The Wattage Thread
Discussion
IMHO (for whatever my opinion is worth), there is merit on both sides. Rather depends how invested you are in your cycling, and the money you have to burn.
On the side of virtual power: Yes, it's a perfectly decent training metric. For it to be truly repeatable, you probably need to 'warm' the trainer. Most (fluid) types at least exhibit a drift in resistance as they get warm (say 15mins). Of course, you can only use VP on the trainer.
For that matter, you really don't need VP. *Speed* is a perfect analog for VP/power if you don't change the resistance (same as vp). You'll have a threshold speed, etc. VP is just attempting to calculate watts from speed.
Against VP: The one thing I've found is that it doesn't track linearly. When I compared VP against a powertap, I found it tracked within a few watts in the lower power ranges, but as you got faster the gap got large (larger percentages, not just larger numbers). I.e it was a curve, not a line. Thus, your FTP may be precise and repeatable, but as you move up and down the range from there, perhaps not - although it's unlikely that matters so much. Just don't base much on your numbers being watts; even if precise, they're not accurate - they almost need their own unit (see use of speed!)
And of course, you can't translate that to the road. Personally I only use the turbo when I can't ride out. Maybe I lack dedication..
Lastly, powertaps are down around 500quid these days. Still a fair chunk, but not 1000's if you're so inclined.
On the side of virtual power: Yes, it's a perfectly decent training metric. For it to be truly repeatable, you probably need to 'warm' the trainer. Most (fluid) types at least exhibit a drift in resistance as they get warm (say 15mins). Of course, you can only use VP on the trainer.
For that matter, you really don't need VP. *Speed* is a perfect analog for VP/power if you don't change the resistance (same as vp). You'll have a threshold speed, etc. VP is just attempting to calculate watts from speed.
Against VP: The one thing I've found is that it doesn't track linearly. When I compared VP against a powertap, I found it tracked within a few watts in the lower power ranges, but as you got faster the gap got large (larger percentages, not just larger numbers). I.e it was a curve, not a line. Thus, your FTP may be precise and repeatable, but as you move up and down the range from there, perhaps not - although it's unlikely that matters so much. Just don't base much on your numbers being watts; even if precise, they're not accurate - they almost need their own unit (see use of speed!)
And of course, you can't translate that to the road. Personally I only use the turbo when I can't ride out. Maybe I lack dedication..
Lastly, powertaps are down around 500quid these days. Still a fair chunk, but not 1000's if you're so inclined.
upsidedownmark said:
IMHO (for whatever my opinion is worth), there is merit on both sides. Rather depends how invested you are in your cycling, and the money you have to burn.
I just decided to spend the money. I had the virtual power setup before and was just a step up from there. Lets face it not sure it makes me any better but was just the next step.As an aside the Kickr is expensive but gets used a lot so been good value for me
Dowks said:
upsidedownmark said:
IMHO (for whatever my opinion is worth), there is merit on both sides. Rather depends how invested you are in your cycling, and the money you have to burn.
I just decided to spend the money. I had the virtual power setup before and was just a step up from there. Lets face it not sure it makes me any better but was just the next step.As an aside the Kickr is expensive but gets used a lot so been good value for me
el stovey said:
Right but that's a bit different from saying there's no point in using virtual power because the FTP might not be accurate.
Just to be a pedant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precisio...
FWIW I've split the difference - Stayed with a cheap trainer, but gone VP -> powertap -> vector. Probably not really justifiable, but it makes me happy. Really I should just train more.
For me its vital, there is no way to predict performance in time trials, and aero improvements (as refernced on the last page) without accurate power numbers. So as I mentioned based on my current drag to go top ten in nationals I know I need to be producing around 380w, there would be no way of knowing this with crap data from a turbo. (obviously you need to have a handle on what other riders are doing, which I do).
Plus every time I go and ride outside, I want my zones, I don't want to have to be on a turbo to know what (wrong) power I am producing. And all the wattage charts to show you where you are performance wise are based on accurate numbers, not make believe from a turbo.
Plus every time I go and ride outside, I want my zones, I don't want to have to be on a turbo to know what (wrong) power I am producing. And all the wattage charts to show you where you are performance wise are based on accurate numbers, not make believe from a turbo.
el stovey said:
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.
Would you train with virtual HR?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.
Back in the thread a 20% difference in power was apparent between a PT and VP, that is an enormous amount. With software calculating the output (IMO) you are so reliant on variables like tyre grip, pressures etc that it becomes almost irrelevant data? If you want to train in an upper part of a zone you'll have no clue what you are really doing?
I think with PT being as cheap as £400 now if you want the data it's worthwhile spending the money. I use my turbo/PT every day pretty much so it's worth the investment?
But.
You don't need to train with power, it's just the best way to go faster
okgo said:
For me its vital, there is no way to predict performance in time trials, and aero improvements (as refernced on the last page) without accurate power numbers. So as I mentioned based on my current drag to go top ten in nationals I know I need to be producing around 380w, there would be no way of knowing this with crap data from a turbo. (obviously you need to have a handle on what other riders are doing, which I do).
Plus every time I go and ride outside, I want my zones, I don't want to have to be on a turbo to know what (wrong) power I am producing. And all the wattage charts to show you where you are performance wise are based on accurate numbers, not make believe from a turbo.
Graham Obree Would beg to differ! Plus every time I go and ride outside, I want my zones, I don't want to have to be on a turbo to know what (wrong) power I am producing. And all the wattage charts to show you where you are performance wise are based on accurate numbers, not make believe from a turbo.
okgo said:
Not sure how that's relevant to this thread.
Wiggins could ride 2 hours a week and still smash most people to bits that doesn't mean doing 2 hours a week is the right thing for other people to do.
The relevance is that you said that you needed accurate power numbers when one of the best TT riders says all you need is a device to measure distance on your turbo and the further you can go in a set time shows all the improvement that's needed.Wiggins could ride 2 hours a week and still smash most people to bits that doesn't mean doing 2 hours a week is the right thing for other people to do.
Sorry for the thread derail.
First go with Sufferfest Revolver tonight. It comprises 15 x 1-minute hard efforts (high cadence) with 1 minute rests. Only my 3rd Sufferfest session and I'm still getting used to their 'out of 10' levels of exertion.
Did an FTP test a month or so ago and estimated 246 Watts. The 1 minute efforts tonight were mostly around 310-320 Watts with a ramp up in the final two. The first half wasn't too bad but 'felt' like 9/10. The final two were definitely 10/10 effort!
According to my estimated FTP most of my intervals were at least 125% FTP which would put them into anaerobic which seems a bit excessive. I'm wondering if my FTP is higher than 246 Watts?
Be interested to hear from those more experienced!
Thanks
Did an FTP test a month or so ago and estimated 246 Watts. The 1 minute efforts tonight were mostly around 310-320 Watts with a ramp up in the final two. The first half wasn't too bad but 'felt' like 9/10. The final two were definitely 10/10 effort!
According to my estimated FTP most of my intervals were at least 125% FTP which would put them into anaerobic which seems a bit excessive. I'm wondering if my FTP is higher than 246 Watts?
Be interested to hear from those more experienced!
Thanks
Edited by nammynake on Tuesday 25th February 20:28
TKF said:
What, like RPE? Lots of coaches recommend it in favour of heart rate monitor training.
Like who, how many world class coaches say 'train 8/10 of how you feel today and don't wear a HRM'?People train with power people train without. IMO feeling your efforts is all part of the data, I want to understand as much as I can and from personal experience say in a TT I would be slower without all of the numbers to pace myself.
This is the wattage thread after all
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff