pe3nguin Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 I for one would love to learn from from a discussion of this nature. Seconded. I'm all for sh!t talking and bants. But constructive posts, particularly in this part of the forum are always appreciated and combed over exhaustively. I think at the end of the day, most of us only have a cursory understanding of the personal wattage temple that is our body and insight and healthy debate is good for us.
J Wakefield Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 John, with all due respect, you can't claim that people "put words in your mouth" and then imply they have an agenda each time somebody challenges you. V12 is not a bully, never has been, but he simply asked for the studies you spoke of, nothing more nothing less. I respect both of your and V12s opinions and posts, as I am sure many Hubbers do, so why not just debate the scientific claims and leave the personal jabs out of it. There is nothing wrong with two men of science having a robust debate. The people following this thread will be more educated and better informed if you guys do. I for one would love to learn from from a discussion of this nature. Not at all bud, honestly. I love debating, I really do and am always open to it and happy to answer questions and possibly learn something new. Thats how you grow. I have always tried to make time for it and I am sure my history of posts will or do show that so no, I am not backing out of out any agenda of any challenge. Im not prepared to go this route when some thing I have said is twisted to suite an agenda. This isnt the case at all. Anyway, Im really passed this now, each to their own and hopefully when another thread of contribution is posted I will add some 2c. Thanks all.
Fat Boab Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 Not at all bud, honestly. I love debating, I really do and am always open to it and happy to answer questions and possibly learn something new. Thats how you grow. I have always tried to make time for it and I am sure my history of posts will or do show that so no, I am not backing out of out any agenda of any challenge. Im not prepared to go this route when some thing I have said is twisted to suite an agenda. This isnt the case at all. Anyway, Im really passed this now, each to their own and hopefully when another thread of contribution is posted I will add some 2c. Thanks all. I have to say, this is a slightly baffling response, but everyone is entitled to those. Bon voyage!
Thor Buttox Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 I have to say, this is a slightly baffling response, but everyone is entitled to those. Bon voyage!I agree. It is a pity cos I like a good debate about interesting topics by people who know what they mean and can elucidate their position.
pe3nguin Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 I agree. It is a pity cos I like a good debate about interesting topics by people who know what they mean and can elucidate their position.Ay bru, who brought geometry into this
Thor Buttox Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 Ay bru, who brought geometry into thisSome people can't navigate an argument with a SatNav and a miner's helmet, even if they are pulling the argument out of a dark passage. So I quite like those who can triangulate... #geometryrocks
Stricker Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 Good morning, I realise there are severe inefficiencies and external factors that make this a difficult question to answer, but I'd like to glean a rough range of FTP/kg ranges that correspond to PPA seeding. This is not meant to be a discussion on the determination of FTP (and curse you if you quote your 20 minute estimate without first removing 5%), I've read Hunter Allen's book. I also don't want to get bogged down in the PPA seeding system, I realise it has its flaws but I think that in most cases it gives a very fair indication of ability. I like the below table and would love to see something similar that slots guys into seeding groups instead of classifying them as "world class" or "novice" source: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/power-profiling/ Yes other things could also affect your seeding. Maybe you suck more wheels or do a lot of work at the front. Maybe you had one exceptional race, never to be repeated, because some strong guys dropped back to your seeding and helped you do a time well out of your range (I think this happened to me at Emperors by accident). Maybe you simply don't race tactically at all so your FTP indicates you should be seeded higher than you are. Despite all this I still think there should be a broad correlation. Humor me, it gives me something to work towards. If I knew 3.7W/kg would give me a decent chance of seeding in C that is somehow motivating. At the moment I have NO idea. My W/kg is 3.08 and my PPA index 26 or F seeding, measurements taken within weeks of one another. In the above table that puts me between Fair and Moderate.Hi, Did 1Tonner yesterday in A and see below numbers that was required to stick to top dogs, take note I did not do the head wind sections as that would have most probably changed it big time: 1min - 62.5min - 5.55min -5.27.5min - 510min- 4.815min - 4.420min-3.730min - 3.445min - 3.260min - 3 ohFTP high 4ish and riding in A
pe3nguin Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 Okay. When Stricker is the only remaining person ON TOPIC you know something has gone awfully wrong
eddy Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 Mr Wakefield has contacted me via pm about my calling him a "pro" coach - he seems to feel he is not a pro coach (and didn't say that he was) - and I have offered to withdraw my statement publicly. Does that make him an "amateur" coach ?
jcza Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 Hi, Did 1Tonner yesterday in A and see below numbers that was required to stick to top dogs, take note I did not do the head wind sections as that would have most probably changed it big time: 1min - 62.5min - 5.55min -5.27.5min - 510min- 4.815min - 4.420min-3.730min - 3.445min - 3.260min - 3 ohFTP high 4ish and riding in A Apologies in advance if this is the wrong question but are you sure those numbers are correct? Seems very average (low). Not your FTP but the efforts for 1min to 60mins that you listed.
Stricker Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 Apologies in advance if this is the wrong question but are you sure those numbers are correct? Seems very average (low). Not your FTP but the efforts for 1min to 60mins that you listed. Please tell me my power meter is cooked and under reading ...Please. Unfortunately those numbers are correct.
jcza Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 Please tell me my power meter is cooked and under reading ...Please. Unfortunately those numbers are correct. Maybe I'm not reading correctly but 3 w/kg for 60 mins to stay with top dogs is hardly a massive effort.
Tristand Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 Apologies in advance if this is the wrong question but are you sure those numbers are correct? Seems very average (low). Not your FTP but the efforts for 1min to 60mins that you listed. Perhaps average power vs normalised power?
Pure Savage Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 Hi, Did 1Tonner yesterday in A and see below numbers that was required to stick to top dogs, take note I did not do the head wind sections as that would have most probably changed it big time: 1min - 62.5min - 5.55min -5.27.5min - 510min- 4.815min - 4.420min-3.730min - 3.445min - 3.260min - 3 ohFTP high 4ish and riding in AHow did you not do the headwind sections? That was the last 60km. Crash?
Stricker Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 Maybe I'm not reading correctly but 3 w/kg for 60 mins to stay with top dogs is hardly a massive effort. That's the thing with racing , its never full gas all the way.Its the 5min, 10min, 15min efforts that rip the group apart and continues hard 3min-5minnever a 20min and 30min, we do not go over those climbs where those (time power) is required. That 6wpkg 1min is at the end of a 10min climb.During the race we had a 8min climb, just 8min and only +-10 of us survived it, rest all got dropped. So don't be fooled by those numbers, it had me tasting blood.
Stricker Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 How did you not do the headwind sections? That was the last 60km. Crash? Mechanical.yes again
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.