rankin116

Well, I don't know. I brushed it off as normal variation between different devices measuring at different point, etc. I think two SRMs should give very close numbers, but is it reasonable to expect that from different devices made by different manufacturers? As a scientist I think that kind of variation is completely within reason, but what would worry me more is if the repeatability of measurements within the same device is off, that's bad.

You've got me thinking now though, how can I check the accuracy and precision of my PT hub?

mike868y

notable exception being dz_nuzz

TheKillerPenguin

You ever zero the hub? It should be within a very specific range, or close to it. They do auto zero, but if it's out of spec I'm not sure it works well.

Seriously though...position matters a ton. Going from forward and tall to back and flat has done wonders to my speed/power ratio.

rankin116

I use a Garmin 705 still, so I use the 'calibrate power' before every ride and it gives me a number. What that means I don't know. Perhaps a little research is due on my part!

mattm

I read that for the 705 "calibrate" just shows you the ID of the PT hub, it's not actually zeroing the hub.

But maybe there's a "zero" option somewhere in the newer 705 firmware?

As long as it shows 0 while coasting, I feel like that's a pretty good measure. (is it not?)

rankin116

I think that's when you pair it. When I use 'calibrate' the number I get back varies from day to day but is always within a small range. I forget the first digit now that I'm not looking at it, but x45-x55 or so.

Man, now I'm all worried and being geeky, I think I might start writing these down!

jsk

Powertap Garmin calibration check

I haven't gotten around to trying this yet but keep meaning to do so, especially since I have more than one PT hub and would like to know just how closely they report (they seem reasonable judging from RP, but still).

topflightpro

I've owned a PowerTap, Quarq (three of them actually) and SRM (in that order). I have found that my FTP was different on each of the devices, and not in the order I would have expected. When I went from the PT to the Quarq, my FTP fell by about 15w. Then going from the Quarq to the SRM, it fell another 10 or so. Nothing changed in my training or performance that would have justified such a change. I now have two SRMs, and they give me nearly identical figures.

So, I basically chalk it up to how the devices measure and report numbers. And if you look at any of the comparisons that DC Rainmaker does, you can often see that meters scale differently.

mattm

Ah yeah you're right, that number is what it should be, not the 6-digit number that's the hub id.

I basically don't know what I'm talking about!

grolby

In the case of people like myself, probably Kolie, and possibly Sam, the fact that we have such a large anaerobic contribution to our power production in "endurance" time frames like 20' likely has a lot to do with it. I also really lose a lot of my ability to produce sprint or anaerobic power after a couple hours. Most likely because I'm tapping into it a lot more than you are. So I can climb pretty well for 20', but after that I'm basically empty. I still haven't figured out what to do about this, or have even necessarily determined to my full satisfaction that it's what's happening because damn it I want to be good at these races.

Resisting the temptation here to make cracks about West coast cross. I know quite a few exceptions. I do seem to know fewer people whose cross category matches their road category than people who have the same category. We have quite a few 1s and 2s on the road here who are 3s and even 4s in cross with not much prospect of upgrading in the short term. Besides, I'm not sure how valid the comparison is, jokes notwithstanding. There's major regional variation in the competitiveness of the lower/intermediate cyclocross categories, at least from my own experience and talking to others. The good elite racers are fast everywhere, but the 3/4 races in New England, for example, are ridiculously competitive compared to the South for example. The kind of fitness that got me top 5s and podiums in Tennessee as a 3 was good for like 40th place in New England. You do have to adjust for starting at the back of a 60+ rider grid vs a 16 rider grid, and Tennessee is an extreme example the cross scene is so small, but still.

grolby

SICK BURN. But we have a few local Cat 1s (on the road) who are worse at cross than me.

TheKillerPenguin

That's interesting, i've heard the opposite from a couple of people. Technology!!! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

TexMac

Wednesday another double crit. 4/5 10th and 3/4 15th
Racing is funny/weird. Racing 4/5 crit it feels harder coz of the silly 30-40 sec accelerations allover and sketchy finishes. 3/4 though harder feels much easier and have juice left for last lap. Problem being i get my door shut or teams swarming last minute.
Need to figure which one i'm going to start win before moving to Cat 3

hubcyclist

2hrs 100TSS both yesterday and today, been trying out the specialized power, mainly based on how much people seem to love it. so far so good, not great yet, so hopefully with a few more uses i'll get a good sense of whether it's a keeper

wktmeow

I just made the switch from a Romin. Seems slightly more comfortable when low and aero, slightly less comfortable sitting up right. Also it doesn't play nice with some of my cheaper bibs. They wiggle around and make it hard to find a good position.

dz_nuzz

Ah yes, my horrendous turning skills. A source of much amusement to my friends and embarrassment for myself.

Didn't I beat you in every single cross race we did together last year?

mike868y

probably, yeah...but you beat me by a lot less than you do in road races!

TheKillerPenguin

I was gonna do an easy hour spin today but it's a bit drizzly out. So instead I didn't, and stretched a bunch.

These little rebellions keep me going. First world anarchy!

tetonrider

how often do you train at intensity for >20'? i.e., you can work on pushing your ability to sustain pace/effort to 21', 22', etc., just as you can raise your anaerobic capacity so that your present-day 20' capability puts less a toll on you.

if i were your coach, i'd also start wondering about your vo2max (can estimate that from data sets) -- and perhaps more importantly

inability to sprint after a few hours also makes me curious about your fueling during the event. could be that you are simply just spent because you were operating at too high an intensity, or it could be something missing nutritionally.

if we had some lactate testing on you, we could also see how efficient (or not) you are at sub-LT (which gets ignored by many), and then my bet is we'd be working to push that out a bit. if we can delay tapping into your reserves (your sprint sounds pretty good), then you may actually have it to push up and over that climb or jump out of a break at the end of a race.

all of this is just some musings based on reading a few of your posts and talking about where i might look for clues, which could then be addressed through training. i obviously don't know you/your training history, so i'm sure there is something i'm missing or new information that you'll provide which could invalidate all the above.

Ygduf

I went out and did an easy 40 miles today during work. Ate at the dining hall and had a huge salad with fresh beets, chic peas, chicken. Unfolded my new camping cot in my office and took a 30-minute nap.

Pretty happy with the day, all things considered.

caloso

Did some openers at lunch time and will take a super mellow detour home tonight.

grolby

Well, to be fair I don't often train at intensity over 20'. Generally once I'm going that long, I'm doing tempo intervals (3x20 or 3x30) to build my aerobic engine (I'm amazed by how successful this has been). I haven't generally done more extended SST or kitchen sink workouts. Another issue I've only recently come to terms with is poor strength, especially core strength. Which is making it difficult to do my training this week cause my muscles are still fried from a rough weekend (hard RR then MTB). So I'm really trying to start addressing this in a serious way. There's probably a lot I could do on all this stuff.

The thing about my coaching relationship is, it's super-affordable and he does a good job. But that does mean things like lactate and/or VO2 testing aren't really available. We're trying to figure this out. VO2 max is an interesting question because my power profile leans a bit toward the pursuitist side. I've always been able to go fast for 2-3 minutes, so when it turned out my 2' max was something like 430w at 7.7 w/kg that wasn't a complete shock but it's a tool I haven't really figured out how to use. My sprint is mediocre, though, max 5' a little over 900. Another coach friend of mine thinks if I were to actually do sprint work and weights I could raise that considerably. Maybe.

Thing is I really just don't know where to start. The irony is despite having been racing bikes to some degree for a while, I'm still in a comparatively early point in my development because of multiple years essentially lost to injury and life stuff. I've only been coached for a little over a year and my improvement has been dramatic but it's hard not to get frustrated cause it feels like I've been running in place for years.

tetonrider

hey--just want to underscore that i'm operating on limited information. i hope i'm not overstepping any bounds; it just sounded like you were posing some questions, kind of putting things up for discussion.


well, there you go. that's new info.

seems like you have defined the weakness, clearly, but perhaps just don't want to address it. it would be painful.

this is one of those 'all watts are not created equal things'. give me 2 riders with equal power profiles and the one with core strength will "magically" ride better, climb better.

those big, ambitious core routines -- i find -- tend not to last as people burn out. doing stuff as simple at 10' a day, but doing so 5-6 days a week, tends to result in bigger gains.

is kind of joke, though little things done consistently become meaningful.

i tend to think of it like i do with training -- adding feathers to a balance. sometimes changes are too small to detect on a daily basis, maybe additional grams of force on the pedals for example. you'll be amazed

once again, my comments were not a commentary on your coach -- just some musings on training. i have no idea about your training history nor did i even know you are being coached.

there are ways to make some estimates -- excellent estimates -- of vo2max and other key inflection points based on your actual data. hell, if you sent me a bunch of training files i bet i can tell your vo2max within a couple ml/kg/min of what a lab test would tell you.

now, that's just a # and it tells us about your physiology and perhaps where you are in your training; what you actually do with your skills in a race is a separate matter.

i was mainly curious about it not so much to see your peak (you already have a sense of that) but rather to get a sense of metabolic efficiency at sub-LT.

it's a bit more complex than that...just giving an idea of where i'd start to probe.

sorry if dumb. but "i have a coach" and "i don't know where to start" makes me scratch my head. shouldn't s/he be able to help? i'm all for having a coach or self-coaching, but if you're doing the former they should be saving you some of that trouble.

in theory.

i think if you read back your posts you'll see that you have defined a weakness in your racing. i'm not saying it is the only weakness or even the right weakness to focus on, but you clearly perceive it that way. so, if you are confident in yourself (and you seem pretty damn thoughtful/analytical to me), then trust your sense and work on it. focus on pushing your power a bit beyond current levels for durations near 20'(intensive), and balance that with intervals slightly longer than 20' and a bit lower power (extensive).

we can measure it and track your progress pretty easily; bet it would be a matter of weeks.

again, ymmv, my $0.02, wtfdik, etc.

grolby

You're not overstepping bounds. I'm always interested in what someone else thinks.

When I say "I don't know where to start," it's more in the sense of, what do I commit to? Going longer and harder in the hopes that will turn things around for me in road races, or do I worry it's too big a risk and no matter how I try I'm just not built for these things - a real fear I have - and my time is better spent on going after crits or something. Now, maybe these things aren't mutually exclusive. I don't know. But my tendency is to flail a bit when presented with multiple lines of info and multiple possible approaches. That's one reason having a coach has been so beneficial - he says, do this and I do it. But I do need to know what I want out of it. Don't get me wrong, I feel good about how that's going, but it hasn't been a great season and that will tend to shake the confidence a bit. Point is, I worry about what goals I should be going after.

What you suggest is interesting because I hear so much about how the high-intensity work is so important and the longer, moderate work is the path to being flat. I've tended to assume that's how everyone trains, and it's hard not to conclude given that premise that my physiology is just no good for these long and hard races. But if that's not what people are doing, well. This stuff is on my agenda for next year's road training; for now, it's hard to test cause I'm getting into cyclocross training.

As for the core stuff, yeah. I've known for a while that it's probably an issue, but this week has me basically sold. I am trying to keep it simple for now - some arm exercises with hand weights, crunches, bridges, planks, 3 times a week. Establishing habits is tough! I find it it hard, anyway.

tetonrider

ok, cool. some people are particularly sensitive on these topics. it should be obvious but my comments are informed by what i have seen with others and have done (or failed to do) with myself.

yes. i get it. sometimes you can do everything right and still have no (race) results. a coach can sometimes help find the evidence that things are still going the right way.

if you decided that you trust your coach (and continue to trust him or her), then that alleviates much of the hand-wringing. make one decision and let them handle the rest.

my experience is that there is always something to be improved; the sprinter can improve his 20' power (maybe it enables him to hang on so that there IS a sprint to win) and the climber can improve his sprint (perhaps to win out of a whittled-down field).

now, it doesn't mean that things will pan out, or that you'll get to cat 1 by defying your inherent physiology, but at the level we're talking about you can make yourself more competitive/give yourself a bigger bag of tricks so that perhaps you CAN get to a point in the race to play your strengths.

perhaps your coach is doing this already -- working to shore up a known weakness (or even just an *interest*) while being sure not to hamper your inherent strengths. it's a delicate balance sometimes.

IME, for amateur racing here in the US, it's the rare race that isn't decided by 2-4' power. it's rare -- unless we're taking something like the Gila -- to have super long climbs, stuff like that. even when we have long climbs (usually 10' of climbing is considered long), it's the first 2, 3' or so that decides just about everything.

of course we have people go into TT mode, and high threshold is pretty much always a good thing; i'm just speaking in some generalities, and the reason i mention it is that the bit you've revealed (really strong power in the VO2 durations) suggests to me that you could be competitive in just about any amateur race...meaning you have at least some sort of chance.

in contrast, if you were saying you have strong FTP but not so great everything else, that takes you out of most situations with surges. (yeah, yeah, if you get off the front you can win anything, but the pack needs to let you unless you are REALLY outclassing the field, and that's typically temporary/until one upgrades.)

i would never suggest only long, moderate work. everything has a time and place.

actually, what i did suggest in response to your specific race-induced musing was extensive and intensive intervals around the 20' mark -- materially harder than it sounds like you have been doing them, as well as some for a bit longer than you have tried them.

i wouldn't fully judge one way or the other what your physiology is saying until we're sure it's fully expressed. but that's me with a coaching hat on.

sounds like a great start. simple is good. add more duration or complexity when the habit is established...IF you find it is necessary. (personally, i don't.)

i've learned some of this out of necessity....getting clocked by a car and getting older. you'll ride better AND be more durable.