Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => The Knowledge => Further and Faster => Topic started by: Samuel D on 14 September, 2016, 04:33:40 pm
-
This spring and summer I rode a lot (by my standards), mostly blasting around Longchamp racecourse with a hoard of fitter cyclists (the shaved-leg bunch).
I tend to ride out to get warmed up (it used to be about 9 km through city traffic, now 6 km), do 5 to 15 laps (each 3.5 km) depending on how I feel, then warm down on the way back.
This has done wonders for my fitness.
Now I’m thinking I’d like to build on this over the winter with a slightly more structured regime. However, I’m not deadly serious, so:
• no power meter
• no turbo or indoor cycling
• no heart-rate monitor unless strictly necessary.
What sort of programme should I be looking at?
My goals are to do a handful of long rides (~200 km) over the winter and enter spring with enough fitness to start doing hard rides immediately. Maybe next summer I’d like to tackle something semi-serious, like a mountain tour or audacious long-distance ride.
Is there a book I should know about? I learn best from books.
Thanks!
-
The best books to learn from will tell you to get a power meter...
-
The best books to learn from will tell you to get a power meter...
.. or if you find some slightly older stuff, HRMs.
The really really old books will of course avoid those too. They have a certain charm, and probably a few gems of wisdom that have been lost. Arguably!
There is plenty that you can do _without_ these gadgets, but there is no market for gadget-free training advice.
( Incidentally, I don't find a basic HRM much more intrusive than an old-school distance/speed computer. And they cost <£30 )
-
to train at the right intensity and track your progress you need a point of reference, hr monitor at least, or better - a power meter.
-
I'd guess the others are probably right for best effect.
But I did have some success based on perceived effort, using a document from a british cycling organisation of some kind as a hint. It was a pdf, but I can't find it. The text is here:
http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bcfguide.html
Vaguely using the frequencies and intensities given, I definitely had some improvement over just riding my bike. But again, I won't attempt to argue with those claiming that using a measurement tool might be more effective. Depends how far down the road of seriousness you wish to go.
-
Thanks.
My problem is vanity, I suppose. I don’t want to turn my cycle rides into ‘training’ rides, especially if that involves wiring up myself or my bicycle and crunching data every evening.
Power meters are very expensive, it seems, especially when you add the head unit. Don’t think I’m up for that.
A heart-rate monitor is much cheaper but not an especially pleasant thought.
I think I should read a well-reputed book and see what it suggests before buying any gadgets. Any suggestions?
-
The best books to learn from will tell you to get a power meter...
.. or if you find some slightly older stuff, HRMs.
The really really old books will of course avoid those too. They have a certain charm, and probably a few gems of wisdom that have been lost. Arguably!
There is plenty that you can do _without_ these gadgets, but there is no market for gadget-free training advice.
( Incidentally, I don't find a basic HRM much more intrusive than an old-school distance/speed computer. And they cost <£30 )
Agreed, but how much of this will be junk miles?
The OP imo does not know what they want, in order to have structure in a training programme you have to have a point of reference, and RPE does not cut it imo because there are too many external factors to account for.
I was initially against getting a power meter and all the stuff that went with it, FTP, TSS etc. But once you get into it your training really does come on in leaps and bounds.
-
Thanks.
My problem is vanity, I suppose. I don’t want to turn my cycle rides into ‘training’ rides, especially if that involves wiring up myself or my bicycle and crunching data every evening.
Power meters are very expensive, it seems, especially when you add the head unit. Don’t think I’m up for that.
A heart-rate monitor is much cheaper but not an especially pleasant thought.
I think I should read a well-reputed book and see what it suggests before buying any gadgets. Any suggestions?
Yeah, what you have just said that you don't want to buy!!
LOL, don't waste my time. ::-)
-
You don't need to "accurately track your progress" to improve, or indeed to get the best from yourself.
I think that stuff leads to the Golf Handicap / Strava PRs mentality. But if folks want that, fair enough :)
-
I made loads of improvements using HR-based training. I did, however, invest in a second hand turbo and do 2-3 sessions a week of around an hour but quite high intensity. There was a good article on the ABCC website :-
http://www.abcc.co.uk/how-to-use-your-turbo-trainer/
I also bought a HR based custom plan for a few quid from a time trialling website.
You can do something pretty similar by finding a hill that takes you 5mins to get up a decent effort - so you're out of breath - and ride up it repeatedly, freewheeling/spinning back down. Start with 4-5 efforts but pace them so you struggle to complete the last one. You can do intervals without an HR or power meter. Couple this with some hard/tempo 2-3hr rides where you should try to avoid pootling.
-
You don't need to "accurately track your progress" to improve, or indeed to get the best from yourself.
I think that stuff leads to the Golf Handicap / Strava PRs mentality. But if folks want that, fair enough :)
Indeed. There's some very fast records out there from the times before HRMs and power meters. The only progress I'm bothered about is the one I see on the results sheet when it comes out.
-
Peter Read's "The Black Book"
Based on heart rate, not power, but have a read anyway. And it's really old, so a more modern book might have better training methods in it.
If you want to improve a bit you can build into your ride intervals where you hit a higher average pace than the rest of your ride. Try 2x20 at 150% of your normal pace, with a 10 minute rest of 50% of your normal pace, for example.
Running training is all based around pace. A normal week running training is usually : 1 long run at endurance pace, 1 shorter tempo run, 1 or 2 interval runs and 1 or 2 short recovery runs.
So, you could apply the same where your endurance ride is a long 100km to 200km ride, your tempo ride is as fast as you can sustain for 2 hours and intervals are hill repeats: find a hill, ride up it, freewheel down, repeat (straight away) until you can't turn the pedals. Recovery rides are very slow.
Some ideas there but to improve a lot (say for 10m TTs) you will need at the least a turbo and a heart rate monitor. To really do it properly you need a power meter. The most important thing is to vary your pace and not just stick to endurance pace for all your rides.
-
I agree with Matt
It depends on your goals. I have comfortably got up to 200km distance without any thoughts of training or HRMs, just riding to work 3 times a week gives me 100 miles Monday to Friday and can easily be topped up at weekends. If you just want to get to the end of a 200 by the end of the year then I say just ride your bike. That will give you enough of a base to go on a tour which I find less strenuous anyway as you accept the lower speeds and less distance in a day.
Further or faster than that will need some specific training and for that then a basic HRM won't cost very much or be particularly intrusive. There are many free training plans online and they can guide you - British Cycling has some I've downloaded to get some structure from, I assume they can be downloaded from France - but I think for what you are intending then I wouldn't worry too much if you don't stick to them religiously. Just tailor that to your normal rides and try to learn your personal zones into which you can add some intensity or interval training without overdoing it.
From your other posts on here I think you enjoy the simple freedom of riding your bike and why ruin that by insisting you have to go out for three hours at medium intensity in the rain when you haven't got a Cat 4 race next week.
Power meters and HRMs are fine for someone aiming to better their best 10 mile or whatever but to go a long way on a bike is more about base miles and bloody mindedness IMO.
-
... but to improve a lot (say for 10m TTs) you will need at the least a turbo and a heart rate monitor. To really do it properly you need a power meter.
I believe the Pareto Principle applies here.
I have no doubt that if Chris Froome came from some Amish-style tradition and refused HRMs, powermeters and PEDs etc, he would not be able to take as much time out of Quintana in a TT as he does. But he would be pretty blimming close.
(DISCLOSURE: my personal "sweet-spot" of tech vs cost/convenience is a £20 HRM. But it's all a compromise - there is no clear "right" answer. I'd like to ride like Graeme Obree or Wiggins! )
-
I'd like to ride like Graeme Obree or Wiggins!
That reminds me: the Obree Way is a brilliant book to read for this kind of thing. Not so much a prescribed program of training, more a philosophy of training. I apply that to my running as well. The fasted rides / runs are quite unpleasant, though :)
-
... but to improve a lot (say for 10m TTs) you will need at the least a turbo and a heart rate monitor. To really do it properly you need a power meter.
I believe the Pareto Principle applies here.
I have no doubt that if Chris Froome came from some Amish-style tradition and refused HRMs, powermeters and PEDs etc, he would not be able to take as much time out of Quintana in a TT as he does. But he would be pretty blimming close.
(DISCLOSURE: my personal "sweet-spot" of tech vs cost/convenience is a £20 HRM. But it's all a compromise - there is no clear "right" answer. I'd like to ride like Graeme Obree or Wiggins! )
You can get faster or ride long distances easier by pushing yourself until it hurts, recovering, and then doing it again. You will get fitter.
You can then start to quantify using HR data, which a lot of riders have had a lot of success with. It's a guide but does have a level of variability that causes top riders to now ignore it for pacing purposes. I ran my HR way higher than usual in this years 24 as it was hot.
I don't believe that you need a power meter in order to get faster/fitter. it's a £1,000 of kit that has the potential to make you less happy.
-
You can take the cheapskate option and buy a counter that offers wattage - there are a few out there. They infer power from total weight, speed and rate of climb. They get it wrong because they can't take wind-speed into account, but you can make allowance for that yourself.
Or you can buy a GPS and write a programme that does the same thing from the GPX file. If you do that you can take wind-speed into account.
None of the above will give you the true wattage, but that doesn't matter. What you want is for the figures to get better.
An interesting idea is to divide average wattage over a ride by average heart-rate: this yields a fitness coefficient that should improve with time.
Lastly, whatever kind of doodah you buy, do lots of hills and long false flats. Do mountains if you can, they're great for building physical and mental endurance.
And have fun, it's the whole point.
-
The OP imo does not know what they want
I see why you think that, but I want to get as fit as I can without turning my rides into work (other than physical work).
A lot of things roughly follow the Pareto principle mentioned by mattc above, and I’m hoping something similar applies here – that I can get pretty darned fit without Excel spreadsheets and power meters, even if those things would extract my final bit of potential. Based on how quickly I’ve been improving by just going out and wrecking myself a few times a week, I believe there’s still plenty of low-hanging fruit to gobble.
I think I need to learn about fitness in general – what it is in biological terms, what causes the body to develop it, etc. I’d like to learn exactly why a power meter can be so useful. I only have vague notions at the moment.
Does Peter Read’s book explain the theory of fitness, so to speak?
And have fun, it's the whole point.
Cheers. I’ve been loving it in the last few years. Why did I give it up for a decade in my twenties? Beats 34-year-old me!
-
Does Peter Read’s book explain the theory of fitness, so to speak?
Obree's book is good for that, as well as "Faster" by Michael Hutchinson.
-
The OP imo does not know what they want
I see why you think that, but I want to get as fit as I can without turning my rides into work (other than physical work).
With all training be it physical or educational/theoretical you need to be specific or it will peter out into a vague idea without a real beginning or end.
At work we all have stickers on our monitors (yes I know...) with SMART on them:
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Time Measured
So you can't just say 'I want to get fit' but you can say 'I want to be fit enough to complete a 200km ride in under 10 hours by the 1st April 2017' or a ten mile TT in under 25 minutes or whatever you feel is achievable to you.
That way you can actually measure progress and see how much fitter you are getting. Use your target date to work backwards so then you can say 'by the end of 2016 I can ride 100km without stopping which is then on my way to the main goal' or something like that.
It's still not 'work' (although all riding is work to some extent, energy in = movement forwards) but without a time constrained goal it really won't go anywhere. Once you achieve one target you then set the next and so on - in small increments.
-
Peter Read's "The Black Book"
Based on heart rate, not power, but have a read anyway. And it's really old, so a more modern book might have better training methods in it.
If you want to improve a bit you can build into your ride intervals where you hit a higher average pace than the rest of your ride. Try 2x20 at 150% of your normal pace, with a 10 minute rest of 50% of your normal pace, for example.
Running training is all based around pace. A normal week running training is usually : 1 long run at endurance pace, 1 shorter tempo run, 1 or 2 interval runs and 1 or 2 short recovery runs.
So, you could apply the same where your endurance ride is a long 100km to 200km ride, your tempo ride is as fast as you can sustain for 2 hours and intervals are hill repeats: find a hill, ride up it, freewheel down, repeat (straight away) until you can't turn the pedals. Recovery rides are very slow.
Some ideas there but to improve a lot (say for 10m TTs) you will need at the least a turbo and a heart rate monitor. To really do it properly you need a power meter. The most important thing is to vary your pace and not just stick to endurance pace for all your rides.
I have a PDF copy of this if anyone wants it?
When I was TT'ing I stuck to it quite well over two winters and I think it made a difference. May throw in some of the harder sessions this year as well.
-
The OP imo does not know what they want
I see why you think that, but I want to get as fit as I can without turning my rides into work (other than physical work).
With all training be it physical or educational/theoretical you need to be specific or it will peter out into a vague idea without a real beginning or end.
At work we all have stickers on our monitors (yes I know...) with SMART on them:
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Time Measured
Just curious; what job requires this ... sort of sticker?!?
-
The OP imo does not know what they want
I see why you think that, but I want to get as fit as I can without turning my rides into work (other than physical work).
With all training be it physical or educational/theoretical you need to be specific or it will peter out into a vague idea without a real beginning or end.
At work we all have stickers on our monitors (yes I know...) with SMART on them:
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Time Measured
Just curious; what job requires this ... sort of sticker?!?
pretty much any kind of industry these days, all coming out of the Japanese management methods that they gave us in the 90's after us having given them initially after the war.
SMART targets very much in vogue in all fast moving manufacturing, also those with clear quality requirements generally, those that require stock control etc so automotive, pharma...
-
Ha yes you caught me I work in manufacturing but for a small company where everything is hand built so not fast moving but I work in the sales dept where my boss came from corporate banking and he was trying to encourage us to apply SMART to our next actions targets and sales follow up calls.
I think it's applicable in this context though
-
I have a PDF copy of this if anyone wants it?
Think I’ll try to get the dead-tree version. Thanks though.
As for SMART, that’s the sort of technique/jargon/mindset that profoundly repulses me. Remember, I don’t want this to remind me of work, much less the unspeakable horror of the modern workplace.
-
Ha yes you caught me I work in manufacturing but for a small company where everything is hand built so not fast moving but I work in the sales dept where my boss came from corporate banking and he was trying to encourage us to apply SMART to our next actions targets and sales follow up calls.
I think it's applicable in this context though
Ah righty-ho! I've worked in manufacturing for a few years now, but never seen SMART. Not in what I'd call "proper modern" companies though, so I'm not claiming broad experience.
I have heard it in relation to sports training before. In my mind, it makes more sense in endurance sport than in sales! But this may reflect the fact that I've never worked in sales, and would rather buy a power-meter than take such a job :P
-
I have a PDF copy of this if anyone wants it?
Think I’ll try to get the dead-tree version. Thanks though.
As for SMART, that’s the sort of technique/jargon/mindset that profoundly repulses me. Remember, I don’t want this to remind me of work, much less the unspeakable horror of the modern workplace.
The fact it came from my workplace is irrelevant. As Matt says it's actually more applicable to training, I don't actually apply it at work, it's just stuck to my monitor :)
Without a target or a specific goal you won't develop beyond 'just riding my bike' which is where you started and where you are clearly happiest. You asked for advice and most of it appears repugnant so do what I do and 'just ride your bike'
Enjoy. I'm out.
-
Ha yes you caught me I work in manufacturing but for a small company where everything is hand built so not fast moving but I work in the sales dept where my boss came from corporate banking and he was trying to encourage us to apply SMART to our next actions targets and sales follow up calls.
I think it's applicable in this context though
I have heard it in relation to sports training before. In my mind, it makes more sense in endurance sport than in sales! But this may reflect the fact that I've never worked in sales, and would rather buy a power-meter than take such a job :P
Sales in the loosest sense of the word. I'm a proposals engineer, used to apply my experience to ensure the Sales Managers don't get too far off the plot and ensure the products sold - which are all bespoke - make some sort of sense to customers and the engineering department who have to design the solution once it's been sold.
Still means I go to the sales meetings and told to be SMART though
-
Salespeople selling products that can't be delivered or that they don't understand ? Never......
-
In terms of the OP's question, I would venture that many of the riders I know who do long Audax rides, and can handle most rides don't do any "training" other than just continuing to do it, and use no metrics other than distance ( because that's what motivates them). I won't embarrass well known Audax figures I know well by naming them, but non of them use a pulse or a power meter.
-
Of course even racers got along without power meters and heart-rate monitors for most of cycling’s history. Did these stout men (https://www.nfb.ca/film/60_cycles_en/) believe in heart-rate training? I suspect they instead believed in the waxing and waning of the four humours.
So high fitness can clearly be achieved without making it too scientific. I just have to find a balance between maximum efficiency and maximum enjoyment.
-
Did these stout men (https://www.nfb.ca/film/60_cycles_en/) believe in heart-rate training?
I'm glad you posted that, I enjoyed watching it. One of the most enjoyable bike racing films I've seen, perhaps because it turned the entire however many stages into one short drama rather than any sort of report.
Ob training: I'm sure they would have used HRMs if they'd been available in 1964, and I'm sure their modern counterparts use power meters as they prepare to race through the "exotic names" of Trois Pistoles. (I find myself wondering whether the name refers to guns or old Spanish coins.)
It's not entirely irrelevant that some of them were using bar end shifters, an item now thought suitable for touring.
It is entirely irrelevant that one of the teams had jerseys identical to the shirts of Bristol Rovers FC!
-
Did these stout men (https://www.nfb.ca/film/60_cycles_en/) believe in heart-rate training?
I'm glad you posted that, I enjoyed watching it. One of the most enjoyable bike racing films I've seen, perhaps because it turned the entire however many stages into one short drama rather than any sort of report.
It’s wonderful, isn’t it? It is no ordinary film but one by Jean-Claude Labrecque. His Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Labrecque) is worth reading.
I have no doubt those men would have used modern methods if they had existed, since modern methods work better. But how much better is an interesting question. After all, the fastest average speed in the Paris–Roubaix (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmar%C3%A8s_de_Paris-Roubaix) remains that of Peter Post in 1964, at over 45 km/h.
-
I'm impressed that they all had saddle bags - sorting out their own punctures?
-
I'm impressed that they all had saddle bags - sorting out their own punctures?
I guess - that is certainly a frame pump on the title screen!
-
If I were dumb enough to buy a power meter, which one would be least annoying?
My bicycle has a square-taper bottom bracket and unusual cranks (SunXCD), so crank-based ones are out. I like my Shimano rear hub as it is, too. So pedals, maybe? The new single-sided PowerTap P1S versus the Garmin Vector 2S? Both of these have a worrying number of reports of bearings going bad. And you can see why: they’ve used bushings rather than ball bearings for one of the bearings on the axle, and plastic bushings at that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5urMFvN1jbo). (Though Garmin may have changed to bronze in later production – it’s all a bit vague).
Hmm.
-
i personally don't trust pedal based power meters (also they tie you into using a specific shoe/cleat). rear hub pm ties you to that specific wheelset whis is also not ideal either. crank power meter is the way to go imo (could polish them to shiny silver for the more classy look, if that's important).
iirc, stages makes a square taper left crank for the dura ace track chainset.
-
I'd steer clear of Stages. Yes, Sky use them. But they have loads of techies around for full-time support, and if one device doesn't work they just slap on another. In the real world, a power meter is significant investment, so go for one that's reliable. In my experience, Stages is not. Mine (now two years old but with fully up to date firmware) works on maybe one ride in 5, and then only if I've fed it a new battery. Often it will connect to the Garmin or phone app before the ride, then record absolutely nothing. As a training device, it serves mainly to raise my heart rate and blood pressure to Zone 5!
-
I love my Powertap hub. Built it into a training wheel with a view to putting a deep section carbon rim on it next season but at £300 a pop I may just buy a second one ;D
I do find though, that HR is far a more useful metric while riding (outside, power is still king on the turbo), but analysing power after the ride gives many more hours a fun!
-
Powerpod? PBK have them for £240 if you are quick.
But....I'm not sure you need one. You don't seem to want to get into heavy data driven training, and why should you. Why not just use tried and tested methods that are free? Just stick in some intervals every now and again. OK, you won't be able to quantify improvement but so what.
If you have a gps and can face Strava then set up some segments on your commute and attack them. I've set up four segments on mine that function as intervals. Provided you attack them with gusto it will bring improvements, and it's fun. I have one segment that has a false flat running up to it, then a short 15% climb and then several hundred metres of shallow descent. Why? To train the body to be able to put out a short intense aerobic effort whilst already riding at an intensity, and then spinning out on the descent and grabbing just enough recovery. I also have a steepish hill about 300m to get to my house. I nearly always put in a big out of the saddle effort.
Another tactic is to join a local group and ride with the speed group that presents a challenge. Race them up the hills.
-
As for SMART, that’s the sort of technique/jargon/mindset that profoundly repulses me. Remember, I don’t want this to remind me of work, much less the unspeakable horror of the modern workplace.
SMART targets have always been the most effective way of achieving anything, long before the SMART acronym was coined. For example, say you want to lose weight, what do most people do?
1. Have a specific target to aim for, e.g. drop 10 kg/fit into a particular item of clothing etc.
2. Weight themselves or try on the dress, just looking in the mirror won't give you the short term feedback you need to keep going.
3. Whatever target you set yourself has to be achievable otherwise you will fail (obviously).
4. Usually you give yourself a time as well, before the first race on next season, for daughter's wedding, etc. This time constraint together with your weight target needs to be realistic so that as you measure your weekly weight loss you gain motivation.
People who do the above are more likely to achieve their targets than those that don't because they are using SMART targets even if they don't realise it.
-
If you want average power and training stress scores (TSS) then the PowerCal is surprisingly good for ~£75.
It's not a true power meter but might be an indication as to whether you want to go down the route of data-driven training.
I've had one for a few years and it's very good for looking at overall training stress and how (for example) a short fast ride with intervals compares to a long "just riding your bike" ride.
Read more here:
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2012/11/cycleops-powercal-in-depth-review.html
-
i personally don't trust pedal based power meters
Why not? Is it the existing products or the idea you don’t like?
(also they tie you into using a specific shoe/cleat)
True, and in the case of PowerTap P1/P1S, it’s a proprietary cleat system (what possessed them to make that decision?). At least the Vector 2/2S uses standard Look Kéo cleats.
iirc, stages makes a square taper left crank for the dura ace track chainset.
Seems to be Octalink, actually. So no good.
TimC: that sounds annoying. I wonder why these things are so hard to make. Foil strain gauges, wireless data transmission, waterproofing: these are solved problems. Yet every power meter seems to have one problem or another, according to the user reviews.
There is a second-generation Stages, though. Perhaps it fixed some of your problems.
Pedal Castro: where are you seeing a PowerTap hub for £300?
Flatus: I’m already doing those kinds of rides.
Quick question: if I did change cranks to support a Stages/4iiii/Pioneer/other left crank, is there a decently priced way to combine external bottom bracket bearings with a 46T outer chainring?
-
Whilst stages v1 did have problems there are still many users who have them and are satisfied. I have had a stagesv1 for several years and have no problems with it.
the battery problems in my experience occur when the bike is left near a bluetooth source etc mobile phone. It then trie perpetually to connect and the battery is dead by the morning. Keep the bike in the garage and it is fine.
-
Powertap P1 uses Wellgo cleats as does the Bepro which is £300 quid cheaper. Apparently they should work with Keo pedals, but I have no definite experience.
Guys at cyclepowermeters are pretty helpful and I spent some time picking their brains a couple of weeks ago. I'm only slightly guilty that I chose not to buy a power meter at all.
-
I'm only slightly guilty that I chose not to buy a power meter at all.
Was that because, after research, none of them proved to be problem-free? Which one most tempted you?
-
Pedal Castro: where are you seeing a PowerTap hub for £300?
https://www.powertap.com/product/powertap-gs-hub (https://www.powertap.com/product/powertap-gs-hub)
-
I'm only slightly guilty that I chose not to buy a power meter at all.
Was that because, after research, none of them proved to be problem-free? Which one most tempted you?
The bike I race and train on is fixed which left me with a choice of pedals, the power2max crankset and the octalink stages. I wasn't massively enamoured with any solution but the pedals were the route of least resistance. I was close to buying some P1s.
I've just agreed to start with a coach and I asked him to honestly tell me if I needed a power meter. He basically said for track and short TTs power was really useful but for my targets - long TTs - we could manage without.
-
I've a set of P1s , they work fine and Ive had no problems with them. My training is currently to correct a l/r balance issue and I'm making some progress now that I have some hard data to work from. Before I got the pedals , I knew there was an imbalance , just not what, nor had anyway to measure it.
-
I've a set of P1s , they work fine and Ive had no problems with them. My training is currently to correct a l/r balance issue and I'm making some progress now that I have some hard data to work from. Before I got the pedals , I knew there was an imbalance , just not what, nor had anyway to measure it.
I read somewhere, can't remember where though, that trying to correct a natural L/R imbalance often resulted in less power overall.
-
yes, that thought had occurred, but thats where having a proper measurement is so useful, I can see exactly what effect it is having
-
Sam, the Mk 2 Stages does seem to get better reports from people like DCRainmaker. But Ray liked version 1 too, so maybe I've got the better end of the powermeter product market!! I'm perhaps being unfair; Stages have a very good reputation for customer service and the battery issue is something they're aware of and have tried all sorts of things to solve. It just hasn't worked for me. When it does work, the results are comprehensive, credible and repeatable. And are backed up by Wattbike sessions so I can have some faith in the accuracy. And it's all fascinating stuff; I'm no athlete, but I have to admit I'm a sucker for the data - and gathering data is a motivation in itself.
-
i personally don't trust pedal based power meters
Why not? Is it the existing products or the idea you don’t like?
pedals wear out, and require to be tightened to cranks at a precise torque to give consistent readings, which is a problem if you fly with your bike. battery life isn't great either, from what i've read. the need to use specific cleats however is the biggest inconvenience. if you accept the compromise (which every power meter system has), then they are ok.
-
If you can live with a HRM, and Strava I have found the estimated power on Strava to not be that far out from my measured power. You only get that after the event through, alternatively, there are some ConnectIQ (garmin apps) which allow a virtual power reading from HRM. Problem is HR lags power by quite a bit for the same effort plus is effected by other things (heat etc)... and you did say you didn't want to turn your rides in to a data fest :)
Perhaps RPE is where it's at with the suggested hill reps etc from some of the earlier posts ?
ETA: You need to ensure your weight and your bike weight are fairly correct on Strava for the power to work I think
-
If you can live with a HRM, and Strava I have found the estimated power on Strava to not be that far out from my measured power.
I expect that's mostly down to luck, in that your aerodynamic profile is pretty close to their model. I find it gives hilariously inconsistent results, presumably because my bikes have little aero similarity to their tiny selection of bike types. I'd love to see what my actual power looked like.
ETA: You need to ensure your weight and your bike weight are fairly correct on Strava for the power to work I think
I've complained about this before, but it frustratingly lacks a per-ride luggage correction factor. Sure, touring and utility cyclists aren't really what Strava is about, but it's not uncommon for serious cyclists to commute...
-
I find it gives hilariously inconsistent results
I've posted them before, but to show the comic unreliability of Strava powers, here are two TTs I did on the same course, on the same bike, i.e. near as dammit as similar as they come:
The first time (https://www.strava.com/activities/302078291)
The second time (https://www.strava.com/activities/716382880)
That's right, the slower ride was supposedly 130 W more powerful ::-)
-
Does Strava include wind data?
*googles*
Apparently not: https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/articles/216917107-How-Strava-measures-Power
That's a shame really, as Strava's in a better position to include a fudge factor for that than a bike computer would be.
-
Another thing to point out: my heart rate was about 10 beats higher on the faster ride where I supposedly produced less power - and Strava had that data the activity pages. Based on speed and heart rate but not wind, I have no idea how they got that figure. Well, I do: either they plucked it out of thin air, or they changed their algorithm between the two rides.
[ EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, do know what caused the difference: the first (slower) ride had a stronger wind blowing up the course, so I went slower in the first half and faster in the second - as you can see if you follow the link. Strava say (your link) that they assume no wind when calculating power, so my slow speed in the first half has dropped my estimated power, but the cubic speed/P(aero) relationship has given me a massively inflated power reading in the second half: Wiggo's hour power to win the Tour de France is less than I supposedly put out in the second hour of my ride. ]
-
I’m convinced I’m more aero than most people and only able to ride with fast groups by cheating in this way. Plus, proper wind management when drafting and drafting closer than many other people do. I’m light so the hills are comparatively easy for me (not that I’m a great climber, mind you).
When I do a big effort to close a gap or tow the group, I get very low, often in the ‘invisible aero-bar’ position.
I do wonder how much power I put out. Not much, I suspect, but I use what I have wisely. It would be fascinating to see how I compare in speed-per-watt, so to speak.
-
^^ you can test your w/kg in a gym that has a wattbike or similar for a tenner or so - no need to buy a power meter just for that.
-
Strava's power model for climbing Cheddar Gorge is wildly out due to the profile being broken (steep sided twisty gorge with terrain interpolation makes the profile have steep rises and falls where in reality it is continuously uphill). Pretty much useless IMO. On the flat, you have the issue of wind conditions, so riding on the A38 10 mile TT course into a headwind the power estimated is way too low, and then on the way back it's way too high.
I've got a pair of P1s and the only issue I've had is reading zero at very low cadences, which is problematic for steep climbs on fixed.
-
i personally don't trust pedal based power meters
Why not? Is it the existing products or the idea you don’t like?
pedals wear out, and require to be tightened to cranks at a precise torque to give consistent readings, which is a problem if you fly with your bike. battery life isn't great either, from what i've read. the need to use specific cleats however is the biggest inconvenience. if you accept the compromise (which every power meter system has), then they are ok.
I don't know about the others, but the Bepro doesn't require a specific torque. and is simple enough to set up that I can do it. I use look keo cleats anyway, which are Bepro compatable, so there was no issue there for me.
I think the battery life quoted was 30 + hours and they seem to hold charge reasonably well. Recharging is easy with a usb charger. I haven't yet tried putting them on the tourer and recharging using the dynamo!
My only wish is that I'd sprung for the double pedal system initially as I think I have a significant L/R imbalance. I'm waiting for the pedal upgrade to convert to a double sided system.
-
AIUI, the Garmin Vector pedals do need a specific torque, but the PowerTap P1 seem to require no special fitting - the instructions just say to use the torque setting specified by your crank manufacturer.
It would be interesting to experiment with using them on the KickR to see how the measurements compare. OTOH, life is too short.
-
P1 pedals don't need to be torqued and the battery life is about 55-60 hours as per Powertap. They are good pedals ime, very easy to set up, calibrate and swap between the df and the recumbent.
Having said that my next power meter will be a crank based system, probably Power2max as I do like the free float of Speedplay pedals when riding the recumbent.
-
The right pedal arrived yesterday, allowing me to convert to the double sided system. The process was very straightforward, although due to stupidity, I omitted one key stage.
This had the amusing result of the right pedal grossly overreading. It appeared that my right side was putting out 4 times as much power as the left. I pedalled along effortlessly at 250watts, without even breaking sweat. Once I was finished it was time to face up to the truth.
I performed another dynamic calibration, but the results were the same.
I emailed Bepro and was very surprised to have a response within an hour, which very gently pointed out that I had failed to do the static calibration. 2 minutes later, calibration completed and power meter working perfectly.
Very impressed with the tech support, and pleasantly surprised by the ease of setup