Using combined weight to get power to weight ratio.
#1
Gios my baby
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,135
Bikes: Gios 96, Mercier 72, Peugeot 74 X 2, Sears full suspension High rise banana seat, Kona 94, CCM Rambler 70s.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Using combined weight to get power to weight ratio.
Is that the way it should be done? Power devided by (The weight of the bike + the weight of the engine) I'm 149 lb + 24 lb bike so I need to develop a wopping R600Durace 400 watts to have a power ratio of just 2.3. Without the bike it would be 2.7.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Posts: 4,850
Bikes: Yeti ASRc, Focus Raven 29er, Flyxii FR316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No.
It's your weight, in kg. At 149lbs, you weigh 68kg (67.72). If you were to produce 400w, you would have a power to weight ratio of 5.88w/kg, as 400w/68kg = 5.88. And then, of course, you have to get into how long you can hold that for, for it to actually mean something. Most (untrained) people have trouble putting that out for even a minute.
It's your weight, in kg. At 149lbs, you weigh 68kg (67.72). If you were to produce 400w, you would have a power to weight ratio of 5.88w/kg, as 400w/68kg = 5.88. And then, of course, you have to get into how long you can hold that for, for it to actually mean something. Most (untrained) people have trouble putting that out for even a minute.
#3
Outgunned and outclassed
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Springs, CO
Posts: 998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
power to weight is usually done as power (at whatever time frame or intensity you want) : weight of rider in kg
so yours would be X watts / ~68 kg
adding in the bike is an interesting idea, but it is not how it is traditionally done. I also think it lacks relevance at the highest level of the sports where comparisons of atheltes need not include bike weight, becuase all pro bikes can pretty much be assummed to be at the UCI weight limit.
so yours would be X watts / ~68 kg
adding in the bike is an interesting idea, but it is not how it is traditionally done. I also think it lacks relevance at the highest level of the sports where comparisons of atheltes need not include bike weight, becuase all pro bikes can pretty much be assummed to be at the UCI weight limit.
#4
Gios my baby
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,135
Bikes: Gios 96, Mercier 72, Peugeot 74 X 2, Sears full suspension High rise banana seat, Kona 94, CCM Rambler 70s.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Got it, Thanks
#5
Racing iS my Training
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,263
Bikes: 07 Bianchi San Jose, 08 Tarmac SL2, 05 Cervelo P3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hiromian
Is that the way it should be done? Power devided by (The weight of the bike + the weight of the engine) I'm 149 lb + 24 lb bike so I need to develop a wopping R600Durace 400 watts to have a power ratio of just 2.3. Without the bike it would be 2.7.
There was an interesting article in Velo News last month about the UCI weight limit on bikes being unfair to lighter riders since the same 15 pound bike is a much higher percentage of a small rider's body weight.
I know a 230 pound rider who races on a 15 pound Scott, so that's only 6.5% of his weight.
If I had a bike that was 6.5% of my weight it would be 9 pounds!
Maybe someday.
#6
Senior Member
Using power-to-weight ratio might be a good indicator for hillclimb or sprinting-acceleration performance. But for flat-line and TT performance, you want to use power-to-AeroDrag ratios. You want to pack as much power into as small of a package as possible for straightaway speed. That's why time-trialers have such cramped and inefficient positions that doesn't generate the most power. However, even at producing 95% of possible max-power, triming down aero-drag to 90% will give you much faster speeds than producing 100% power at 100% aero-drag.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 759
Bikes: Cannondale Super Six 1, Cannondale F29er 1, Cannondale XTJ, Guru Pista, Lemond Limoge
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What is a good bench-mark power to weight ratio?
#8
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Kris Flatlander
What is a good bench-mark power to weight ratio?
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Posts: 4,850
Bikes: Yeti ASRc, Focus Raven 29er, Flyxii FR316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
https://cyclingforums.com/attachment....achmentid=7616
20 minute power, for those who haven't done an hour FT test.
20 minute power, for those who haven't done an hour FT test.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 756
Bikes: custom built roadie
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
i wonder how accurate that power profile benchmark really is. i just started riding a little over 6 months ago (havnt raced yet) and according to that chart my 20 minute power is apparently upper cat3 level. something is off.
#11
Eternal Cat3 Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,167
Bikes: 2004 Giant TCR2 Composite & 2006 Fuji Touring
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DannoXYZ
Using power-to-weight ratio might be a good indicator for hillclimb or sprinting-acceleration performance. But for flat-line and TT performance, you want to use power-to-AeroDrag ratios. You want to pack as much power into as small of a package as possible for straightaway speed. That's why time-trialers have such cramped and inefficient positions that doesn't generate the most power. However, even at producing 95% of possible max-power, triming down aero-drag to 90% will give you much faster speeds than producing 100% power at 100% aero-drag.
#12
base training heretic
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 716
Bikes: Cervelo P3C, many Litespeeds
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stea1thviper
i wonder how accurate that power profile benchmark really is. i just started riding a little over 6 months ago (havnt raced yet) and according to that chart my 20 minute power is apparently upper cat3 level. something is off.
#13
Outgunned and outclassed
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Springs, CO
Posts: 998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think that particular chart is very innaccurate. I think the one from NYVelocity is a bit better: https://www.nyvelocity.com/content.php?id=112.
Though, they are all very hazy estimates. But given that one chart tells me I'm a cat 2 and the other tells me I'm a pro, I think niether are too accurate.
Though, they are all very hazy estimates. But given that one chart tells me I'm a cat 2 and the other tells me I'm a pro, I think niether are too accurate.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 756
Bikes: custom built roadie
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Squint
What are you using to measure power?
#15
Racing iS my Training
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,263
Bikes: 07 Bianchi San Jose, 08 Tarmac SL2, 05 Cervelo P3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stea1thviper
i wonder how accurate that power profile benchmark really is. i just started riding a little over 6 months ago (havnt raced yet) and according to that chart my 20 minute power is apparently upper cat3 level. something is off.
I had my power tested after riding for 4 months and my 30 minute power was at Cat 2 level even though I was a Cat 5 with 1 race under my belt.
#16
NorCal Climbing Freak
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by stea1thviper
i wonder how accurate that power profile benchmark really is. i just started riding a little over 6 months ago (havnt raced yet) and according to that chart my 20 minute power is apparently upper cat3 level. something is off.
And as others have mentioned, tactics and skills end up playing a big role. Of course, if you are producing upper cat-3 power, you should find it fairly easy to move up, all other things equal.
#17
Racing iS my Training
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,263
Bikes: 07 Bianchi San Jose, 08 Tarmac SL2, 05 Cervelo P3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
[QUOTE=grebletie]I think the key to success is to also have good power to weight in the other categories. That is, 20 minute power will get you to the finish line, but it would also be useful to have good short term power for the sprints.
QUOTE]
I think I'm still at Cat 5 in the 5s and 30s power measurements.
QUOTE]
I think I'm still at Cat 5 in the 5s and 30s power measurements.
#18
Outgunned and outclassed
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Springs, CO
Posts: 998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yeah, one reason I hate those charts is that I gradually change from a cat. 5 to a cat. 2 as the time frame gets longer. Yay for more lifting and sprint training, but all I want to do is TT and climb a lot.
#19
NorCal Climbing Freak
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by VosBike
I think that particular chart is very innaccurate. I think the one from NYVelocity is a bit better: https://www.nyvelocity.com/content.php?id=112.
Though, they are all very hazy estimates. But given that one chart tells me I'm a cat 2 and the other tells me I'm a pro, I think niether are too accurate.
Though, they are all very hazy estimates. But given that one chart tells me I'm a cat 2 and the other tells me I'm a pro, I think niether are too accurate.
It's important to note that the category assignments are merely examples. From what I understand, Coggan assigned the upper and lower values of the chart using real-world data, and then extrapolated the data points in between.
Given the increased use of power meters, I wouldn't be surprised to see the power estimates become more accurate, as more and more data is gathered.
#20
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,299
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1443 Post(s)
Liked 712 Times
in
366 Posts
Originally Posted by Pizza Man
There was an interesting article in Velo News last month about the UCI weight limit on bikes being unfair to lighter riders since the same 15 pound bike is a much higher percentage of a small rider's body weight.
I know a 230 pound rider who races on a 15 pound Scott, so that's only 6.5% of his weight.
If I had a bike that was 6.5% of my weight it would be 9 pounds!
Maybe someday.
#21
Senior Member
Originally Posted by branman1986
So the best TTers are the big guys? If power increases linearly with mass, but surface area doesn't, shouldn't large guys have the highest power/drag ratios?
What I was pointing out is to not overlook the aero part of the equation. It starts playing a bigger part of the equation once you get over a certain speed. I'd say 23-25mph. After that, you have to add HUGE amounts of power for each 1mph gain. It's easier to get that 1mph through aerodynamic optimization.
#22
Gios my baby
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,135
Bikes: Gios 96, Mercier 72, Peugeot 74 X 2, Sears full suspension High rise banana seat, Kona 94, CCM Rambler 70s.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DannoXYZ
Yeah on perfectly flat TTs, the big guys are usually fastest. However, add rolling terrain and hills and it really mixes things up. Also power actually doesn't increase linearly with mass due to VO2-max & lung-capacity not going up linearly. Steady-state power produced at LT/VO2-max therefore doesn't go up linearly.
What I was pointing out is to not overlook the aero part of the equation. It starts playing a bigger part of the equation once you get over a certain speed. I'd say 23-25mph. After that, you have to add HUGE amounts of power for each 1mph gain. It's easier to get that 1mph through aerodynamic optimization.
What I was pointing out is to not overlook the aero part of the equation. It starts playing a bigger part of the equation once you get over a certain speed. I'd say 23-25mph. After that, you have to add HUGE amounts of power for each 1mph gain. It's easier to get that 1mph through aerodynamic optimization.