by the common use of PMs in the professional peloton, and you reply with your usual opinionated, anecdotal drivel. Looking bad, Frank.

 

[FrankDay]

+1. All studies comparing PM to HRM for training improvement have used a PM to establish a baseline and measure improvements. So saying that there is no benefit to a PM is not quite correct. Tapeworm has shown you a study showing the benefit of PM in racing, which is supported by the common use of PMs in the professional peloton, and you reply with your usual opinionated, anecdotal drivel. Looking bad, Frank.

LOL. So much for science.

Anyhow, I didn't say there could not be any benefit to a PM. I simply have said there has been (so far) no scientifically demonstrated advantage to training or racing with a PM. (Edit: However, it is my belief that if there is an advantage to using one that it is small.) You people who believe there is are doing so based upon your belief that there should be, not because a benefit has been demonstrated. (Or, because you see a pro using one even though the only reason he may have it on his bicycle is because he or his team is being paid to do so.) That happens to be the case with most of the stuff we do in athletics. We theorize an advantage to making a change and some believe it and others don't but only rarely is such an advantage proven scientifically.

 

[CoachFergie]

Movistar to use Power2Max for 2014.

Andy Coggan made the comment that it is no longer a question of using a power meter but of what type does one use. How will SRM respond to the challenge? Push their superior technology and quality and match the pricing of other options?

Exciting times in the hardware dept.

Meanwhile the software side of things gets exciting too as TrainingPeaks looks to bring WKO+ 4.0 to market. And the freeware Golden Cheetah works on different power-duration models and development of the Anaerobic Work Capacity measurement concept.

 

[coapman]

Movistar to use Power2Max for 2014.

Andy Coggan made the comment that it is no longer a question of using a power meter but of what type does one use. How will SRM respond to the challenge? Push their superior technology and quality and match the pricing of other options?

Exciting times in the hardware dept.

Meanwhile the software side of things gets exciting too as TrainingPeaks looks to bring WKO+ 4.0 to market. And the freeware Golden Cheetah works on different power-duration models and development of the Anaerobic Work Capacity measurement concept.

What a bunch of suckers cyclists are, PM's appear to have taken over now that dead spot elimination equipment has come to an end. Have to agree with Frank, the only useful PM's are those that can give reliable torque readings and if possible the wasted force around the entire 360 deg. of the pedaling circle. If given the choice, I would select PC's before a 'power only' PM.

 

[CoachFergie]

What a bunch of suckers cyclists are, PM's appear to have taken over now that dead spot elimination equipment has come to an end. Have to agree with Frank, the only useful PM's are those that can give reliable torque readings and if possible the wasted force around the entire 360 deg. of the pedaling circle. If given the choice, I would select PC's before a 'power only' PM.

Reminds me of the saying...

If everyone says there is a problem, then it may be real. If only one or two people have the problem then maybe the problem is them.

 

[CoachFergie]

Also amusing that the people who make some pretty bold claims about performance enhancement are the ones make the most ludicrous claims about the best device to measure changes in performance. What do they have to hide?

 

[veganrob]

What a bunch of suckers cyclists are, PM's appear to have taken over now that dead spot elimination equipment has come to an end. Have to agree with Frank, the only useful PM's are those that can give reliable torque readings and if possible the wasted force around the entire 360 deg. of the pedaling circle. If given the choice, I would select PC's before a 'power only' PM.

Yet you have neither.