The Wattage Thread

[Grandfondo]

Hi guys, a quick question if you are doing base miles (60% of MHR) do you still do Intervals on the Turbos?

[okgo]

Why are you doing base miles?

[Grandfondo]

okgo said:

Why are you doing base miles?

Have done very little on the bike since before Xmas due to work and illness and want to start this season with a good aerobic base to build on (go slower to go faster) as the old saying goes but I am wondering should the base miles be exclusive for the first 1k miles or so or if the weather is st can you do intervals on turbo without derailing what is trying to be achieved?

[okgo]

As long as you manage the load I don't see why not.

My plan has had intervals of some kind in it every week since October!

[fromage]

Some of you may be interested, I did a little test with Trainer road virtual power vs my power meter last night on 2 different turbos (both listed in the turbo list on trainer road for virtual power).

The virtual power between the 2 different turbo's was only 3% but the difference between my power meter and the 2 turbo's was on average around 18-21%, with the virtual power the higher reading. This was just at a very steady 200w

[anonymous-user]

fromage said:

Some of you may be interested, I did a little test with Trainer road virtual power vs my power meter last night on 2 different turbos (both listed in the turbo list on trainer road for virtual power).

The virtual power between the 2 different turbo's was only 3% but the difference between my power meter and the 2 turbo's was on average around 18-21%, with the virtual power the higher reading. This was just at a very steady 200w

So 40w or so difference you think?. This is my issue with estimated power. Unless you fit the exact metrics they use to calculate the wattage your readings are going to be all over the place. Are they even repeatable?

[fromage]

yes at that power it was around 40 watts, would be interesting to see the differences at high wattages. My girlfriend is currently using virtual power until her Stages finally arrives so will be interesting to see what difference she sees.

[Teebs]

fromage said:

yes at that power it was around 40 watts, would be interesting to see the differences at high wattages. My girlfriend is currently using virtual power until her Stages finally arrives so will be interesting to see what difference she sees.

For reference, the difference for me between virtual power and a Stages power meter was 40W or so. I really struggle to put out the same power on a turbo v outdoors through. I'm sure some people are more evenly balanced.

[Rocksteadyeddie]

yonex said:

fromage said:

Some of you may be interested, I did a little test with Trainer road virtual power vs my power meter last night on 2 different turbos (both listed in the turbo list on trainer road for virtual power).

The virtual power between the 2 different turbo's was only 3% but the difference between my power meter and the 2 turbo's was on average around 18-21%, with the virtual power the higher reading. This was just at a very steady 200w

So 40w or so difference you think?. This is my issue with estimated power. Unless you fit the exact metrics they use to calculate the wattage your readings are going to be all over the place. Are they even repeatable?

It's only the latter that really matters. Whether you're making FTP at 200 or 800 watts is nether here nor there aside from bragging rights. What matters is consistency of the equipment over time.

[anonymous-user]

Rocksteadyeddie said:

It's only the latter that really matters. Whether you're making FTP at 200 or 800 watts is nether here nor there aside from bragging rights. What matters is consistency of the equipment over time.

Agreed. It's the fudge factor with calculated watts, witchcraft I tell you. Same goes for Stages, but I won't open that can of worms

[okgo]

In my view it you're going to the effort of getting a number; why not have an accurate one.

[Dowks]

okgo said:

In my view it you're going to the effort of getting a number; why not have an accurate one.

Agree totally, otherwise whats the point.

i got an accurate number from my Vector/Kickr combo

Which told me I was a deeply invested/slow/fat....

But I'm aiming to get better so its all good

Edited by Dowks on Friday 7th February 08:15

[okgo]

Not posted much about numbers of late, but have had a few hard efforts to do in recent rides, as prep for the season which is approaching...

I've always had the issue of dropouts on the turbo with my Quarq, and finally I figured it was down to an iffy firmware version, so if any of you suffer the odd dropout etc then update the firmware using Qalvin app on your phone and dongle, much better.

While I was doing that I adjusted the slope too, so now I know its 100% accurate, which is always a nice thing to know!

Anyway, two hard rides over last couple of days which are showing signs of improvement which is nice, notably did nearly half an hour at 380w, and 25 mins at 385 at the end of a ride and after a couple of hard days. To put that in context last year my all time best in a 10 mile TT was 384 on Q rings (which my coach thinks could have been inflating power by around 2-3%) so a fair chunk of improvement there, I am estimating FTP to be around 375 at the minute.

We've done the numbers and on my current CdA I should be in the top 10 at the national 10 on 375-380w and if I can peak and get out nearer 400 then I could be nearer the sharp end, I'm fairly sure that right now on the road bike if I was fresh I'd be over 400w for 20 mins, its just bringing the TT/road bike gap closer.

In hindsight I should have entered the north road hardriders really could have got on the podium there I think.

[nacnac]

Do you have any thoughts on the relationship between CdA and rider height / weight?

It sounds like you have spent some time in the wind tunnel, would you care to elaborate what was learnt / what changes you made? I'm sure many would find that interesting.

Nice results too!

[okgo]

nacnac said:

Do you have any thoughts on the relationship between CdA and rider height / weight?

It sounds like you have spent some time in the wind tunnel, would you care to elaborate what was learnt / what changes you made? I'm sure many would find that interesting.

Nice results too!

I've not been to the tunnel, no. Using Aerolab in Golden Cheetah you can derive your CdA from power, so its clear to see if something is quicker or slower as long as you test in as close to constant conditions as possible. Velodrome would be best of course, but you can get good results from long straight roads, or most dual carriageway time trial courses (as long as you're comparing like with like as traffic will play a big part in lowering your CdA on certain courses)

In terms of relationships, very hard to answer, some of the most aero guys out there are not the smallest, so its certainly very individual and what works for one person would not work for another. However, my approach has been to attempt to make my frontal area small, and make myself low, if you think of things that are aerodynamic and travel at speed, usually the lower from the ground they are, the better!

People obsess over having a flat back, as that's what Wiggins has, but actually for many people getting as close to the fetal position is quicker.

Things like making sure the helmet is flush with your back and that your head isn't higher than your back make a difference too of course, and then from there all the small things like aero gloves, overshoes, the best skinsuit, wheel/tyre combo, hidden brake cables etc etc all make a difference.

I won't go into the tunnel yet, mainly as its a lot of money at around £1000 for 2-3, hours and with the right person analyzing the results from data you can get in races etc you can make marked improvements to your CdA.

Its a never ending game of improvement of both your position (when you think you're onto the right track anyway and then can make it more extreme) and power in that position that make people faster.

[Fourmotion]

I can at last join this thread!

My wheelsmith built powertap wheels arrived on Friday, and I managed a brief ride yesterday to check them out, and make sure the PT was linking with my Garmin.

So next step, test myself, set an FTP, and create a plan. I'm going to use Rubberglove unless someone knows of a better guidance video. Newbie question - just how rested do you need to be to for the test? I'm coming out the back of a wheezy cough and cold, and still not all there yet. I've taken about 10 days off, the longest I've been without exercise for going on 2 years. After my ride yesterday I feel pretty much fine, albeit a bit of coughing. Can I just go for it tonight, or should I train for another week, then take some days off and do the test then so I'm back in the swing of things?

Any advice appreciated.

[okgo]

In my opinion just make sure you are not hugely fresh or not hugely fatigued. Just pick a day where you feel fairly normal and go for it.

There is plenty of time to adjust it as it changes, and it will change fairly quickly if you train right, so its not life or death that you get it down to the last watt.

A good day/bad day likely isn't a vast amount over 10-15w different anyway.

[anonymous-user]

Fourmotion said:

So next step, test myself, set an FTP, and create a plan. I'm going to use Rubberglove unless someone knows of a better guidance video.

I thought rubber glove was just 'ok'. Personally I would go out on the road as I always give better results. RG will give you a decent start though, I found my efforts were too low at the beginning with it, I have always just gone all out over 20 mins, not gradually increased the power.

[Fourmotion]

Thanks chaps.

I'd find it hard to do on the road unless I rode up to Richmond Park, but I take your point, I tend to ride harder if I feel I'm going somewhere.

However, I'm quite sadistic, and can stare at my stem for an hour burying myself into nausea. Looks like I tomorrow evening sorted.

[anonymous-user]

Dowks said:

okgo said:

In my view it you're going to the effort of getting a number; why not have an accurate one.

Agree totally, otherwise whats the point.

i got an accurate number from my Vector/Kickr combo

Which told me I was a deeply invested/slow/fat....

But I'm aiming to get better so its all good

Isn't the point that it's a % of the FTP that is important? Whatever the FTP is doesn't matter as long as the equipment is giving the same results. Sure you can spend thousands on power meters and turbos but you'll get the same results from much much cheaper equipment using virtual power.

So in answer to your statement the point is it's cheaper and you get the same information (% of sustainable effort)

Assuming buying cheaper equipment didn't stop you training (for some reason) a £100 Tacx satori and a laptop with ant plus connection would improve your cycling just as much as your £2,000 Vector/Kickr combo.

Edited by el stovey on Tuesday 25th February 09:10