Power Meters / Powermeters (SRM, Powertap, Quarq, Ergomo, Vector, Stages, power2max, P2M, 4iii, InPower, Cinch)

threshold as in unable to swallow spit as the time taken to so do would prevent a vital breath from being taken

Kinky...

is the crank not in fact a 'power meter spider' that fits to compact cranks, with standard rings?

That's what it looks like. It also looks like the bastard grandson of William Heath Robinson and Rube Goldberg

Is horrifique.

An idle question for research purposes;

What method do people use to set their power zones? FTP test? MAP test? Something else?

Guesswork

I've always done FTP test on the turbo, either a 2 x 8' or 1 x 20'. I've bookmarked an article on MAP testing though as I'm interested in how the results would compare.

Anyone tried both?

David Brailsford's Little Book of Power, page 28.

P2M coming my way. Time to quantify all the things.

ftp.

I need to do something about my HR zones. Currently I just tell my garmin/TP how incredibly old I am tell it I want a 5 zone break Down.

But rides on non-powermetered bikes always get a far higher 'zone rating'.

The obvious answer is to get a track PT.

Bikes with powermeters, for everything else, there's ebay.

A not-a-proper-FTP-test 20 minute session on a track during the winter. During the summer I occasionally go and blast up @Cycliste's local Alp to try and see what I can do over 20 minutes.

"We could have made them smaller, lighter and have the batteries last 3-4 times as long, you know like the ones we use already in all our hubs, but AAA made sense because magnets."

I didn't get that either:

• CR2032 aren't exactly obscure;
  
• are readily carried with your multi-tool & tube etc;
  
• the pedals are porky compared to the competition.
  

What does the book say Andy?

I recommend a 40km TT then this.

I've only read it fully once, but I don't recall anything in the Bible about power testing protocols. It must be in Revelations somewhere though.

On the fourth day the Lord said unto Adam; read the Coggan book - do not eat the fruit from the powermeter thread on lfgss.

Thats bloody interesting. I'm going to look into that.

I'm not asking for advice btw, I'm just doing a small bit of research for work. I'd always do an FTP test but a colleague thinks MAP tests are more common.

I did a MAP test earlier this year - would have put my FTP at 315 watts.

The result of a (very poorly done from my side) Trainer-Road FTP test session put it at 257.

I think it's somewhere between those two figures, but I'm more sure that the Trainer Road session was low than the MAP was high, if that makes sense - I had someone shouting at me for the MAP test. However, it is too high.

I'd have said ftp tests are more common. You can even have strava calculate it for you from a period of your choosing. But I guess most just smash 20mins and then calculate it.

FTP % of MAP will properly rises and you become more trainied, but not by much.
Map tests are a good, repeatable, reliable way of testing improvement.
Some will be better at a map than 1h FTP/20 min FTP test. Some won't be able to suffer.
But it's still repeatable.

I'd rate MAP tests as a method of tracking improvement.
Though if you want to know what your FTP is, go out and do a 40k TT when rested. That's what it is, everything else is an estimation.

FTP test, exactly as described in Coggan and Allen. Could include an option for both though I guess.

Sorry - I hadn't put 2+2 together there.

Fwiw - I either do the Coggan test, or use TT race datas.