Power Meter Newbie - Chopping Wattages

eoinmorris

Took the plunge and bought a stages 105. Have had it on two outings now and not sure what to make of it. The readings are very choppy (+/- 100watts on 3s Avg Setting).... Not sure if this is down to a sloppy pedal stroke or what. Today I had it out and was aiming for an average of 200watts for the spin, I averaged 210w and the power was jumping between 140 and 280 on the flat. Granted, it was gusty today; allowing for the gusts though, I thought that I'd be able to measure my output more.

Do any experienced Power Meter users have any words of wisdom? (And yes, I've bought Joe Friels books and slowly making my way thru them!!)

Beasty

Moved from Cycling Training logs

Beasty

On a 3s rolling average pedal stroke is not going to come into it. Have you tried measuring over 30s?

You do need some discipline to try and maintain a steady power output on the flat as there is always a temptation to ease slightly as you benefit from marginal declines and put a bit more in on slight inclines. Are you seeing this jumping about on the computer as you ride (in which case a 3s rolling average should smooth it out a lot) or when you review your power file after the ride (when you would need to smooth it within the programme)?

One way you can put out reasonably steady power is on a slight incline. Try and find one to test it out.

Having said that there have been plenty of problems with Stages reported.

eoinmorris

Cheers Beasty

Yeah, I had it out today on the rolling drags of NCD. Its much easier to put out a steady wattage on the inclines... It's theflats that are bogey. I'm not exagerating when I say it's chopping about +/- 100watts on the flat on the 3s avg setting. That said, i've been able to hit the average power I've been aiming for on a spin give or take a couple of whats. It just feels like walking a tight rope though, swaying from one extreme of wattages to another.

Thanks for the reply, I'll just have to keep an eye on it and try and work on it and try and get a better feel for it.

EM

godtabh

eoinmorris wrote: »

Cheers Beasty

Yeah, I had it out today on the rolling drags of NCD. Its much easier to put out a steady wattage on the inclines... It's theflats that are bogey. I'm not exagerating when I say it's chopping about +/- 100watts on the flat on the 3s avg setting. That said, i've been able to hit the average power I've been aiming for on a spin give or take a couple of whats. It just feels like walking a tight rope though, swaying from one extreme of wattages to another.

Thanks for the reply, I'll just have to keep an eye on it and try and work on it and try and get a better feel for it.

EM

I usually go for 10 second averages but I'd keep an eye on things like gear and cadence. Adjust to suit the power I am targeting

Beasty

godtabh wrote: »

I'd keep an eye on things like .... credence.

Don't have much of that stuff myself.....

godtabh

Beasty wrote: »

Don't have much of that stuff myself.....

Stupid food coma. My fingers are fatter and it's hard to type

Leroy42

For the first few rides don't even bother looking at the numbers. You need to see a wider spread of power data to see a trend or anything approaching it.

NCD drags have difficult to maintain consistent power due, not only to the changing inclines but road surface, bumps, camber, wind etc.

All these can have a part to play in power output and since you haven't trained with power before you are effectively seeing the inefficient nature of cycling over shorts periods. Add to that that stages is taking left only and multiplying it it stands to reason that the power swings quite a bit.

100w is very high though, but I would bet that after some rides to get used to it you will see that decrease. 3sec av pw is grand but unless you are on a track or a constant incline doesn't really mean too much.

Forget the live readout for the time being and just ride your bike over preused routes and then compare your times and HR readings from previous rides to the power readings. I found it best on places I train regularly, so Howth for me. After a few weeks I could compare me Pw/hr readings against previous HR readings to give a basis on which to judge my pw readings.

Stages has it shortcomings but it is not inherently defective and is more than sufficient for power training.

harringtonp

eoinmorris wrote: »

Took the plunge and bought a stages 105. Have had it on two outings now and not sure what to make of it. The readings are very choppy (+/- 100watts on 3s Avg Setting).... Not sure if this is down to a sloppy pedal stroke or what. Today I had it out and was aiming for an average of 200watts for the spin, I averaged 210w and the power was jumping between 140 and 280 on the flat. Granted, it was gusty today; allowing for the gusts though, I thought that I'd be able to measure my output more.

Do any experienced Power Meter users have any words of wisdom? (And yes, I've bought Joe Friels books and slowly making my way thru them!!)

Fairly normal what you see. To be sure try it out on a turbo, if you can keep within 20 watts fairly easily of your target figure using the 3w settings then you can assume the PM is fine

eoinmorris

Thanks Folks! Will keep at it... That it is steady enough on inclines tells me that it's not the power meter. I'll just have to work on it!

Thanks again!

EM

Bambaata

If you are really focusing on holding an effort you shouldn't be anymore than 10W out on 3s average. I roll with 3s average and lap average showing and generally have lap at about 4km. I wouldn't be too focused on it unless you are trying to hold exact numbers for training purposes. I generally try to ride to PE and find that this is important when it comes to racing etc as I rarely get a chance to check on the numbers in that setting!

So ride a while, do a 5/20 min max test and get to the training if you want to do try specific sessions hit the turbo. I hit the turbo all year long as it can be very difficult to do exact sessions out on the road.

Bambaata

Oh and welcome to the world of no hiding a watt is a watt is a watt!

12 sprocket

Bambaata wrote: »

Oh and welcome to the world of no hiding a watt is a watt is a watt!

isn't that really debatable? a "watt is a watt is a watt" what you are really seeing is a calculation of what the average watt is for the last 3 or whatever seconds its set at. so maybe a watt is not always a watt?
Stochastic nature of cycling is how some describe it..

the debate between heart rate and power for training often mention this "watt is a watt" and mention all the variability of heart rate.. but in practise power is not too different.. and when used in real time rather than averages it shows very quickly the difference in power that's applied to the pedals when the road drops or rises or changes in wind direction. and in the real cycling world maybe this is a perfectly natural phenomenon.
So before any of you get too upset....power is obviously very useful but the language used might sometimes need to be challenged.

harringtonp

Bambaata wrote: »

Oh and welcome to the world of no hiding a watt is a watt is a watt!

If only. OP like most other PM users will likely discover that when it comes to how many watts you can put out:

hill > flat > turbo > turbo on a TT bike

and for most the difference between first and last is substantial

Kaisr Sose

^ I would still say a watt is a watt is a watt — for the person who puts it out, for the way it's measured and the conditions/environment it's measured under.

12 sprocket

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

^ I would still say a watt is a watt is a watt — for the person who puts it out, for the way it's measured and the conditions/environment it's measured under.

you may very well still say that " a watt is a watt" but its not really if being shown as an average of a certain amount of watts within a particular time frame.

mossym

12 sprocket wrote: »

you may very well still say that " a watt is a watt" but its not really if being shown as an average of a certain amount of watts within a particular time frame.

of course it is. you're right of course, over the course of 3 seconds the values being measured will change significantly. that's not because the effort of the user is exactly constant and the value of a watt is varying. the effort of the user,for a bunch of reasons, is changing, and the watt remains the same.

so a watt is a watt is a watt is accurate, but using spot readings of power without understanding the variability that comes with it is dangerous.it does give a much better indication of the variability of output during a ride than monitoring HR does, which is the main point

tunney

A more accurate comment would be "a joule is a joule is a joule"

dermabrasion

harringtonp wrote: »

hill > flat > turbo > turbo on a TT bike

and for most the difference between first and last is substantial

Context is very useful for training or gauging where you are in a race or during an effort. It takes time to understand all these variables but relevant if your swapping your PM from bike to bike and season to session.

noc231073

My condolence .with the purchase of one of the most useless piece of junk ie: stages power meter
I hope you purchased from a reputable supplier because you will be returning it ..
I purchased one and I am now on my 3rd and still is not working properly .. I now have a dead unit so look like sending it back again for the 4th time I can't get my money back not as it out of warranty .. This has been going on now over 12 months ..
I have never got a months use out of it
Don't know how or why sky are using them ..

harringtonp

harringtonp wrote: »

If only. OP like most other PM users will likely discover that when it comes to how many watts you can put out:

hill > flat > turbo > turbo on a TT bike

and for most the difference between first and last is substantial

A watt is a watt but what I am getting at here is that depending on position and setup the perceived effort required to put out a particular wattage level varies.

Say for example you do a max out 20 minute field test up Killakee road and find your power for the test is 300w. From this say you derive 285W as your lactate threshold based on the 95% rule (personally I think 95% too high but that is another story). Now your training program has sessions where you have to do two 20 minute intervals a little under threshold and based on your FT you decide 275W is a good figure. Weather is crap, evenings are dark so you decide to do the session(s) on the turbo. You're very likely to find that maintaining 275W for 20 min on a turbo is killing you and the effort is well beyond that needed to train the lactate system.

Point is simply that if you train on a turbo do a FT on a turbo, if you train on uphills do a FT on the hills as the results from your FT's in both cases will be different.

Lumen

harringtonp wrote: »

Weather is crap, evenings are dark so you decide to do the session(s) on the turbo. You're very likely to find that maintaining 275W for 20 min on a turbo is killing you and the effort is well beyond that needed to train the lactate system.

Why do you say that the "effort is well beyond that needed to train the lactate system"? Does your "lactate system" know or care that you're on a turbo?

harringtonp

Lumen wrote: »

Why do you say that the "effort is well beyond that needed to train the lactate system"? Does your "lactate system" know or care that you're on a turbo?

You'll likely find that you're working much harder to maintain 275 for 20 min and will either blow up (in which case you were in the VO2 zone) or feel like you were flat out in a 20 min TT.

Do the 20 min however on the hill at 275W where you did your field test and it will feel hard but manageable (as it should be because you can ride it at 300W)

But you must be aware of this Lumen as you've had a PM for years and have posted some detailed stuff before. Almost everybody I know who has bought themselves a PM seems to notice this and is surprised by it.

Lumen

harringtonp wrote: »

You'll likely find that you're working much harder to maintain 275 for 20 min and will either blow up (in which case you were in the VO2 zone) or feel like you were flat out in a 20 min TT.

Do the 20 min however on the hill at 275W where you did your field test and it will feel hard but manageable (as it should be because you can ride it at 300W)

But you must be aware of this Lumen as you've had a PM for years and have posted some detailed stuff before. Almost everybody I know who has bought themselves a PM seems to notice this and is surprised by it.

I know that a lot of people find it "harder" to sustain a given effort on a turbo, but it doesn't therefore follow that a proportionately lower level of wattage indoors will deliver the same training benefit just because it feels "as hard" due to increased heat stress, boredom, lack of road feel etc.

That might be the case, but it doesn't seem like a given.

Otherwise I could potter along at 150W whilst listening to Ryan Tubridy interviewing Marion Finucane, and the resulting sufferfest would get me to the TDF.

PowerToWait

I thought it was universally accepted that indoor sessions increase perceived exertion by some margin.

My own indoor interval and strength sessions are easily 10% more difficult, if such a thing is even measurable. Still get them done, but fills me with dread sometimes.

I think a watt is still a watt though.

harringtonp

Lumen wrote: »

I know that a lot of people find it "harder" to sustain a given effort on a turbo, but it doesn't therefore follow that a proportionately lower level of wattage indoors will deliver the same training benefit just because it feels "as hard" due to increased heat stress, boredom, lack of road feel etc.

That might be the case, but it doesn't seem like a given.
TDF.

Yes I'm surprised at how little understanding there is of this out there. One can trawl all one wants but it is difficult to find good articles and there doesn't seem to be consensus.

Most people put the turbo difference down to cooling but I have done Turbo sessions outside bare chested while snowing and the effort to hold a given wattage is still higher than the road. I suspect that the difference may be smaller with Turbos which allow lateral movement but have not come across anything to corroborate this.

This article deals with inertial loads

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/09/climbing-and-time-trialling-how-power-outputs-are-affected/

and makes good reading but from my understanding of it would have thought that most turbos would be more like climbs than flats and wattages would be higher than on a flat road for the same effort.

dermabrasion

To follow on the points made above, I put my vector on my CX bike today (I like disc in the wet) and went out up 3 rock, then up cruagh and on to feather beds. My PM showing 340-360 W as I puff and pant up the climb to 3 rock. Chuffed with this effort, I went on down to start Cruagh. There is a flat bit before the climb kicks up. I was now up to a steady 480W. When I did give it holly, I was now putting out 550-620W on the bridge to bridge segment. I am AWESOME. I put out over 500W for at least half an hour. Surprisingly, I didn't get a PB, but I expect that must have been the wind.
So, I got home, plugged the Garmin and uploaded to training peaks. I was delighted to learn that my power to weight ratio has moved from a sub Cat 5 rider to domestic pro. All this in one session too!
So, I am done winter training. Bring on Ned Flanagan, and I'll see you.....down the town. A4 to A1 this year.

harringtonp

I'll have one of those power meters too thanks

Raymzor

Have you found the PM helpful? Do you do 1,5,20 min tests? Have these improved over time? Feedback appreciated. Thanks

omri

Check recent video on GCNs youtube channel where they discuss the use of power meters for beginners.