login
Powermeters
-
No new posts
|
 2009-10-07 12:26 PM |
Member  63 |  Subject: PowermetersOkay so here is a question I wanted to kind of poll everyone on. I recently finished my first IM in Wisconsin. I am signed up for 2 next year and can't wait to begin training again. I have finished 5 HIM in my past too. This year I finally bought a P2C and some SRAM S80 race wheels. I used these during my training for IM WI. This upcoming year I am thinking about getting a power meter to enhance my training. I already train by HR zone and my zones are calculated from metabolic testing about every 3 months. The problem I have ran into is that the SRM Crank type power meters are around 3800 bucks. I can't stomach that since my bike and wheels only cost 4000 bucks This is the type I need since I have race wheels and training wheels, it would work on both race day setup and training set up. If I bought the powertap type would only work on the wheel set I put it on. I want to train by power and race by power. Does anyone own 2 powertaps? I am thinking about buying one for my training wheels and one for my race wheels. What are you thoughts? This is still cheaper than buying the SRM type. Both brands rely on strain gauges from what I can tell however with the crank type you may get a bit higher number due to losses from the tension in the chain. |
| 2009-10-07 12:42 PM in reply to: #2447760 |
Not a Coach 11473    Media, PA | Subject: RE: Powermeters Buy PT wheel plus disc cover. Sell current rear race wheel. Also, discontinue metabolic testing every 3 months. You'll probably come out ahead $-wise when all is said and done. |
| 2009-10-07 12:47 PM in reply to: #2447760 |
Pro 3906  St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Powermeters Consider the Quarq. It's a crank based powermeter like the SRM. It runs around $1500 though, less than half the cost of an SRM. It is wireless ANT+, compatible with several Garmin units, ( 705, 310, new cycling 500 one ) and many other ANT+ head units. You can run existing wheels, or new ones, without having to change anything. I used to have 2 powertap wheels ( one for traning, one for racing ). I now have a Quarq and I'm very happy with it. |
| 2009-10-07 2:15 PM in reply to: #2447760 |
| Member 46 | Subject: RE: Powermeters I have a powertap laced to a clincher 808. Change tire, install wheel cover, and instant super wheel. I have heard rumors that in the right conditions it is faster than a sub-9 disk but I don't have proof. Another plus is that it rides nicer than a disk because of the spokes. Sure, its heavier but if you live or race in a somewhat flat place weight becomes less of and issue. I would get a Powertap elite+ laced to your Sram wheel and get a cover. |
| 2009-10-07 2:49 PM in reply to: #2447815 |
Master 1376 Chicago | Subject: RE: Powermeters coredump - 2009-10-07 12:47 PM Consider the Quarq. It's a crank based powermeter like the SRM. It runs around $1500 though, less than half the cost of an SRM. It is wireless ANT+, compatible with several Garmin units, ( 705, 310, new cycling 500 one ) and many other ANT+ head units. You can run existing wheels, or new ones, without having to change anything. I used to have 2 powertap wheels ( one for traning, one for racing ). I now have a Quarq and I'm very happy with it. X2 Just ordered the Quarq today and am exicted to get it and try it out. Didn't want to deal with multiple powertap wheels, etc... |
| 2009-10-07 3:01 PM in reply to: #2447760 |
Champion 19812 MA | Subject: RE: Powermeters I have two..training Mavic and Zipp 404s. Not sure it is the best way to go but for me cheapest way but I got a great deal on the Zipps and now that is what I have. Not all wheels can you lace a PT hub into so your current wheels may or may not work. Edited by KathyG 2009-10-07 3:01 PM |
| 2009-10-07 3:03 PM in reply to: #2447760 |
Member 63 | Subject: RE: Powermeters This is great. I think the winner will be the Quarq, no doubt. Check out this article I found. http://nyvelocity.com/content/equipment/2009/tech-talk-quarqs-jim-m... |
| 2009-10-07 3:10 PM in reply to: #2448166 |
Master 2301 Rogersville, Alabama | Subject: RE: Powermeters bskyllin - 2009-10-07 3:03 PM This is great. I think the winner will be the Quarq, no doubt. Check out this article I found. http://nyvelocity.com/content/equipment/2009/tech-talk-quarqs-jim-m... I choose a Quarq/705 combo and its great. I'll be getting a second combo early next year for the roadie. They're also coming out with a backup data recorder, with a usb built in. Looked pretty sweet. |
| 2009-10-07 6:08 PM in reply to: #2447760 |
Expert 1706 NoVA | Subject: RE: Powermeters I'd say if you are set on multiple wheelsets then the Quarq is the way to go----that said the big talk is about the speedplay/pedal based powermeter that's supposed to come out in early 2010 (that's the big IF!!!) They are claiming same accuracy and price of under $1000 without a head unit but even with a 705 or the new 500 (set for end of the year release) you are talking about $1200-$1500 total...... This is what I was referring to incase you hadn't heard of it---http://www.metrigear.com/products/ Edited by Skippy74 2009-10-07 6:12 PM |
| 2009-10-07 7:56 PM in reply to: #2447760 |
| Veteran 167 | Subject: RE: Powermeters I have 3 sets of wheels, training, 808s and 900 disc with 1080 ZedTechs. I use Quark with Garmin 705. Had a few bugs, Quark replaced first unit and been very happy. Total cost for PM was $2K including Garmin and allowed me to buy an extra set of wheels. |
| 2009-10-07 8:11 PM in reply to: #2447799 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Powermeters JohnnyKay - 2009-10-07 12:42 PM x 2 specially about the metabolic testing... waste of $$ IMO.Buy PT wheel plus disc cover. Sell current rear race wheel. Also, discontinue metabolic testing every 3 months. You'll probably come out ahead $-wise when all is said and done. |
| 2009-10-07 9:12 PM in reply to: #2448684 |
Member 63 | Subject: RE: Powermeters Interesting you guys think metabolic testing is not necessary. How do you suggest you determine an athletes functional threshold on the bike and run? I train by HR right now and will soon start with power on the bike. But none the less I still want to know my zones 1 - 4 so I can properly train for races. This year I did metabolic testing 3 times with my coach. Here was my progress from the 3 times I tested. I really made some gains by training with my correct HR zones. These are all for zone 2 on a 4 zone scale. 1 being warmup, 2 being steady state, 3 being tempo and 4 being interval Test#1 -- 12/2008 Run portion Zone 2 high level HR 159 Test #2 -- 6/2009 Run portion Zone 2 high level HR 164 Test #3 -- 9/2009 run portion zone 2 high level HR 170 Basically when I first starting training with these zones in December of 2008 I would always keep my HR below 159 on my long runs. My pace many times would be in the 9's. I forced myself to stay in this zone knowing it would improve. Well low and behold come september if I run with a HR of 159 and below I am well into the mid 8's. Now that my high end zone is up to 170, I can run in the high 7's on 5 - 15 mile runs. The best part of this is that the whole time I am running below these HR's I am staying aerobic and burning fat as my main source of fuel and not my carb storage. This ideology was key in my training for my IM. I believe in metabolic testing and the science behind it. Without my metabolic testing I would have never known my accurate HR's and also even if I used one of the many formulas to calculate my HR's how would I know if it ever improved without testing again. I am just curious about your thoughts on this one. |
| 2009-10-07 9:22 PM in reply to: #2447760 |
Veteran 306 Dallas | Subject: RE: Powermeters So, I briefly looked at the Quark website. Am I missing something, or can you not put this thing on your bike if you have Shimano 105 cranks, and Shimano Front Rings? ? ? ? |
| 2009-10-07 9:24 PM in reply to: #2447760 |
Member 63 | Subject: RE: Powermeters Incorrect, you can't put it on a shimano set up. I emailed the folks today and their response was: The CinQo power sensor only works with cranks that have a removable spider, since Shimano has integeral spider and crank arm it won't work. Does anyone want to buy my Shimano Ultegra cranks, chainrings, and bottom bracket?????  |
| 2009-10-08 7:34 AM in reply to: #2448788 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Powermeters bskyllin - 2009-10-07 10:12 PM Interesting you guys think metabolic testing is not necessary. How do you suggest you determine an athletes functional threshold on the bike and run? I train by HR right now and will soon start with power on the bike. But none the less I still want to know my zones 1 - 4 so I can properly train for races. This year I did metabolic testing 3 times with my coach. Here was my progress from the 3 times I tested. I really made some gains by training with my correct HR zones. These are all for zone 2 on a 4 zone scale. 1 being warmup, 2 being steady state, 3 being tempo and 4 being interval Test#1 -- 12/2008 Run portion Zone 2 high level HR 159 Test #2 -- 6/2009 Run portion Zone 2 high level HR 164 Test #3 -- 9/2009 run portion zone 2 high level HR 170 Basically when I first starting training with these zones in December of 2008 I would always keep my HR below 159 on my long runs. My pace many times would be in the 9's. I forced myself to stay in this zone knowing it would improve. Well low and behold come september if I run with a HR of 159 and below I am well into the mid 8's. Now that my high end zone is up to 170, I can run in the high 7's on 5 - 15 mile runs. The best part of this is that the whole time I am running below these HR's I am staying aerobic and burning fat as my main source of fuel and not my carb storage. This ideology was key in my training for my IM. I believe in metabolic testing and the science behind it. Without my metabolic testing I would have never known my accurate HR's and also even if I used one of the many formulas to calculate my HR's how would I know if it ever improved without testing again. I am just curious about your thoughts on this one. Jorge will likely provide you with a more complete answer, but basically even if you are a believer in using HR zones to train you can still develop your zones through (free) field testing. And there is also the option of using power and pace for training 'zones'. These tend to be just as good, if not better, than HR. RPE is also viable, assuming you learn to judge your PE reasonably well. This is tougher as a beginner, but something you should become pretty 'tuned into' over time. |
| 2009-10-08 7:36 AM in reply to: #2448788 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Powermeters bskyllin - 2009-10-07 11:12 PM How do you suggest you determine an athletes functional threshold on the bike and run? Racing (ideally) or field testing; nothing will give you a better picture of your current fitness level than a solid race effort and you can use this to set training levels. Basically when I first starting training with these zones in December of 2008 I would always keep my HR below 159 on my long runs. My pace many times would be in the 9's. I forced myself to stay in this zone knowing it would improve. Well low and behold come september if I run with a HR of 159 and below I am well into the mid 8's. Now that my high end zone is up to 170, I can run in the high 7's on 5 - 15 mile runs. The only thing you can know from this is that you trained consistently and became fitter. The best part of this is that the whole time I am running below these HR's I am staying aerobic and burning fat as my main source of fuel and not my carb storage. Unless you are doing efforts of less than two minutes maximum with long periods of recovery, you are training aerobically. Your body is always using a blend of fat/carbs for fuel and intensity determines what the ratios are; the more fit you are the faster you can go while still using a higher %age of fat. Without my metabolic testing I would have never known my accurate HR's and also even if I used one of the many formulas to calculate my HR's how would I know if it ever improved without testing again. I am just curious about your thoughts on this one. How do you know your metabolic tests were accurate? Do you know what kind of equipment was used to do that test (this could play a huge role in whether they were accurate or not)? Nobody is advocating using any of the various formulae to determine your HR's but rather using races or field testing to determine training zones. Shane |
| 2009-10-08 8:06 AM in reply to: #2448788 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Powermeters bskyllin - 2009-10-07 9:12 PM Interesting you guys think metabolic testing is not necessary. How do you suggest you determine an athletes functional threshold on the bike and run? I train by HR right now and will soon start with power on the bike. But none the less I still want to know my zones 1 - 4 so I can properly train for races. This year I did metabolic testing 3 times with my coach. Here was my progress from the 3 times I tested. I really made some gains by training with my correct HR zones. These are all for zone 2 on a 4 zone scale. 1 being warmup, 2 being steady state, 3 being tempo and 4 being interval Test#1 -- 12/2008 Run portion Zone 2 high level HR 159 Test #2 -- 6/2009 Run portion Zone 2 high level HR 164 Test #3 -- 9/2009 run portion zone 2 high level HR 170 Basically when I first starting training with these zones in December of 2008 I would always keep my HR below 159 on my long runs. My pace many times would be in the 9's. I forced myself to stay in this zone knowing it would improve. Well low and behold come september if I run with a HR of 159 and below I am well into the mid 8's. Now that my high end zone is up to 170, I can run in the high 7's on 5 - 15 mile runs. The best part of this is that the whole time I am running below these HR's I am staying aerobic and burning fat as my main source of fuel and not my carb storage. This ideology was key in my training for my IM. I believe in metabolic testing and the science behind it. Without my metabolic testing I would have never known my accurate HR's and also even if I used one of the many formulas to calculate my HR's how would I know if it ever improved without testing again. I am just curious about your thoughts on this one. The problem with metabolic testing is that subtrate utilization is dependant on many variables such as intensity/pace, duration/distance, fitness level, diet after training, long term diet, genetics, and environment and test results can be skewed just by the mere fact that prior the test you had a diet high on CHO or fat not to mention accurate results depend on the test protocol, the equipment used (and its calibration) and who is interpreting the results. IOW athletes who have a high fat diet in general might exhibit a metabolic profile such that it will appear they rely on fat oxidation better, OTOH an athlete with a higher CHO diet might show the opposite. As JK and Shane suggested above, a field test can help you determine rather accurate training levels to target specific training adaptations. You just need a watch, know the distance of a course and you desrie you could use a HRM as another tool to measure intensity. However the problem with HR is that it only tells you how hard your heart is working (caridiovascular strain) and not necessarily the work done in your muscles (metabolic fitness). Since HR can be affected by many variables (stress, temeperature, diet, fatigue, etc) what one day you might think is your "fat burning zone" due to variables not specific to the work done you in fact might be exerting yourself at a higher or lower intensity defeating the purpose of your sessions. (not really but some believe this) If you are planning to get a power meter you don't need to rely in such a variable tool like a HR and you can rather accurate use your power meter to determine training levels based on field testing; the results will be a closer picture of what your true metabolic fitness is (f you were to have it tested in a lab). For running you can use a watch and a mapping tool (ie. mapmyrun, BT) or better yet you have a GPS/pedometer monitor and that is like running with a power meter, hence metabolic testing becomes even less important and useful. |
| 2009-10-08 8:24 AM in reply to: #2447760 |
Member 63 | Subject: RE: Powermeters Very good feedback. I will share this with my coach. My coach uses this machine: http://www.korr.com/products/cardiocoachco2.htm It is a self calibrating machine. During the test at specified intervals my coach asks my RPE. It was very interesting to see that the very first time I did this my RPE was way off. Meaning I said I was at like a 5 or 6 but in reality I was exteremly anerobic. Now I am more in tune with my body, and by the end of the test I usually am around a 8 - 9. They also request you hydrate extremely well before the test and not to consume any caffiene. You bring up a good point about about the diet of the athlete either high in carbs or fat. I could definetly see how this would skew the results. I find it interesting to say that exercising at lower intensities you'll teach your body to better oxidize fat for fuel is just that, a myth. This is news to me. I have read numerous professional papers that disagree with that. I also have been tested by a Doctor who believes in this statement. The Doctor who tested me, also taught my coach how to test. With that being said I agree that HR is very biased from diet, weather, etc. This is why I want a power meter. I will be getting one very soon. Once I get a power meter I will propose to my coach that we do some field tests to obtain my power zones and compare these to the ones from metabolic testing. If you were to use say a garmin on the run how does this act as a power meter for running. Wouldn't this only give you distance, pace, etc. ???? BTW, my testing only costs me 150 bucks with my coach. |
| 2009-10-08 8:31 AM in reply to: #2449223 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Powermeters bskyllin - 2009-10-08 10:24 AM My coach uses this machine: http://www.korr.com/products/cardiocoachco2.htmIt is a self calibrating machine. Not familiar with that machine; will need to do research. However, my experience with tests that weren't from a full on met cart have been less than ideal. If you were to use say a garmin on the run how does this act as a power meter for running. Wouldn't this only give you distance, pace, etc. ???? From your 5k results here are paces (as prescribed by Daniels' Running Formula):
Shane Edited by gsmacleod 2009-10-08 8:32 AM |
| 2009-10-08 9:02 AM in reply to: #2447760 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Powermeters I should have also mentioned that Daniels' paces work on a flat course and if you have lots of hills, then the paces are going to get somewhat slower. In addition, you can use the GOVSS system developed by Phil Skiba to use a GPS as a running powermeter (after the fact). Shane |
| 2009-10-08 9:48 AM in reply to: #2449223 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Powermeters bskyllin - 2009-10-08 8:24 AM Very good feedback. I will share this with my coach. My coach uses this machine: http://www.korr.com/products/cardiocoachco2.htmIt is a self calibrating machine. During the test at specified intervals my coach asks my RPE. It was very interesting to see that the very first time I did this my RPE was way off. Meaning I said I was at like a 5 or 6 but in reality I was exteremly anerobic. Now I am more in tune with my body, and by the end of the test I usually am around a 8 - 9. They also request you hydrate extremely well before the test and not to consume any caffiene. You bring up a good point about about the diet of the athlete either high in carbs or fat. I could definetly see how this would skew the results. I find it interesting to say that exercising at lower intensities you'll teach your body to better oxidize fat for fuel is just that, a myth. This is news to me. I have read numerous professional papers that disagree with that. I also have been tested by a Doctor who believes in this statement. The Doctor who tested me, also taught my coach how to test. With that being said I agree that HR is very biased from diet, weather, etc. This is why I want a power meter. I will be getting one very soon. Once I get a power meter I will propose to my coach that we do some field tests to obtain my power zones and compare these to the ones from metabolic testing. If you were to use say a garmin on the run how does this act as a power meter for running. Wouldn't this only give you distance, pace, etc. ???? BTW, my testing only costs me 150 bucks with my coach. let me rephrase that to explain myself better - what is a myth is the fact that some people suggest that by exclusively training at lower intensities (< 70% of threshold pace/power) you will become more efficient at faxt oxidation when exercising and by training at higher intensities you will hinder these adaptations. There are adaptations to be gained by training at lower intensities and to rely more on fat for fuel is just a piece of the puzzle, however many things have to be considered: 1) how much training load are you doing - to maximize gains athletes need to double their training load baseline - that is if you currently train 10 hrs x week if you want to exclusively train at lower intensities you'll need to train 18+ hrs to experience significant gains. 2) training at higher intensities 3) trainin levels are man made as a way to make training more efficent by targeting certain training adaptations - that is even when riding 2 hrs at your tempo power (85% > of threshold) you still induce adaptations maximized at lower intensities though at a lesser degree. IOW training levels blend with one another so even doing sets at threshold not only makes your glycogen ozidation more efficient but also allows you to rely less on it and more on fat for fuel 4) training at maximum lactate steady state is the most important physiological determinant for endurance performance and to maximize, as mentioned above by doing training between 80-100% of threshold you will increase muscle glycogen stoarge and oxidation hence you'll rely less on it for fuel. 5) daily diet and fueling pre training, during training and post training will have a direct impact on substrate oxidation (how much CHO vs fat your body uses as fuel) There are more, the point is - what I suggest is a myth is the idea that one have to limit trainig intensity to maximize training adaptations such as increase fat oxidation. There is evidence than training at lower intensities can produce this, however there is plenty of evidence suggesting the same can be accomplish and even maximized by training a greater intensities. I hope that clarifies my previous post and good luck training with power! |
| 2009-10-08 10:32 AM in reply to: #2447760 |
Member 63 | Subject: RE: Powermeters I think we are on the same page now Jorge. My training load was around 20hrs per week at the max, and did include tempo and interval stuff, especially in my taper weeks. Sometimes my steady state stuff would even include pickups for durations, like on 5 hr ride with one of the middle hours being tempo. Thanks for your input. You seem quite knowledgeable. |
| 2009-10-08 10:46 AM in reply to: #2447760 |
Expert 762 Missouri | Subject: RE: Powermeters Regarding Powermeters: So while the Quarq is technically less money, the gap between the two is not as big as some people are making theem out to be. I have an SRM (just the Powermeter, not the system) and popped it on my Specialized Transition and it worked with ZERO problems. I imagine the QUARQ is just as good and will work just as easily. . I would have gone with QUARQ but for some reason it doesn't work real well with the Specailized chainrings so I would have had to of bought SRAM or some other brand chainrings too. . .. |
| 2009-10-08 1:56 PM in reply to: #2449549 |
Extreme Veteran 669 Olathe, Kansas | Subject: RE: Powermeters Keep in mind that Quarq has a list of compatible cranks and if your is not on the list, that is an additional cost that may put you very close to SRM. Don't dismiss any option until you fully explore it. For the head unit, Ant+ is only one of the criteria. Pull them all out and compare. Do you want all in one training and racing device, or you can have a use of a full blown cycling machine like 705. Write down your requirements and than search the head units that will work. I will just give you an idea that 310XT has some issues over install location and dropping the signal from Quarq...... Current Power read out seems to be too erratic for now, firmware update is expected to fix it........Forums serve for that purpose. Do the homework. |
| 2009-10-08 9:31 PM in reply to: #2447760 |
Member 63 | Subject: RE: Powermeters Okay I must be blind but in review of the SRM website, I only see the full blown cranks for 3k +++ All I want is a power meter that gives me instant power, avg power, current and avg HR, current and avg speed, cadence, and ability to do splits. I would like to also download my files to my computer. I think I need to do some more research. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK