Have I got this right?...

The foundations for successful riding

Have I got this right?...

Postby toolonglegs » Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:00 am

Too nice a day today...over 10C,first ride in months with fingerless gloves,still snow around above 450meters but just perfect.So the plan was to do a longer ride but ran out of time.So on the way I decided I would try a test up a smallish climb that I was going to do.I could have gone longer but this particular climb has a flat spot so I chose just to do the first part for the test.Had a very fast 40km warm up...a bit fatigued but felt good all the same.It is a steep climb as you can see...power looks goodish...power to weight is crap but then I am never going to be a hill climber.
Question is...is this to steep for me or dosen't it really matter...I could stay in the 23 most of the way on a 34 front...but I feel I could push better on a not so steep climb...or dosen't it matter.I will do a proper test in the weeks to come on a climb that I can do 20 minutes solid climbing with no flat spots.But I feel I still had some left in the tank at the end of 14minutes and could have kept that pace for a few more minutes for sure...actually must of had a fair bit more in the tank because the next 60kms were very hard and fast!!!...got to love spring :D.
Now I just need a power meter!!!.
PS the weight for the bike is right...heavy training bike / 2 bottles / winter clothing.
PPS...also I am probably not totally accurate on the total meters climbed as I can only go off MapMyRide...but it would be fairly close,I suppose doing a longer climb will help with accuracy...or buy a garmin!.
Image

Image
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14471
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

by BNA » Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:44 am

BNA
 

Postby sogood » Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:44 am

Take a look at the following chart, it would appear that you are in the correct ball park at 4.4W/kg for a "very good" Cat 2 rider, right?

Image
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17013
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby toolonglegs » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:45 am

I wouldn't survive long in a proper Cat 2 race...will try and do a more accurate test soon...finding the right hill is key.I need one that is totally uphill the whole way for at least 20 mins...and easy for me to map as not having a Garmin etc is a hindrance...also I think gradients of 20% or more are a bit step for a big guy like me!.
But if I can lose 15 kilos and improve 10% I will be flying!!!.
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14471
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby sogood » Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:23 am

Didn't you already say that you weren't on the limit for that test?

Given that the locals have used the Waterfall hill for these test successfully, I'd think that the 280m elevation gain you used is good enough for an accurate test. I can't see any reason why you'd want to go to a 20% grade to kill yourself on. ;)

I understand that table isn't absolute but is good enough as a rough reference. The fact that it didn't place you in the Cat 4 or 1 groups suggests that your measurement is on par. In any case, the numbers obtained are only good for your own reference rather than for any comparative use with others. So it's good enough. Just come back to test yourself again in another 3-6 months time.

My understanding is, once you have the power numbers, you can reverse the equation and extrapolate your results for TTs and other related activities.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17013
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby snedden9485 » Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:42 am

is there a link to this power calculator?
Chris
2011 Giant TCR Advanced SL
2011 Malvern Star Oppy TT9 Time Trial
2011 Giant Omnium Track
2012 Giant XTC Composite 29
User avatar
snedden9485
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:25 am
Location: Newcastle, NSW, AU

Postby snedden9485 » Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:55 am

Found it! I done a quick one for me also. The hill is Mt Sugarloaf. I dont this climb about a month ago, i think i could go abit quicker now.

Stats for climb and then my stats

Total Distance:
2.71km | 1.68mi

Starting Altitude:
148m | 486ft

Finishing Altitude:
363m | 1,191ft

Average Gradient: 8.3%

Elevation Gain:
215m | 705ft



Power required to overcome gravitational resistance: 255 watts.
Power required to overcome rolling resistance: 16 watts.
Power required to overcome aerodynamic resistance: 11 watts.
Total power required: 282 watts.

Watts per Kg: 3.89
Watts per Kg with bike: 3.38


According to SoGoods table, it puts me around the Cat3 level. Im pretty happy with that for now!
Chris
2011 Giant TCR Advanced SL
2011 Malvern Star Oppy TT9 Time Trial
2011 Giant Omnium Track
2012 Giant XTC Composite 29
User avatar
snedden9485
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:25 am
Location: Newcastle, NSW, AU

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:31 pm

Which column of the chart are you comparing yourself with?

The "FT" column refers to maximal power output for about 1-hour.
I'm guessing you did that climb in ~ 10-11 minutes?

You would have to discount your 10-minute power somewhat to compare to the FT (60-min) power column.

Put it this way, it'll be somewhere between the 5-min & FT columns on that table.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby snedden9485 » Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:42 pm

Woops :oops:

Well thats puts me around the lower cat 3 / high cat 4.
Chris
2011 Giant TCR Advanced SL
2011 Malvern Star Oppy TT9 Time Trial
2011 Giant Omnium Track
2012 Giant XTC Composite 29
User avatar
snedden9485
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:25 am
Location: Newcastle, NSW, AU

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:02 pm

Also, it would be a good idea to read the accompanying notes that go with the Power profile table. They can be found here:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... iling.aspx

The first thing to realise is that the table is not an indicator of racing level. It just indicates what is typical for racers at those levels.

The only way to know what category you can race at, is to race.
"The best predictor of performance is performance itself" - A. Coggan
Its primary purpose is to provide an indication of your overall power profile (your maximal power at various durations), assess the shape of the profile and identify individual strengths and weakness relative to your target events so that training can be adjusted accordingly.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: Have I got this right?...

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:14 pm

toolonglegs wrote:Question is...is this to steep for me or dosen't it really matter...

If you are trying to estimate power from climbing, then I suggest, where possible, to find a climb with a fairly consistent gradient. Or at least one where the gradient doesn't flatten out much along the way for any appreciable distance/time.

With quite variable gradients, the contributions to resistance forces by gravity, rolling and air resistance will vary somewhat and introduce errors into equations which are based on the overall time/averages. Although once you go past 7% it's pretty much all about gravity. Less than 5% and you really need to be taking into account your Coefficients of rolling resistance and drag/frontal area as the variance from some assumption will begin to affect the answer somewhat.

I would recommend using
analyticcycling.com
for making power / speed estimations
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby sogood » Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:54 pm

Alex, you must have done it or know people who have done it. How well does the power calculated from raw numbers of a Waterfall hill climb (elevation, distance, duration) correlate with actual PM measurement? I read people recommending it for this test.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17013
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Have I got this right?...

Postby toolonglegs » Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:56 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
toolonglegs wrote:Question is...is this to steep for me or dosen't it really matter...

If you are trying to estimate power from climbing, then I suggest, where possible, to find a climb with a fairly consistent gradient. Or at least one where the gradient doesn't flatten out much along the way for any appreciable distance/time.

With quite variable gradients, the contributions to resistance forces by gravity, rolling and air resistance will vary somewhat and introduce errors into equations which are based on the overall time/averages. Although once you go past 7% it's pretty much all about gravity. Less than 5% and you really need to be taking into account your Coefficients of rolling resistance and drag/frontal area as the variance from some assumption will begin to affect the answer somewhat.

I would recommend using
analyticcycling.com
for making power / speed estimations


Thanks Alex...like I say I was'nt planning to do a test until I was half way to the hills...if I have more time I will go to a better hill...I just need to find a more constant climb of around 8-12% with no dips for about 8km.That should give me 20 minutes....the hard part is finding one that dosen't ramp up to 20% too often!.
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14471
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:51 pm

sogood wrote:Alex, you must have done it or know people who have done it. How well does the power calculated from raw numbers of a Waterfall hill climb (elevation, distance, duration) correlate with actual PM measurement? I read people recommending it for this test.
Well all but one of my clients uses a power meter ;)

But I've done a TT effort up Waterfall once, so I'll trawl back through the files and see if there's enough data there.

Has anyone done a Map My Ride reference for that climb?
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:10 pm

OK, I went back to power data to have a look.

Some things look a bit weird, and I suspect the MMR elevations might be wrong (I've seen that before). MMR suggests the average gradient is ~4.6%.

Here's the detailed pacing analysis:

Image

I then ran the numbers against a straight out average gradient vs average power and it doesn't quite stack up. Calculated power required is out by about 6%.

I would say that Waterfall HC has too many flatter sections to be used a good estimate of power but you'd probably get to within 5-10%. That's too big a gap for my liking.

However, from the POV of simply comparing times up the climb, then it's a good test. But a more consistent and higher gradient would be better choice.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby mikesbytes » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:36 pm

By Waterfall hill, I'm assuming we are referring to exiting the park at Waterfall Station. Then that elevation chart shows what I'd I'd expect that being the steeper sections at the beginning and end, with what some describe as false flat in the middle. Your power output shows you taking it a tad easier on the false flat and then switching off when you could see the railway tracks.

Toolong, it sounds like if we did Oately together again this Aussie winter, it wouldn't be me who would be first up the hills.

mikesbytes wrote:Well toolong and I did something different today, we entered the St George handicap race at Oately.

A couple of laps before indicated that there was only 2 states to the circuit, uphill and downhill. Toolong and I went off the same handicap, with 3 other riders, but today it was mikebytes lighter body that won over toolongs stronger legs, with toolong dropping off a couple of times and climbing back on to our group, before it was one hill too many.

I stayed with the group and we picked up riders from the group in front and later the group in front of that.

On the last lap I attacked going up the hill and dropped all of the riders but 2, one from our group and one of the tacker-on-ers. In the end it was the other guy in my group who won the group, but can't complain, still got 2nd out of the 5. Both him and another guy in the group scored personal bests and that can be contributed to having toolong and I in the group, more numbers make it stronger.

End time was 42m 52s for 24k, that's 33.8kph average over pure hill. Can't complain about that, can I.
A helmet saved my life
User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 14864
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:32 pm

mikesbytes wrote:By Waterfall hill, I'm assuming we are referring to exiting the park at Waterfall Station. Then that elevation chart shows what I'd I'd expect that being the steeper sections at the beginning and end, with what some describe as false flat in the middle. Your power output shows you taking it a tad easier on the false flat and then switching off when you could see the railway tracks.
Basically that's the one. Start at the bridge at the bottom just near the T-intersection and end at a speed sign I think it is on the flat bit before you turn left to cross the bridge over the railway tracks/highway.

Yeah - if you look at my actual power line (yellow) and compare to the green line (optimal power), you'll see I started too hard and faded, making the pacing of the opening 1.6km sub-optimal. Then I settled in at about the right level for the rest of the ride, perhaps lost concentration at the end where it flattened out.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby sogood » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:59 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:OK, I went back to power data to have a look...
However, from the POV of simply comparing times up the climb, then it's a good test. But a more consistent and higher gradient would be better choice.

Thanks for digging the data out. Oh well, keep looking. But you are right, it could be a good ITT reference. The only unfortunate issue is that the only time we ride that hill is when we do the RNP via Audley. Which means that by the time we tackle the Waterfall hill, we are already half dead. :oops:
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17013
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby sogood » Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:03 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:...perhaps lost concentration at the end where it flattened out.

It's so easy to just let the legs relax when approaching or at the crest. There must be some mental training that can be done to overcome that.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17013
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:41 am

sogood wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:...perhaps lost concentration at the end where it flattened out.

It's so easy to just let the legs relax when approaching or at the crest. There must be some mental training that can be done to overcome that.
Well I could also have just been stuffed!
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby toolonglegs » Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:38 am

mikesbytes wrote:By Waterfall hill, I'm assuming we are referring to exiting the park at Waterfall Station. Then that elevation chart shows what I'd I'd expect that being the steeper sections at the beginning and end, with what some describe as false flat in the middle. Your power output shows you taking it a tad easier on the false flat and then switching off when you could see the railway tracks.

Toolong, it sounds like if we did Oately together again this Aussie winter, it wouldn't be me who would be first up the hills.

mikesbytes wrote:Well toolong and I did something different today, we entered the St George handicap race at Oately.

A couple of laps before indicated that there was only 2 states to the circuit, uphill and downhill. Toolong and I went off the same handicap, with 3 other riders, but today it was mikebytes lighter body that won over toolongs stronger legs, with toolong dropping off a couple of times and climbing back on to our group, before it was one hill too many.

I stayed with the group and we picked up riders from the group in front and later the group in front of that.

On the last lap I attacked going up the hill and dropped all of the riders but 2, one from our group and one of the tacker-on-ers. In the end it was the other guy in my group who won the group, but can't complain, still got 2nd out of the 5. Both him and another guy in the group scored personal bests and that can be contributed to having toolong and I in the group, more numbers make it stronger.

End time was 42m 52s for 24k, that's 33.8kph average over pure hill. Can't complain about that, can I.


Yeah weight hasn't changed much...maybee 3 or 4 kilos less but a hell of a lot stronger...and the Cannondale had it's first roll out for 2009 today..boy that felt different I can tell you!!!.
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14471
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby toolonglegs » Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:14 pm

Silly question but maths was never my subject...if I can hold the same power but lose 15 kgs (from 100kgs to 85kgs) will that improve my power to weight by 15%?....being 100 kilos makes it easy to work out I suppose :lol:.

On a downside I photographed a mountain running race on Sunday,had to snap the start....then run 500 mts to catch everyone going past then jump in the car and race to the top of a col...jump on my wifes way too small mtb and climb to the summit and then descend a k or 2 too where I had found a good spot....killed myself getting there in time and arrived exactly the same times as the first guys came thru!!!...freaks...snap every one coming thru again then race back to the car and back down the mountain and still missed the first 3 finishing....end result = great pics ( http://shotred.jalbum.net/Trail%20Beaujolais%202009/ ) & HAMMERED back,not stopping me but is weighing me down! ... :roll:
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14471
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:59 pm

You're right, maths isn't your strong point :lol:

It's more than a 15% improvement since it's the denominator you are reducing, rather than the numerator you are increasing.

Your power to weight ratio will go up by more than 15% if you lose 15% in body mass and power remains the same. More like 17.6%.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby toolonglegs » Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:12 pm

...better keep the diet going then!....that is a nice little step up in performance to be had!.
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14471
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby sogood » Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:49 pm

toolonglegs wrote:...better keep the diet going then!....that is a nice little step up in performance to be had!.

Better make sure you don't lose any muscle bulk though. A corresponding % in muscle power reduction would get your power/weight ratio to nowhere, and leave you less power on the flats and downhills.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17013
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby toolonglegs » Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:13 pm

sogood wrote:
toolonglegs wrote:...better keep the diet going then!....that is a nice little step up in performance to be had!.

Better make sure you don't lose any muscle bulk though. A corresponding % in muscle power reduction would get your power/weight ratio to nowhere, and leave you less power on the flats and downhills.


Back in the day :lol: ...motorcycle racing days I was in the low 80's...OK that was in my late teens but I was 88 in 2000 and absolutely flying...I think I have at least 10 kilos of fat to lose with out compromising my muscle mass,probably 15...if I remember well in 2000 I could of still lost a few more kilos but it was starting to get hard...but then I was racing mtb a lot as well and definately had a few more kilos of muscle up top.I will see how far I can go before July.

If Maggie could do it at 90 then I can to :lol:
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14471
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Next

Return to Training

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit