Another Question on strange power data

Jesmol
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:48 pm

Another Question on strange power data

Postby Jesmol » Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:39 pm

I recently got a PR on a fairly long climb here in Adelaide, tollgate to bollards.

Recent effort was 32.42 , ave HR 162, ave Pwr 220 , NP 231, Cad 73
Prior PR was 32.59 , Ave HR 159 , Ave Pwr 260 , NP 249 , Cad 76

Given my prior PR was only a month or two ago, and weight is similar etc, I'm surprised at the variance in power numbers.

Wind conditions / temp were similar , the only explanation I can think of is that the Power2Max calibration was out.

Any other thoughts ?

User avatar
kb
Posts: 2286
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: Another Question on strange power data

Postby kb » Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:38 pm

Was the "include zeroes" setting the same on both? If it's not a very short climb, lower NP than average power is a little suss.
Image

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4336
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Another Question on strange power data

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:47 pm

Jesmol wrote:Ave Pwr 260 , NP 249
Any other thoughts ?

Those numbers make no sense. For longer efforts, by definition NP >= AP

g-boaf
Posts: 8602
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Another Question on strange power data

Postby g-boaf » Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:51 pm

I've seen that on my stages power too, higher average than NP, but usually only on short rides. I pretty much ignore it on that bike.

Most of my training is using a computrainer which seems more dependable for power.

Jesmol
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:48 pm

Re: Another Question on strange power data

Postby Jesmol » Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:44 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
Jesmol wrote:Ave Pwr 260 , NP 249
Any other thoughts ?

Those numbers make no sense. For longer efforts, by definition NP >= AP

Yep sorry must have misread something, NP for that effort was 262w

http://imgur.com/lPxzEEs
http://imgur.com/QbS2bFi

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4336
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Another Question on strange power data

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:44 pm

Jesmol wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
Jesmol wrote:Ave Pwr 260 , NP 249
Any other thoughts ?

Those numbers make no sense. For longer efforts, by definition NP >= AP

Yep sorry must have misread something, NP for that effort was 262w

http://imgur.com/lPxzEEs
http://imgur.com/QbS2bFi

OK, well you have a 1% reduction in climbing time for 18% more power. If conditions and total mass really are the same, then that tells me something is way out with the data.

Jesmol
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:48 pm

Re: Another Question on strange power data

Postby Jesmol » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:28 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
Jesmol wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Those numbers make no sense. For longer efforts, by definition NP >= AP

Yep sorry must have misread something, NP for that effort was 262w

http://imgur.com/lPxzEEs
http://imgur.com/QbS2bFi

OK, well you have a 1% reduction in climbing time for 18% more power. If conditions and total mass really are the same, then that tells me something is way out with the data.

Actually other way around, 1% quicker up the hill, with 18% less power. I suspect the P2M was overreading for a small period of time, I had a couple of weeks which seem out of kilter with the rest of my riding.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users