Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    260
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Clydes with Powermeters: How much do you output???

    Cruising, spirited, peak?

    Totally just curious here, there is no real cycling or scientific relevance to this inquiry, lol

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    690
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wonder about this too. Even though we may be slower than our slimmer counterparts I bet we put out a lot more power to haul ourselves around.

  3. #3
    Pedals, Paddles and Poles Daspydyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Btw the Mohave desert and AREA 51
    My Bikes
    Scott Spark 20, Orbea Orca
    Posts
    5,210
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I guess we spend our money on food and not power meters. I would like to know myself.
    I think its disgusting and terrible how people treat Lance Armstrong, especially after winning 7 Tour de France Titles while on drugs!

    I can't even find my bike when I'm on drugs. -Willie N.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    301
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    http://www.noping.net/english/ has an interesting, somewhat accurate model for how much power it takes to go a certain speed. By no means is it bang on, but it will give you a rough idea - assuming you put the correct figures in.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    My Bikes
    Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Pro, Schwinn Typhoon, Nashbar touring, custom steel MTB
    Posts
    5,148
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brightwork View Post
    By no means is it bang on, but it will give you a rough idea - assuming you put the correct figures in.
    It's definitely not "bang on". In fact it seems pretty inaccurate. Which is to say: I own a PowerTap Pro+ power meter and a Garmin Edge 705 and the numbers they produce never seem to match the website.

    To answer the original question: I'm down to a svelte (for me) 175lbs. Last time I did a test, ages ago, my FTP (Functional Threshold Power) was around 240 watts. During an all-out sprint, I think the highest number I've seen was around 980 watts... and that was only for a few milliseconds, I'm sure!

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    260
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thanks, that is good info, although you are tiny! 175, why are you even in the clyde section! haha

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Jeeze according to that I'm putting out more watts then Contador and Shleck, so yeah I'm not sure how accurate it is.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Herbie53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    6,093
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by the_doughboy View Post
    Jeeze according to that I'm putting out more watts then Contador and Shleck, so yeah I'm not sure how accurate it is.
    It's not hard to put on more watts that AC, but it's next to impossible to match his watts/kg. Stupid denominator!
    "Today me will live in the moment, unless it's unpleasant, then me will eat cookie." -Cookie Monster

  9. #9
    gbg
    gbg is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just got one for my MTB a while ago.

    I am around 260 on a 21lb Kona Kula Primo hardtail. I ride with 2.0 semi knobby tires at 40-50 lbs (40 if i am lazy and don't pump them up, 50 if I pump them up before a ride.
    It is pretty hard to really get an accurate number because even if the ground looks 100% level it always seems to have slight variations and it amazing how little rise/fall
    can affect the wattage.

    But generally I have found.

    1) Flat, no wind 28kph (17.5 mph) about 230-250 watts,this is my criusing speed (1.5 - 2.5 hr rides).
    Not my average speed since I ride in the city and my last 39 mile ride had 25 stops to ZERO mph (and quite a few more to almost 0),
    That brings my avg speed to around 16mph (my powertap doesn't have the zero stop thing so it still
    records my sitting at stop lights, I will have to read the inst's to see if it can ignore this).

    2) My first ride I "pushed it" up a bridge underpass and hit 1034 watts sitting in the saddle. Not near 100% effort.

    3) I tried a hard effort a few days later up a hill into the wind so I wouldn't spin out, but I was way overgeared
    and only hit 1300 watts ( it was significantly harder that the 1034 watt effort).
    I need to do a real 100% effort to see what I can hit.

    4) Maintaining 28-30 kph (17.5 - 18.75mph) up even small inclines 1-2 degrees max can easily push the wattage from 250 to 400-600watts.
    Hills really eat up the wattage especially the heavier you are.

    5) It is windy up here a lot of the time and I have seen 280-320 watts produce 20 kph (12.5 mph) many times.

    Before the power meter when I rode my Trek Madone 6.9 it seemed to easily be good for an extra 2-3 mph, so I assume
    if I had a power meter on this I would be going that much faster with the same wattage.
    Last edited by gbg; 07-29-10 at 10:07 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,282
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by the_doughboy View Post
    Jeeze according to that I'm putting out more watts then Contador and Shleck, so yeah I'm not sure how accurate it is.
    The formulas it, and other calculators, (like the ones at Analytical cycling ) are built from actual measurements of actual bikes in actual use. Kreuzotter make a bunch of assumptions that make data entry much easier (they calculate rider's frontal area using a formula based on rider weight and height, for instance) that somewhat degrade the accuracy. But given accurate input, they're reasonably accurate.

    It's W/kg that matter for cycling performance, not just W.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    My Bikes
    Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Pro, Schwinn Typhoon, Nashbar touring, custom steel MTB
    Posts
    5,148
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dscheidt View Post
    But given accurate input, they're reasonably accurate.
    It sure looks to me like noping overestimates the influence of wind and underestimates the importance of weight. Either that, or my PowerTap is wildly inaccurate. Based on the amount of weight I've lost, I tend to trust the PowerTap...

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,282
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When it was on kreuzotter.de, there were a whole bunch of citations, to people who had wind tunnels and had written about it. You're probably overestimating the windspeed your riding in, underestimating the slope of what you think are flat sections, and neglecting to consider time spent accelerating. (All are very common, and hard to measure without instruments.) Weight matters not a whole lot to maintaining a constant speed on level ground; the weight term gets swamped by air drag at 15 or so mph. it matters a great deal when you try and accelerate it, which Kruezotter doesn't consider. (and just a couple stops can kill average speed.) and even tiny hills change power output amazingly. A 0.5% grade -- six inches in a one hundred feet, 26 feet in a mile, an angle of 0.29 degrees -- is enough to make you work harder on it.

  13. #13
    gbg
    gbg is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually weight "is good" on the flats. A body in motion tends to stay in motion. Therefore
    once you are up to speed it is better to be heavy, you are less affected by wind gusts, etc.
    If all your extra weight is not fat, your frontal area does not go up that fast with increased weight, so in theory
    you have more muscle to propel a smaller percentage of frontal area. It is also good for downhills.

    The place weight sucks is acceleration and climbs.
    I notice when I jump up a gear it seems difficult to accelerate that extra 2-3 kph (to maintain your cadence),
    but once there the effort reduces signficantly.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    My Bikes
    Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Pro, Schwinn Typhoon, Nashbar touring, custom steel MTB
    Posts
    5,148
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dscheidt View Post
    When it was on kreuzotter.de, there were a whole bunch of citations, to people who had wind tunnels and had written about it. You're probably overestimating the windspeed your riding in, underestimating the slope of what you think are flat sections, and neglecting to consider time spent accelerating. (All are very common, and hard to measure without instruments.) Weight matters not a whole lot to maintaining a constant speed on level ground; the weight term gets swamped by air drag at 15 or so mph. it matters a great deal when you try and accelerate it, which Kruezotter doesn't consider. (and just a couple stops can kill average speed.) and even tiny hills change power output amazingly. A 0.5% grade -- six inches in a one hundred feet, 26 feet in a mile, an angle of 0.29 degrees -- is enough to make you work harder on it.
    Sounds like you're agreeing with me: the website is a terrible approximation of real-world power output.

    Given a choice between the website and the PowerTap, I'm more likely to believe the PowerTap since it's measuring the real-world. FWIW,

    - I use the Garmin's estimate for road slope. It seems to match pretty closely with data from Google

    - During a 30- or 40-mile ride, acceleration seems to have little impact on average power output. Which makes sense: the average is time-weighted and I only spend a handful of minutes accelerating at 600+ watts versus hours grinding along at 200w

    - Using this chart it should be pretty easy to estimate wind speed. Lots of room for error... but the errors don't seem to be big enough to account for the differences between the PT and website.

  15. #15
    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've used a PT SL+ for about a year and am 195lbs but was around 215 when I got it. Problem with just power is you can sit up and hammer for an hour and see a pretty high avg. power but speed will be in the tank. On the flipside you can tuck down and get more speed but power will be lower. It's trying to find that balance that's the challenge.

    My numbers are similar to others. Not sure how much they mean but here they are (source PerfPro).

    FTP: 237w
    1 min: 309w
    Max: 1137w
    Endurance rides: 180w @ 18 mph @ ~4 hours
    Training: 217w @ 19.6 mph @ 1.5 hours
    Hammerfests: 240w @ 21 mph @ <1 hour (with usual max of 870w)
    Sprint (sitting): 334w @ 30mph @ 10 seconds (with usual max of >1000w but it fades fast)

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    301
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dscheidt View Post
    When it was on kreuzotter.de, there were a whole bunch of citations, to people who had wind tunnels and had written about it. You're probably overestimating the windspeed your riding in, underestimating the slope of what you think are flat sections, and neglecting to consider time spent accelerating. (All are very common, and hard to measure without instruments.) Weight matters not a whole lot to maintaining a constant speed on level ground; the weight term gets swamped by air drag at 15 or so mph. it matters a great deal when you try and accelerate it, which Kruezotter doesn't consider. (and just a couple stops can kill average speed.) and even tiny hills change power output amazingly. A 0.5% grade -- six inches in a one hundred feet, 26 feet in a mile, an angle of 0.29 degrees -- is enough to make you work harder on it.
    Well said. A model of a perfect ride is one thing - my real world, 90 minute rides will many times have 30 stops.

  17. #17
    Banned. Mr. Beanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Upland Ca
    My Bikes
    Lemond Chambery/Cannondale R-900/Trek 8000 MTB/Burley Duet tandem
    Posts
    20,031
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I have no power so I don't worry about it!

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    My Bikes
    Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Pro, Schwinn Typhoon, Nashbar touring, custom steel MTB
    Posts
    5,148
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brightwork View Post
    Well said. A model of a perfect ride is one thing - my real world, 90 minute rides will many times have 30 stops.
    The question is: how much time do you spend accelerating?

    For me, it only seems to take a few pedal strokes to get back up to 15-20mph. By the time I cross an intersection I can be back up to speed. Probably only 5-10 seconds? So on a 90-minute ride with 30 stops, I'd spend 2.5-5 minutes accelerating and 85-87.5 minutes cruising. Assume cruising is 200w and accelerating is 500w. Average power would be 208-217 watts. Less than a 10% difference. In my case, I probably only stop 5-10 times during my normal 30-mile training route, so the impact is even smaller...

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,282
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    top crit racers pull about 0.2g: 2 m/s/s. Most of us can't do that, half of that is doing well. At 0.1 m/s/s, it takes 9 seconds to get back to 9 m/s (which is just over 20 mph). Average speed for the 9 seconds will be 4.5 m/s, so distance covered is 40.5 m. Let's assume the deceleration to a stop is done at the same rate, so we're covering a total 81 m at the average of 4.5 m/s.

    Now, lets look at a measured mile. We hit the beginning of the mile at our 9 m/s, stop somewhere in the middle, accelerate back to our 9 m/s. A mile is 1609 m. If we don't stop, it would take 179 seconds. If we stop, it will take 18 seconds for starting and stopping, plus (1609 m - 81m) /9 m/s = 170 seconds, total 188 seconds. average speed is 1609 m / 188 s = 8.55 m/s. 9 m/s is 20.1 mph; 8.55 is 19.1. One stop a mile costs this rider a mph, at this speed. It'll be more at higher speed, less at lower speed. And a bit more in real life, because most people don't accelerate and decelerate that fast. Worse if you have to wait for a light or something.

  20. #20
    gbg
    gbg is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sstorkel View Post
    The question is: how much time do you spend accelerating?

    For me, it only seems to take a few pedal strokes to get back up to 15-20mph. By the time I cross an intersection I can be back up to speed. Probably only 5-10 seconds? So on a 90-minute ride with 30 stops, I'd spend 2.5-5 minutes accelerating and 85-87.5 minutes cruising. Assume cruising is 200w and accelerating is 500w. Average power would be 208-217 watts. Less than a 10% difference. In my case, I probably only stop 5-10 times during my normal 30-mile training route, so the impact is even smaller...

    That must be an 8 lane intersection. It's not only accellerating.

    In my 39 mile ride with 25+ stops (over the entire ride), in the first 22 minutes I see 4-5 stops in the 20-50+ second range waiting on lights.
    Most of my stops are more than 10 seconds, not including decceleration/acceleration.
    The longest section 25 minutes with out stops (12 under 5 mph slow downs) my avg speed was 17.5, which I think is about
    my average "moving speed". A few days before the same section I only got past 15 minutes with out stops but I had a 17.9 avg.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    My Bikes
    Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Pro, Schwinn Typhoon, Nashbar touring, custom steel MTB
    Posts
    5,148
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dscheidt View Post
    top crit racers pull about 0.2g: 2 m/s/s. Most of us can't do that, half of that is doing well. At 0.1 m/s/s, it takes 9 seconds to get back to 9 m/s (which is just over 20 mph). Average speed for the 9 seconds will be 4.5 m/s, so distance covered is 40.5 m. Let's assume the deceleration to a stop is done at the same rate, so we're covering a total 81 m at the average of 4.5 m/s.
    Thanks for all of the useless speed estimates and calculations. How does this tie back into our discussion about power? Or the inaccuracies of certain websites which estimate it?

  22. #22
    Senior Member kleinboogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,602
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Beanz View Post
    I have no power so I don't worry about it!
    When I told a buddy that I was getting a PT he said he didn't want one because it would just tell him he was old and slow. Turns out, he was right.

Posting Permissions

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