tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.comments2017-06-18T08:53:31.524+08:00The Bike GeekThe Bike Geekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14378607523322893180noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-91048849125619555832017-06-18T08:40:29.640+08:002017-06-18T08:40:29.640+08:00One further comment: there is no magic to training...One further comment: there is no magic to training at very tightly defined intensities, which means there is really no point in worrying about a couple percent one way or the other. Indeed, that is partially why I chose to term my original power-based intensity guidelines "levels" and *not* "zones."Andrew R. Coggan, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/07152375621226680227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-73932057682029548342017-06-18T08:35:54.004+08:002017-06-18T08:35:54.004+08:00Hello,
A few comments:
1) It's really Hunter...Hello,<br /><br />A few comments:<br /><br />1) It's really Hunter's test protocol and correction factor, not mine; <br /><br />2) As I mentioned in the chapter on power-based training that I wrote for USA Cycling 15 y ago, based on the scientific literature the difference between 20 min power and FTP (actually, 10 and 25 mi TT power) would, *on average*, be closer to 7%;<br /><br />3) that said, in a MUCH larger number of subjects there is close agreement (again, on average) between 95% of maximal 20 min power and FTP as determined using the WKO4 power-duration model (see my short article about the model on the Trainingpeaks website); and finally<br /><br />4) the exact relationship between 20 min power and FTP can and does vary somewhat between individuals, but this more closely related to inherent strengths/weaknesses and how somebody trains, and not really to elite/non-elite status per session.<br /><br />Andrew R. Coggan, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/07152375621226680227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-85384547795347329782017-06-13T16:17:14.700+08:002017-06-13T16:17:14.700+08:00Good points. Yes, the important thing is just set...Good points. Yes, the important thing is just setting a baseline and setting zones from that. And that's how Carmichael gets away with an 8 minute test!The Bike Geekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14378607523322893180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-74176436631520668552017-06-13T14:09:22.436+08:002017-06-13T14:09:22.436+08:00I think you're right: for the typical amateur,...I think you're right: for the typical amateur, taking 95% of a 20-minute trial is likely to yield training zones that are a few percent too low. <br /><br />A point worth noting is that <a rel="nofollow">Coggan himself doesn't recommend the 20-minute test</a>. <br /><br />Since lactate threshold itself is only a vague, approximate concept, perhaps we shouldn't expect too much precision in calculating FTP. For practical purposes, the key point might be for individual athletes to get a feel for the difference between <a rel="nofollow">zone 4 and zone 5 training intensities</a>. That can be developed by starting with a 30' trial, as you suggest, and then experimenting with a range of typical zone 4 and zone 5 interval efforts, such as 4 x 12', 2 x 20', or 2 x 30' and 5 x 3' or 3 x 5'. Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-88344601230523024812017-05-02T16:44:23.634+08:002017-05-02T16:44:23.634+08:00I haven't seen any. The best option would be ...I haven't seen any. The best option would be to make a curve using a borrowed powermeter. Obviously the good folks at Zwift and Trainer Road have gone through the trouble. And have a look at this: http://www.powercurvesensor.com/bikestudio/The Bike Geekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14378607523322893180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-84899918002905627802017-04-20T14:02:42.364+08:002017-04-20T14:02:42.364+08:00One of the best post i have ever seen,
.i really l...One of the best post i have ever seen,<br />.i really like it.<br />Good work.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://www.bikebeagle.com/bikes/road_bikes/specialized/" rel="nofollow">specialized road bike</a>harrytommyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02582376523467975247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-34720569170281124862017-04-16T05:51:29.971+08:002017-04-16T05:51:29.971+08:00Does anyone know if there is a place one could obt...Does anyone know if there is a place one could obtain up to date power curves for a wide variety of trainers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-44679233082260543882017-03-26T22:31:15.366+08:002017-03-26T22:31:15.366+08:00Many thanks for your help with this Antony. It wor...Many thanks for your help with this Antony. It worked a treat!Unknownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11120748612371080514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-9376291346409988882016-12-09T22:03:51.437+08:002016-12-09T22:03:51.437+08:00You can probably figure it out from here: https://...You can probably figure it out from here: https://www.cycleops.com/post/blog-15-cycleops-science-resistance-curvesThe Bike Geekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14378607523322893180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-8338542762749263952016-12-09T22:02:12.423+08:002016-12-09T22:02:12.423+08:00Actually not quite right for a fluid trainer. In ...Actually not quite right for a fluid trainer. In a fluid trainer the power varies with wheel speed in accordance to a curve determined by the design of the trainer. CycleOps has a great article on the different characteristics of different types of trainers. https://www.cycleops.com/post/blog-15-cycleops-science-resistance-curvesThe Bike Geekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14378607523322893180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-71127674304107214212016-12-09T10:59:14.542+08:002016-12-09T10:59:14.542+08:00As long as the resistance in the trainer is held c...As long as the resistance in the trainer is held constant, the power will vary directly with the speed. SO, for example at 5 mph the power will be exactly half of that at 10 mph.This assumes the resistance<br />does not vary with time or speed.( eg no road wind considerations)IN THE ABOVE example therefore, 163/28= x/31<br />or x=163x31/28 =182. Therefore in that case the resistance had to go up with increasing speed.It would be best to avoid<br />trainers with this characteristic as it makes<br />the power calculation dicey and likely less<br />reproducible. With constant resistance trainers you can use speed as a reliable<br />measure of RELATIVE power due to the considerations above.<br />William Reicherthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10062067819184876941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-63196669061412789012016-11-24T03:44:47.795+08:002016-11-24T03:44:47.795+08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Unknownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00761446879353968450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-73121461718084463842016-11-12T12:07:41.096+08:002016-11-12T12:07:41.096+08:00I just came across this article. The last couple o...I just came across this article. The last couple of weeks I worked on a fluid2 with my son's power meter data. I basically find the same formula as described above although a X2 equations has the same accuracy.<br />What I found counter intuitive is to see lower power level for a given speed when the trainer is cold (thicker oil). You need to run the trainer a good 15mn before having stable data.<br />The real challenge with the accuracy is when you reach speeds of about 30km/h. The curve is very steep and a small variation in speed has a big variation in power. 52x19 at 80rpm is 28km/h or about 165W. At 90rpm the speed is 31km/h or about 220W.<br />Any small variation in the equation parameters has a big impact on the resulting power. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-88918696382955871532016-10-19T23:51:09.659+08:002016-10-19T23:51:09.659+08:00what is the procedure to follow if you want to upd...what is the procedure to follow if you want to update the version, for example: v switch. 3.3 to v. 3.4? Thank youEdikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12972490380482829322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-6702823012231944472016-10-16T04:00:11.249+08:002016-10-16T04:00:11.249+08:00Great post, works exactly as detailedGreat post, works exactly as detailedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-87846247058857629662016-07-11T23:40:57.568+08:002016-07-11T23:40:57.568+08:00Thank you!Thank you!Anton Pustovalovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09808106422094902588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-60816320207777521762016-03-29T04:01:41.849+08:002016-03-29T04:01:41.849+08:00Nice write-up. Very easy to understand. Thanks for...Nice write-up. Very easy to understand. Thanks for doing this.<br />L. Steve Varnumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03949610295492228267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-7281627180668355332015-12-18T05:16:49.478+08:002015-12-18T05:16:49.478+08:00any one known the formula for MAG/MAG+any one known the formula for MAG/MAG+Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-65888789299321624862015-09-30T20:56:02.800+08:002015-09-30T20:56:02.800+08:00There is lot of articles on the web about this. Bu...There is lot of articles on the web about this. But I like yours more, although i found one thatâ€™s more descriptive.<br /><a href="http://www.carbonspeedcycle.com/" rel="nofollow">carbon wheels</a>Amy Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08746926848664365445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-23592302608761704232015-01-07T08:57:26.127+08:002015-01-07T08:57:26.127+08:00Why do you use a cube rather than a simple square ...Why do you use a cube rather than a simple square to model this power curve? Say:<br />y = 0.4 x^2 + 6x <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-90916454902337910722014-12-23T17:39:28.552+08:002014-12-23T17:39:28.552+08:00Yes, I've already worked with that one. But it...Yes, I've already worked with that one. But it seems to me that maps with elevation contours aren't available (yet?)...dangerousdavenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-29959475354409831192014-12-23T10:30:05.077+08:002014-12-23T10:30:05.077+08:00Make sure you have only one zoom level selected, l...Make sure you have only one zoom level selected, level 14. Also note that since I published this, DC Rainmaker has published a post on a more automated process here. It's the one I use now. http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/05/download-garmin-705800810.htmlThe Bike Geekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14378607523322893180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-78979605081865056882014-12-23T07:50:13.922+08:002014-12-23T07:50:13.922+08:00Trying to make this work for a while now. Followin...Trying to make this work for a while now. Following these steps, I eventually get a .kmz file with a size of only around 500 kB (area of the map is 100km by 50km), which corresponds with the very low resolution map my device shows. How do I obtain the detailed topographic map on my Garmin, or what did I do wrong?<br /><br />Nevertheless, thanks for this nice initiativedangerousdavenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-8918775291911489912014-07-10T17:08:51.640+08:002014-07-10T17:08:51.640+08:00Very cool, seems much more effective than the stif...Very cool, seems much more effective than the stiffening of the hairs on the back of my neck. Getting one! Good luck with the crowdfunding.The Bike Geekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14378607523322893180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6240416284552619444.post-40476923715583648872014-07-09T08:25:19.078+08:002014-07-09T08:25:19.078+08:00OK so your blog is about science, technology and c...OK so your blog is about science, technology and cool bike toys...<br /><br />I'm covering all three in one fell swoop!<br /><br />What do you think about Backtracker - its a new bicycle radar device, that allows cyclists to "see" 150 yards behind them. <br /><br />Would love to know what you think: http://crowd.backtracker.ioFranzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09011756394120715552noreply@blogger.com