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.