The Powermeter Thread

Page 35 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
CoachFergie

CoachFergie

Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
13,480
Webinar 3. So the model is good and works better than the other models. Look forward to the final to see how we can use the model to better plan our preparation of riders for performance.
 
F

FrankDay

Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
CoachFergie said:
Part 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4nd_ydgwFU&feature=youtu.be
Click to expand...
Thanks for that link. I wish they could get their sound issues fixed but at least it was better than last week, especially after the first 30 minutes.

At the risk of being called a troll I will make a few observations.

1. This model may constitute a huge advance (and it was referred to as science by the other person talking) but it appears we will never know because it appears the model will never be published to allow independent verification. The failure to allow independent validation does not follow the scientific model.

2. Even if the model is perfect, it appears to be mostly an advance for the academic researcher (if it is ever published) because the issue for the individual, as Dr. Coggan mentioned during the question period, is GIGO.

3. Since we will never (apparently) know what the model is the more interesting thing to me would be Hunter Allen's upcoming lectures on how to use the new model in coaching. That is where the crux of the matter is for the individual athlete. It is these recommendations that can be tested against other coaching models to see if the use of WKO 4.+ offers a useful advance. Hopefully some researcher will do this.
 
CoachFergie

CoachFergie

Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
13,480
:(:(:(

Great webinar 4 on WKO+ 4.0 covering all the potential uses of the new software. Only hitch is a delay on release to Dec 30th. Christmas comes late for Coach Ferg. Hopefully fewer bugs.

Looking forward to reviewing a lot of race files with the new tools.
 
CoachFergie

CoachFergie

Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
13,480
Accuracy of indirect estimation of power output from uphill performance in cycling

http://journals.humankinetics.com/A...umentItem/Millet_IJSPP_2013_0320-in press.pdf

ABSTRACT
Purpose: To use cycling powermeters (Pmes) to evaluate the accuracy of commonly used models for
estimating uphill cycling power (Pest). More specifically experiments were designed to understand
the influence of wind speed and climb steepness on accuracy of Pest. We hypothesized that (1) the
random error in Pest is largely influenced by the windy conditions; (2) the bias is diminished in
steeper climbs; and (3) windy conditions induce larger bias in Pest. Methods: Sixteen well-trained
cyclists performed 15 uphill cycling trials (range: length 1.3 – 6.3 km; slope 4.4-10.7%) in a random
order. Trials included different riding position in a group (lead or follow) and different wind speeds.
Pmes was quantified using a powermeter and Pest was calculated using methodology used by
journalists reporting on the Tour de France. Results: Overall, the difference between Pmes and Pest
was -0.95% (95%CI: -10.4%; +8.5%) for all trials and 0.24% (-6.1%; +6.6%) in conditions without wind
(< 2 m.s-1
). The relationship between percent slope and the error between Pest and Pmes was
considered trivial. Conclusions: Aerodynamic drag (affected by wind velocity and orientation, frontal
area, drafting and speed) is the most confounding factor. The mean estimated values are close to
the PO values measured by powermeters, but the random error is between ±6% and ±10%.
Moreover, at the POs (>400 W) produced by professional riders, this error is likely to be higher. This
observation calls into question the validity of releasing individual values without the reporting of the
range of random errors.
 
BethLH

BethLH

Dec 11, 2013
1
0
0
Good Post

Reporting, analysis and speculation could easily be qualified with a simple phrase then, rather than sounding like gospel. A simple fix made more complicated by the requirement of humility by the reporter, analyzer, and speculator. Sometimes I think that learning the science may be easier than becoming humble. Good post Coach!
 
CoachFergie

CoachFergie

Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
13,480
Meanwhile....

Brim Brothers ‏@BrimBrothers
.@donrhummy Not ready for Santa this year. Current plan is mid 2014. Nailing down production plans at moment. Hard details over next 2 mths.
 
Berzin

Berzin

Aug 6, 2009
2,111
7
11,495
Brim Brothers-are they seriously still telling people they have a power meter in production?

It's been a couple of years already with this, and still nothing.

What a joke...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
CoachFergie

CoachFergie

Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
13,480
Clearly not the same demand for 2nd generation power meters as there is for new software like WKO+ 4.0 or Golden Cheetah 3.1 to help us analyse 1st generation power meter data.
 
C

coapman

Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
CoachFergie said:
Clearly not the same demand for 2nd generation power meters as there is for new software like WKO+ 4.0 or Golden Cheetah 3.1 to help us analyse 1st generation power meter data.
Click to expand...

Clearly a case of the old " There is one born every minute" syndrome.
 
F

FrankDay

Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
CoachFergie said:
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/verve-cycling-teases-2014-power-meter-first-look-39319/

New Power meter using similar technology to Stages but in both Crank Arms.
Click to expand...
The electronics here are the same as those that are going to end up on the iCranks I have been talking about (iCranks = infoCranks). What isn't clear to me is whether this crank will have the same software. To me the power of these dual sided power meters will lie in the software, not the fact that they are simply measuring right/left independently. The value to the consumer will come from the information one gains. R/L alone is hardly much of an information gain for the price.

I am glad to see they are talking about having these ready come Sea Otter. The delay has been driving me crazy.
 
S

sciguy

May 13, 2011
550
0
9,580
CoachFergie

CoachFergie

Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
13,480
More than Garmin, Quarq and Powertap and less than SRM.

Quarq do a 165mm crank and I have suggested this to a few of my shorter riders.

Good to see others learning to just ignore Frank.
 
J

JayKosta

Nov 25, 2010
1,175
68
10,580
CoachFergie,

How do you think the additional info from the new generation PMs wil be useful to you?

If L/R power production is not balanced, would you attempt to make changes, and how would you determine what aspects of 'power production' need to be changed.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 
CoachFergie

CoachFergie

Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
13,480
JayKosta said:
How do you think the additional info from the new generation PMs wil be useful to you?
Click to expand...

A lot of research using the metrics a second generation PM will provide has already been performed so I don't expect a lot will change.

If L/R power production is not balanced, would you attempt to make changes, and how would you determine what aspects of 'power production' need to be changed.
Click to expand...

It would depend on why the L/R imbalance is there and the impact it had on performance.

Same way I always do, look at the current state of the rider and the gap between where they are now and where they need to be to attain their goals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom