SBR Utopia - OPEN (Page 135)

Posted about it in my training log.  I still haven't pinpointed it.  The #1 difference yesterday was the use of the Quarq, but I'm not quite certain I can put the blame on it (or at least how I interpretted the numbers) just yet.

I got me some bright (neon green!) new shoes last week too.  Also got a new pair of Zoots to try out.  I have all this new gear I picked up over the winter and I'm itching to use it!

One way to see if the quarq was wonky is to load the file into aerolab and see what type of cda it gives you. If your quarq is reading low ie says you are doing 240watts when you are doing 290, your cda will be incredibly good.

This would be a really good idea if I was using a speed sensor.  The course has a lot of tree cover and the speed/distance readings (using GPS) from my garmin are way off (which is normal for this course).  Garmin measured it at 3.9 miles when it's really 4.41.  Can't really compare that to a previous garmin file that was pulling speed from the hub and measuring the course more accuratey.

Race file here using Quarq/GPS
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/295213014

Test run file here using PowerTap/Hub based speed sensor (Lap 7)
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/295213076

Course looks like a pretty steady climb, around a 6% grade ?

At 153 lbs, in the drops, 270watts over the 4.41miles at 6% grade should have taken 24min.

Does that sound right  ?

Hard to say since I haven't been riding at 153 for very long.  Most of my training and racing on this course has been at 157-162 pounds.  I've done it over 100x, so I have a pretty good feel for what type of power it takes to get a certain time.  At my previous weight, I'd guess 24 minutes is closer to 290-295 watts.

The real head scratcher for me was that I reached the halfway point in both my race and my test run at about the same time (10:30), but I was at 321 watts on the test run, and 296 (and fading) during the race.  The only difference between the two runs was about 1 pound of body weight and 1 pound of wheel weight lighter on race day.

Very similar weather conditions as it was dry and wind is a very small factor due to the tree cover.

I'm pretty sure more testing with the PT and Quarq running side by side will shed more light.

I have the purple Nike Fee with pink highlights. Love those shoes. I also have the black & white (boring). I wear them to work and my feet are always happy

That was my first though before trying to come up with a bunch of ideas.

gsmacleod - 2013-04-08 9:09 PM

axteraa - 2013-04-08 7:42 PM I got me some bright (neon green!) new shoes last week too.  Also got a new pair of Zoots to try out.  I have all this new gear I picked up over the winter and I'm itching to use it!

My x-country and track athletes have a rule; the athletes with the flashiest shoes and shortest shorts are always the fastest. No pressure though Shane

This is as flashy as it gets for me.  It might take me a while before I start going for the shorter shorts....

Agreed.  As you said Jason, you've ridden the route hundreds of times and you know what a certain power number feels like.  There has to be a simple (maybe not so simple to identify) explanation.

Interesting.

When you say fading, do you feel the Quarq was showing less and less watts or you were generating less ?

Did you do a zero of the Quarq before or after the race ? Did you back pedal during ?

Doesn't look like a course you would want to back pedal on.  

The Quarq reading low by ~25w makes the most sense to me.  If he were trying to hit a number that was actually 25w higher, it would certainly be enough to blow out the legs in the first few minutes without realizing it and not be able to recover from it.

Marc (or anyone), have you ever used the "Adjust Torque values" in GC and would that make any sense to try in this case?  

axteraa - 2013-04-09 3:46 AM

gsmacleod - 2013-04-08 9:09 PM

axteraa - 2013-04-08 7:42 PM I got me some bright (neon green!) new shoes last week too.  Also got a new pair of Zoots to try out.  I have all this new gear I picked up over the winter and I'm itching to use it!

My x-country and track athletes have a rule; the athletes with the flashiest shoes and shortest shorts are always the fastest. No pressure though Shane

This is as flashy as it gets for me.  It might take me a while before I start going for the shorter shorts....

Dude - we all know you already wear your wife's Lululemon shorts.  Shorter shorts can't be too far behind!

Jason - did you already get ride of the PT?  If not, then I vote for a side by side test.  Should help to eliminate some of your concerns, and hopefully you can call it just a bad day.

Well, if she switches to the shorter ones I will have no choice!

As long as they are not the see thru ones

I've never used it for anything in particular but I have noticed it.  Just based on ballpark RPE estimates I would say it does a decent job of estimating it.  In my Feb HM, I worked the uphills just a bit and recovered on the downhills and the GAP reflects that well.

I use the equivalent on Training Peaks. They call it Normalized Graded Pace.

I use it more to gauge the overall run rather than one particular hill. My run may have been at 4:40/km pacee, but when it tells me my NGP was 4:30/km, it usually feels that way.

If that's the case it would be a calibration issue on one or both of the power meters because the Quarq normally shows slightly higher numbers without the drivetrain loss.

The difference here is 8% which isn't out of the question but it's 8% in the wrong direction, which is weird.