CVANC Posted November 27, 2006 Share Couldn't let CVANC think I was soft now could I?? That thought never crossed my mind - I have seen how much training you do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BikeMax Posted November 27, 2006 Share /QUOTE] The other unknown factor here is how much actual work was done by the rider as part of the team - WB may have sat on the front the whole way and as such done a lot of work for less speed in a weaker team' date=' whereas I may have shared thw work equally and we therefore rode a faster time.[/quote'] Very true, overall drafting advantage could vary hugely. Don't confuse the issue. Drafting only plays a role if you were to compare the speeds. From a power perspective, what was measured was what was produced. We were comparing the speeds - in terms of how much work the rider was doing for the speed ridden. Or how much extra power was required to increase overall speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BikeMax Posted November 27, 2006 Share The other unknown factor here is how much actual work was done by the rider as part of the team - WB may have sat on the front the whole way and as such done a lot of work for less speed in a weaker team' date=' whereas I may have shared thw work equally and we therefore rode a faster time.[/quote'] Yep I sat at the front for the whole 200km Seriously, although we were all pretty well matched there were only 8 to start with and 7 of us from about 100km on so it was tough. Overall it does look aas though you did more than your fair share for the team. It also looks like the first hour was very slow (which cost you) and the third hour was also slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windbreaker Posted November 27, 2006 Share Overall it does look aas though you did more than your fair share for the team. Aah, that's cause I have a power meter and "train with power" so I know pretty much know my limits - even though my heart rate was 6-7 bpm higher than usual. If I'd ridden according to heart rate it would have been a lot slower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BikeMax Posted November 27, 2006 Share Overall it does look aas though you did more than your fair share for the team. Aah' date=' that's cause I have a power meter and "train with power" so I know pretty much know my limits - even though my heart rate was 6-7 bpm higher than usual. If I'd ridden according to heart rate it would have been a lot slower. [/quote'] The other thing I have noticed is that your VI is high at 1.17 - interestingly my VI for 2005 and 2006 was exactly 1.14 and Bruce's for 2006 was also 1.14 In a race like this I would have thought a lower VI would lead to a better chance of a higher sustained power as a result of less peaks eating into AWC. Given that you look to have done a fair bit of the work - why do you think that this might be the case ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce Posted November 27, 2006 Share I wonder if Saris or Cycleops - whoever it is that owns the firmware in the computer will add a real time power to weight option. The Ergomo allows you to do this, but I think it would be a bit mentally taxing to see numbers like 3.51, 3.45, 3.22 flashing on your display. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windbreaker Posted November 27, 2006 Share The other thing I have noticed is that your VI is high at 1.17 - interestingly my VI for 2005 and 2006 was exactly 1.14 and Bruce's for 2006 was also 1.14In a race like this I would have thought a lower VI would lead to a better chance of a higher sustained power as a result of less peaks eating into AWC.Given that you look to have done a fair bit of the work - why do you think that this might be the case ? I'm not sure but if I look at the data by the hour and relate that to what I remember about the terrain it might be to do with the fact that I didn't pedal much on the downhills??? The 2nd and 7th hours have a very high VI. One more reason why I wish the PT had an altitude sensor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windbreaker Posted November 27, 2006 Share I wonder if Saris or Cycleops - whoever it is that owns the firmware in the computer will add a real time power to weight option. The Ergomo allows you to do this' date=' but I think it would be a bit mentally taxing to see numbers like 3.51, 3.45, 3.22 flashing on your display.[/quote'] Can you set the w/kg display on the ergomo to a slower "rolling average"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce Posted November 27, 2006 Share I wonder if Saris or Cycleops - whoever it is that owns the firmware in the computer will add a real time power to weight option. The Ergomo allows you to do this' date=' but I think it would be a bit mentally taxing to see numbers like 3.51, 3.45, 3.22 flashing on your display.[/quote'] Can you set the w/kg display on the ergomo to a slower "rolling average"? The Ergomo displays a 5 second rolling average so the display is pretty smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZippIt Posted November 27, 2006 Share the times have been adjusted down by 2mins or so by winningtime. richard kane are under 5.30 now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BikeMax Posted November 27, 2006 Share The other thing I have noticed is that your VI is high at 1.17 - interestingly my VI for 2005 and 2006 was exactly 1.14 and Bruce's for 2006 was also 1.14 In a race like this I would have thought a lower VI would lead to a better chance of a higher sustained power as a result of less peaks eating into AWC. Given that you look to have done a fair bit of the work - why do you think that this might be the case ? I'm not sure but if I look at the data by the hour and relate that to what I remember about the terrain it might be to do with the fact that I didn't pedal much on the downhills??? The 2nd and 7th hours have a very high VI. One more reason why I wish the PT had an altitude sensor. I think we all were trying hard not to pedal on the downhills - looks to me like there were times when either you had to jump hard to get back on the line or that your pace line was not as smooth as it might have been - leading to you closing gaps and using energy here. What we do know is that your pacing for the terrrian was not as smooth as it might have been and this may have cost you time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce Posted November 27, 2006 Share the times have been adjusted down by 2mins or so by winningtime. richard kane are under 5.30 now Yes, and they've found our missing rider - do you think they read these forums?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windbreaker Posted November 27, 2006 Share Another interesting point is that BikeMax's distance and mine are almost identical. My time is 5:32 and not 5:35 as per WinningTime' date=' Bikemax was even harder done by - 6:05 whereas WinningTime gives 6:11!![/quote'] Unless he has his PT stop recording when speed & power not detected - possibly stopped for a puncture / water etc? Cyclingpeaks still gives the correct overall duration. Here's one that I never noticed before.The summary below the ranges window displays the ride time but the chart shows the total elapsed time. My ride time was 6:41:58 and the elapsed time was 6:55:22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windbreaker Posted November 27, 2006 Share I think we all were trying hard not to pedal on the downhills - looks to me like there were times when either you had to jump hard to get back on the line or that your pace line was not as smooth as it might have been - leading to you closing gaps and using energy here.What we do know is that your pacing for the terrrian was not as smooth as it might have been and this may have cost you time. I'm getting out of my depth now but this was the first ride that we all did together so yep the paceline wasn't perfect by any means - there was a lot of variability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niterider Posted November 28, 2006 Share Here's my PT breakdown... Full Race: Duration: 5:59:36 Work: 4084 kJ TSS: 363.3 (intensity factor 0.779) Norm Power: 214 VI: 1.13 Distance: 201.78 km Min Max Avg Power: 0 720 190 watts Heart rate: 50 226 131 bpm Cadence: 29 141 76 rpm Speed: 0 81.4 33.7 kph Pace 0:44 0:00 1:47 min/km Hub Torque: 0 38 8.2 lb-in Crank Torque: 0 147.5 24.6 N-m Hour 1: Duration: 1:00:01 Work: 703 kJ TSS: 60.1 (intensity factor 0.775) Norm Power: 213 VI: 1.09 Distance: 39.453 km Min Max Avg Power: 0 685 195 watts Heart rate: 50 219 160 bpm Cadence: 30 141 77 rpm Speed: 5.9 54.2 39.4 kph Pace 1:06 10:10 1:31 min/km Hub Torque: 0 22.1 6.1 lb-in Crank Torque: 0 80.8 25.0 N-m Hour 2: Duration: 1:00:01 Work: 689 kJ TSS: 62.6 (intensity factor 0.791) Norm Power: 218 VI: 1.14 Distance: 32.897 km Min Max Avg Power: 0 665 192 watts Heart rate: 70 213 139 bpm Cadence: 32 141 79 rpm Speed: 7.1 56 32.9 kph Pace 1:04 8:27 1:49 min/km Hub Torque: 0 36.3 8.0 lb-in Crank Torque: 0 88.5 24.0 N-m Hour 3: Duration: 1:00:01 Work: 692 kJ TSS: 64.7 (intensity factor 0.805) Norm Power: 221 VI: 1.15 Distance: 30.352 km Min Max Avg Power: 0 693 193 watts Heart rate: 57 226 131 bpm Cadence: 29 141 79 rpm Speed: 10.4 63.8 30.4 kph Pace 0:56 5:46 1:58 min/km Hub Torque: 0 31.4 9.5 lb-in Crank Torque: 0 147.5 24.0 N-m Hour 4: Duration: 1:00:06 Work: 681 kJ TSS: 58.1 (intensity factor 0.762) Norm Power: 209 VI: 1.11 Distance: 29.635 km Min Max Avg Power: 0 481 189 watts Heart rate: 60 154 125 bpm Cadence: 32 141 76 rpm Speed: 11.5 66.1 29.6 kph Pace 0:54 5:13 2:02 min/km Hub Torque: 0 29.9 9.0 lb-in Crank Torque: 0 65.9 24.6 N-m Hour 5: Duration: 1:00:06 Work: 710 kJ TSS: 58.9 (intensity factor 0.767) Norm Power: 211 VI: 1.07 Distance: 27.833 km Min Max Avg Power: 0 551 197 watts Heart rate: 53 160 107 bpm Cadence: 32 141 71 rpm Speed: 9 61.4 27.8 kph Pace 0:59 6:40 2:10 min/km Hub Torque: 0 38 10.7 lb-in Crank Torque: 0 90.8 27.3 N-m Hour 6: Duration: 59:23 Work: 609 kJ TSS: 58.8 (intensity factor 0.773) Norm Power: 213 VI: 1.24 Distance: 41.635 km Min Max Avg Power: 0 720 172 watts Heart rate: 74 158 112 bpm Cadence: 29 138 72 rpm Speed: 0 81.4 42.1 kph Pace 0:44 0:00 1:26 min/km Hub Torque: 0 25.2 5.9 lb-in Crank Torque: 0 79.8 23.0 N-m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niterider Posted November 28, 2006 Share Interestingly, IF is also 0.78, same as BikeMax, but I know I had something more left in the tank, whereas he was dying. I should also add that I'm 62kg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now