Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 104 of 263 FirstFirst ... 45494102103104105106114154204 ... LastLast
Results 2,576 to 2,600 of 6560
  1. #2576
    Training Issaquatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Issaquah, WA
    My Bikes
    2015 Focus Mares CX, 2008 Cannondale Supersix
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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...

  2. #2577
    slow up hills kudude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    My Bikes
    Giant TCR, Redline CX, Ritchey Breakaway, Spec S-works epic
    Posts
    4,931
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_tom View Post
    Cycling isn't a sport. It's more like a really, really expensive eating disorder.

  3. #2578
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Italy
    My Bikes
    2014 Specialized Roubaix Pro
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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. :/

  4. #2579
    slow up hills kudude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    My Bikes
    Giant TCR, Redline CX, Ritchey Breakaway, Spec S-works epic
    Posts
    4,931
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    well, you could always do you test on the hoods with a brake rubbing. Should keep right around the needed 22mph (or not).
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_tom View Post
    Cycling isn't a sport. It's more like a really, really expensive eating disorder.

  5. #2580
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jackson, NH
    My 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)
    20 minutes on a trainer

  6. #2581
    Senior Member tallmantim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  7. #2582
    Throw the stick!!!! LowCel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Charleston, WV
    My Bikes
    GMC Denali
    Posts
    17,587
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(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.

  8. #2583
    Senior Member johnybutts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    My Bikes
    Type of horse.
    Posts
    3,221
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  9. #2584
    Huge Member RacerMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ittybittycity, MD
    My Bikes
    2009 BMC Team Machine, Pedal Force RS2, Salsa Campeon, Jamis Nova, Trek 7000
    Posts
    636
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  10. #2585
    Arrogant Roadie Punk save10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,099
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  11. #2586
    grilled cheesus aham23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    8675309
    My Bikes
    2010 CAAD9 Custom, 06 Giant TCR C2 & 05 Specialized Hardrock Sport
    Posts
    6,933
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  12. #2587
    Throw the stick!!!! LowCel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Charleston, WV
    My Bikes
    GMC Denali
    Posts
    17,587
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(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.

  13. #2588
    **** that mattm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    CALI
    Posts
    11,396
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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

  14. #2589
    Throw the stick!!!! LowCel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Charleston, WV
    My Bikes
    GMC Denali
    Posts
    17,587
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(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.

  15. #2590
    **** that mattm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    CALI
    Posts
    11,396
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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

  16. #2591
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Italy
    My Bikes
    2014 Specialized Roubaix Pro
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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!!

  17. #2592
    Throw the stick!!!! LowCel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Charleston, WV
    My Bikes
    GMC Denali
    Posts
    17,587
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(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.

  18. #2593
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Kalifornia
    My Bikes
    '07 Excalibur, '08 Anthem 1, and some others
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  19. #2594
    Senior Member kleinboogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,602
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  20. #2595
    grilled cheesus aham23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    8675309
    My Bikes
    2010 CAAD9 Custom, 06 Giant TCR C2 & 05 Specialized Hardrock Sport
    Posts
    6,933
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  21. #2596
    Training Issaquatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Issaquah, WA
    My Bikes
    2015 Focus Mares CX, 2008 Cannondale Supersix
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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?

  22. #2597
    slow up hills kudude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    My Bikes
    Giant TCR, Redline CX, Ritchey Breakaway, Spec S-works epic
    Posts
    4,931
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_tom View Post
    Cycling isn't a sport. It's more like a really, really expensive eating disorder.

  23. #2598
    \_(ツ)_/ Ygduf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Redwood City, CA
    My Bikes
    road bikes
    Posts
    6,126
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

    twitter.com/ygduf
    strava.com/athletes/ygduf

  24. #2599
    **** that mattm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    CALI
    Posts
    11,396
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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

  25. #2600
    grilled cheesus aham23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    8675309
    My Bikes
    2010 CAAD9 Custom, 06 Giant TCR C2 & 05 Specialized Hardrock Sport
    Posts
    6,933
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •