The Wattage Thread

[E65Ross]

nacnac said:

E65Ross said:

No....I don't take risks for the sake of keeping the IF high...

I'm not saying you do but consider you are about to set an all time high IF after 2/3/x hours and then you encounter something which means you will have to soft pedal, will you approach that as rationally as if IF wasn't a factor?

If instead of looking at the whole ride you do efforts separately on sections of road conducive to not stopping you will probably find it more repeatable. Is it not the case that your concerns over IF are effectively long duration power records? e.g. why not just go out on a suitable stretch of road and see what you can do for say 2 hours? You can then warm up and cool down without always having three ride files!

Well I use training peaks so you can easily highlight sections of a ride and that will give you power averages, IF, peaks etc so I don't actually end up with 3 ride files!! I usually just have 1 ride file, but hit lap after the warm up and I'll have average power and NP lap up on the screen.

But you're right, you must take the whole ride into account....I think I came across as a bit "my numbers mean more to me than my safety" in my first post....but even when pushing hard yesterday there was a roundabout near the end....car coming from the right, I MAY have been able to make it, but I didn't, simply because I didn't want to get squashed!

[simonF10]

Gruffy said:

I'm the other way around. I struggle to hit the same numbers indoors. It feels 10-15% harder than it does out on the road. Also with a KICKR, so I guess it's down to the rider rather than the kit.

I enjoy indoor training with trainerroad and the kickr but I too struggle to hit numbers I would do outside. I often wonder if I am getting the best training stress/stimulus indoors as I am not really hitting power I know I am capable of outside.

[BMWBen]

simonF10 said:

I enjoy indoor training with trainerroad and the kickr but I too struggle to hit numbers I would do outside. I often wonder if I am getting the best training stress/stimulus indoors as I am not really hitting power I know I am capable of outside.

Is it because the kickr measures power after the drivetrain so includes those losses?

[nacnac]

Getting back to the original question here, there are two factors at play. Assuming all other things are equal, is it "easier" to have a higher intensity ride on a trainer then the answer is a clear yes. No junctions, traffic, hills etc all playing their role in slowing you down.

I suppose the other question is "can I develop the same power on my trainer as on the road?" and there are a lot of resources over this so go search for more information. A brief summary would be; yes, for many people due to the different muscle recruitment and the difference in kinetic energy the flywheel has compared to on the road there will be a difference in power.

[okgo]

Generally its lower indoors than out (power production) because of lack of inertia, heat build up, and generally mental fatigue of it.

[E65Ross]

I find absolute peak power (ie the max power you can possibly produce) is definitely higher outdoors, simply because you can swing the bike and really hold on, as it were. I find doing interval sessions or long intervals there's no way I can match what I can do indoors, simply because of traffic, junctions, changes in gradient and so on.

Must admit, I'm bloody loving riding in this sunshine. Time to work on those razor sharp tan lines

[okgo]

The point isn't about traffic and stuff its about perceived exertion for a given power. If you had a road with no interruptions it would be very unusual for you to produce more power on the turbo really for all reasons listed.

[Mark83]

Usget said:

Mark83 said:

Still no power meter but bought a Tacx Flux, Garmin 820 and Zwift subscription last week. Built up the courage to do my first FTP test. It was 215w. Not sure if that's good or bad. Weight is my weakness though so my power to weight suffers. It has made me want to buy a power meter now as I can now quantify my rides and actually structure some training now have no excuses like weather and lack of daylight.

It's neither good nor bad, it's your own baseline, and it gives you something to aim at. Best thing to do now is to follow one of the Zwift training plans for eight weeks and then see whether you've increased your FTP - the weight will probably start to drop as a natural result of this.

Been riding more and repeated the test last night, up 11w to 226w and dropped 1kg.

[Matt_N]

A bonus and desire to take my cycling up a level means I'm going to delve into the world of power soon, I've also got an aspiration to take up racing next year as Castle Combe is only 15 minutes away.

Currently thinking of a Powertap G3 hub built on an Archetype so that I can swap between turbo and main bike with ease, I run Campag so some other options are limited and expensive!

[anonymous-user]

Spotted this on Dean Downing's twitter feed, thought it might interest a few here



https://twitter.com/TrainSharpDean/status/89641061...

[okgo]

JPJPJP said:

Spotted this on Dean Downing's twitter feed, thought it might interest a few here



https://twitter.com/TrainSharpDean/status/89641061...

He's a strong lad is Langworthy.

Not that aero though, but he is about 6,6.

Though his headunit is doing something a bit weird as its 406W on Strava.

Edited by okgo on Wednesday 16th August 09:54

[murray]

I normally get a diference between Garmin np and Strava 'np'. Strava one is always lower. Can't believe the progress Matt has made as he hasn't really been cycling for that long.

[BMWBen]

okgo said:

He's a strong lad is Langworthy.

Not that aero though, but he is about 6,6.

Though his headunit is doing something a bit weird as its 406W on Strava.

Edited by okgo on Wednesday 16th August 09:54

I've always had different numbers on strava from Garmin and Elemnt for NP. Not sure why, just assumed they were doing a slightly different calculation.

[okgo]

That is his avg, the 426 number on the headunit, NP is below that out of shot. But strava has the the average as 406. I presume he might have the headunit set to exclude periods of 0 cadence or something like that which would give an inflated figure.

[murray]

Just realised that, strange as you say.

[BMWBen]

okgo said:

That is his avg, the 426 number on the headunit, NP is below that out of shot. But strava has the the average as 406. I presume he might have the headunit set to exclude periods of 0 cadence or something like that which would give an inflated figure.

Ah yes - fair point!

[okgo]

Some people do that, never understood why myself, but meh.

Decent numbers, strangely, I did a TT with him earlier in the year, and did 406W to his 396W apparently. He was nearly 1 min slower! Aero and all that!

I did a longer ride on Sunday actually, 250w avg for a bit over 5 hours, it left a fair few aches and pains despite it never really feeling 'hard' just attrition on the legs I suppose. A very good way of burning through a LOT of calories, which I promptly ate back soon after.

[murray]

Is that purely down to being more aero and/or better pacing?

[okgo]

murray said:

Is that purely down to being more aero and/or better pacing?

I would imagine mostly aero.

[z4RRSchris]

it’s winter so i’m back indoors after work because it’s cold and i’m a wimp.

setting myself the challenge of getting to 4.5wkg over winter. currently 77kg and c305W. report back in 6 months. so 325W and 72kg would do it.