Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

"The 33"-Road Bike Racing We set this forum up for our members to discuss their experiences in either pro or amateur racing, whether they are the big races, or even the small backyard races. Don't forget to update all the members with your own race results.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-19-10, 05:37 PM   #2576
Issaquatch
Training
 
Issaquatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Issaquah, WA
Bikes: 2015 Focus Mares CX, 2008 Cannondale Supersix
Posts: 294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
They say take 5% off the 20 minute average power.

On a separate note, do you all find that your FTP tests differently depending on whether you test on flats vs a hill climb? My perceived effort in producing a given level of power seems lower on a hill climb than on flat ground. I think my FTP would test 10-20 watts higher on a hill climb. I think I'll try doing the 20 minute test on a hill and see if my FTP comes out differently. Of course, if it does, I'm not sure how I should interpret that for training purposes...
Issaquatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-10, 06:24 PM   #2577
kudude
slow up hills
 
kudude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes: Giant TCR, Redline CX, Ritchey Breakaway, Spec S-works epic
Posts: 4,931
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I put out more power climbing, but I've never tested on flats b/c there aren't many 20 minute sections without lights
kudude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-10, 07:33 PM   #2578
petalpower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Italy
Bikes: 2014 Specialized Roubaix Pro
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kudude View Post
I put out more power climbing, but I've never tested on flats b/c there aren't many 20 minute sections without lights
I'd like to do my first test to see what my FTP is, and I'm running into the same dilemma - I can get about 7.6 miles without lights/stop signs, but I think I need a bit more than that.

My other options are all climbing. :/
petalpower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-10, 10:35 PM   #2579
kudude
slow up hills
 
kudude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes: Giant TCR, Redline CX, Ritchey Breakaway, Spec S-works epic
Posts: 4,931
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
well, you could always do you test on the hoods with a brake rubbing. Should keep right around the needed 22mph (or not).
kudude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-10, 11:01 PM   #2580
gjb483
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Jackson, NH
Bikes: Cannondale 2.8 R700 circa 1997; 2009 Cervelo S2; Trek 930 mountain bike; various others
Posts: 205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
20 minutes on a trainer
gjb483 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-10, 12:29 AM   #2581
tallmantim
Senior Member
 
tallmantim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Bikes:
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gjb483 View Post
20 minutes on a trainer
Ugghh... I find it hard to concentrate on the trainer, but that might just be me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Issaquatch View Post
They say take 5% off the 20 minute average power.

On a separate note, do you all find that your FTP tests differently depending on whether you test on flats vs a hill climb? My perceived effort in producing a given level of power seems lower on a hill climb than on flat ground. I think my FTP would test 10-20 watts higher on a hill climb. I think I'll try doing the 20 minute test on a hill and see if my FTP comes out differently. Of course, if it does, I'm not sure how I should interpret that for training purposes...
I find maintaining efforts on hills easier for extended periods just because you HAVE to keep pedaling - there is no rest available, no opportunity to really soft pedal for a bit. And psychologically, you are working towards a goal (beating the climb) with a carrot at the end.
tallmantim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-10, 02:07 PM   #2582
LowCel 
Throw the stick!!!!
 
LowCel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Charleston, WV
Bikes: GMC Denali
Posts: 17,588
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Does anyone know which program is more accurate for wattage, Training Peaks or Garmin? I am using a powertap pro+ with a 705. For todays ride Garmin shows my average wattage as 170W and Training Peaks WKO+ shows it as 154W (Nom as 178). That is a pretty big difference.
__________________
I may be fat but I'm slow enough to make up for it.
LowCel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-10, 02:13 PM   #2583
johnybutts
Senior Member
 
johnybutts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Bikes: Type of horse.
Posts: 3,296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowCel View Post
Does anyone know which program is more accurate for wattage, Training Peaks or Garmin? I am using a powertap pro+ with a 705. For todays ride Garmin shows my average wattage as 170W and Training Peaks WKO+ shows it as 154W (Nom as 178). That is a pretty big difference.
use trainingpeaks' numbers... just based on consistency, almost every coach and power user uses it so when comparing numbers you'll want to have comparable numbers.
johnybutts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-10, 02:27 PM   #2584
RacerMike
Huge Member
 
RacerMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ittybittycity, MD
Bikes: 2009 BMC Team Machine, Pedal Force RS2, Salsa Campeon, Jamis Nova, Trek 7000
Posts: 636
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowCel View Post
Does anyone know which program is more accurate for wattage, Training Peaks or Garmin? I am using a powertap pro+ with a 705. For todays ride Garmin shows my average wattage as 170W and Training Peaks WKO+ shows it as 154W (Nom as 178). That is a pretty big difference.
Set the Garmin up to record "zero" for power.
__________________
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazingPedals View Post
If you're faster than me, you're fast. If you're not, you suck.
RacerMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-10, 02:46 PM   #2585
save10
Arrogant Roadie Punk
 
save10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: California
Bikes:
Posts: 2,353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kudude View Post
I put out more power climbing, but I've never tested on flats b/c there aren't many 20 minute sections without lights
Kudude - I think you're in the east bay, but if you're in the south bay by Great America there is a low traffic business park that is 1.3 miles, essentially 4 corners and all yields signs. I've never had to touch the breaks ever. very light car traffic. bike lane. Really good for doing 20min tests and other such applications. I do various intervals here once or twice a week. Its almost like being on a track. one section is windy. If you ever did Early Birds....its like that. hopefully this link works

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...5,0.01929&z=16

Last edited by save10; 08-20-10 at 05:04 PM.
save10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-10, 04:04 PM   #2586
aham23
grilled cheesus
 
aham23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 8675309
Bikes: 2010 CAAD9 Custom, 06 Giant TCR C2 & 05 Specialized Hardrock Sport
Posts: 6,946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowCel View Post
Does anyone know which program is more accurate for wattage, Training Peaks or Garmin? I am using a powertap pro+ with a 705. For todays ride Garmin shows my average wattage as 170W and Training Peaks WKO+ shows it as 154W (Nom as 178). That is a pretty big difference.
that is odd. you must have a setting off somewhere, but i am no expert. later.
__________________
aham23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-10, 04:55 PM   #2587
LowCel 
Throw the stick!!!!
 
LowCel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Charleston, WV
Bikes: GMC Denali
Posts: 17,588
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RacerMike View Post
Set the Garmin up to record "zero" for power.
Is that the "zero averaging"? Just turn it on?
__________________
I may be fat but I'm slow enough to make up for it.
LowCel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-10, 05:01 PM   #2588
mattm
**** that
 
mattm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: CALI
Bikes:
Posts: 13,749
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Yeah I think that's what he meant, e.g. include zeroes in the avg. Which would explain the high #'s you see from Garmin.

Are those high numbers from a Garmin app or the device? My 705 shows high numbers for peak power, and it's usually closer to my 5-sec power since it's doing 3-sec averaging. Kind of confusing but fun since I know I did better than what it says (peak-wise anyway).
__________________
cat 1.

blog
mattm is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-10, 05:34 PM   #2589
LowCel 
Throw the stick!!!!
 
LowCel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Charleston, WV
Bikes: GMC Denali
Posts: 17,588
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattm View Post
Yeah I think that's what he meant, e.g. include zeroes in the avg. Which would explain the high #'s you see from Garmin.

Are those high numbers from a Garmin app or the device? My 705 shows high numbers for peak power, and it's usually closer to my 5-sec power since it's doing 3-sec averaging. Kind of confusing but fun since I know I did better than what it says (peak-wise anyway).
Thanks, that's simple enough. The numbers are the same on the actual device and the garmin program. Now that I figured out the power thing my biggest problem is cadence. Whenever I quit pedaling I get a cadence of about 240 for a split second. Makes "max cadence" pretty much useless.
__________________
I may be fat but I'm slow enough to make up for it.
LowCel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-10, 06:00 PM   #2590
mattm
**** that
 
mattm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: CALI
Bikes:
Posts: 13,749
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowCel View Post
Thanks, that's simple enough. The numbers are the same on the actual device and the garmin program. Now that I figured out the power thing my biggest problem is cadence. Whenever I quit pedaling I get a cadence of about 240 for a split second. Makes "max cadence" pretty much useless.
Hmm, the cadence part is weird - is that from the Garmin thingy (on chain stay?) or from the PT?

I just let the PT estimate cadence, seems pretty close from what I can tell.
__________________
cat 1.

blog
mattm is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-10, 06:34 PM   #2591
petalpower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Italy
Bikes: 2014 Specialized Roubaix Pro
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well, I performed my first FTP test this morning and here are the results. Don't laugh - I've only been on the road bike ( or any bike for that matter ) since last August.



Lap 2:
Duration: 20:00
Work: 303 kJ
TSS: 33.4 (intensity factor 1.001)
Norm Power: 253
VI: 1
Pw:HR: 7.39%
Pa:HR: 13.79%
Distance: 7.197 mi
Elevation Gain: 69 ft
Elevation Loss: 69 ft
Grade: 0.0 % (4 ft)
Min Max Avg
Power: 18 423 253 watts
Heart Rate: 133 170 165 bpm
Cadence: 27 116 89 rpm
Speed: 14.7 26.8 21.6 mph
Pace 2:14 4:04 2:47 min/mi
Altitude: 4543 4599 4565 ft
Crank Torque: 57 385 239 lb-in

Well, now with a general knowledge of my FTP, what are my next steps? From Hunter Allen's book, Training And Racing With A Power Meter, the next tests should be:

1. Power Profile.
2. Fatigue Profiles of Levels 5, 6, and 7 )

How much "rest" should I have after today's FTP test? Should I take a day off the bike, and get back out there and complete the Power Profile?

Thanks!!
petalpower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-10, 07:45 PM   #2592
LowCel 
Throw the stick!!!!
 
LowCel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Charleston, WV
Bikes: GMC Denali
Posts: 17,588
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattm View Post
Hmm, the cadence part is weird - is that from the Garmin thingy (on chain stay?) or from the PT?

I just let the PT estimate cadence, seems pretty close from what I can tell.
It is from the PT.
__________________
I may be fat but I'm slow enough to make up for it.
LowCel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-10, 11:43 PM   #2593
MtnRide
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kalifornia
Bikes: '07 Excalibur, '08 Anthem 1, and some others
Posts: 287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by save10 View Post
Kudude - I think you're in the east bay, but if you're in the south bay by Great America there is a low traffic business park that is 1.3 miles, essentially 4 corners and all yields signs. I've never had to touch the breaks ever. very light car traffic. bike lane. Really good for doing 20min tests and other such applications. I do various intervals here once or twice a week. Its almost like being on a track. one section is windy. If you ever did Early Birds....its like that. hopefully this link works

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...5,0.01929&z=16
Hey, bit off-topic, but thanks for that. Work near there but have always gone to Alviso for flat work. Will try this, too.
MtnRide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-10, 12:22 AM   #2594
kleinboogie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 2,607
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I tried to do an objective test today to see how much body position (aero) makes a difference in power and rpms. I tried to maintain a constant average speed and tested on the hoods vs. in the drops. In the drops I used every aero trick I know (arms in tight or on the tops in pseudo-aerobar style, head down and body flat as possible, coasting on descents, up tempo on flats where little wind exists, etc.).

Looks like the rumors and formulas are right. Aero rocks.

Good wind blowing, relatively flat MUP, ~7.2 mile out and back. Me, 6'2", 190 lbs, 45 yo, not very aero.

50/19 - 18 mph - 23:59:
On the hoods - 82 rpm - 170 watts
In the drops - 77 rpm - 156 watts

Conclusion: 14 less watts and 120 fewer pedal strokes. Not huge but could make a big difference in a century.

50/17 - 20 mph - 21:36:
Hoods - 80 rpm - 229 watts
Drops - 76 rpm - 194 watts

Conclusion: 35 less watts and 86 fewer pedal strokes. Not sure how long I could keep that up but for shorter TT distances this is huge for me. It's a lot easier to be more aero than pull 35 watts out of thin air.

There's of course downsides to being in the drops for extended periods of time and by the end of lap 4 I was starting to feel it.

Next test is to check speed based on power. In the drops, hit the hoods wattage and note speed. I kinda did this the day before but I want to use the exact same hood watts.

Hope this helps.
kleinboogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-10, 05:08 AM   #2595
aham23
grilled cheesus
 
aham23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 8675309
Bikes: 2010 CAAD9 Custom, 06 Giant TCR C2 & 05 Specialized Hardrock Sport
Posts: 6,946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowCel View Post
Thanks, that's simple enough. The numbers are the same on the actual device and the garmin program. Now that I figured out the power thing my biggest problem is cadence. Whenever I quit pedaling I get a cadence of about 240 for a split second. Makes "max cadence" pretty much useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattm View Post
Hmm, the cadence part is weird - is that from the Garmin thingy (on chain stay?) or from the PT?

I just let the PT estimate cadence, seems pretty close from what I can tell.
the PT virtual CAD is very erratic. it will produce a very high, but false, high. from my experience the AVG number always seems to be correct. if you want a truer real time CAD that produces a correct high then add the Garmin CAD sensor to your setup. this is what most do who are concerned about CAD in my neck of the woods.

since i got power, i kind of stopped paying attention to CAD. i still find HR data interesting, but dont focus on it either. good luck. later.
__________________
aham23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-10, 10:56 PM   #2596
Issaquatch
Training
 
Issaquatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Issaquah, WA
Bikes: 2015 Focus Mares CX, 2008 Cannondale Supersix
Posts: 294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Am I correct in thinking that if the intensity factor for a very long ride is very high it could be a sign that FTP is set too low? If so, what kind of # would lead you to re-test FTP? I noticed umd's ride report about his race being intense and noting that he was at nearly 0.9 IF for a few hours. I did a hard group ride today and ended up with an IF of 0.93 (TSS 329) for just about 4 hours in the saddle (including more than 1 hour above what I think is my threshold and more than 30 minutes at more than 60 watts above threshold). I'm wondering if this might mean I need to redo my FTP test.

Thoughts?
Issaquatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-10, 11:09 PM   #2597
kudude
slow up hills
 
kudude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes: Giant TCR, Redline CX, Ritchey Breakaway, Spec S-works epic
Posts: 4,931
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Issaquatch View Post
Am I correct in thinking that if the intensity factor for a very long ride is very high it could be a sign that FTP is set too low? If so, what kind of # would lead you to re-test FTP? I noticed umd's ride report about his race being intense and noting that he was at nearly 0.9 IF for a few hours. I did a hard group ride today and ended up with an IF of 0.93 (TSS 329) for just about 4 hours in the saddle (including more than 1 hour above what I think is my threshold and more than 30 minutes at more than 60 watts above threshold). I'm wondering if this might mean I need to redo my FTP test.

was any one of those hours above 1.0?


Thoughts?
0.93 for 4 hrs is a hard ride, but believable (barely). Redo the test if you're curious. Often we see ppl running IF's of 1.1 or so for an hour ----that's a retest
kudude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-10, 11:33 PM   #2598
Ygduf 
\_(ツ)_/
 
Ygduf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Bikes: aggressive agreement is what I ride.
Posts: 9,404
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Issaquatch View Post
Am I correct in thinking that if the intensity factor for a very long ride is very high it could be a sign that FTP is set too low? If so, what kind of # would lead you to re-test FTP? I noticed umd's ride report about his race being intense and noting that he was at nearly 0.9 IF for a few hours. I did a hard group ride today and ended up with an IF of 0.93 (TSS 329) for just about 4 hours in the saddle (including more than 1 hour above what I think is my threshold and more than 30 minutes at more than 60 watts above threshold). I'm wondering if this might mean I need to redo my FTP test.

Thoughts?
yes.
__________________

strava.com/athletes/ygduf
Ygduf is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-10, 11:38 AM   #2599
mattm
**** that
 
mattm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: CALI
Bikes:
Posts: 13,749
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aham23 View Post
the PT virtual CAD is very erratic. it will produce a very high, but false, high. from my experience the AVG number always seems to be correct. if you want a truer real time CAD that produces a correct high then add the Garmin CAD sensor to your setup. this is what most do who are concerned about CAD in my neck of the woods.

since i got power, i kind of stopped paying attention to CAD. i still find HR data interesting, but dont focus on it either. good luck. later.
My PT's cadence reading is accurate from about 40 rpm to 160 rpm; that's what they advertise, and this is also what I've observed. I have not seen any huge #'s or spikes come out of the data, fwiw. (PT Pro+)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Issaquatch View Post
Am I correct in thinking that if the intensity factor for a very long ride is very high it could be a sign that FTP is set too low? If so, what kind of # would lead you to re-test FTP? I noticed umd's ride report about his race being intense and noting that he was at nearly 0.9 IF for a few hours. I did a hard group ride today and ended up with an IF of 0.93 (TSS 329) for just about 4 hours in the saddle (including more than 1 hour above what I think is my threshold and more than 30 minutes at more than 60 watts above threshold). I'm wondering if this might mean I need to redo my FTP test.

Thoughts?
Yes, definitely too high.

What I would do is toy with your FTP until the IF comes out more believable. Might be hard to do without a bunch of known-good long rides, but that's what I would do. Or you could re-test.
__________________
cat 1.

blog
mattm is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-10, 11:57 AM   #2600
aham23
grilled cheesus
 
aham23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 8675309
Bikes: 2010 CAAD9 Custom, 06 Giant TCR C2 & 05 Specialized Hardrock Sport
Posts: 6,946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
^^^^ is th real time CAD all over the place? i typically get a reported high of 200 plus, but i dont really pay that much attention to it anymore. later.
__________________
aham23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:43 PM.