Other Resources Challenge Me! » Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012 Rss Feed  
Moderators: the bear, kaqphin, tinkerbeth, D001, k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 33
 
 
2012-01-08 8:58 PM
in reply to: #3977893

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
Anton84 - 2012-01-08 10:27 AM

I am torn between riding ERG mode on CT for testing and riding a regular flat ride (on CT as well). 

So far I've been doing my testing going as hard as I can for 5 or 20 minutes (flat ride).  It would seem that ERG mode would make it easier to push bigger watts as it adjusts the resistance as you pedal (so you could just hang on for dear life and unless you blow up you'll hit your targeted watts).

Riding flat-out ride means that there is some variability in the power output. 

Thoughts?

Regular flat ride. the point is for you to push as hard as you hard and learn how to pace your efforts. For training, sure, you can use ERG mode but when testing, let it fly!


2012-01-09 5:01 AM
in reply to: #3744433

User image

Elite
7783
50002000500100100252525
PEI, Canada
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012

Week 11, 20' test done!  I increased my 20MP from 256w to 260w.  I think that was the most difficult test I've done to date - the last one I built up throughout the 20 mins but today it was pretty steady throughout.  I hung on for dear life from about 11 mins on. 

Good luck to everyone else who is testing this week!

2012-01-09 6:14 AM
in reply to: #3979074

User image

Pro
3804
20001000500100100100
Seacoast, NH!
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
axteraa - 2012-01-09 6:01 AM

I hung on for dear life from about 11 mins on. 

Good luck to everyone else who is testing this week!

Funny that you say this.  My test last month was like that.  I actually was feeling pretty strong through about 11 minutes and then it hit me pretty hard all at once and holding the constant power through the end really hurt.

2012-01-09 6:38 AM
in reply to: #3744433

User image

Extreme Veteran
821
500100100100
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012

One official (I did repeat the first week multiple times during Dec) week in the book! Loving it so far; I am doing heart rate but I will do the FTP test on a compu-trainer so I can measure the improvement over time (until I get my powertap).

2012-01-09 9:56 AM
in reply to: #3744433

User image

Pro
4353
200020001001001002525
Wallingford, PA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
I have a power meter question -- I'm hoping Jorge or one of the other power gurus might help me out...

I started out a couple months ago using Trainer Road with virtual power, but recently got a powertap wheel, and am in the process of trying to re-establish power zones. It seems to me I might have some calibration issues with the PT....

For my previous 20 min power test using TR, 20 min test results were: power 237w, HR 156, speed 19.1 mph. I just re-tested with the powertap today, and the results were: power 173w, HR 164, speed 30.9.

As you can see, there are some pretty big differences there.... Mainly that the power reading with the power tap was much lower even though speed and HR were quite a bit higher in today's test. I know that the main thing I need to be concerned about is whether whatever measurement I am using is consistent, but it would also be nice to know that what I'm measuring is reasonably accurate. I always assumed the TR power zones were probably high, but I doubt that they were THAT much higher than the power tap numbers. For today's 20 min test, I was in my biggest gear pushing 85-90 rpm the whole time. You can tell by my average HR I was definitely working harder for this test than the last one...

If anyone cares to look at the two rides, you can see them here:

TR Virtual Power 20 min test (November 16): http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/4052

Today's 20 min test with the power tap: http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/13244

So, is there an issue with calibration for my PT? It seems to me that at > 30 mph and pushing my biggest gear my power would be higher than that... FWIW, I did zero out the PT before my ride today. I DO think that the TR virtual power estimate was probably high, but I also think the PT number seems low.

Suggestions???
2012-01-09 10:08 AM
in reply to: #3744433

User image

Elite
7783
50002000500100100252525
PEI, Canada
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
I don't know if I could get my speed up to 30 MPH on the trainer!  Something doesn't sound right for sure.  Are you on the same trainer for both rides?


2012-01-09 10:09 AM
in reply to: #3744433

User image

Expert
1394
1000100100100252525
Wilmington, NC
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012

Did my 2nd 20min test this morning.

12/14/2011              20min Avg 256w        3.75w/kg

1/9/2012                  20min Avg 277w        4.06w/kg

 

I am pretty happy with this. I was fairly certain I would improve over the 1st test purely because I had only ridden 5x in the previous year before thatn1st  test.  I will most definately take an 8% improvement over 4 weeks.

2012-01-09 10:20 AM
in reply to: #3979620

User image

Pro
4353
200020001001001002525
Wallingford, PA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
axteraa - 2012-01-09 11:08 AM

I don't know if I could get my speed up to 30 MPH on the trainer!  Something doesn't sound right for sure.  Are you on the same trainer for both rides?


Yep - same trainer, same tension, tire pressure, etc... I suppose it's also possible that there could be an issue with the speed sensor - maybe it's over-estimating speed? But as per HR, I was still working a lot harder today with much lower power....
2012-01-09 10:25 AM
in reply to: #3744433

User image

Elite
7783
50002000500100100252525
PEI, Canada
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
If it were me, I would get the speed thing sorted out first so you are at least comparing apples to apples in that dept.  Then, I would setup Trainerroad so it is listening to your speed sensor only (not the PT - assuming that's possible) and compare what TR says your power is vs what your computer head for the PT says.
2012-01-09 11:37 AM
in reply to: #3979074

User image

Extreme Veteran
875
500100100100252525
Issaquah
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
axteraa - 2012-01-09 3:01 AM

Week 11, 20' test done!  I increased my 20MP from 256w to 260w.  I think that was the most difficult test I've done to date - the last one I built up throughout the 20 mins but today it was pretty steady throughout.  I hung on for dear life from about 11 mins on. 

Good luck to everyone else who is testing this week!

Finished the 20 min test this morning. I don't think I can feel my legs right now... Improved my 20MP 8% since the last test. I'm psyched. Assuming I don't lose both legs.

2012-01-09 12:06 PM
in reply to: #3979862

User image

Expert
913
500100100100100
Lost in the Evergreens
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
Nice work on the 20MP.  The last time I lost my legs they were still clipped in to my pedals.

Regards,
Mark


2012-01-09 3:34 PM
in reply to: #3977385

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012

rsmoylan - 2012-01-07 8:16 PM Jorge,  The ride I did tonight was the 3x10min ride.  Is this considered the "sweet spot", and would you mind explaining the "sweet spot"?  If not, would you mind pointing me in the direction to be able learn a bit more about it.  Thanks.

Coaches or Physiologists use different terms to describe different intensities aiming to achieve similar adaptations. As showed, A. Coggan calls the 'sweet spot' to the intensity where many adaptations are maximized (between 80-100% of FTP), coaches like Jack Daniels use a mix of Marathon pace and Threshold pace (which is roughly the same range intensity wise).

Renato Canova (current coach of 12 of the top 20 marathoners in the world), refers to this as Aerobic power to Lactate resistance.

The point is, there can be many ways to refer to a particular zone in which spending time training, we can maximize many training adaptations. Remember, training zones/levels are man made at our attempt to make training more efficient, but our bodies don't really know when we went from zone 1 to zone 3; physiologically the brain just sends more signals through the nervous system to recruit more muscle fibers and thus, more oxygen is required to oxidize glycogen for ATP, more lactate accumulates, more waste products accumulate, etc. 

The training load we do matters because the mix of it will determine what adaptations we maximize; since load = Volume (duration + frequency) + intensity, then to maximize different adaptations we either have to train at lower intensities for a longer period of time or we can train at a higher intensity for a shorter period of time. And while adaptations occur in a sort of continuum (i.e. doing an easy run may improve VO2 max or Lactate Threshold to a lesser degree), we need to do different intensities (at different times in a program) to maximize and maintain those.

In this case, I developed this plan addressing different adaptations to maximize specific gains. At first, we did some trainnig to get the body ready to handle more work, then we did work addressing power near VO2 max to improve our aerobic capacity, then we did 6x4s at 105% of CP and short rest to stress the body targeting the slow glycolysis system to 'teach' it how to work more 'efficiently' at higher lactate accumulations, then we moved into longer sets at 100% of CP to 'teach' the body to work more 'efficiently' at your maximum lactate steady state all while some rides were targeting lower intensities (75-85%CP) for longer duration to induced other adaptions like use glycigne more efficiently. 

Is does doing sets around 100%CP a sweet spot based on A.Coggan's term? sure, but so does doing sets at 80%. In my opinion, every load (duration + intensity) has its own sweet spot or more precisely, its purpose. Yes, if you are short in time and need to maximize certain gain, you can do 'sweet spot' training and get a bit more bang for your buck but it will be only to a point. if you want to be the best athlete you can be, you will always benefit from general and specific training at different doses and degrees through a program.

if you are doing and Ironman and you don't do long steady state rides and instead you do only sweet spot training, you can certainly get fit and even compete; depending on your physiology, you might even be able to do very well. But still, by ignoring specific training you will be missing the opportunity to perform better. Same, if you specialized in Olys and only do 'base training' and ignore doing training at 100% of your CP (or critical swim speed, or critical pace), you might do ok, well or even very well (depending on your physiology), but unless you do specific training, you will be missing performance gains.

The point is not to only do one kind of training, but to do:

  1. The training that matters most for your current fitness level
  2. The training that matters the most for your goal race
  3. The training that matters the most for your PERSONAL physiology
  4. The training that your life priorities allow you to do (balance in life vs training is key)

That's why I think doing only base training is not only silly (or lazy coaching) but also, a missed opportunity for an athlete to improve, same as focusing exclusively in intensity. It is not an either or proposition, but a what mix of each you need based on you.

Reading Skiba Books will certainly help understand all this a bit more

2012-01-09 3:46 PM
in reply to: #3978819

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
rsmoylan - 2012-01-08 8:56 PM
Fit4Infinity - 2012-01-08 12:56 PM I beleive I understand the principle and can offer an explanation of Sweet Spot.  How best to train in the sweet spot I look to Coach Jorge to explain how a workout targets this result.  Specifically, how does a 3x20 workbout target the sweet spot in a way that a 10x5 does not?  Is it the duration of the working segment?

As promised here is my brief explanation.  For more information look into "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" by Allen and Coggan, and Dr. Skiba's book, The Triathlete's Guide to Training  With Power.  I re-read these each off season before starting my power training and I continue to grasp a bit more of what is heady stuff.

Definition of Sweet Spot,
  A small area of intensity characterized by 88-93 percent of one's FTP.

As described by A. Coggan,
Training in the 'sweet spot' is the relationship of volume, physiological strain, and training effect.

Briefly, as intensity increases so does the physiological strain to the point that training effect is reduced.
The other factor is duration.  There is a limit to what the maximum tolerable trained duration or volume is.

The resulting curve is where the sweet spot is.
http://www.freewebs.com/velodynamics2/loadeffect.pdf

Thanks so much.  That was really helpful.  I can see why you re-read Skiba's book.  I read it over the summer, before getting a power meter.  I have Coggan's book ordered.  I'm looking forward to wrapping my head around these concepts more.  Thanks again.  

Here is a cool graph from Coggan indicating what physiological adaptation are maxmized when training at different intensities. 

Here is a similar from Skiba's book using different %s of different markers (whether using VO2max, LT, etc. to determine your zones).

Look at what intensities produce more adaptations; makes me wonder why some coaches/athletes are so hesitant to mix intensity in their training programs and get so fixated in 'base training', no? The best coaches, programs and athletes in the world do a little bit of everything (even resistance and anaerobic training) and a lot of something depending on the phase, but always keeping a mix. It is not like Ironman training is different and we need some sort of snowflake type of program

2012-01-09 3:48 PM
in reply to: #3979074

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
axteraa - 2012-01-09 5:01 AM

Week 11, 20' test done!  I increased my 20MP from 256w to 260w.  I think that was the most difficult test I've done to date - the last one I built up throughout the 20 mins but today it was pretty steady throughout.  I hung on for dear life from about 11 mins on. 

Good luck to everyone else who is testing this week!

congrats! keep it going
2012-01-09 3:49 PM
in reply to: #3979862

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
cnsegura - 2012-01-09 11:37 AM 

Finished the 20 min test this morning. I don't think I can feel my legs right now... Improved my 20MP 8% since the last test. I'm psyched. Assuming I don't lose both legs.

awesome job! keep it up, it won't get easy, but you'll go faster
2012-01-09 4:27 PM
in reply to: #3979590

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012

jsnowash - 2012-01-09 9:56 AM I have a power meter question -- I'm hoping Jorge or one of the other power gurus might help me out... I started out a couple months ago using Trainer Road with virtual power, but recently got a powertap wheel, and am in the process of trying to re-establish power zones. It seems to me I might have some calibration issues with the PT.... For my previous 20 min power test using TR, 20 min test results were: power 237w, HR 156, speed 19.1 mph. I just re-tested with the powertap today, and the results were: power 173w, HR 164, speed 30.9. As you can see, there are some pretty big differences there.... Mainly that the power reading with the power tap was much lower even though speed and HR were quite a bit higher in today's test. I know that the main thing I need to be concerned about is whether whatever measurement I am using is consistent, but it would also be nice to know that what I'm measuring is reasonably accurate. I always assumed the TR power zones were probably high, but I doubt that they were THAT much higher than the power tap numbers. For today's 20 min test, I was in my biggest gear pushing 85-90 rpm the whole time. You can tell by my average HR I was definitely working harder for this test than the last one... If anyone cares to look at the two rides, you can see them here: TR Virtual Power 20 min test (November 16): http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/4052Today's 20 min test with the power tap: http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/13244So, is there an issue with calibration for my PT? It seems to me that at > 30 mph and pushing my biggest gear my power would be higher than that... FWIW, I did zero out the PT before my ride today. I DO think that the TR virtual power estimate was probably high, but I also think the PT number seems low. Suggestions???

as long as you calibrate your PT before every ride (zero torque) and you have consistent readings then I would go with the PT #. It hurts a bit in the pride if the power is lower but at least now you have something to work with indoors and outdoors.

Did you zero the torque before the test?



2012-01-09 4:28 PM
in reply to: #3979625

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
qrkid - 2012-01-09 10:09 AM

Did my 2nd 20min test this morning.

12/14/2011              20min Avg 256w        3.75w/kg

1/9/2012                  20min Avg 277w        4.06w/kg

 

I am pretty happy with this. I was fairly certain I would improve over the 1st test purely because I had only ridden 5x in the previous year before thatn1st  test.  I will most definately take an 8% improvement over 4 weeks.

that's awesome! more gains to come
2012-01-09 6:27 PM
in reply to: #3980524

User image

Pro
4353
200020001001001002525
Wallingford, PA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
JorgeM - 2012-01-09 5:27 PM

jsnowash - 2012-01-09 9:56 AM I have a power meter question -- I'm hoping Jorge or one of the other power gurus might help me out... I started out a couple months ago using Trainer Road with virtual power, but recently got a powertap wheel, and am in the process of trying to re-establish power zones. It seems to me I might have some calibration issues with the PT.... For my previous 20 min power test using TR, 20 min test results were: power 237w, HR 156, speed 19.1 mph. I just re-tested with the powertap today, and the results were: power 173w, HR 164, speed 30.9. As you can see, there are some pretty big differences there.... Mainly that the power reading with the power tap was much lower even though speed and HR were quite a bit higher in today's test. I know that the main thing I need to be concerned about is whether whatever measurement I am using is consistent, but it would also be nice to know that what I'm measuring is reasonably accurate. I always assumed the TR power zones were probably high, but I doubt that they were THAT much higher than the power tap numbers. For today's 20 min test, I was in my biggest gear pushing 85-90 rpm the whole time. You can tell by my average HR I was definitely working harder for this test than the last one... If anyone cares to look at the two rides, you can see them here: TR Virtual Power 20 min test (November 16): http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/4052Today's 20 min test with the power tap: http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/13244So, is there an issue with calibration for my PT? It seems to me that at > 30 mph and pushing my biggest gear my power would be higher than that... FWIW, I did zero out the PT before my ride today. I DO think that the TR virtual power estimate was probably high, but I also think the PT number seems low. Suggestions???

as long as you calibrate your PT before every ride (zero torque) and you have consistent readings then I would go with the PT #. It hurts a bit in the pride if the power is lower but at least now you have something to work with indoors and outdoors.

Did you zero the torque before the test?



Yes, I did zero it, but it still seems like it must be off. I have no problem accepting a lower number, but it seems if I'm pushing my biggest gear at 80-90 rpm, with speed readings > 30 mph, I would probably be generating more than 173 watts - but I'm new to power training, so I could be wrong....

I just tried a "stomp test" but I'm not sure exactly how to interpret the results, especially since the latest firmware update for the Joule apparently inflates the torque readings by (I believe) a factor of 8.8. At any rate, I used this calculator to input the results.

The calculator tells me the that the actual torque is 347 inch pounds, but the displayed torque is 1025 inch pounds (that is AFTER I corrected for the inflated torque values - without 8.8 factor correction the displayed torque is 9023), which, if I did the test correctly, and I'm reading the results correctly, is an error of almost 200%.... If guess I'll call Saris tomorrow and see what they say....
2012-01-09 7:53 PM
in reply to: #3744433

User image

Pro
4353
200020001001001002525
Wallingford, PA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
ETA - I just realized I didn't put the correct chain ring info into the calculator. With that correction, actual torque is ~ 661, and error is more like 55% (again, if I did the test correctly...)
2012-01-10 7:54 AM
in reply to: #3980443

User image

Master
1793
1000500100100252525
Essex Jct, VT
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
JorgeM - 2012-01-09 4:46 PM
rsmoylan - 2012-01-08 8:56 PM
Fit4Infinity - 2012-01-08 12:56 PM I beleive I understand the principle and can offer an explanation of Sweet Spot.  How best to train in the sweet spot I look to Coach Jorge to explain how a workout targets this result.  Specifically, how does a 3x20 workbout target the sweet spot in a way that a 10x5 does not?  Is it the duration of the working segment?

As promised here is my brief explanation.  For more information look into "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" by Allen and Coggan, and Dr. Skiba's book, The Triathlete's Guide to Training  With Power.  I re-read these each off season before starting my power training and I continue to grasp a bit more of what is heady stuff.

Definition of Sweet Spot,
  A small area of intensity characterized by 88-93 percent of one's FTP.

As described by A. Coggan,
Training in the 'sweet spot' is the relationship of volume, physiological strain, and training effect.

Briefly, as intensity increases so does the physiological strain to the point that training effect is reduced.
The other factor is duration.  There is a limit to what the maximum tolerable trained duration or volume is.

The resulting curve is where the sweet spot is.
http://www.freewebs.com/velodynamics2/loadeffect.pdf

Thanks so much.  That was really helpful.  I can see why you re-read Skiba's book.  I read it over the summer, before getting a power meter.  I have Coggan's book ordered.  I'm looking forward to wrapping my head around these concepts more.  Thanks again.  

Here is a cool graph from Coggan indicating what physiological adaptation are maxmized when training at different intensities. 

Here is a similar from Skiba's book using different %s of different markers (whether using VO2max, LT, etc. to determine your zones).

Look at what intensities produce more adaptations; makes me wonder why some coaches/athletes are so hesitant to mix intensity in their training programs and get so fixated in 'base training', no? The best coaches, programs and athletes in the world do a little bit of everything (even resistance and anaerobic training) and a lot of something depending on the phase, but always keeping a mix. It is not like Ironman training is different and we need some sort of snowflake type of program

Jorge, thanks for all the great info.  I am learning so much.  I don't know if I love you or hate you sometimes.  Smile

2012-01-10 4:08 PM
in reply to: #3980868

User image

Expert
913
500100100100100
Lost in the Evergreens
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012

How do the two tests feel from the perspective of perceived exertion. 

That one your new joule reports a rear wheel speed of 30 mph and Trainer Road reports 20mph thats a big difference.  Prior to upgrading to PT how were you measuring wheel speed during the test? 

It is possible that you are able to turn the wheel faster with less wattage if you have changed the setup of your trainer.  Are you testing using the same rear tire pressure with the same number of turns on the trainer adjustment knob?

The zany numbers of the stomp test are another matter.  How much weight are you hanging from the pedal spindle? What model crank do you have and which gears did you select for the test?



2012-01-10 5:39 PM
in reply to: #3932531

User image

Pro
3804
20001000500100100100
Seacoast, NH!
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012

I did my third test today.  Put it this way....hardest I've gone on a bicycle ever.  I'm not even sure if I have gained any fitness from last time.  I just put a hurtin' on myself.  Drooling.  Not kidding.  Took me about 10 minutes of riding in zone 2 to get my heart rate back down.

First 20m test:  272 watts (3.2 w/kg)

Second 20m test:  294 watts (3.5 w/kg)

Third 20m test:  308 watts (3.7 w/kg)

2012-01-10 8:23 PM
in reply to: #3982675

User image

Expert
1394
1000100100100252525
Wilmington, NC
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
jgerbodegrant - 2012-01-10 6:39 PM

I did my third test today.  Put it this way....hardest I've gone on a bicycle ever.  I'm not even sure if I have gained any fitness from last time.  I just put a hurtin' on myself.  Drooling.  Not kidding.  Took me about 10 minutes of riding in zone 2 to get my heart rate back down.

First 20m test:  272 watts (3.2 w/kg)

Second 20m test:  294 watts (3.5 w/kg)

Third 20m test:  308 watts (3.7 w/kg)

 

Very nice progression. Congrats.

2012-01-10 9:25 PM
in reply to: #3982675

User image

Master
1793
1000500100100252525
Essex Jct, VT
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
jgerbodegrant - 2012-01-10 6:39 PM

I did my third test today.  Put it this way....hardest I've gone on a bicycle ever.  I'm not even sure if I have gained any fitness from last time.  I just put a hurtin' on myself.  Drooling.  Not kidding.  Took me about 10 minutes of riding in zone 2 to get my heart rate back down.

First 20m test:  272 watts (3.2 w/kg)

Second 20m test:  294 watts (3.5 w/kg)

Third 20m test:  308 watts (3.7 w/kg)

Awesome job Jonathan.  That is some great improvement.

Small improvement for me tonight.  My last test was 303 watts.  Now I'm at 305 watts.  That's good for 3.65w/kg.  Man that test is challenging.   

2012-01-10 9:25 PM
in reply to: #3980730

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012
jsnowash - 2012-01-09 6:27 PM
JorgeM - 2012-01-09 5:27 PM

jsnowash - 2012-01-09 9:56 AM I have a power meter question -- I'm hoping Jorge or one of the other power gurus might help me out... I started out a couple months ago using Trainer Road with virtual power, but recently got a powertap wheel, and am in the process of trying to re-establish power zones. It seems to me I might have some calibration issues with the PT.... For my previous 20 min power test using TR, 20 min test results were: power 237w, HR 156, speed 19.1 mph. I just re-tested with the powertap today, and the results were: power 173w, HR 164, speed 30.9. As you can see, there are some pretty big differences there.... Mainly that the power reading with the power tap was much lower even though speed and HR were quite a bit higher in today's test. I know that the main thing I need to be concerned about is whether whatever measurement I am using is consistent, but it would also be nice to know that what I'm measuring is reasonably accurate. I always assumed the TR power zones were probably high, but I doubt that they were THAT much higher than the power tap numbers. For today's 20 min test, I was in my biggest gear pushing 85-90 rpm the whole time. You can tell by my average HR I was definitely working harder for this test than the last one... If anyone cares to look at the two rides, you can see them here: TR Virtual Power 20 min test (November 16): http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/4052Today's 20 min test with the power tap: http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/13244So, is there an issue with calibration for my PT? It seems to me that at > 30 mph and pushing my biggest gear my power would be higher than that... FWIW, I did zero out the PT before my ride today. I DO think that the TR virtual power estimate was probably high, but I also think the PT number seems low. Suggestions???

as long as you calibrate your PT before every ride (zero torque) and you have consistent readings then I would go with the PT #. It hurts a bit in the pride if the power is lower but at least now you have something to work with indoors and outdoors.

Did you zero the torque before the test?

Yes, I did zero it, but it still seems like it must be off. I have no problem accepting a lower number, but it seems if I'm pushing my biggest gear at 80-90 rpm, with speed readings > 30 mph, I would probably be generating more than 173 watts - but I'm new to power training, so I could be wrong.... I just tried a "stomp test" but I'm not sure exactly how to interpret the results, especially since the latest firmware update for the Joule apparently inflates the torque readings by (I believe) a factor of 8.8. At any rate, I used this calculator to input the results. The calculator tells me the that the actual torque is 347 inch pounds, but the displayed torque is 1025 inch pounds (that is AFTER I corrected for the inflated torque values - without 8.8 factor correction the displayed torque is 9023), which, if I did the test correctly, and I'm reading the results correctly, is an error of almost 200%.... If guess I'll call Saris tomorrow and see what they say....

Something seems off. Maybe check with Saris? one of my athletes had the autozero thingy on in the Joule but after having weird reading she tried manual zeroing and the number was way off and not getting corrected even manually. eventually it got fixed with their support

New Thread
Other Resources Challenge Me! » Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012 Rss Feed  
 
 
of 33