Highest power output?? - Page 3

Crap the smartest guy here answers my dumb question. I am getting the info, but it shows this cute little graph. For example I did a 30 sec 52x15 slight uphill set. Shows a quick peak to 1300 . stays 15 sec above 1000. You get the idea. I was looking for 30 sec power frm this??? I am looking for the average of the 30 secs. The bar showing all the data shows full ride stuff like peaks and averages for the full ride including other sets ..Maybe I ought to dowload peaks

That's up to you, but here's what you're missing:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/ss_athletehome.html#

Check out the little graph in the lower left corner called Mean Maximal Power vs. Duration. That's a compilation of the best efforts extracted from all the rides over the past 28 days (time period can be customized by user) plotted vs. the duration of the effort. Plus, when you position your pointer over the graph at a specific point, a little window pops up to tell you the power level, duration and ride date of that performance. Want to know your best 10sec power in the last month? Put your cursor on the graph at 10sec. Want to know your best *15* sec power? Well, you get the idea and I won't rub it in. Bottom line is that you just ride, and the program keeps track of it all and puts the info at your fingertips.

I am a computer doofus. I have an IT guy coming over to sort some stuff out. Ill start using peaks I guess. "The Dark Side"

I dunno man, Those ranges seem low to me. Maybe it's just the competitionin CA, or maybe I don't have enough confidence in races. I'm a cat 4, and my typical (race ready) 5 sec, 1min, 5min and FT power is: 16.0, 8.3, 5.0, 4.0 (watts/kg). I only have a few podiums, and mostly mediocre top third finishes. I don't think there's as much varience among cat 5 to cat 2 as there used to be. (say ten years ago).

__________________
I'm only truly happy when I'm anaerobic.

Andy (Dr. Coggan!) will probably respond, but here's my take...

This new version puts the category guidelines back in, apparently from popular demand! He used to have them, then removed them because people were reading too much into them (I think that's why at least!).

A few thoughts...

At the end of the day a lot more goes into winning than having the best power-profile.

The lower categories are always a little more complicated, because people are always moving through. Noone starts as a cat1, even if they have the ability to be one. They start as a cat4 or 5, and win races. So, in any given lower category race, there will be several people who are destined to soon be much higher category racers, but have to stomp on you a bit to get there =).

Different races will stress different abilities. I live in SoCal also, and know a few cat1 riders who's FTs are 4ish. They got to cat1 by being very good at sitting in, and having a great sprint (since crits make up a majority of our races...unfortunately!).

The power-profile tables are best used to look at your own pattern, and see where your strengths and weakness are (with some reference to be able to compare accross durations). That can give you an idea of what type of rider you are, and perhaps where you might consider spending some and effort to improve (though there are caveats, that I'd imagine are covered in more detail in the upcoming book!).

I've found that for the higher categories, the numbers tend to be more informative, not so much in terms of predicting results, but in terms of getting an idea of what is needed to have a chance for a particular type of race. For example, in hilly cat1 races, it seems a FT of around 5ish is pretty neccesary to be in the hunt. Likewise, if one has a 5 sec power of 14w/kg, unless one is exceptionally gifted at positioning, it's unlikely you're going to win many cat2 or up group sprints. Of course these are just guidelines, and as I said before, the best power profile doesn't win the race, coming accross the line first does!

Scott

No need, you hit the nail square on the head.

Hammerhead: you really ought to read this so that you better understand the purpose and logic of the tables:

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/profile.html

(and note that although the category descriptors are back, they are in each case preceeded by "e.g." and that the brackets overlap)

Call me a simpleton , but I have fun fighting with that table.......... You mean thats not what it was for?

I have had a few race cars, and when we build a motor, we look at HP and torque. We also look at the relationship between the two. Big torque numbers make the car accelerate better at lower rpm. Quetion , is it worth looking at ?

Yes, that torque is necessary to get the hole-shot for a drag race, or accelerate up beside another car coming out of a tight corner on a road course so that you have position entering the next turn.

Question, what does that have to do with bike racing?

Tring to learn what works...PT , inch lbs. No one mentions it, only wattts. BTW this is alot chaeper that cars I wonder if hammerhead will sell me his name??

Maybe not here, but both frenchy and I have done a little work on both acceleration and top end at different cadences, for sprints. I tend to favor smaller gears and higher cadences, for both acceleration and top end. I even use small gears off the line in TTs because I have tested just about every initial gearing and I find that I am sufficiently faster off the line in a small gear that I can even pay the price of backing off briefly while I upshift from the small to the large ring. Can't reveal all the goodies.

Ok, you meant is torque worth looking at *on the bike.*

I'm no track expert, but I'd think you'd be very interested in it for fixed-gear standing starts at the very least. I read somewhere (I think on that excellent post by Norseman on Fixed Gear Fever.com - I'll post the link tonight if someone else doesn't do it before I get home) that many shorter track events at the high levels are won or lost based on the hole-shot. Maybe you could use this graph and the associated discussions ( http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id6.html ) to help assess how much of your strength you're able to convert into torque. I've looked at torque a little after some of my 'jump' sets (maximal power from a slow start), and it's interesting to see, but as RDO mentioned, we roadies don't rely on torque nearly as much because we have a much better gear selection.

This probably goes without saying for an engine builder, but for the benefit of all the lurking computer-nerds out there, when you're looking at torque as measured by a PT (ie, 'hub' torque), don't forget to multiply it by the gear ratio to determine the torque at the cranks and associated pedal force.

Wouldn't it be great if training was like engine building? You may have a small bore, but you can always swap out the crank. You ever hear of externally referencing the power valve?

I will give up "HammerHead", but you have to be my lead out man for the entire season.

__________________
I'm only truly happy when I'm anaerobic.

That article answered alot of questions. I hve been wondering how lifting transfered directly to cycling . It makes me wonder if the top guys are only looking for any small edge that they can by sqatting and deadlifting heavy. Maybe its only a 2,3,4,5% advantage over just spinting.......Also you hear big watts numbers from a few Tour de France guys that I assume do little or no lifting, and mostly ride for tours.........Hammerhead. I have never heard of that valve thing. But I understand engine performance alot more than the cycling stuff. Way easier untill you get to high levels.Makes buying a power tap seem like changing your socks though. I am still learning , I am not sure where I would "lead you out to"

3rd post down - http://fixedgearfever.com/modules.ph...r=asc&start=60

Bill, if you haven't seen this yet you'll probably find it very interesting.