• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

The Powermeter Thread

Page 51 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
FrankDay said:
What is the advantage of having anything on the bike during the race that would distract from the task at hand? Sort of like texting and driving isn't it? We get away with it most of the time but when we don't, disaster.

Doubt that was a race.

As for measuring devices: perfect for pacing purposes, etc. If you never raced, that won't mean much, but it is incredibly useful.
 
FrankDay said:
What is the advantage of having anything on the bike during the race that would distract from the task at hand? Sort of like texting and driving isn't it? We get away with it most of the time but when we don't, disaster.

What is the advantage of having a speedometer or tachometer (probably more relevant) in your car while driving that would distract from the task at hand? :rolleyes:
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
42x16ss said:
What is the advantage of having a speedometer or tachometer (probably more relevant) in your car while driving that would distract from the task at hand? :rolleyes:
Tachometers can be part of a heads up display. Further, tachometers in racing cars are measuring mechanical limitations that the driver cannot measure in any other way (sound pitch might work if one were alone but this may not be reliable in a group with crowd, wind noise, and a head set added to this mix) bicycle displays don't work that way (unless they are incorporated into google glass, I suppose) and perceived effort gives much the same info. Lots of people believe there is or should be an advantage but many world championships have been won without power meters (or any other meter) on the bike, even in the modern era, so there simply is no obvious or demonstrated advantage to using one. I could argue a possible advantage to having one for training or to record the race for after race evaluation/critique but this doesn't involve using it during the race and such "advantages" have never been proven.
 
Sep 30, 2009
306
0
0
Visit site
FrankDay said:
Lots of people believe there is or should be an advantage but many world championships have been won without power meters (or any other meter) on the bike, even in the modern era, so there simply is no obvious or demonstrated advantage to using one. I could argue a possible advantage to having one for training or to record the race for after race evaluation/critique but this doesn't involve using it during the race and such "advantages" have never been proven.

6 of the last 7 mens RR WC have had powermeters on their bikes. All of them had some sort of "meter". Same with the women. Your statement is only factual in the Mountain Bike genres, and even there, many are running speedometers to keep track of time and distance. Many track riders are also running an SRM at the WC level. My guess as to your take on "modern era" is before the powermeter came into existence.
 
Jun 1, 2014
385
0
0
Visit site
twothirds said:
6 of the last 7 mens RR WC have had powermeters on their bikes. All of them had some sort of "meter". Same with the women. Your statement is only factual in the Mountain Bike genres, and even there, many are running speedometers to keep track of time and distance. Many track riders are also running an SRM at the WC level. My guess as to your take on "modern era" is before the powermeter came into existence.

How many train with a power meter for all/part of the season? Even if they don't race on one in some events, I think most have used a power meter in training or for testing. The top MTB riders I knew 5-10 years ago all had power meters and heart rate, lactate or some other way of monitoring output/effort.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
twothirds said:
6 of the last 7 mens RR WC have had powermeters on their bikes. All of them had some sort of "meter". Same with the women. Your statement is only factual in the Mountain Bike genres, and even there, many are running speedometers to keep track of time and distance. Many track riders are also running an SRM at the WC level. My guess as to your take on "modern era" is before the powermeter came into existence.
The fly in the ointment of your argument is that 1 of 7 who didn't have a PM. Unless all of those behind him also didn't have PM's (were they outlawed that year?) one would have to question exactly how important having one is to racing? Just because a rider uses something or has something on their bike isn't particularly good evidence that something is effective (or so I have been told since the last 4 Olympic RR champions have all trained on PowerCranks - every one since we started selling them - and many have told me this means nothing). There simply is no scientific evidence that having a PM or using a PM in any way actually results in a better performance than what can be done without one regardless of what "everyone" thinks should be the case. It may be true but there is zero evidence to prove that contention and if it is true the effect must be small. And, as suggested by the video posted having one might actually increase risk to the rider.
 
Sep 30, 2009
306
0
0
Visit site
JamesCun said:
How many train with a power meter for all/part of the season? Even if they don't race on one in some events, I think most have used a power meter in training or for testing. The top MTB riders I knew 5-10 years ago all had power meters and heart rate, lactate or some other way of monitoring output/effort.


Cool. I pretty much figured, but haven't kept in touch with the MTB scene. So then Frank's whole statement is pretty much bunk.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
JamesCun said:
How many train with a power meter for all/part of the season? Even if they don't race on one in some events, I think most have used a power meter in training or for testing. The top MTB riders I knew 5-10 years ago all had power meters and heart rate, lactate or some other way of monitoring output/effort.
Every rider has a way of measuring and monitoring output/effort. It is called perceived effort. Whether one wants to choose additional ways of augmenting that monitor is their choice. The question is whether using these additional tools makes a difference in outcome. One can make an argument for that being the case but it is simply an argument based on belief and theory because there is no scientific proof any of these interventions makes a difference, at least that I have seen.
 
Sep 30, 2009
306
0
0
Visit site
My argument may have a fly in my ointment, but it's better than having some ointment amongst flies.

Do you ride with any sort of "meter" at all? Speedo/odometer?
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
twothirds said:
My argument may have a fly in my ointment, but it's better than having some ointment amongst flies.
If 6 of the last 7 RR WC's had been won on (insert brand name here) bicycles would you use that as evidence of the superiority of (insert brand name here) bicycles? The fact that lots of people are using things is not evidence of effectiveness. If one wants anecdotal evidence of effectiveness one might want to look at what the winners are using that the losers are not.
Do you ride with any sort of "meter" at all? Speedo/odometer?
Yes, I even ride with power occasionally. But, I am 70 years old so I am mostly interested in proving to myself I am not losing to much as I get older, keeping track of my HR (I do have some heart disease) and documenting how far I ride (edit: how far I ride correlates with how long I am out so the clock is a useful "old timers" tool also). GPS allows me to go anywhere and not get lost. I also track resting HR (before getting out of bed) in the AM to track if I am "over trained" and due for a rest day or two. Generally, I find that my time over my usual TT loop correlates very well with my average power. I also believe power meters could be very useful in tweaking TT aerodynamic positioning.
 
Sep 30, 2009
306
0
0
Visit site
FrankDay said:
If 6 of the last 7 RR WC's had been won on (insert brand name here) bicycles would you use that as evidence of the superiority of (insert brand name here) bicycles?

My reference to the 6 out of 7 is to disprove your false statement that MANY world championships in the modern era were won without using a powermeter. Your example also fails because it's not that we are looking to make an apples to apples comparison between to similar objects but the comparison of using a new technology to not using it. A more apt comparison would be to say that because all the top riders are on carbon bicycles, then carbon is evidence of their success rather than the guys who are losing on aluminum. But you have to ask yourself why all the top riders are flocking to a new technology almost unanimously.

FrankDay said:
The fact that lots of people are using things is not evidence of effectiveness. If one wants anecdotal evidence of effectiveness one might want to look at what the winners are using that the losers are not.Yes, I even ride with power occasionally. But, I am 70 years old so I am mostly interested in proving to myself I am not losing to much as I get older, keeping track of my HR (I do have some heart disease) and documenting how far I ride (edit: how far I ride correlates with how long I am out so the clock is a useful "old timers" tool also). GPS allows me to go anywhere and not get lost. I also track resting HR (before getting out of bed) in the AM to track if I am "over trained" and due for a rest day or two. Generally, I find that my time over my usual TT loop correlates very well with my average power. I also believe power meters could be very useful in tweaking TT aerodynamic positioning.

The fact that you yourself use these tools, have a targeted use for them, and can justify their use speaks to their effectiveness. Just like your tachometer example, they are measuring things that cannot be measured reliably in any other way. If you really believed that you could do just as well (or better) using only RPE you wouldn't be using any sort of meter. That alone right there demonstrates that you see these as effective training tools that make you a better athlete. Without them, you wouldn't be maximizing your potential, and that's what it's all about.

And to reference that video, if you've ever checked the time or your speed when riding with others, then your watch/speedo just as detrimental (as you claim) as a powermeter.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
twothirds said:
My reference to the 6 out of 7 is to disprove your false statement that MANY world championships in the modern era were won without using a powermeter. Your example also fails because it's not that we are looking to make an apples to apples comparison between to similar objects but the comparison of using a new technology to not using it.
I think you will find power meters have been around and in widespread use amongst the pros for a lot longer than 7 years. And, MANY referred to all the WC's, which includes many more races than simply the RR when one counts TT, track, triathlon, MTB, etc. If 95% of pro riders are using power meters but 15% (1/7) of WC's are not, one has to question the utility of using one.
A more apt comparison would be to say that because all the top riders are on carbon bicycles, then carbon is evidence of their success rather than the guys who are losing on aluminum. But you have to ask yourself why all the top riders are flocking to a new technology almost unanimously.
My guess is most pros are flocking to "new technology" because the industry is sponsoring teams and forcing them to use it, not because they find it to be a big step forward. When you find a technology that most pros are using and not being paid to do so or forced to do so (or getting for free) then you might think this might represent a big step forward. (I can think of one.) Exactly what is the advantage of a new design BB, or a new shifting system, or 12 speeds over 11 or 10? Not much I suspect but it sure sells a lot of high end bikes.
The fact that you yourself use these tools, have a targeted use for them, and can justify their use speaks to their effectiveness. Just like your tachometer example, they are measuring things that cannot be measured reliably in any other way. If you really believed that you could do just as well (or better) using only RPE you wouldn't be using any sort of meter. That alone right there demonstrates that you see these as effective training tools that make you a better athlete. Without them, you wouldn't be maximizing your potential, and that's what it's all about.
I tend to be an early adopter. I got my first HRM when they first were available. Same with an electronic bike speedometer. I got my first power meter about 10 years ago. I was excited about the potential of each to help my training. As I gained experience with them I soon learned that these provided interesting data but were of little benefit in actually improving training or racing. Subsequent scientific studies have supported my observation in showing no demonstrable benefit to any of these devices. What they do is give the user something to worry about and talk about as evidenced by the entire forums devoted to the PM tool. PM's are sort of like a religion, there is no rational discussion to the believers. Criticism is heresy.
And to reference that video, if you've ever checked the time or your speed when riding with others, then your watch/speedo just as detrimental (as you claim) as a powermeter.
Yes. None of those are necessary nor have any of them ever been shown to be beneficial to training or racing and checking them in a group is likely to result in what was seen in that video. Check your watch at a stop sign. Check your speed and other data when you download it after the race or workout if this stuff interests you and you think it useful (although it has never been scientifically demonstrated to be). But, checking it during a workout/race has never been scientifically demonstrated to be of any benefit. If you have data to the contrary please show us all.

Despite all my negative/neutral experiences with earlier tools I do believe that new tools that measure how we generate power, measuring the technique involved in pedaling and power generation (not power per se), have the potential to make a big difference to racers. That is where my current technological interest lies.
 
twothirds said:
And to reference that video, if you've ever checked the time or your speed when riding with others, then your watch/speedo just as detrimental (as you claim) as a powermeter.

Very little point debating Frank, he is stuck in his ways and for some reason all roads lead to his product.

Report his trolling and spamming of these threads.

Video looked like a newbie group. Coaches tell people to sit on a certain cadence or to drink every 15mins. Perhaps they should tell people to look at their computer when at the back of bunch.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
Perhaps they should tell people to look at their computer when at the back of bunch.
Perhaps they should tell people to look at their computer when they are in the front of the group, when they cannot cross wheels with the person in front of them if that person slows down.
 
FrankDay said:
Perhaps they should tell people to look at their computer when they are in the front of the group, when they cannot cross wheels with the person in front of them if that person slows down.

I had considered that, however the two biggest disrupters to a smooth echelon are riders going through too hard or unable to maintain the pace as they roll through. I would expect looking at a computer would not enhance things. Riders on the front should be looking ahead to point out obstacles to others.

A part of coaching with a power meter should be helping the rider to calibrate their feel for effort so they don't have to use a power meter in competition, or at least certainly not keep looking at it constantly. On track, riders can use PMs but are not allowed to have the display viewable.
 
Jun 1, 2014
385
0
0
Visit site
FrankDay said:
I think you will find power meters have been around and in widespread use amongst the pros for a lot longer than 7 years. And, MANY referred to all the WC's, which includes many more races than simply the RR when one counts TT, track, triathlon, MTB, etc. If 95% of pro riders are using power meters but 15% (1/7) of WC's are not, one has to question the utility of using one.My guess is most pros are flocking to "new technology" because the industry is sponsoring teams and forcing them to use it, not because they find it to be a big step forward.

The fact that someone can win by using a different set of tools does not invaldiate the tools that others are using. Using that logic, if someone beats a powercranker in any race, the product should be considered useless.

You might have heard about tactics, genetics, drugs, training, luck, etc. all those might impact why someone wins despite inferior technology or equipment.

Some shockingly horrible logic you use here.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
JamesCun said:
The fact that someone can win by using a different set of tools does not invaldiate the tools that others are using. Using that logic, if someone beats a powercranker in any race, the product should be considered useless.

You might have heard about tactics, genetics, drugs, training, luck, etc. all those might impact why someone wins despite inferior technology or equipment.

Some shockingly horrible logic you use here.
Huh? Of course there are lots of things that go into winning and losing races. All I was saying was it seems if one wanted to pick out a tool that seems to make a real difference which (of these theoretical two) would you think had the best chance of being significant:

1. A tool that is used by 95% of the riders and these riders win 85% of the races, or

2. A tool used by less than 1% of the riders and they win 10% of the races.

Just sayin… Doesn't seem like such "shockingly horrible logic" to me but then it is, of course, me thinking that and "everyone" here knows I am crazy.
 
Jun 1, 2014
385
0
0
Visit site
FrankDay said:
Huh? Of course there are lots of things that go into winning and losing races. All I was saying was it seems if one wanted to pick out a tool that seems to make a real difference which (of these theoretical two) would you think had the best chance of being significant:

1. A tool that is used by 95% of the riders and these riders win 85% of the races, or

2. A tool used by less than 1% of the riders and they win 10% of the races.

Just sayin… Doesn't seem like such "shockingly horrible logic" to me but then it is, of course, me thinking that and "everyone" here knows I am crazy.

I'd ask why only 1% use it after 15 or so years.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
JamesCun said:
I'd ask why only 1% use it after 15 or so years.
Use what? I was giving a theoretical example. :) If you are asking of PowerCranks, much less than 1% of all cyclists (there are a little more than 10,000 out there) use PowerCranks yet the last four Olympic RR champions have trained on them. (we probably have 10% of the Kona age-group champions) I like what that might say about the product. Why so few use them? Well they cost $1,000 or so but that isn't the real reason because most have bikes that cost much more than that. I suspect the real reason is because they are hard, very hard and not that many have the dedication it takes to see the results. (Edit: another reason is most people are followers, not leaders. If most people are not using something then many will not try something different (especially very different) for fear of looking strange.) The top pros have that kind of dedication and they seem to have found the necessary dedication without us paying them a cent (most of them have purchased the cranks from us).
 
Jun 1, 2014
385
0
0
Visit site
FrankDay said:
Use what? I was giving a theoretical example. :) If you are asking of PowerCranks, much less than 1% of all cyclists (there are a little more than 10,000 out there) use PowerCranks yet the last four Olympic RR champions have trained on them. (we probably have 10% of the Kona age-group champions) I like what that might say about the product. Why so few use them? Well they cost $1,000 or so but that isn't the real reason because most have bikes that cost much more than that. I suspect the real reason is because they are hard, very hard and not that many have the dedication it takes to see the results. The top pros have that kind of dedication.

Yes, like you weren't talking about powercranks. You take every opportunity to ***** yourself out.

People are willing to commit to all sorts of things to be good. If they offered that much advantage, everyone would use them. That is a fact you have to accept.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
JamesCun said:
Yes, like you weren't talking about powercranks. You take every opportunity to ***** yourself out.
Look, theoretical examples to suggest one way of evaluating real world anecdotal data is simply that, an example of what one might do should there be such data. The fact there is such data could be purely coincidence.
People are willing to commit to all sorts of things to be good.
Yes they are and some of them are complete hooey.
If they offered that much advantage, everyone would use them. That is a fact you have to accept.
No they wouldn't. Not everyone is willing to do the work required nor is everyone willing to look "silly" in the eyes of their friends. Of the 10,000 or so out there you might think a few actual users might come forward and say they used them as prescribed and nothing happened. Instead, the few who do show up and say they didn't see any benefit need only be asked a couple of questions. 1. Did you use them as recommended? (invariably the answer is no.) 2. How long did you use them. (Invariably the answer is a couple of weeks or months.). Instead, we are subjected to people like yourself who have never used the device claiming the device cannot possibly do what it claims. Further, users who do show up and claim they worked for them are shouted down by people like yourself and Fergie. I suspect they go away smiling that they tried and you are simply keeping their competition less competitive. Lucky for us, our biggest sales tool is word of mouth which probably explains why we SOLD 5 more pair to TEAM SKY pros this off season.

Anyhow, this is a power meter thread. Back on topic. If you have any data to suggest that a PM is actually useful to the end user to help them perform better please post it.
 

TRENDING THREADS