Page 1 of 1
Another Question on strange power data
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:39 pm
by Jesmol
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 ?
Re: Another Question on strange power data
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:38 pm
by kb
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.
Re: Another Question on strange power data
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:47 pm
by Alex Simmons/RST
Jesmol wrote:Ave Pwr 260 , NP 249
Any other thoughts ?
Those numbers make no sense. For longer efforts, by definition NP >= AP
Re: Another Question on strange power data
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:51 pm
by g-boaf
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.
Re: Another Question on strange power data
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:44 pm
by Jesmol
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
Re: Another Question on strange power data
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:44 pm
by Alex Simmons/RST
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.
Re: Another Question on strange power data
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:28 pm
by Jesmol
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
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.