The Powermeter Thread

[CoachFergie]

Bit behind the times Noel, this technology has been available for 40 years or so.

Also a bit short on understanding. If your technique was better than other methods, and practical, any power meter would be able to detect it.

Brom Bros are still vapourware till we see it available. Then needs to be tested and compared with the SRM to see if the data is valid and reliable. If it will measure force application around the pedal stroke that will need to be validated as will however it will be recorded and what software will be used to look at data.

All we have at present is vague claims and an old man asking us to take a leap of faith. That sounds familiar.

 

[acoggan]

All we have at present is vague claims and an old man asking us to take a leap of faith. That sounds familiar.

Good thing I wasn't eating or drinking just now, Hamish...

 

[CoachFergie]

Review of the new and improved Pioneer Power Meter...

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/tech-...ource=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#.U-qvKoCSz3s

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Review of the new and improved Pioneer Power Meter...

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/tech-...ource=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#.U-qvKoCSz3s

Disappointing there's no discussion of the most important feature of a power meter - the quality of the data.

 

[CoachFergie]

Disappointing there's no discussion of the most important feature of a power meter - the quality of the data.

New, improved and untested Pioneer.

Also neglects to tell you how much you can expect to improve from using it

 

[coapman]

Also neglects to tell you how much you can expect to improve from using it

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/tech-...ource=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#.U-qvKoCSz3s

From the above example, are you not concerned by the fact that your muscles are effectively powerless as your pedal moves through 12 o'c and of the pedal force you do apply between (1 and 6), 43% of this force is wasted, when you could be applying maximal torque through 12, 1 and 2 and reducing wasted force to almost half of that 43%. This type of PM can assist a rider when learning and perfecting the ideal flat TT technique.

 

[CoachFergie]

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/tech-...ource=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#.U-qvKoCSz3s

From the above example, are you not concerned by the fact that your muscles are effectively powerless as your pedal moves through 12 o'c and of the pedal force you do apply between (1 and 6), 43% of this force is wasted, when you could be applying maximal torque through 12, 1 and 2 and reducing wasted force to almost half of that 43%. This type of PM can assist a rider when learning and perfecting the ideal claimed, with no evidence despite the technology being available to test for the last forty years and easy to assess with ANY power meter if there are any performance benefits, flat TT technique.

Fixed that for you Noel.

Glad to see you acknowledge the potential, yet unvalidated, benefits of the Pioneer system. Now you can stop hiding behind the launch claims of Brim Brothers and do some real testing of your observations.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Lemond interviews Rudi at SRM about use of power in the pro peloton:

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/video/lemond-cycling-episode-5-093452638.html

 

[swuzzlebubble]

If I'm trying to do intervals on the road where there is a variation in the gradiant should I aim to hold the power as close to target as possible throughout the interval or plan to be under/over/whatever so long as I hit the target average for the section?

If it were a TT I guess you'd vary the effort to optimize time but should that be done with intervals?

Would the approach vary for sections that flatten off towards the top v ramp up a bit?

Section 1 is ~60 seconds. Start on slight dip, flatten out then up to say 5%.
Section 2 is ~3mins. About 2% for 2mins then flatten off <1% for the last minute
Section 3 is ~1min45sec. Up 3% for 1/3, Flatter middle 1/3 then say 4% for the last 1/3.

In each case my target is virtually PB for the duration.

 

[JayKosta]

...
In each case my target is virtually PB for the duration.

==============================
How much time do you recover between repetitions of (or between) those sections?
If you are doing a max effort PB each time, I'd expect needing quite a long recovery period.

Are you doing multi-bout repetition intervals, or individual 1-time efforts on each section?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

If I'm trying to do intervals on the road where there is a variation in the gradiant should I aim to hold the power as close to target as possible throughout the interval or plan to be under/over/whatever so long as I hit the target average for the section?

If it were a TT I guess you'd vary the effort to optimize time but should that be done with intervals?

Would the approach vary for sections that flatten off towards the top v ramp up a bit?

Section 1 is ~60 seconds. Start on slight dip, flatten out then up to say 5%.
Section 2 is ~3mins. About 2% for 2mins then flatten off <1% for the last minute
Section 3 is ~1min45sec. Up 3% for 1/3, Flatter middle 1/3 then say 4% for the last 1/3.

In each case my target is virtually PB for the duration.

Whatever anyone tells you just be aware they are guessing. There is really no data that helps people to choose between the many options so they are forced to chose based on anecdotal experience of themselves and others. So, make your choice then don't second guess yourself.

 

[CoachFergie]

Products like BestBikeSplit allow you to estimate your ride based on some pretty good equations.

As a rule of thumb, and I think this sort of reflects Alex Simmons work in the area you go 10% harder on the climbs and 10% easier on the declines.

So for a 40km TT you would go 10% higher than FTP on the inclines. For a 3km undulating you would go 10% higher than your VO2max (~5min) power on the inclines.

These are of course estimates but with a little fine tuning in practice you should be able to find what works for you. Within reason the best practice is actual racing itself because we don't just race against a power meter or a mathematical model of performance.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

As a guiding principle that's not too bad, but much depends on the length of any climb or descent. Remember that you spend much more time going up than down so simple +/- percentages doesn't quite work but when you are on your limit it's hard to think straight, so keep it simple.

In general:

Maximal sustainable isopower or quasi-isopower for the duration is actually a pretty fast strategy over most courses. The hillier it is, the more the opportunity to gain time through variable power pacing, and the harder it is to do ride an isopower strategy anyway.

On variable gradient courses, making relatively small adjustments from an isopower strategy is a bit faster (not massively), and by that I mean slightly higher power on inclines and less on declines. 10% more is a lot on any climb longer than a couple of minutes.

Riders naturally ride higher power when going up than down in any case, so they tend to naturally follow that general principle, however:

- the biggest mistakes are going too hard at the start, and too hard at the start of longer climb sections. RPE takes time to catch up with you and as a result, these are the most common mistakes made

- also going too hard on climbs overall and as a result way under power on light declines/flat sections can cost you time over all. RPE at same power is typically much lower on climbs than descents.

- some courses have steeper gradients than others, so sometimes fast descents are best in tuck/no power

- keeping power on over crests so that you accelerate properly into any descending section, and not ease off just because you've got to the top of a climb

- technical courses have other issues to consider. e.g. I beat a far superior TT opponent in a world cup TT because it was highly technical and my cornering ability was better.

 

[FrankDay]

Remember that you spend much more time going up than down so simple +/- percentages doesn't quite work but when you are on your limit it's hard to think straight, so keep it simple.

I prefer to think of it this way. 1 mph faster or slower than your competition at 10 mph climbing gains or loses you about 30 seconds per mile whereas 1 mph faster going downhill at 30 mph gains or loses you about 5 seconds per mile. Better to put in the extra effort on the climb and recover on the descent. How much extra will depend on the specific course and the athletes capabilities.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I prefer to think of it this way. 1 mph faster or slower than your competition at 10 mph climbing gains or loses you about 30 seconds per mile whereas 1 mph faster going downhill at 30 mph gains or loses you about 5 seconds per mile. Better to put in the extra effort on the climb and recover on the descent. How much extra will depend on the specific course and the athletes capabilities.

Yes, so then the issue becomes one of whether attempting to go 1 mph faster than your competitors will result in cracking before you get to the top. If it does then the race is lost well before you get to recover going down the other side.

The actual nature of how hard and for how long depends on the length and steepness of climbs. The longer a climb takes, the less you can afford to go too hard.

 

[sciguy]

DCrainmaker has posted a nice quick run down of power meter news from Eurobike.

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/08/eurobike-powerbeat-infocrank.html


Hugh

 

[gamer777]

))

http://www.tosstheturtlehacked.org/ i love it

 

[CoachFergie]

Another new player. DIY fit both side power meter...

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/09/4iiiis-introduces-precision.html

Also discussion of the left side only trend.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

==============================
How much time do you recover between repetitions of (or between) those sections?
If you are doing a max effort PB each time, I'd expect needing quite a long recovery period.

Are you doing multi-bout repetition intervals, or individual 1-time efforts on each section?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Thanks for reply and sorry for delayed response.
Having re-checked numbers, my intervals are more like 80+% of best efforts.
There are three rises in sequence that I use and the spacing between them gives me approx 50/50 on/off distance so say 40/60 on/off time. I attempt 3 repeats of the sequence, but I'm yet to complete it.

 

[CoachFergie]

Brim Brothers

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/09/brothers-announces-production.html

Still a way to go.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Brim Brothers

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/09/brothers-announces-production.html

Still a way to go.

Honestly, at the low end of the price scale, the iBike Newton stacks up pretty well against all these latest releases.

 

[sciguy]

Honestly, at the low end of the price scale, the iBike Newton stacks up pretty well against all these latest releases.

and it's not even a power meter just a power estimator. The good news is that the competition is bound to continue to lower prices and drive the increase in feature development.

Hugh

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

and it's not even a power meter just a power estimator. The good news is that the competition is bound to continue to lower prices and drive the increase in feature development.

Hugh

The only developments I see are:
- more one sided only power meters
- a push to move more of the manufacturing process out to the consumer
both of which are techniques to provide lower cost offerings
- increasing reliance on third party recording devices

What I don't see are efforts to improve data quality, indeed I'd say that has declined on average over the last two years, matched by an increase in rhetoric over why that doesn't matter.

Aside from new power meter options becoming available, what useful new features have been introduced over the last two years? Please don't say power balance.

 

[sciguy]

The only developments I see are:
- more one sided only power meters
- a push to move more of the manufacturing process out to the consumer
both of which are techniques to provide lower cost offerings
- increasing reliance on third party recording devices

What I don't see are efforts to improve data quality, indeed I'd say that has declined on average over the last two years, matched by an increase in rhetoric over why that doesn't matter.

Aside from new power meter options becoming available, what useful new features have been introduced over the last two years? Please don't say power balance.

Alex,

Good point about not so useful features. Perhaps my use of the term "bound to" was a bit optimistic on my part. You have to agree that MSRP for all established brands except SRM have dropped significantly over the past year and I even see SRMS more heavily discounted than in the past.

Hugh

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Alex,

Good point about not so useful features. Perhaps my use of the term "bound to" was a bit optimistic on my part. You have to agree that MSRP for all established brands except SRM have dropped significantly over the past year and I even see SRMS more heavily discounted than in the past.

Hugh

Oh most definitely the prices of various options has declined.

It seems the push has been to commoditise a lower quality of data measurement.