![]() |
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: Nov 2007
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 56
|
Unfortunately, I don't have a "real" power meter on my road bike, but I have an indoor stationary bike (from Vision fitness), that can measure power output , but it can't record it. One of the training programs it has is the constant watts, that allows you to dial in the desired watts and the bike then adjusts the resistance so that your power output is always dialed in value. Another limitation is that the maximum power you can do with constant watts program is only 250 Watts (even though the max power the bike can measure is 700 Watts in other programs).
So, I wanted to measure my FTP by doing the constant watts program at 250 Watts for 21 min. It was freaking hard, because you can not coast for even half a second, the bike increases resistance immediately. So I'm wondering, is this method any good at all, because percieved exertion is way harder than doing a real time trial, where you can ease off for 3 - 5 seconds when you have to? Another observation, my cadence averaged 110 RPM, which seems high for a TT effort (but I find it easier that way). |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East Coast
Posts: 127
|
Quote:
I'm not familiar with your particular stationary bike, but based on experience with others I would guess that the power information that you're getting isn't too accurate. I wouldn't rely on it as a device to determine your real world FTP. OTOH, a stationary bike can be pretty consistent, and if you always use it as the standard reference for your performance it can be a useful training tool. Knowing consistent and repeatable numbers is the key to sucessful training, absolute accuracy is of lesser importance. After all, FTP is just a number that represents effort. If you can represent that effort with another number, so long as it's consistent, what's the difference? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | ||
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,359
|
Quote:
Quote:
-Dave |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Registered User
|
I am in the same boat and train similarly, especially for wet days. The constant power offered is consistent with the goals of power training. Fortunately, our community's stationary bike can dial up to 320W, so there's room to grow for me but no ideas as to how accurate the wattage readings are. As long as there are improvements over time, who cares?
![]()
__________________
Morphed Bianchi Camaleonte IV 2006, Ridley Damocles 2006, Garmin, Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 188
|
Quote:
I trained for 18 months on a Lifecycle stationary bike (9100 series?), before getting my Powertap. I did map tests, FT tests, vo2 max, threshold intevals. The bikes in our gym go up to 500 w. I always used the ergo mode, however I believe that the calorie expenditure was simply based on 276 w = 1000 kcal/hr. If this is the case with your bike, maybe you can use one of the other programs which measure up to 700 w. I would have to say that it was pretty accurate, although not pleasant to ride with the magnetic resitance and non-adjustable postition. I think that the more upright position put a lot more strain on the fronts of my quads, so I would always ride a cadence of 100+ rpms to lessen the load. |
|
|
|
|