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


Go Back   > >

Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-03-06, 04:01 AM   #1
EURO
My toilet-Floyd's future
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Power Profiling, where do you sit?



The number is power output in watts/bodyweight in kilos.

To determine your power output you need to time yourself doing a certain measured effort. A flat out performance on the flat, or riding a hill that you know the length and % incline of.

Then put it into this calculator

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

The important thing to take into account is the time categories, because you can put out much more power over 5s than FT (continual effort).

For me, I only have figures for last year, where I put out 270 watts for just over an hour up Alpe d'Huez. My weight was 67 kilos, so that's a P/W ratio of 4.02 FT power output, putting me (last year) between 'good' (cat 3) and 'very good' (cat 2). Armstrong did Alpe d'Huez putting out 516w in the time trial. He was 75 kilos, giving him a P/W ratio of 6.88 - i.e. off the scale.

Where do you sit?
EURO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 04:14 AM   #2
F1_Fan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Bikes:
Posts: 1,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I do a 7-ish minute hill climb as a test every couple of months. My best from last season was 75 kg and 300W (Powertap)... 4.00 W/kg. Adjusting slightly for 5 minutes that might be more like 4.1 W/kg. Moderate Cat 4. I race Cat 4/Master so that's about right for me.
F1_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 05:52 AM   #3
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)
According to my powertap after doing 30 minutes tempo I have been coming up right at 3.8:1 lately. Getting an average power of 295 - 297 watts and I weigh 77.5 kilo's (171 pounds). I'm looking forward to going all out for 30 minutes to see what I come up with.

I guess that puts me in the good (Cat 3) category. I'm entering my first cat 5 race here in a couple of weeks. Hopefully I won't be embarassed.
__________________
I may be fat but I'm slow enough to make up for it.

Last edited by LowCel; 02-03-06 at 06:46 AM.
LowCel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 06:22 AM   #4
56/12 and 22/28
Stop it.
 
56/12 and 22/28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Weight Weenie-land.
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Hardrock Pro w/ slicks, flipped stem and HB, 2003 Colnago Dream with full Dura-Ace 7700 double, 2001 Bianchi XL Boron/Daytona, Mavic Open Pro/Campy Centaur/DT Champion built wheels.
Posts: 1,607
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm "Good".

Hope I get better.
56/12 and 22/28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 07:37 AM   #5
Voodoo76
Blast from the Past
 
Voodoo76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Schertz TX
Bikes: Ridley Excal, CAAD10, Dolan PreCursa
Posts: 2,806
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Never spent any time on a powertap. But what was interesting on the chart is that if I go by max effort (eg 200m time) I come up with 18.82 at the top of Cat 2, if I go by 40K im down around 4.20 down around the 2/3 border. Thats about how I raced, plenty of speed no endurance.
Voodoo76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 08:00 AM   #6
2Rodies
El Diablo
 
2Rodies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Austin Tx, Ex So Cal
Bikes: Cannondale CAAD8/Record 10s, Felt DA700 Chorus 10s,
Posts: 2,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowCel
According to my powertap after doing 30 minutes tempo I have been coming up right at 3.8:1 lately. Getting an average power of 295 - 297 watts and I weigh 77.5 kilo's (171 pounds). I'm looking forward to going all out for 30 minutes to see what I come up with.

I guess that puts me in the good (Cat 3) category. I'm entering my first cat 5 race here in a couple of weeks. Hopefully I won't be embarassed.

Lowcel you and I are very close in our power to weight catagories. I make less power in my cp30 range but I weight about 21 pounds less than you. Based on these numbers, like you, I'm a good cat 3. I believe this to be true to an extent. I've done a lot of race simulation training rides with cat 2's and 3's. Where I know that I can't even come close to these guys is at the end in the sprints. I just get shelled. From what my team mates who are 3's tell me the road races in the 3's are mainly tempo riding till near the end. The selection is made. but unike the 4's the selection is usually bigger. Then it's a sprint to the end. At this point I'd just be fodder in a 3's field. Still at 44 (45 in just over 9 weeks) I'm pretty happy with my abilities and my form is getting better every day. Luckily next season it's all 45+ for this guy!!!
2Rodies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 08:02 AM   #7
NoRacer
Isaias
 
NoRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Essex, MD
Bikes: Ridley X-Fire (carbon, white)
Posts: 5,182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
According to the book "War", Ferrari checks (well, used to check) whether Armstrong is ready for the TdF when his power output at LT is 6.7W/kg.

Last edited by NoRacer; 02-03-06 at 08:13 AM.
NoRacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 09:05 AM   #8
R600DuraAce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NYC
Bikes:
Posts: 915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My "real" FT (1 full hour average power output) is 235w. 3.8w/kg. Average HR 172. My 20 minutes average power is about 250w. Again, power to weight ratio is only relevant to climbing. Raw power and speed will always faster on the flat, unless the heavier riders get all tired before the finish line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EURO


The number is power output in watts/bodyweight in kilos.

To determine your power output you need to time yourself doing a certain measured effort. A flat out performance on the flat, or riding a hill that you know the length and % incline of.

Then put it into this calculator

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

The important thing to take into account is the time categories, because you can put out much more power over 5s than FT (continual effort).

For me, I only have figures for last year, where I put out 270 watts for just over an hour up Alpe d'Huez. My weight was 67 kilos, so that's a P/W ratio of 4.02 FT power output, putting me (last year) between 'good' (cat 3) and 'very good' (cat 2). Armstrong did Alpe d'Huez putting out 516w in the time trial. He was 75 kilos, giving him a P/W ratio of 6.88 - i.e. off the scale.

Where do you sit?
R600DuraAce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 09:25 AM   #9
pedex 
dystopian member
 
pedex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 5,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
4.9, hour
pedex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 09:29 AM   #10
shawneebiker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Kansas City Area
Bikes: Whatever I want
Posts: 427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EURO


The number is power output in watts/bodyweight in kilos.

To determine your power output you need to time yourself doing a certain measured effort. A flat out performance on the flat, or riding a hill that you know the length and % incline of.

Then put it into this calculator

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

The important thing to take into account is the time categories, because you can put out much more power over 5s than FT (continual effort).

For me, I only have figures for last year, where I put out 270 watts for just over an hour up Alpe d'Huez. My weight was 67 kilos, so that's a P/W ratio of 4.02 FT power output, putting me (last year) between 'good' (cat 3) and 'very good' (cat 2). Armstrong did Alpe d'Huez putting out 516w in the time trial. He was 75 kilos, giving him a P/W ratio of 6.88 - i.e. off the scale.

Where do you sit?
Good Topic Euro....

I just tested 2 days ago using my new Polar power meter, 277 watts for 20 min. T.T. Unfortunately I'm 35 and weigh 100 kilos. I just starting using power.

By the way I think the Polar power meter gets an unfair bad rap. It was a bit fussy to set up but it seems to be working great........Alot of cool features.
shawneebiker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 09:36 AM   #11
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 R600DuraAce
My "real" FT (1 full hour average power output) is 235w. 3.8w/kg. Average HR 172. My 20 minutes average power is about 250w. Again, power to weight ratio is only relevant to climbing. Raw power and speed will always faster on the flat, unless the heavier riders get all tired before the finish line.
If you are calling the 1 hour the "real" FT then mine is just 289 w. This has me at 3.7:1. That is tempo riding though, haven't done a true test since I received my powertap.

It was actually a 52 minute tempo ride, ran into a traffic problem before I was able to finish the hour. My average heart rate was 149. My zone 3 is 150 - 155.

__________________
I may be fat but I'm slow enough to make up for it.
LowCel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 10:01 AM   #12
sleepystarz
Senior Member
 
sleepystarz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Damn.. that powertap is cool. Wish I had one on my bike. I'm just going to keep going back to that page euro linked and watch my progress over the next year by filling in the blanks each month.
sleepystarz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 10:06 AM   #13
OC Roadie
Out of Commission
 
OC Roadie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: SoCal
Bikes: Felt FC, S-Works Roubaix, Epic Comp, Cyfac Proxidium
Posts: 2,272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Euro- Nice thread and link. I based mine off of a 90 minute climb up Mt Baldy, puts me at ~278 watts over a 90 minute climb for a P/W ratio of 3.78. I need a chart with a 90 minute effort, or I need to go find a 60 minute climb
__________________
If you don't have anything nice to say about anybody, then come sit next to me.
OC Roadie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 10:27 AM   #14
WD_40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Behind enemy lines
Bikes: Kestrel Talon, Trek 1200, Specialized Rockhopper FSR, Specialized Enduro Expert
Posts: 311
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Cool website. Thanks for the link, EURO.
WD_40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 10:35 AM   #15
2Rodies
El Diablo
 
2Rodies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Austin Tx, Ex So Cal
Bikes: Cannondale CAAD8/Record 10s, Felt DA700 Chorus 10s,
Posts: 2,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawneebiker
By the way I think the Polar power meter gets an unfair bad rap. It was a bit fussy to set up but it seems to be working great........Alot of cool features.
The thing about the Polar is that it isn't very accurate. My buddy replaced his with an SRM and he's seen some pretty big difference in the readings. I used a HAC 4 for years (even more inaccurate than the Polar) when I got my PTP I did a side by side comparison. At 300w on the HAC I was reading 720w on the PTP. It was then I realized why I was blowing up on my hill repeats, I was trying to maintain 300w hill repeats on the HAC! Anyway the Polar is still better than nothing, but a PT or SRM are really still the best and most accurate options.
2Rodies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 11:01 AM   #16
Pizza Man
Racing iS my Training
 
Pizza Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Bikes: 07 Bianchi San Jose, 08 Tarmac SL2, 05 Cervelo P3
Posts: 1,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks EURO.

I weigh 63 kg and according to my first lab test a few months ago can maintain 285W, so I'm at 4.5 FT.
I can currently maintain 350W for 5 min, so that's about 5.6 (between Cat 1 & Cat 2).

But, my 5s and 1 min numbers are not much higher, and put me in the Cat 5 range for the sprint. I can't sprint, but my coach has me working on it.

This is why I currently only do well in races with a hill top finish or where I make a break with at least 2 miles to go.
Pizza Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 11:11 AM   #17
rule
Senior Member
 
rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wylie, Texas
Bikes:
Posts: 1,922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Cat 4 range.
__________________
rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 11:30 AM   #18
TheKillerPenguin
Nonsense
 
TheKillerPenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Bikes: Affirmative
Posts: 12,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
5m is at 6.31, putting me between cat1 and domestic pro??? This assumes that the power curve cycleops posted on their website for the Fluid 2 is accurate.

Otherwise, I have a 12:20 effort up a steady 2.2 mi 7.67% climb, at 350W, but thats too long to count as a 5m, and too short to count as FT
TheKillerPenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 11:34 AM   #19
oboeguy
34x25 FTW!
 
oboeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NYC
Bikes: Kona Jake, Scott CR1, Dahon SpeedPro
Posts: 6,013
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I fit into the low-end of the Cat4 range apparently at around 275-285W (on a good day) for 88kg . Heh, nice to know. If I get down to where my weight should be (purely subjective), i.e. around 75kg, I should be able to scratch the bottom of Cat 3.

My "field test" is riding-up "l'Alpine d'Huez" about 9 miles north of the GWB. It's only 2km long if you start from the river level but it's a good test at 7% grade, using a HRM to stay within my limit (Lance's test portrayed in I thank "Lance Armstrong's War" was a 1km hill outside of Girnoa at 10%).

BTW, speaking of Lance in the Alpe d'Huez TT, I've never seen determination as I did on his face as he passed by us. O - M - G. Now I know why... 516W for over half an hour? That's sick!

Edit: clarification
oboeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 12:21 PM   #20
shawneebiker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Kansas City Area
Bikes: Whatever I want
Posts: 427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Rodies
The thing about the Polar is that it isn't very accurate. My buddy replaced his with an SRM and he's seen some pretty big difference in the readings. I used a HAC 4 for years (even more inaccurate than the Polar) when I got my PTP I did a side by side comparison. At 300w on the HAC I was reading 720w on the PTP. It was then I realized why I was blowing up on my hill repeats, I was trying to maintain 300w hill repeats on the HAC! Anyway the Polar is still better than nothing, but a PT or SRM are really still the best and most accurate options.
There's been several comparisons between the two and they are generally within 5%. One of the studies showed the difference between SRM and Polar was as little as 1.7%. I'll be using it to track my progress rather than comparing myself to others

http://web.archive.org/web/200303091...Output_FAQ.pdf

Last edited by shawneebiker; 02-03-06 at 02:08 PM.
shawneebiker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 12:25 PM   #21
pinky
Ink-Stained Wretch
 
pinky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Holyoke, MA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
These threads transfer well from weightweenies, eh Euro?
Well from wattage tests over the last two days on trainer with a powertap, my 1 minute was 7.59 w/kg, my 5 minute was 4.2 w/kg and my 20 minute from yesterday was around 3.7-3.8 (don't have the file on hand). Looks like I need some serious sprint training...but I could've told you that without the tests.

Penguin, trying to copy cycleops curve on the trainer is near impossible because it varies on how hard you press the roller against your wheel, a full twist changed mine from 205 watts at 90rpm in a 53x19 to 225 watts at the same cadence/gear.
pinky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 12:50 PM   #22
simplyred
Lanterne Rouge
 
simplyred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Bikes: Time VX Edge
Posts: 1,993
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Cat 3 Range...
simplyred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 01:43 PM   #23
2Rodies
El Diablo
 
2Rodies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Austin Tx, Ex So Cal
Bikes: Cannondale CAAD8/Record 10s, Felt DA700 Chorus 10s,
Posts: 2,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawneebiker
There's been several comparisons between the two and they are generally within 5%. One of the studies showed the difference between SRM and Polar was as little as 1.7%. I'll be using it to track my progress rather than comparing myself to others.
I've read them also, most of them have one thing in common and that is that the Polar unit only give reliable info if it installed correctly. This is important because getting installed correctly isn't easy. If installed incorrectly it will still give you power information but the accuracy may be in question. This is from of the cyclingnews.com comparison:


The Polar is more difficult to install and can be especially troublesome on bikes with curved chain stays. Note also that the quality of the installation significantly affects the wattage readings of the Polar unit because it determines wattage based off the frequency of chain vibration (vs. the PowerTap which uses strain gauges in the hub). If the sensor is not aligned properly with the chain, it will affect the accuracy of the wattage readings.

With out a doubt the SRM and PT units are more accurate due to the way they gather information by using strain gauges. However using a Polar power unit is by far better than just using HR alone.
2Rodies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 02:18 PM   #24
Mr_Super_Socks
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Bikes: Gilmour lugged steel, Bianchi Volpe, Bike Friday Pocket Rocket
Posts: 881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by oboeguy
My "field test" is riding-up "l'Alpine d'Huez" about 9 miles north of the GWB. It's only 2km long if you start from the river level but it's a good test at 7% grade, using a HRM to stay within my limit (Lance's test portrayed in I thank "Lance Armstrong's War" was a 1km hill outside of Girnoa at 10%).
Interesting. I always shoot to average at least 10mph up that hill for my Nyack rides. Since it's at the beginning of a much longer ride, I usually try to keep myself at a reasonable HR. That calculator is telling me I'm putting out 328 watts up the hill if I average just 10mph. At 71.3kg, that's a 4.6W/kg over a 12 minute period.

Are you sure it's a 7% avg grade? 4.6 seems to put me higher on that chart than I would have expected. I am going to get my USCF license this year and I want to start racing, but I'm doing the ALpine d'Huez test this weekend to get a mor accurate reading.
Mr_Super_Socks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-06, 02:20 PM   #25
shawneebiker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Kansas City Area
Bikes: Whatever I want
Posts: 427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Rodies
I've read them also, most of them have one thing in common and that is that the Polar unit only give reliable info if it installed correctly. This is important because getting installed correctly isn't easy. If installed incorrectly it will still give you power information but the accuracy may be in question. This is from of the cyclingnews.com comparison:


The Polar is more difficult to install and can be especially troublesome on bikes with curved chain stays. Note also that the quality of the installation significantly affects the wattage readings of the Polar unit because it determines wattage based off the frequency of chain vibration (vs. the PowerTap which uses strain gauges in the hub). If the sensor is not aligned properly with the chain, it will affect the accuracy of the wattage readings.

With out a doubt the SRM and PT units are more accurate due to the way they gather information by using strain gauges. However using a Polar power unit is by far better than just using HR alone.
I agree its not as good as SRM and PT but since I already had the S725 it seemed like a good alternative to dropping $$$ on the other systems. SRM is way out of budget.. For the price I think its a very viable solution for power. I think its a good alternative if you already have one of the Polar units......I like the Polar software....

It's not much harder than installing a wired cycling computer. If you do your homework ahead of time....

I'm still not sure that if I was going to purchase a PT or Polar again that I wouldn't go with the Polar. We'll see how It works out in the next few months...

See this link: http://web.archive.org/web/200303091...Output_FAQ.pdf
shawneebiker 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 04:41 AM.