login
SBR Utopia Season II - OPEN (Page 48)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-08-07 6:17 PM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran  5722   |  Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again...Originally posted by ligersandtions So say you were shooting for an NP of X. For one race, you did a good job of not overshooting your power target, but you did a rather significant amount of coasting for some reason, and you came in at an NP of X-Y. You are below your NP budget, but your VI is rather high. Then you had a race where you rode almost perfectly and you came in and nailed your NP target of X. Which race do you have your better run? The one where you had a lower NP (X-Y), but higher VI? Or the one where you had your budged NP (X) and a VI=1? I get that this is completely hypothetical and this would literally never happen....I'm just curious. In the first case you are below your NP budget and you are probably way below your AP target. Chances are you will have a very good run. I asked the question more in terms of do you pace to NP or AP to have a good run. I have got two different opinions. I always targeted to NP. I think this may have been a mistake. But sometimes I think both are flawed. Here is an extreme. I did this ride two weeks ago http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/NUNUJUTAHV6I7LRGSOP34RKWX4 for 1 hour AP = 202w (walk in the park) NP = 254w (not a walk in the park) VI = 1.26 Let's say I would have set my target to 230w. If I had targetted AP to 230, I would have blown up. If I had set NP to 230 I would have put too little effort in. it's easy on a flat course (although there are other challenges), but on a hilly course.....I guess if you can get VI closer to 1, it becomes easier Next race I will pace to AP. Should be fun Edited by marcag 2013-08-07 6:34 PM |
| 2013-08-07 6:48 PM in reply to: marcag |
 Payson, AZ | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... OMG, it is like geeks r us in there with all this power meter talk. Must save pennies.. |
 2013-08-07 8:01 PM in reply to: bzgl40 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2013-08-07 9:31 PM in reply to: bzgl40 |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by bzgl40 OMG, it is like geeks r us in there with all this power meter talk. Must save pennies.. Then you'll probably love this. I've been feeling burnt a bit by working harder, so instead of riding up in sweet spot territory, I went at a more basic aerobic level and went until I achieved about the same TSS as I would have the other way. |
| 2013-08-07 11:48 PM in reply to: marcag |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Look at the spikes above the 300w line, those were not supposed to be. You can see HR only goes to 150 or so. So try to keep HR in a tight range if you can This is one time I really like Cycleops Poweragent. It has a tab for "Surges", grouped by w/kg. 4-6, 6-8, 8-10 and 10+ And yeah I had a 10+ w/kg surge on IM Canada last year. I spotted a huge motorhome trying to blow by me, taking up half the shoulder. I sprinted to get up to a wider section of road. Sometimes I hate riding open courses. |
| 2013-08-08 7:34 AM in reply to: ligersandtions |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by ligersandtions Originally posted by marcag Hey Matt, FYI, since we have established our HR is around the same areas Here is my power/HR from tremblant which I would say was a poorly executed bike  Average HR was 140 for the entire ride. A little low. I would have wanted another 10watts or another 3BPM roughly As you can see, HR is a little higher coming off the swim even if power is in the right spot, so expect that Look at the spikes above the 300w line, those were not supposed to be. You can see HR only goes to 150 or so. So try to keep HR in a tight range if you can It's somewhat surprising to me that a number of your power spikes actually look like they're on downhill sections....managed to keep yourself in check on the climb and then let loose on the descent, I guess. In regards to power targets and VI and whatnot, do the times when you are (significantly) below your target power concern you? Obviously, the closer you stay to it (on the downhill sections), the faster you are....but on hilly courses like that, I imagine running out of gears becomes an issue. But what I'm getting at -- obviously you don't want to have large spikes above your target power, but does a high VI due to large "valleys" contribute to a crap run afterward? Or is going above power targets the only thing that concerns you? The paragraph above is all the proverbial "you"....not just directed to Marc I'm not sure if the dropped part was really responded to anywhere, but the the VI going up due to the coasting does not mean that the run will be affected. You're resting or recovering at the time. What can hurt things is how the energy saved during this recovery is applied elsewhere. Meaning it's back to watching for spikes. The savings should be spread out over a bigger section of time, applying more so when you get the most out of it. Coasting on a hill isn't necessarily a terrible thing. You just want the point where you can't keep up to be fast enough that pedaling wouldn't really give much more speed anyway. The goal is to use the energy available to get through the course as quickly as you can. The metrics being discussed are tools to help accomplish that. So on a large downhill, putting out more power for the sake of a lower VI isn't really the best use. You're going so fast that the additional power only adds a small amount of additional speed due to the exponential nature of air resistance. So it's better to save that energy (at least some of it) and apply it when air resistance will be lower and rolling resistance has more of an effect as that one is more linear. |
| 2013-08-08 7:48 AM in reply to: 0 |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by ligersandtions In the first case you are below your NP budget and you are probably way below your AP target. Chances are you will have a very good run. I asked the question more in terms of do you pace to NP or AP to have a good run. I have got two different opinions. I always targeted to NP. I think this may have been a mistake. But sometimes I think both are flawed. Here is an extreme. I did this ride two weeks ago http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/NUNUJUTAHV6I7LRGSOP34RKWX4for 1 hour AP = 202w (walk in the park) NP = 254w (not a walk in the park) VI = 1.26 Let's say I would have set my target to 230w. If I had targetted AP to 230, I would have blown up. If I had set NP to 230 I would have put too little effort in. it's easy on a flat course (although there are other challenges), but on a hilly course.....I guess if you can get VI closer to 1, it becomes easier Next race I will pace to AP. Should be fun So say you were shooting for an NP of X. For one race, you did a good job of not overshooting your power target, but you did a rather significant amount of coasting for some reason, and you came in at an NP of X-Y. You are below your NP budget, but your VI is rather high. Then you had a race where you rode almost perfectly and you came in and nailed your NP target of X. Which race do you have your better run? The one where you had a lower NP (X-Y), but higher VI? Or the one where you had your budged NP (X) and a VI=1? I get that this is completely hypothetical and this would literally never happen....I'm just curious. Marc, I'm finding some of the conclusions being made a bit confusing as not 6 hrs before this you were saying NP was the way to go. Now it's a mistake? What's changing for you? Edited by brigby1 2013-08-08 7:50 AM |
| 2013-08-08 8:19 AM in reply to: brigby1 |
| Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by ligersandtions In the first case you are below your NP budget and you are probably way below your AP target. Chances are you will have a very good run. I asked the question more in terms of do you pace to NP or AP to have a good run. I have got two different opinions. I always targeted to NP. I think this may have been a mistake. But sometimes I think both are flawed. Here is an extreme. I did this ride two weeks ago http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/NUNUJUTAHV6I7LRGSOP34RKWX4for 1 hour AP = 202w (walk in the park) NP = 254w (not a walk in the park) VI = 1.26 Let's say I would have set my target to 230w. If I had targetted AP to 230, I would have blown up. If I had set NP to 230 I would have put too little effort in. it's easy on a flat course (although there are other challenges), but on a hilly course.....I guess if you can get VI closer to 1, it becomes easier Next race I will pace to AP. Should be fun So say you were shooting for an NP of X. For one race, you did a good job of not overshooting your power target, but you did a rather significant amount of coasting for some reason, and you came in at an NP of X-Y. You are below your NP budget, but your VI is rather high. Then you had a race where you rode almost perfectly and you came in and nailed your NP target of X. Which race do you have your better run? The one where you had a lower NP (X-Y), but higher VI? Or the one where you had your budged NP (X) and a VI=1? I get that this is completely hypothetical and this would literally never happen....I'm just curious. Marc, I'm finding some of the conclusions being made a bit confusing as not 6 hrs before this you were saying NP was the way to go. Now it's a mistake? What's changing for you? I have always gone by NP. I think establishing a NP budget is the conservative/safe way to get to a good run. But it may be over conservative especially with a higher VI courses I think it overestimates effort, on high VI course. Next time I will try to will ignore NP, focus on keeping my VI as low as possible, and try to hit some AP targets and see what happens. For the sake of learning. Again, if your VI is low, AP, NP, doesn't matter, they will be very close. |
| 2013-08-08 9:34 AM in reply to: marcag |
| Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by brigby1 I have always gone by NP. I think establishing a NP budget is the conservative/safe way to get to a good run. But it may be over conservative especially with a higher VI courses I think it overestimates effort, on high VI course. Next time I will try to will ignore NP, focus on keeping my VI as low as possible, and try to hit some AP targets and see what happens. For the sake of learning. Again, if your VI is low, AP, NP, doesn't matter, they will be very close. Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by ligersandtions In the first case you are below your NP budget and you are probably way below your AP target. Chances are you will have a very good run. I asked the question more in terms of do you pace to NP or AP to have a good run. I have got two different opinions. I always targeted to NP. I think this may have been a mistake. But sometimes I think both are flawed. Here is an extreme. I did this ride two weeks ago http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/NUNUJUTAHV6I7LRGSOP34RKWX4for 1 hour AP = 202w (walk in the park) NP = 254w (not a walk in the park) VI = 1.26 Let's say I would have set my target to 230w. If I had targetted AP to 230, I would have blown up. If I had set NP to 230 I would have put too little effort in. it's easy on a flat course (although there are other challenges), but on a hilly course.....I guess if you can get VI closer to 1, it becomes easier Next race I will pace to AP. Should be fun So say you were shooting for an NP of X. For one race, you did a good job of not overshooting your power target, but you did a rather significant amount of coasting for some reason, and you came in at an NP of X-Y. You are below your NP budget, but your VI is rather high. Then you had a race where you rode almost perfectly and you came in and nailed your NP target of X. Which race do you have your better run? The one where you had a lower NP (X-Y), but higher VI? Or the one where you had your budged NP (X) and a VI=1? I get that this is completely hypothetical and this would literally never happen....I'm just curious. Marc, I'm finding some of the conclusions being made a bit confusing as not 6 hrs before this you were saying NP was the way to go. Now it's a mistake? What's changing for you? If you set your device to not include zeroes on power, then you effectively remove the coasting from AP and it becomes much closer to NP (unless you spike power UP a lot ). I mostly just pay attention to my 3s power though and have a number in mind of my "max" that I shouldn't go over when I'm climbing. |
| 2013-08-08 9:43 AM in reply to: marcag |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by brigby1 I have always gone by NP. I think establishing a NP budget is the conservative/safe way to get to a good run. But it may be over conservative especially with a higher VI courses I think it overestimates effort, on high VI course. Next time I will try to will ignore NP, focus on keeping my VI as low as possible, and try to hit some AP targets and see what happens. For the sake of learning. Again, if your VI is low, AP, NP, doesn't matter, they will be very close. Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by ligersandtions In the first case you are below your NP budget and you are probably way below your AP target. Chances are you will have a very good run. I asked the question more in terms of do you pace to NP or AP to have a good run. I have got two different opinions. I always targeted to NP. I think this may have been a mistake. But sometimes I think both are flawed. Here is an extreme. I did this ride two weeks ago http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/NUNUJUTAHV6I7LRGSOP34RKWX4for 1 hour AP = 202w (walk in the park) NP = 254w (not a walk in the park) VI = 1.26 Let's say I would have set my target to 230w. If I had targetted AP to 230, I would have blown up. If I had set NP to 230 I would have put too little effort in. it's easy on a flat course (although there are other challenges), but on a hilly course.....I guess if you can get VI closer to 1, it becomes easier Next race I will pace to AP. Should be fun So say you were shooting for an NP of X. For one race, you did a good job of not overshooting your power target, but you did a rather significant amount of coasting for some reason, and you came in at an NP of X-Y. You are below your NP budget, but your VI is rather high. Then you had a race where you rode almost perfectly and you came in and nailed your NP target of X. Which race do you have your better run? The one where you had a lower NP (X-Y), but higher VI? Or the one where you had your budged NP (X) and a VI=1? I get that this is completely hypothetical and this would literally never happen....I'm just curious. Marc, I'm finding some of the conclusions being made a bit confusing as not 6 hrs before this you were saying NP was the way to go. Now it's a mistake? What's changing for you? Ok, so you're just experimenting to see which works better for you. NP might overestimate some when there are more ups and downs, but I find that it tends to match up better to how hard I rode than AP does, so that's the one I go with. It doesn't have to be right on (though that sure would be nice), just closer than the other one. Then through experience one could learn how to compensate for the various terrain types. I also think that too much weight has been given to VI, or perhaps in acknowledging everything that factors into it. The power spikes were covered, but the effect of coasting on this (while brought up) was still kind of overlooked. In my experience, I see the coasting as dragging down the AP much more than NP creating a gap between them. When there are a lot of good sized downhills that's not bad riding, but using the course sensibly. I think it makes more sense to take a look at how to manage the energy saved from these rest sections by looking at how much harder to push in other locations of the course. Things like watching out for unnecessary surges, watching for the spikes, how much harder than average should you go up that next hill. Then also adjusting our training to be able to handle these better. Such as if a course has numerous short, but steep hills, be able to handle short and harder surges to keep more speed on them. Sure methods like watching for how often one goes over X watts might not say enough to this effect, but I think it's going in a better direction in looking at how effectively one is applying their energy. |
| 2013-08-08 10:43 AM in reply to: brigby1 |
| Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by brigby1 Ok, so you're just experimenting to see which works better for you. NP might overestimate some when there are more ups and downs, but I find that it tends to match up better to how hard I rode than AP does, so that's the one I go with. It doesn't have to be right on (though that sure would be nice), just closer than the other one. Then through experience one could learn how to compensate for the various terrain types. I also think that too much weight has been given to VI, or perhaps in acknowledging everything that factors into it. The power spikes were covered, but the effect of coasting on this (while brought up) was still kind of overlooked. In my experience, I see the coasting as dragging down the AP much more than NP creating a gap between them. When there are a lot of good sized downhills that's not bad riding, but using the course sensibly. I think it makes more sense to take a look at how to manage the energy saved from these rest sections by looking at how much harder to push in other locations of the course. Things like watching out for unnecessary surges, watching for the spikes, how much harder than average should you go up that next hill. Then also adjusting our training to be able to handle these better. Such as if a course has numerous short, but steep hills, be able to handle short and harder surges to keep more speed on them. Sure methods like watching for how often one goes over X watts might not say enough to this effect, but I think it's going in a better direction in looking at how effectively one is applying their energy. I think we are somewhat aligned, but a question for you. You do a HIM on a very hilly course and you get a NP of 300w, VI of 1.1, so let's say AP of 270w. You run well. A few weeks later you do a very flat course. What will you target for a NP ? I agree there is a time for coasting, especially at very high speeds, but I know that *I* start coasting too soon (crest) and coast too long (valleys). A little more work here and on the flats would bring my AP/NP closer together. |
| 2013-08-08 11:54 AM in reply to: marcag |
| Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... This is something I'll need to work on because Whistler has both very long downhills but also sections of rollers. I don't mind coasting, and with a 50/12 big gear I spin out pretty quickly anyway. |
| 2013-08-08 12:32 PM in reply to: spudone |
Elite 3779  Ontario | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by brigby1 I have always gone by NP. I think establishing a NP budget is the conservative/safe way to get to a good run. But it may be over conservative especially with a higher VI courses I think it overestimates effort, on high VI course. Next time I will try to will ignore NP, focus on keeping my VI as low as possible, and try to hit some AP targets and see what happens. For the sake of learning. Again, if your VI is low, AP, NP, doesn't matter, they will be very close. Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by ligersandtions In the first case you are below your NP budget and you are probably way below your AP target. Chances are you will have a very good run. I asked the question more in terms of do you pace to NP or AP to have a good run. I have got two different opinions. I always targeted to NP. I think this may have been a mistake. But sometimes I think both are flawed. Here is an extreme. I did this ride two weeks ago http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/NUNUJUTAHV6I7LRGSOP34RKWX4for 1 hour AP = 202w (walk in the park) NP = 254w (not a walk in the park) VI = 1.26 Let's say I would have set my target to 230w. If I had targetted AP to 230, I would have blown up. If I had set NP to 230 I would have put too little effort in. it's easy on a flat course (although there are other challenges), but on a hilly course.....I guess if you can get VI closer to 1, it becomes easier Next race I will pace to AP. Should be fun So say you were shooting for an NP of X. For one race, you did a good job of not overshooting your power target, but you did a rather significant amount of coasting for some reason, and you came in at an NP of X-Y. You are below your NP budget, but your VI is rather high. Then you had a race where you rode almost perfectly and you came in and nailed your NP target of X. Which race do you have your better run? The one where you had a lower NP (X-Y), but higher VI? Or the one where you had your budged NP (X) and a VI=1? I get that this is completely hypothetical and this would literally never happen....I'm just curious. Marc, I'm finding some of the conclusions being made a bit confusing as not 6 hrs before this you were saying NP was the way to go. Now it's a mistake? What's changing for you? If you set your device to not include zeroes on power, then you effectively remove the coasting from AP and it becomes much closer to NP (unless you spike power UP a lot ). I mostly just pay attention to my 3s power though and have a number in mind of my "max" that I shouldn't go over when I'm climbing. I used to remove the zeros on the yellow PT computer, since it had no NP available. When I would load the rides, I'd find that the number during the ride would be pretty close to NP - but these days everyone basically has NP through their Garmin or whichever head unit they use anyway, so it's kind of a moot point (although you can still choose to remove the zeros from AP). As for paying attention to 3sec power, I do pay attention to this, especially on hills, but I rely much more on lap power (I default it to every 5km) and lap NP. I found that I would trick myself into believing I was working harder (or occasionally not hard enough) than I needed to from catching brief glimpses at 3sec power. Over time I realized that what I thought I was doing did not actually correspond to the actual lap effort. Took me a long time to force myself to do this. |
| 2013-08-08 12:38 PM in reply to: marcag |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by brigby1 Ok, so you're just experimenting to see which works better for you. NP might overestimate some when there are more ups and downs, but I find that it tends to match up better to how hard I rode than AP does, so that's the one I go with. It doesn't have to be right on (though that sure would be nice), just closer than the other one. Then through experience one could learn how to compensate for the various terrain types. I think we are somewhat aligned, but a question for you. You do a HIM on a very hilly course and you get a NP of 300w, VI of 1.1, so let's say AP of 270w. You run well. A few weeks later you do a very flat course. What will you target for a NP ? I agree there is a time for coasting, especially at very high speeds, but I know that *I* start coasting too soon (crest) and coast too long (valleys). A little more work here and on the flats would bring my AP/NP closer together. I also think that too much weight has been given to VI, or perhaps in acknowledging everything that factors into it. The power spikes were covered, but the effect of coasting on this (while brought up) was still kind of overlooked. In my experience, I see the coasting as dragging down the AP much more than NP creating a gap between them. When there are a lot of good sized downhills that's not bad riding, but using the course sensibly. I think it makes more sense to take a look at how to manage the energy saved from these rest sections by looking at how much harder to push in other locations of the course. Things like watching out for unnecessary surges, watching for the spikes, how much harder than average should you go up that next hill. Then also adjusting our training to be able to handle these better. Such as if a course has numerous short, but steep hills, be able to handle short and harder surges to keep more speed on them. Sure methods like watching for how often one goes over X watts might not say enough to this effect, but I think it's going in a better direction in looking at how effectively one is applying their energy. I'd still target the about the same. I don't know that NP is really off from actual in that first one, but say it did overestimate, the flatter course would be faster thereby compensating for that. Almost had a situation like this last year as I did race Quassy, but almost went to Muncie. What would be another question is if I would be able to run well after the near constant output from the flat race after preparing well for the variable one. And in your last sentence is an interesting bit as it states that you're trying to bring your AP/NP closer together. You might be able to handle that line of thinking as you deal with metrics a lot, but I think a lot of others would fall into the trap of riding to a metric goal instead of thinking directly of how it corresponds to race performance. I look at the two coasting spots and see areas for how to be more effective in riding the course to go faster. In these two spots it would result in AP & NP coming closer together, but that's just how it works out here. It wouldn't be the actual goal. |
| 2013-08-08 3:19 PM in reply to: brigby1 |
| Elite 3779 Ontario | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by brigby1 Ok, so you're just experimenting to see which works better for you. NP might overestimate some when there are more ups and downs, but I find that it tends to match up better to how hard I rode than AP does, so that's the one I go with. It doesn't have to be right on (though that sure would be nice), just closer than the other one. Then through experience one could learn how to compensate for the various terrain types. I think we are somewhat aligned, but a question for you. You do a HIM on a very hilly course and you get a NP of 300w, VI of 1.1, so let's say AP of 270w. You run well. A few weeks later you do a very flat course. What will you target for a NP ? I agree there is a time for coasting, especially at very high speeds, but I know that *I* start coasting too soon (crest) and coast too long (valleys). A little more work here and on the flats would bring my AP/NP closer together. I also think that too much weight has been given to VI, or perhaps in acknowledging everything that factors into it. The power spikes were covered, but the effect of coasting on this (while brought up) was still kind of overlooked. In my experience, I see the coasting as dragging down the AP much more than NP creating a gap between them. When there are a lot of good sized downhills that's not bad riding, but using the course sensibly. I think it makes more sense to take a look at how to manage the energy saved from these rest sections by looking at how much harder to push in other locations of the course. Things like watching out for unnecessary surges, watching for the spikes, how much harder than average should you go up that next hill. Then also adjusting our training to be able to handle these better. Such as if a course has numerous short, but steep hills, be able to handle short and harder surges to keep more speed on them. Sure methods like watching for how often one goes over X watts might not say enough to this effect, but I think it's going in a better direction in looking at how effectively one is applying their energy. I'd still target the about the same. I don't know that NP is really off from actual in that first one, but say it did overestimate, the flatter course would be faster thereby compensating for that. Almost had a situation like this last year as I did race Quassy, but almost went to Muncie. What would be another question is if I would be able to run well after the near constant output from the flat race after preparing well for the variable one. And in your last sentence is an interesting bit as it states that you're trying to bring your AP/NP closer together. You might be able to handle that line of thinking as you deal with metrics a lot, but I think a lot of others would fall into the trap of riding to a metric goal instead of thinking directly of how it corresponds to race performance. I look at the two coasting spots and see areas for how to be more effective in riding the course to go faster. In these two spots it would result in AP & NP coming closer together, but that's just how it works out here. It wouldn't be the actual goal. I get where both of you are coming from. For me, I think riding to a higher NP over a rolling course is much more manageable than trying to ride to a similar AP over a flat course. My view on it is that the rest/recuperation during a hilly course offsets some of the harder periods of effort, whereas the flat course gives little opportunity to take your foot off the gas. |
| 2013-08-08 5:31 PM in reply to: GoFaster |
| Veteran 2842 Austin, Texas | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Muhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!! All this PM talk and… and… and… I had to do it! Just plunked down for a (very gently) used Riken. Now I'll have power on both bikes. Only "problem," and hardly one at that, given this is all for fun (at least for me, as I'm not putting bread on the table doing these races - quite to the contrary, in fact), is that I won't be able to get it installed until probably next Wednesday. So, I'll only get one short (30' or so) ride with it Thursday and one reaaally short ride Saturday before the race. Looks like I'll be correlating my HR with my power AS I RACE at Timberman. Well, that will keep the ride from getting boring, at least! Woooohoooooooooooooo!!!!!! (sorry, I get carried away with all this stuff - too much fun!) Matt |
| 2013-08-08 6:02 PM in reply to: mcmanusclan5 |
| Elite 7783 PEI, Canada | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by mcmanusclan5 Muhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!! All this PM talk and… and… and… I had to do it! Just plunked down for a (very gently) used Riken. Now I'll have power on both bikes. Only "problem," and hardly one at that, given this is all for fun (at least for me, as I'm not putting bread on the table doing these races - quite to the contrary, in fact), is that I won't be able to get it installed until probably next Wednesday. So, I'll only get one short (30' or so) ride with it Thursday and one reaaally short ride Saturday before the race. Looks like I'll be correlating my HR with my power AS I RACE at Timberman. Well, that will keep the ride from getting boring, at least! Woooohoooooooooooooo!!!!!! (sorry, I get carried away with all this stuff - too much fun!) Matt 30' ride on Thursday? Plenty of time to do an FTP test! Congrats on the addition! |
| 2013-08-08 6:44 PM in reply to: axteraa |
| Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Nice Matt! |
| 2013-08-08 7:13 PM in reply to: mcmanusclan5 |
| Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by mcmanusclan5 Muhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!! All this PM talk and… and… and… I had to do it! Just plunked down for a (very gently) used Riken. Now I'll have power on both bikes. Only "problem," and hardly one at that, given this is all for fun (at least for me, as I'm not putting bread on the table doing these races - quite to the contrary, in fact), is that I won't be able to get it installed until probably next Wednesday. So, I'll only get one short (30' or so) ride with it Thursday and one reaaally short ride Saturday before the race. Looks like I'll be correlating my HR with my power AS I RACE at Timberman. Well, that will keep the ride from getting boring, at least! Woooohoooooooooooooo!!!!!! (sorry, I get carried away with all this stuff - too much fun!) Matt Congratulations. Same specs as your old crank ? |
| 2013-08-08 7:24 PM in reply to: mcmanusclan5 |
| Veteran 1677 Houston, Texas | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by mcmanusclan5 Muhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!! All this PM talk and… and… and… I had to do it! Just plunked down for a (very gently) used Riken. Now I'll have power on both bikes. Only "problem," and hardly one at that, given this is all for fun (at least for me, as I'm not putting bread on the table doing these races - quite to the contrary, in fact), is that I won't be able to get it installed until probably next Wednesday. So, I'll only get one short (30' or so) ride with it Thursday and one reaaally short ride Saturday before the race. Looks like I'll be correlating my HR with my power AS I RACE at Timberman. Well, that will keep the ride from getting boring, at least! Woooohoooooooooooooo!!!!!! (sorry, I get carried away with all this stuff - too much fun!) Matt Hah, look what I did Now it's switch's turn to pull the trigger. Do it!!!! |
| 2013-08-08 7:27 PM in reply to: mcmanusclan5 |
| Payson, AZ | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by mcmanusclan5 Muhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!! All this PM talk and… and… and… I had to do it! Just plunked down for a (very gently) used Riken. Now I'll have power on both bikes. Only "problem," and hardly one at that, given this is all for fun (at least for me, as I'm not putting bread on the table doing these races - quite to the contrary, in fact), is that I won't be able to get it installed until probably next Wednesday. So, I'll only get one short (30' or so) ride with it Thursday and one reaaally short ride Saturday before the race. Looks like I'll be correlating my HR with my power AS I RACE at Timberman. Well, that will keep the ride from getting boring, at least! Woooohoooooooooooooo!!!!!! (sorry, I get carried away with all this stuff - too much fun!) Matt Dude, your killing me here. |
| 2013-08-08 7:33 PM in reply to: ligersandtions |
| Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by ligersandtions Hahaha...you evil temptress! Originally posted by mcmanusclan5 Muhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!! All this PM talk and… and… and… I had to do it! Just plunked down for a (very gently) used Riken. Now I'll have power on both bikes. Only "problem," and hardly one at that, given this is all for fun (at least for me, as I'm not putting bread on the table doing these races - quite to the contrary, in fact), is that I won't be able to get it installed until probably next Wednesday. So, I'll only get one short (30' or so) ride with it Thursday and one reaaally short ride Saturday before the race. Looks like I'll be correlating my HR with my power AS I RACE at Timberman. Well, that will keep the ride from getting boring, at least! Woooohoooooooooooooo!!!!!! (sorry, I get carried away with all this stuff - too much fun!) Matt Hah, look what I did :) Now it's switch's turn to pull the trigger. Do it!!!! I did just pick up my bike with some (rented) sweet Zipp 303s...she looks (and sounds) so purty. PM is on the horizon. All this talk has made me so, so curious about my numbers, and has made me realize I'm even more ridiculously clueless than I thought. Sometimes it's amazing I'm even able to pedal the darn thing;) |
| 2013-08-08 10:20 PM in reply to: switch |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by switch Originally posted by ligersandtions Hahaha...you evil temptress!Originally posted by mcmanusclan5 Muhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!! All this PM talk and… and… and… I had to do it! Just plunked down for a (very gently) used Riken. Now I'll have power on both bikes. Only "problem," and hardly one at that, given this is all for fun (at least for me, as I'm not putting bread on the table doing these races - quite to the contrary, in fact), is that I won't be able to get it installed until probably next Wednesday. So, I'll only get one short (30' or so) ride with it Thursday and one reaaally short ride Saturday before the race. Looks like I'll be correlating my HR with my power AS I RACE at Timberman. Well, that will keep the ride from getting boring, at least! Woooohoooooooooooooo!!!!!! (sorry, I get carried away with all this stuff - too much fun!) Matt Hah, look what I did Now it's switch's turn to pull the trigger. Do it!!!! I did just pick up my bike with some (rented) sweet Zipp 303s...she looks (and sounds) so purty. PM is on the horizon. All this talk has made me so, so curious about my numbers, and has made me realize I'm even more ridiculously clueless than I thought. Sometimes it's amazing I'm even able to pedal the darn thing Go that way, really fast. If something gets in your way, turn. |
| 2013-08-09 7:59 AM in reply to: mcmanusclan5 |
| Elite 3779 Ontario | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... Originally posted by mcmanusclan5 Muhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!! All this PM talk and… and… and… I had to do it! Just plunked down for a (very gently) used Riken. Now I'll have power on both bikes. Only "problem," and hardly one at that, given this is all for fun (at least for me, as I'm not putting bread on the table doing these races - quite to the contrary, in fact), is that I won't be able to get it installed until probably next Wednesday. So, I'll only get one short (30' or so) ride with it Thursday and one reaaally short ride Saturday before the race. Looks like I'll be correlating my HR with my power AS I RACE at Timberman. Well, that will keep the ride from getting boring, at least! Woooohoooooooooooooo!!!!!! (sorry, I get carried away with all this stuff - too much fun!) Matt In all seriousness, I would consider removing the power data from your display for the race, or taping over that part of the screen. Go with what you know (HR and RPE), cause if you start seeing numbers on your two rides before the race, then it's going to lead to possible head games during the actual race - why is my power low, I was pushing harder on my easy spin the other day, is that really a good number for me, etc. etc.... You can geek out about it after the race when you download the data, and having this perfromance blind, to compare against a not so distant 20min power test would be pretty interesting to look at IMO. |
| 2013-08-09 8:16 AM in reply to: GoFaster |
| Payson, AZ | Subject: RE: Hello all -- I'm going to try this again... No run for me this morning, instead I am going to try and do a trail run after my mountain bike ride tomorrow. Cause clearly I am a sucker for punishment. Instead though I did my strength workout this morning using my TRX outside on my deck as the sun was rising up over Sedona. Really doesn't get much better then that. Well, maybe if I didn't now have to go to work that would make it better. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||
| ||||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK