SBR Utopia - OPEN (Page 137)

Trust me, I agree, I've been through this too many times to count, so no worries there.  Which is why I've learned to address things when they're at a 1 rather than pushing through them.  (ETA - Well, I *try* to anyway, not always successful, but I used to try to push through everything) Been there, done that.  All races, including wildflower in 4 weeks, are backburnered with the eye towards starting IM Canada.

Ben, like Marc I use training peaks so look at NGP which sounds the same. I have actually found EF (efficiency factor) to be more useful for analysis for long aerobic runs and intervals - it combines NGP on the run (or NP on the bike) and HR to give you an idea of how "efficiently" you covered the distance. Arendt, I would be interested in your data for your HM where you pushed the hills and recovered the descents. You see folks do this all the time on long course, but it seems a somewhat backwards approach (at least to me) relative to aerobic efficiency. For instance, you probably would not ride long course and expect to be very successful with that strategy -your variability index (VI) would be all out of whack and you would pay for it later in the game. That of course is just me freewheeling based on keeping an eye on my own training peaks data for the past three years, so by no means scientific or authoritative.

We talk about cycling data a lot - like Ben infers with his question I too am interested to hear how others use the availability of data for run analysis in their training and racing. There is a lot of data available - it seems way underutilized by age groupers compared to cycling data.

riorio - 2013-04-10 2:03 PM Sorry about the ankle Chris...I was in PT for PTTD for months before we figured out it was a calcaneal stress fracture...similar symptoms...so like Rusty says, it could be a variety of things. I bet you caught it early enough to take care of it!

You trying to freak me out???  

Just got a Monday appt so it's good.  Hopefully it will all be resolved by then and the PT will say "naw, just an ankle ache is all, you're good!" 

THe biggest challenge is going to be keeping weight down with reduced activitiy...   Did a few high wattage intervals as a warmup this mornng on the CT, could feel it abit there, but hopefully can replace running with some cycling without making it worse....  

Thanks for all the advice.

ChrisM - 2013-04-10 2:12 PM

riorio - 2013-04-10 2:03 PM Sorry about the ankle Chris...I was in PT for PTTD for months before we figured out it was a calcaneal stress fracture...similar symptoms...so like Rusty says, it could be a variety of things. I bet you caught it early enough to take care of it!

You trying to freak me out???  

Just got a Monday appt so it's good.  Hopefully it will all be resolved by then and the PT will say "naw, just an ankle ache is all, you're good!" 

THe biggest challenge is going to be keeping weight down with reduced activitiy...   Did a few high wattage intervals as a warmup this mornng on the CT, could feel it abit there, but hopefully can replace running with some cycling without making it worse....  

Thanks for all the advice.

Oh no....I just re read my post and it does sound bad! Not trying to freak you out at all!

Usually with ankles, you can still bike (bike shoes keep the motion to a minimum) and swim with a bouy if pushing off bothers it (or swim open water if you can). My husband has terrible ankles from years of skateboarding and he is constantly irritating the tendons around his weak ankles! Usually some ice and a brace takes care of it!

I can't tell you how many times I have made an ART or PT appt and by the time the appt comes around, the ache/pain is gone! i

Here is the Strava link - http://app.strava.com/activities/41287448

I should mention, this is a subtle push - maybe an extra 5-10% effort (maybe).  There is a decent hill in KM 7, another split between 10 and 11, KM 14.  KM 16 and 17 I was full into chase mode and then a final hill in the last KM.  So my splits over the hills had a slower time but the GAP was lower than the overall avg by 10-20 sec/km which I would say is representative of how much I increase effort for them.

I do notice that based on the GAP it looks like I "recovered" less on the downhills than I pushed on the uphills.

I would wait for Jason to get to the bottom of it before concluding it was the Quarq :-)

There was a whole thread recently on this. It started off as "has anyone not had problems" and a bunch of people piled on to say how great their Quarq was.

To me that sounds better stated like that - if you were in "chase mode" and not "survival mode" in the last half of an HM then you HAD to pace it right, if my theory holds anyways. Can I have the raw garmin file to pick apart scientifically analyze? 

Ha Ha! I concur. Although I will admit that when I read through that thread I thought to myself how much my love for my Quarq is in part due to their customer service when things went south, along with their genuine interest in my hacking up a DA chainring to make it work with the PM spider.

Likely won't get to test side by side again till next week.  I've got to do a BB swap, FD change, and I still need to pick up a torque wrench (or simply a 8 mm hex wrench long enough) to make the swap to my TT bike myself.  So I'll likely hold off till after this weekend's ride when I can get some help from my mechanic friend.

I was planning to do a race paced brick this weekend, but looks like I'll wait till I can get both the PT and Quarq running side by side.  I have an idea of what PT power I can hold, but need to see how that translates on the Quarq for it to be of any use on race day where I can't use the PT.

I actually have a PT and a Quarq and like both

Both have their quirks and when you know them, you work around them.

I think both are less "turn on and just use it" than people are led to believe

Tonight I did a test run. PT, Quarq on a Computrainer. In this case, the PT was inconsistent.

What I find is the PT is a black box. There is no peeking in to see what is wrong if something goes wrong. The Quarq provides zero offset info and diagnostics. If it starts going wonky, you torque the bolts, zero and everything is fine. You can see the drift and measure it. It's more 'transparent' as to what is going on.

One thing I have learned is the calibration using auto-zero, or pedalling backwards is less accurate than the one initiated from the head unit and if done 'frequently' it's shortcomings are hidden. If done seldom, you can get into trouble.

Good job, they are a bit of an art to get right.  I suggest doing the 20 min one instead, 8 minutes is really too short to give a good estimation in my opinion.

Agree with doing the 20 min. The 8 min is fine to get used to performing a test, but try to work into the 20 min one as it will give a better idea. You might see it go up noticeably over the first several attempts as you learn how to do it.

I agree - it takes a few times to get it "right." How did you feel during the 8 minutes? Did you build it up, fade at the end, or were you steady all the way through? Did you have more in the tank or were you spent? How was tour cadence? It is common for folks to push a lower cadence when they are asked to produce more power because it feels "harder." However power is the combination of torque applied to the cranks and cadence. So simply applying more torque to the pedals does not necessarily produce more power if your cadence goes way down at the same time. I have found that paying close attention to the relationship between cadence, HR and Power to be key in maximizing my most efficient power output in a given situation. it is probably a gross over-generalization, but higher cadence work is going to utilize more of your slow twitch systems, while lower "over gear" work is going to utilize more of your fast twitch systems (counterintuitive, right?). Knowing how to utilize both of those systems during a test, training ride, or race allows you to sit right on the razor's edge of efficiency.

The test should be really hard; the only excuse to ease up a bit is to while the puke out of your eyes. I think it is ok to stop only if you actually die. You do need to be a little patient and build the first part though. The "good" news is that it sounds like you get to do another one soon! I agree with Arend - I would do the 20 minute test instead, by nature it will be more "slow twitchy" and therefore more familiar to you based on your training.

Yeah, but the 8 minute one is more palatable

Kate, depending on how your legs are feeling after having done the test, tomorrow might not be the best day to do another if you want to see improvements.  I see you're joining the TR Challenge -- I'm considering it as well, but won't be around to do an FTP test this weekend (first "race" of the year).  I'm also moderately concerned that I will show backward progress as the temps warm up....it won't be long before the garage will be 100F with 100% humidity, so even my two fans won't help!

Hope you enjoy TR....I know, for me, it's about the only thing that makes trainer riding tolerable!

Awesome.

Ben, mine is the version that has SRAM red cranks and rings and it has performed like a champ relative to stiffness. When my wife bought hers the only compact version the bike shop had in stock was the one that has what looks like force cranks and chainrings (they don't sell that version anymore). It wasn't at first, but fairly soon she developed significant FD shifting issues: it became virtually impossible to adjust the FD to where it would shift consistently. Sometimes it was good, sometimes it would over shift and drop the chain to the outside, and sometimes it would not shift up to the big chainring. We recabled the bike 4 times, changed out the tinanium Red FD (notoriously flexy) and replaced it with Force, we even got a frame replacement after the bike shop thought the derailluer hanger was slightly out of alignment. No dice. Ultimately we replaced the SRAM Force rings with Dura Ace (very stiff) and the problem was instantly solved. In the spirit of full disclusure she rides a Scott Plasma 2, which is by no means a very stiff bike to start with. Ultimately I think the issue was the mating of a flexy set of chainrings with a somewht flexy frame. Not really a quarq issue, but like Fred says, a choice of cranks/rings issue.