Old 03-28-20 | 12:53 AM
  #19  
SethAZ's Avatar
SethAZ
Senior Member
Titanium Club Membership
10 Anniversary
 
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,394
Likes: 334

Bikes: 2018 Lynskey R260, 2005 Diamondback 29er, 2003 Trek 2300

Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest
You do want zeros included in your average power. Simplest reason: they happened. There are only a handful of things AP is better for than NP (average, normalized) and they'll all lead you down there wrong path if you omit zeros.
Hmm. I'd be interested in hearing more about why you think the zeros should be in there. Yes, they happened, and I'm not trying to hide that fact from myself. The reason I didn't want the zeros included is because I wanted to use average power to reflect what power output I was generating during the times I was pedaling. It's possible that other stats are more useful than this, and I've started learning about these. On your advice I just turned zeros back on in the averaging settings on the 530.

I'm actually having a little issue I'm trying to deal with right now, where L/R torque balance and torque smoothing showed up in my ride data from today on the 530, but it shows 66% L and 0% R, so I've unpaired everything and started over, but haven't done a test ride yet to see if that fixed things.

On my short ride today I recorded it on the Fenix 5 and the 530 in order to compare them, and with zeros NOT in the averaging the 530 was nearly 20W higher. While that doesn't reflect the true average over the whole ride, it does at least tell me that my output while actually pedaling was nearly 20 W higher than just looking at the avg. from the Fenix 5 was showing it as. I do recognize that I should probably just ignore this and look at NP instead.
SethAZ is offline  
Reply