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

I was tempted by the powertap. Especially as I needed to rebuild my wheels anyways.

This where I start thinking that I need to buy spokes if I find a Powertap cheapish, and thus should buy a new rim too, and have an extra rear wheel. In fact I have a C-4 front hub lying around unused could just build a second wheelset.

FFS.

It's going to be an interesting time - second hand powertap wheels are going to halve in value, bringing "proper" power within reach of many who previously wrote it off as an indulgence.

The reason I want a track hub is that I do 100 - 120 miles a week on the fixed and use RPE to enter that into the PMC, as that's 50% of my weekly mileage the margin for error is large.

I think crank based power makes more sense for me.

I'll probably use several different wheels on the BMC. But I cant see myself using a PT wheel on several bikes.

It's going to be an interesting time - second hand powertap wheels are going to halve in value, bringing "proper" power within reach of many who previously wrote it off as an indulgence.

The reason I want a track hub is that I do 100 - 120 miles a week on the fixed and use RPE to enter that into the PMC, as that's 50% of my weekly mileage the margin for error is large.

I use my powercal belt with the fixed a lot. Taking gears, and therefore cadence somewhat out of the equation, makes for interesting data. Plus I tend to jump on the fixd if I've only got enough free time for a sub 60min ride. So its where all my high intensity efforts are made.

I can certainly see the draw to get 'proper' power measurement for your fixed.

That's what I got the Powercal for, and for averages it's really quite good- a bit low, but I could probably adjust for that as it's fairly consistant.

However I found that it gave me 2,300 watt spikes on a regular basis (when giving it the beans from a roll I suspect) which were 1,000 watts higher than I normally see for brief efforts, and was therefore slewing the figures.

I assumed I just occasionally banged out 2000w efforts.

The data certainly is'nt of a log-able quality. But the powercal still performs way above its price tag. I'm quite used to the jumpiness, and delay now. I think it registers 30 watts low for smooth efforts. I should check the Geiranger data. Thats easy to compare to something like bike-calculator to get an idea.

Geiranger (forgot to turn on puter for first 2/3km).

Meters climbed = 1435
Time = 1:43
Distance = 20.49km
Weight = 88kg

Average power.
Powercal = 214w BikeCalculator = 242w

So it probably under estimates by 28watts. I'll ride the climb a few times more and average the difference out for accuracy.

What's the opinion here?

I reckon overdoing it last week (my own stupid fault) left me in a position where my TSB was too negative ahead of todays event:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5473/9435686481_cc1098eae1_o.png

Where you targeting today's event? If so then possibly. Your TSB was positive before the event though so it wasn't as if you were buried. Then again it all depends on how accurate your input is. Last time you asked something like this you'd still not tested your FTP.

Still haven't, to be honest.

So the values aren't accurate and we may as well be offering an opinion on some kid's squiggly drawing.

Depends on how you view the equivalency between critical power and FTP, CP is showing as 292 watts based on 12 months of ride files, so I put 290 into Training Peaks as FTP.

CP from where? I assume you mean CP60 as CP needs to have a time associated with it to have any meaning.

That's been discussed on Wattage recently, MMP needs to have a time, CP is always 60 mins was their decision.

Anyway- Golden Cheetah is where I'm getting the CP(60) figure from.

That's wrong. CP has a time specification. FTP is always 60min.

Hey, don't tell me, tell Wattage.

Wattage is just another collection of idiots posting online with slightly more of a maths bent than here. Critical Power has been around since the 60s and defines, fuck it, read all about it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15677008

I shall refer to is as CP60 from now on.

Yeah, so to answer your original question - no idea. I don't know how the output from whatever translates into FTP in Training Peaks. It looks like the build up to the event was harder than they event which makes me wonder why. Either the training was too hard or you rode the 'race' poorly. This could be because you didn't fully recover from the large week beforehand. This is why people build up slowly to their peak events - you can't just smash it the week before and expect to be recovered and fast unless you've got a good handle on your recovery ability and/or can afford to sleep all week.

It was harder because I got carried away- that week shouldn't have been that heavy.

Only reason I'm asking is I felt like I didn't do my best today- there should have been more in my legs, but it wouldn't come out.

Clearly.

But not clearly.

Because of estimates.

and cheese sticks.

TSS for yesterday was 440, TSS for Norway was 235, that probably explains why I was fine going riding up mountains the day after Norway yet I feel broken today.