frenchyge said:Well, now you're talking about the *time constants* used in the calculations, rather than the starting values for CTL and ATL themselves. Anyway....
Yes, that wouldn't make any sense because it would produce the same time constant for both ATL and CTL. Are you sure that's what the guidance really says? IIRC, the CTL time constant should be several times larger than the ATL constant.
Yea French, i read it here http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/howtoperformancemanager.asp
I had been beating myself up going by that guide.with 0 in CTL & ATL makes my PMC look like it makes sense.