Cycling and bicycle racing discussion forums.   View New Forum Topics
Today's Forum Topics

Set as homepage


Go Back   Cycling Forums > Tech Corner > Power Training
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Welcome to CyclingForums.com

You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread.

By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds.


Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 29-09.-2007, 06:42 AM   #1
Watoni
Registered User
 
Watoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 88
Default Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

I have noticed that on uphill intervals in particular, the cyclingpeaks software shows power at 15-20 watts less than the powertap software.

It can't be the effect of zeros since there are none on the uphill section.

It is not that big a deal except that I am new to outdoor power training and am relying on the current power readings off the PT for intervals, so I need the downloaded data to correspond.

In that respect cyclingpeaks is a disappointment given the key feature in power training is accuracy and repeatability.

Thoughts?
Watoni is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29-09.-2007, 09:03 AM   #2
Uhl
Registered User
 
Uhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eagle, ID
Posts: 94
Default Re: Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

I'm not sure I understand your dilemma.

Are you saying CyclingPeaks doesn't correspond to what your PowerTap CPU says?

Or...

Are you comparing stats between CyclingPeaks and PowerAgent, once you've downloaded/imported the same ride into each program?
Uhl is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29-09.-2007, 12:34 PM   #3
Watoni
Registered User
 
Watoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 88
Default Re: Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhl
I'm not sure I understand your dilemma.

Are you saying CyclingPeaks doesn't correspond to what your PowerTap CPU says?

Or...

Are you comparing stats between CyclingPeaks and PowerAgent, once you've downloaded/imported the same ride into each program?


Definitely the latter, and I believe the former as well.
Watoni is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29-09.-2007, 10:01 PM   #4
rr9876
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 38
Default Re: Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watoni

Thoughts?
Do you have smoothing turned on in cycling peaks? The rightmost display in the toolbar should read 0:00 if you want the cyclingpeaks graph to display the same thing as power agent. If it doesn't, click on the little down arrow next to the number until it does. Or go to the soothing menu, and select "None." Or just hit the F4 key.
rr9876 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 30-09.-2007, 02:42 AM   #5
Watoni
Registered User
 
Watoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 88
Default Re: Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

Quote:
Originally Posted by rr9876
Do you have smoothing turned on in cycling peaks? The rightmost display in the toolbar should read 0:00 if you want the cyclingpeaks graph to display the same thing as power agent. If it doesn't, click on the little down arrow next to the number until it does. Or go to the soothing menu, and select "None." Or just hit the F4 key.



Smoothing is not on ...
Watoni is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 30-09.-2007, 05:08 AM   #6
acoggan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,622
Default Re: Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watoni
I have noticed that on uphill intervals in particular, the cyclingpeaks software shows power at 15-20 watts less than the powertap software.

It can't be the effect of zeros since there are none on the uphill section.

It is not that big a deal except that I am new to outdoor power training and am relying on the current power readings off the PT for intervals, so I need the downloaded data to correspond.

In that respect cyclingpeaks is a disappointment given the key feature in power training is accuracy and repeatability.

Thoughts?


I don't know the source of the discrepancy, but I do know this: CyclingPeaks WKO+ is telling you "the truth", i.e., the values are straight-up averages of what's in your PowerTap's memory, without any manipulation whatsoever. Thus, if they don't correspond to that shown by PowerAgent, the latter must be doing some post-processing (i.e., fudging) of the data.
acoggan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-10.-2007, 12:44 AM   #7
Uhl
Registered User
 
Uhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eagle, ID
Posts: 94
Default Re: Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watoni
Definitely the latter, and I believe the former as well.
I'm not sure why you're getting a discrepency. Have you tried to compare the CSV output files from each program?

In CyclingPeaks use Export Copy As... then select PowerTap Files (CSV) as type.

In PowerAgent use File > Export Activity Data.

This will give you two comma separated value (CSV) files you can easily compare in a spreadsheet. These two files should essentially be identical (just a couple small differences in level of precision of values and the handling of breaks during a workout).

But all the workout and interval stats (min/max/ave power, HR, etc.) should be the same. I've never seen them differ from each other. Though I have seen interval summary data not match the CPU, but only by 1 watt or so. Probably just a rounding issue.
Uhl is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-10.-2007, 08:13 AM   #8
Alex Simmons
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,743
Default Re: Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

I wondering what the recording rate of the PT CPU is set at? Not that it should make any difference with the data download but just ticking off things. It can definitely have an impact on differences in max power shown between the CPU and software.
Alex Simmons is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-10.-2007, 03:34 PM   #9
ric_stern/RST
Community Team
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newport, South Wales
Posts: 3,831
Default Re: Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Simmons
I wondering what the recording rate of the PT CPU is set at? Not that it should make any difference with the data download but just ticking off things. It can definitely have an impact on differences in max power shown between the CPU and software.


Even if it's set at 1-sec intervals (which is actually 1.26-secs) there can be differences between the CPU and the software. It's because the CPU calculates data slightly 'wrongly'. (not sure if it's a memory and precision error).

Ric
__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com
ric_stern/RST is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-10.-2007, 11:26 PM   #10
acoggan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,622
Default Re: Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhl
I'm not sure why you're getting a discrepency. Have you tried to compare the CSV output files from each program?

In CyclingPeaks use Export Copy As... then select PowerTap Files (CSV) as type.

In PowerAgent use File > Export Activity Data.

This will give you two comma separated value (CSV) files you can easily compare in a spreadsheet. These two files should essentially be identical (just a couple small differences in level of precision of values and the handling of breaks during a workout).


That might prove helpful as long as the original file was recorded at 1.26 s intervals. If not, small (and sometimes not-so-small) discrepancies may result from the fact that WKO+ will attempt to interpolate the "missing" data when exporting the file as a .csv.
acoggan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-10.-2007, 06:29 AM   #11
Watoni
Registered User
 
Watoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 88
Default Re: Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

Quote:
Originally Posted by ric_stern/RST
Even if it's set at 1-sec intervals (which is actually 1.26-secs) there can be differences between the CPU and the software. It's because the CPU calculates data slightly 'wrongly'. (not sure if it's a memory and precision error).

Ric


What does that mean?

If the CPU calculates incorrectly, what good is it for doing intervals where you are targeting a certain power range?

The good news is that the averages did match up in the latest download as between Poweragent and Cyclingpeaks. Also, my impression of where my power was based on reading the CPU during 2X20s seemed as accurate as it needed to be ...
Watoni is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-10.-2007, 06:36 AM   #12
acoggan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,622
Default Re: Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watoni
What does that mean?

If the CPU calculates incorrectly, what good is it for doing intervals where you are targeting a certain power range?

The good news is that the averages did match up in the latest download as between Poweragent and Cyclingpeaks. Also, my impression of where my power was based on reading the CPU during 2X20s seemed as accurate as it needed to be ...


The CPU calculates a running average by 'downsampling' the datastream 'on the fly', which means that it doesn't use precisely the same values to calculate the average for a ride or an interval as is used by the software. The difference is usually only a watt or two, but with short intervals might be slightly larger.
acoggan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-10.-2007, 08:50 AM   #13
Uhl
Registered User
 
Uhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eagle, ID
Posts: 94
Default Re: Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

Quote:
Originally Posted by acoggan
That might prove helpful as long as the original file was recorded at 1.26 s intervals.
You mean there are people who set their PowerTaps to greater than 1-second recording intervals? Crazy!
Uhl is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-10.-2007, 09:31 AM   #14
asgelle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 100
Default Re: Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhl
You mean there are people who set their PowerTaps to greater than 1-second recording intervals? Crazy!


Sometimes we travel and can't download.
asgelle is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-10.-2007, 09:59 AM   #15
Uhl
Registered User
 
Uhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eagle, ID
Posts: 94
Default Re: Cyclingpeaks versus Powertap software

Quote:
Originally Posted by asgelle
Sometimes we travel and can't download.
You mean with the money you saved by buying a PowerTap instead of an SRM, you can't afford a laptop computer to take with you on trips?

Cheap laptop: $400
Second license for CyclingPeaks: $49
Ability to analyze data recorded at 1.26 second intervals while traveling: Priceless!

Ok, so my attempts at humor today aren't going too well.
Uhl is offline  
Reply With Quote

Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 10:59 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright © 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2001 - 2006 cyclingforums.com

Links to websites we like:
Pezcyclingnews | Cyclingnews.com | Wine Zone | iinet