RH in latest RIDE mag on Powertraining

[linnega]

Don't worry Bruce - he doesn't answer questions requiring an answer, so no chance the rhetorical question will get a (direct) answer. 

[cling]

Don't worry Bruce - he doesn't answer questions requiring an answer' date=' so no chance the rhetorical question will get a (direct) answer.  [/quote']

 

But at least you can count on it being well punctuated.

[Racing Hart]

nee ek dink daai 1400w is seker i average oor 10-15s!! ek ken juniors wat byna 1400w max kry..ek dink sy max is meer so 2000w

[Guest Big H]

I see in his Palmares they say that he generates 1500W "depending what powermeter he uses" Are these things so primitive and inaccurate??????? HR monitors work to EKG standard. Yikes with all the hype and the excessive costs involved one would expect some sort of standard with these higgly piggly powermeters??????

Steady now big man - before you go throwing your usual wild assumptions around' date=' just consider that a Power Tap measures at the hub whereas an SRM measures at the crank - there will be a difference in reading due to drive train losses. This does not make either inaccurate - just reading from a different source
[/quote']

 

Big H, why is it that when someone answers your question, you choose to ignore the answer completely?

 

[NB.  This is a rhetorical question, the answer is obvious to everyone]

 

Sorry I could not get back..... we buried my Mother in Law today.

 

Bruce the answer by Ursus Maximus is not an answer, it is a wild statement. It just confirms that this whole power training thing is a farce and something to keep the wundahboys apart from the normal cyclists.

 

We live in an exact world. One kilometer is 1000m not 900m or 1100km it is defined by statute to be 1000m. Do you really want to try and convince me that powermeters is accurate. It seems to me to be beneficial to get the one that reads the highest so I can have more brag or wow!!!! appeal standing in the starting blocks of a race. No, if you get different reading from different manufacturers and empirical answers from other dink ekke hierrie hele ding is net 'n geldmaak foefie. Maybe I am a sceptic but please do not try to convince me 900m is equal to 1000m!!!!!!!

 

 

[bruce]

I see in his Palmares they say that he generates 1500W "depending what powermeter he uses" Are these things so primitive and inaccurate??????? HR monitors work to EKG standard. Yikes with all the hype and the excessive costs involved one would expect some sort of standard with these higgly piggly powermeters??????

Steady now big man - before you go throwing your usual wild assumptions around' date=' just consider that a Power Tap measures at the hub whereas an SRM measures at the crank - there will be a difference in reading due to drive train losses. This does not make either inaccurate - just reading from a different source
[/quote']

 

Big H, why is it that when someone answers your question, you choose to ignore the answer completely?

 

[NB.  This is a rhetorical question, the answer is obvious to everyone]

 

Sorry I could not get back..... we buried my Mother in Law today.

 

Bruce the answer by Ursus Maximus is not an answer, it is a wild statement. It just confirms that this whole power training thing is a farce and something to keep the wundahboys apart from the normal cyclists.

 

We live in an exact world. One kilometer is 1000m not 900m or 1100km it is defined by statute to be 1000m. Do you really want to try and convince me that powermeters is accurate. It seems to me to be beneficial to get the one that reads the highest so I can have more brag or wow!!!! appeal standing in the starting blocks of a race. No, if you get different reading from different manufacturers and empirical answers from other dink ekke hierrie hele ding is net 'n geldmaak foefie. Maybe I am a sceptic but please do not try to convince me 900m is equal to 1000m!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Big H, read his answer again, then again, then again.

 

Now, if you still don't understand what he is saying then let me explain.  Power is lost due to friction in the chain - let's say 5 watts.

 

Now, if I measure the power at the crank, like the SRM does, I will get a value, lets say 100watts.  If I measure power at the hub (like the powertap does) at the same instant in time I will get 95watts.

 

Why?  Because 5 watts was consumed by friction, so 100 watts minus 5 watts equals 95 watts.

 

There is nothing higgledy piggledy about this, it is just simple physics - something that I thought someone with your obvious intelligence could understand.

[BikeMax]

 

I see in his Palmares they say that he generates 1500W "depending what powermeter he uses" Are these things so primitive and inaccurate??????? HR monitors work to EKG standard. Yikes with all the hype and the excessive costs involved one would expect some sort of standard with these higgly piggly powermeters??????

 

Steady now big man - before you go throwing your usual wild assumptions around' date=' just consider that a Power Tap measures at the hub whereas an SRM measures at the crank - there will be a difference in reading due to drive train losses. This does not make either inaccurate - just reading from a different source

[/quote']

 

Big H, why is it that when someone answers your question, you choose to ignore the answer completely?

 

[NB.  This is a rhetorical question, the answer is obvious to everyone]

 

Sorry I could not get back..... we buried my Mother in Law today.

 

Bruce the answer by Ursus Maximus is not an answer, it is a wild statement. It just confirms that this whole power training thing is a farce and something to keep the wundahboys apart from the normal cyclists.

 

We live in an exact world. One kilometer is 1000m not 900m or 1100km it is defined by statute to be 1000m. Do you really want to try and convince me that powermeters is accurate. It seems to me to be beneficial to get the one that reads the highest so I can have more brag or wow!!!! appeal standing in the starting blocks of a race. No, if you get different reading from different manufacturers and empirical answers from other dink ekke hierrie hele ding is net 'n geldmaak foefie. Maybe I am a sceptic but please do not try to convince me 900m is equal to 1000m!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Big H, read his answer again, then again, then again.

 

Now, if you still don't understand what he is saying then let me explain.  Power is lost due to friction in the chain - let's say 5 watts.

 

Now, if I measure the power at the crank, like the SRM does, I will get a value, lets say 100watts.  If I measure power at the hub (like the powertap does) at the same instant in time I will get 95watts.

 

Why?  Because 5 watts was consumed by friction, so 100 watts minus 5 watts equals 95 watts.

 

There is nothing higgledy piggledy about this, it is just simple physics - something that I thought someone with your obvious intelligence could understand.

 

"Obvious intelligence" - now that's a "wild statement" if I ever saw one

 

[Velouria]

I am not a power meter user, but surely it doesn't matter what value you see on the screen of your power meter, as long as it is consistent. It doesn't have to measure exact watts at all, but as long as it displays a value that consistently corresponds to a certain effort, then  at least you can train in a specific zone...

 

Think you are missing the point completely BigH.

 

[pastapouch]

I am not a power meter user' date=' but surely it doesn't matter what value you see on the screen of your power meter, as long as it is consistent. It doesn't have to measure exact watts at all, but as long as it displays a value that consistently corresponds to a certain effort, then  at least you can train in a specific zone...


[/quote']

 

agree there, what I do is work in hr zones with a cadence, keep it as steady as possible, and let the hr go until I reach the max. Seems to work well.

[bruce]

I am not a power meter user' date=' but surely it doesn't matter what value you see on the screen of your power meter, as long as it is consistent. It doesn't have to measure exact watts at all, but as long as it displays a value that consistently corresponds to a certain effort, then  at least you can train in a specific zone...

Think you are missing the point completely BigH.
[/quote']

 

This is true to some extent, because from a training perspective you are interested in improvement.  So if the power meter is consistent then you will get an accurate indication of improvement.

 

The problem is that we tend to look at training over a period of years.  E.g. what was my power output up Suikerbossie last year and am I able to do that now etc etc.  It is likely that you will not keep that same power meter for the rest of your life.  So if you have a meter that is consistent but inaccurate, you can never replace it because you render all your previous data useless.

 

Measuring power accurately is not rocket science, it is quite easy.  One would expect that a unit that you pay thousands, if not tens of thousands of rands for, should be capable of measuring power output to within a couple of percent accuracy!

[Brakkies Sport Fotos]

I can see Big H point

 

 

 

"I am not a power meter user, but surely it doesn't matter what value you see on the screen of your power meter, as long as it is consistent."

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

be capable of measuring power output to within a couple of percent accuracy!

 

 

 

He only asking why is it not 100% accurate in today's times and technology.

 

 

 

He is not arguing that "consistent" or "within a couple of % accuracy"

 

 

 

He want to know why it is not 100%.

[BikeMax]

 

I can see Big H point

 

 

 

"I am not a power meter user' date=' but surely it doesn't matter what value you see on the screen of your power meter, as long as it is consistent."

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

be capable of measuring power output to within a couple of percent accuracy!

 

 

 

He only asking why is it not 100% accurate in today's times and technology.

 

 

 

He is not arguing that "consistent" or "within a couple of % accuracy"

 

 

 

He want to know why it is not 100%.[/quote']

 

There are devices that are more than 1-2% accurate - but as with any advanced technology, they cost a lot more money.

 

Given the stochastic nature of cycling power output - 2% accuracy is more than accurate enough for the required purpose, and so this is why the mass market devices do not measure more accurately - the market would be crazy to pay for this and does not demand this. Mass market devices are generally designed to offer the best balance of functionality and cost - as is the case with power meters.

 

Big H has little or no understanding of the use of power meters as a training device in cycling (or the relevance of their claimed accuracy) as he clearly demonstrated with his earlier comments - he is just having some fun (as is his way)

 

[domenic]

[quote name=bruce

Measuring power accurately is not rocket science' date=' it is quite easy.  One would expect that a unit that you pay thousands, if not tens of thousands of rands for, should be capable of measuring power output to within a couple of percent accuracy!

[/quote]

This is exactly what Big H is saying!

[Man with no name]

I'm beginning to think that, as the Jedi-knight tasked with protecting the universe against the bearded forces, I must step in here and slay the giant... so to speak

[bruce]

[quote=bruce

Measuring power accurately is not rocket science' date= it is quite easy.  One would expect that a unit that you pay thousands, if not tens of thousands of rands for, should be capable of measuring power output to within a couple of percent accuracy!

[/quote]

This is exactly what Big H is saying!

 

Which is precisely what reputable power meters do!

 

If I take a thermometer and measure the temperature at the top of a fridge and the bottom of the fridge and I find that the bottom is 1 degree colder than the top (which makes perfectly good sense).  Is the thermometer faulty?  Is the fridge a cr@p fridge?  NO - it's just that cold air sinks so the bottom of the fridge will be colder than the top.

 

Guys, these are simple concepts that are being ignored for the simple purpose of stirring ****.

[shadowchaser-d]

1500w is not all that great for a pro is it?  Maybe that was at the end of a 200km stage race?  The reason i say this is because i have hit 1400w during a max effort before and i am most certainly no pro, just a wannabe vet racer.

[bruce]

1500w is not all that great for a pro is it?  Maybe that was at the end of a 200km stage race?  The reason i say this is because i have hit 1400w during a max effort before and i am most certainly no pro' date=' just a wannabe vet racer.[/quote']

 

I think the big thing that they are neglecting to publish is the duration of the effort.  I would expect Robbie to be doing those kind of numbers for around 10 seconds.