![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 88
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eagle, ID
Posts: 94
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 88
|
Quote:
Definitely the latter, and I believe the former as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 38
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 88
|
Quote:
Smoothing is not on ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,622
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eagle, ID
Posts: 94
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,743
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Community Team
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newport, South Wales
Posts: 3,831
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,622
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 88
|
Quote:
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 ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,622
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eagle, ID
Posts: 94
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 100
|
Quote:
Sometimes we travel and can't download. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eagle, ID
Posts: 94
|
Quote:
![]() 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. ![]() |
|
|
|
|