Best way to measure Watts-



Bob Schwartz wrote:

> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>>
>>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> cycledogg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
>>>>>> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
>>>>>> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
>>>>>> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
>>>>>> Rick in Tennessee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
>>>>> parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very
>>>>> unlikely the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge'
>>>>> of your power.
>>>>>
>>>>> Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and
>>>>> 150-mile/week cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and
>>>>> think they're training scientifically.
>>>>>
>>>>> In reality, most of your limitations in maximimizing your fitness
>>>>> are going to be things like money, free time, rest time, daily
>>>>> stress from your job/school, genetics, diet, etc..
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to justify the cost of a power meter, it means you have
>>>>> all these other things under control, which you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help
>>>>> your fitness more than a power meter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Magilla
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I used a PowerTap to show that it is possible to
>>>> simultaneously cut power and accelerate in a velodrome
>>>> turn.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Schwartz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Joker,
>>>
>>> Bearing in mind that energy cannot be created or destroyed, where
>>> does this extra energy come from?
>>>
>>> You sound like someone who has submitted multiple patent applications
>>> for a perpetual motion machine to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
>>> in Washington D.C.
>>>
>>> Magilla
>>
>>
>>
>> Hopefully the physics mavens can chime in--it has to do with
>> angular momentum, but I'm pretty sure Bob is right--of course if power
>> isn't added then there will be a marked deceleration coming out of the
>> turn.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/schwartzpursuit.png
>
> My very own Chung Chart. Coggan provides a good explanation.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/e9165fe820602ef4
>
> Bob Schwartz



Physics 101: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from
one form to another.

So unless someone in here is Einstein and wants to change the
understanding of modern physics with a new theory on the conservation of
energy, I think it's safe to conclude there is no energy (or speed) gain.

I don't need to ask anyone else's opinion.

You can't gain speed or energy in a turn. Any speed gain you get from
your initial lean into a turn MUST BE lost (plus some) while exiting
that same turn because it takes longer (and more energy) to bring
yourself upright and raise yourself than it would had you ridden that
same distance on a straightaway and never had to lean up or down to
begin with.

On a straightaway, that same energy is put into the pedals. You are
losing substantial amounts of energy in a turn via friction.

Nothing is free in energy equations.


Magilla
 
SLAVE of THE STATE schreef:
> Don't get wireless -- there will be a built-in error of a few
> percent due to background radiation from the big bang.

Only for the first three minutes of the race.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 11:27 am, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>cycledogg wrote:
> >>
> >>>I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> >>>season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> >>>from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
> >>>Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> >>>Rick in Tennessee
> >>
> >>You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
> >>parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very unlikely
> >>the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge' of your power.
> >
> >
> > As painful as it is, I have to agree with Magilla. Unless you're a Cat
> > 1 or better the only thing you'll get from a power meter is an empty
> > wallet. Improved training techniques by hiring a good coach would
> > improve you a great deal better and faster. Talk to Adam Meyerson.
>
>
> See, everyone eventually sticks a weary hand through the cage to give
> the gorilla a banana.
>
>
> Magilla

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
 
> Interpreting power meter data is complex and beyond the scope of most
> people, includiing trainers.

That's just not true.

You just earned yourself an invitation to the powermeter file reading
interpretation camp I'm putting on United Center. See you there 7
p.m. this Friday.
 
Dans le message de
news:rcousine-40C5CE.16573903122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net],
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :


Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

I'll work on a new one !
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

"Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
- Louis Pasteur

That standard should please for a bit.
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help your
> fitness more than a power meter.

Dumbass,
Perhaps if you got a power meter you'd be faster around turns.
 
On Dec 3, 7:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
> >> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> >>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> >>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> >>>>> cycledogg wrote:
>
> >>>>>> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> >>>>>> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> >>>>>> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
> >>>>>> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> >>>>>> Rick in Tennessee
>
> >>>>> You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
> >>>>> parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very
> >>>>> unlikely the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge'
> >>>>> of your power.
>
> >>>>> Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and
> >>>>> 150-mile/week cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and
> >>>>> think they're training scientifically.
>
> >>>>> In reality, most of your limitations in maximimizing your fitness
> >>>>> are going to be things like money, free time, rest time, daily
> >>>>> stress from your job/school, genetics, diet, etc..
>
> >>>>> In order to justify the cost of a power meter, it means you have
> >>>>> all these other things under control, which you don't.
>
> >>>>> So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help
> >>>>> your fitness more than a power meter.
>
> >>>>> Magilla
>
> >>>> I used a PowerTap to show that it is possible to
> >>>> simultaneously cut power and accelerate in a velodrome
> >>>> turn.
>
> >>>> Bob Schwartz
>
> >>> Hey Joker,
>
> >>> Bearing in mind that energy cannot be created or destroyed, where
> >>> does this extra energy come from?
>
> >>> You sound like someone who has submitted multiple patent applications
> >>> for a perpetual motion machine to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
> >>> in Washington D.C.
>
> >>> Magilla
>
> >> Hopefully the physics mavens can chime in--it has to do with
> >> angular momentum, but I'm pretty sure Bob is right--of course if power
> >> isn't added then there will be a marked deceleration coming out of the
> >> turn.
>
> >> Steve
>
> >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/schwartzpursuit.png
>
> > My very own Chung Chart. Coggan provides a good explanation.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/e9165fe820602ef4
>
> > Bob Schwartz
>
> Physics 101: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from
> one form to another.
>
> So unless someone in here is Einstein and wants to change the
> understanding of modern physics with a new theory on the conservation of
> energy, I think it's safe to conclude there is no energy (or speed) gain.
>
> I don't need to ask anyone else's opinion.
>
> You can't gain speed or energy in a turn. Any speed gain you get from
> your initial lean into a turn MUST BE lost (plus some) while exiting
> that same turn because it takes longer (and more energy) to bring
> yourself upright and raise yourself than it would had you ridden that
> same distance on a straightaway and never had to lean up or down to
> begin with.
>
> On a straightaway, that same energy is put into the pedals. You are
> losing substantial amounts of energy in a turn via friction.
>
> Nothing is free in energy equations.
>
> Magilla


> Nothing is free in energy equations.

Gibbs energy is occasionally free, but that would head off the highway
of Newtonian mechanics and over into chemistry, which would probably
lead to the dark side ...

-bdbafh
 
bdbafh wrote:
> Gibbs energy is occasionally free, but that would head off the highway of
> Newtonian mechanics and over into chemistry, which would probably lead to
> the dark side ...

If its a free lunch its probably andoulette.
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Physics 101:

Dumbass,

You mean Geometry 101, don't you. The largest effect
has nothing to do with physics.

Bob Schwartz
 
On Dec 3, 10:45 am, cycledogg <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> Rick in Tennessee

I'd go with the PowerTap SL 2.4 Wireless built onto some decent rims.
I know Bontrager has a good setup (and you can get them in a matched
wheelset). The ability to swap them between bikes without all the
harness is pretty nice.

Note - I don't use power trainer and ChiefHiawatha hates me for it. I
say it's because I'm cheap, but it's really because I don't want to
know that I'm the weakest Cat1 in the country.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> >
> >> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> cycledogg wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> >>>>>> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> >>>>>> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
> >>>>>> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> >>>>>> Rick in Tennessee
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
> >>>>> parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very
> >>>>> unlikely the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge'
> >>>>> of your power.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and
> >>>>> 150-mile/week cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and
> >>>>> think they're training scientifically.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In reality, most of your limitations in maximimizing your fitness
> >>>>> are going to be things like money, free time, rest time, daily
> >>>>> stress from your job/school, genetics, diet, etc..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In order to justify the cost of a power meter, it means you have
> >>>>> all these other things under control, which you don't.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help
> >>>>> your fitness more than a power meter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Magilla
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I used a PowerTap to show that it is possible to
> >>>> simultaneously cut power and accelerate in a velodrome
> >>>> turn.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob Schwartz
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hey Joker,
> >>>
> >>> Bearing in mind that energy cannot be created or destroyed, where
> >>> does this extra energy come from?
> >>>
> >>> You sound like someone who has submitted multiple patent applications
> >>> for a perpetual motion machine to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
> >>> in Washington D.C.
> >>>
> >>> Magilla
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hopefully the physics mavens can chime in--it has to do with
> >> angular momentum, but I'm pretty sure Bob is right--of course if power
> >> isn't added then there will be a marked deceleration coming out of the
> >> turn.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >
> > http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/schwartzpursuit.png
> >
> > My very own Chung Chart. Coggan provides a good explanation.
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/e9165fe820602ef4
> >
> > Bob Schwartz
>
>
>
> Physics 101: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from
> one form to another.
>
> So unless someone in here is Einstein and wants to change the
> understanding of modern physics with a new theory on the conservation of
> energy, I think it's safe to conclude there is no energy (or speed) gain.

The speed of the center of mass does not change.
The difference in radius of curvature of the COM
path and the contact patch path demand that the
contact patch travel faster than the COM.

>
> I don't need to ask anyone else's opinion.

Ah, you argue from opinion.

> You can't gain speed or energy in a turn. Any speed gain you get from
> your initial lean into a turn MUST BE lost (plus some) while exiting
> that same turn because it takes longer (and more energy) to bring
> yourself upright and raise yourself than it would had you ridden that
> same distance on a straightaway and never had to lean up or down to
> begin with.
>
> On a straightaway, that same energy is put into the pedals. You are
> losing substantial amounts of energy in a turn via friction.
>
> Nothing is free in energy equations.

You are confused. Study some geometry and physics.
This stuff is simple. Then you can argue the hard stuff.

--
Michael Press
 
Bob Schwartz wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Physics 101:
>
>
> Dumbass,
>
> You mean Geometry 101, don't you. The largest effect
> has nothing to do with physics.
>
> Bob Schwartz


No, I mean physics. Energy equations and thermodynamics are a part of
physics.

Geometry is really just a science of logic more than anything else.

I think the largest factor in a velodrome turn is not the center of mass
calculation.

Think about what a turn in a velodrome really is...it's a 180-degree
change in inertia.

Imagine if you had a semi truck that weighed 40 tons and it was heading
directly towards you. And then imagine is you imparted some force onto
that truck that would cause it to turn 180 degrees away from you. That
force you would need would have to be tremendous to cause thhe truck to
divert from its inertial course (which is to keep going straight).

In a velodrome, you are taking 200 pounds of mass at 30 mph and changing
its vector velocity 180 degrees. Any person of science worth their salt
will tell you that in order to do this it requires a huge energy imput
(energy loss).

This energy loss occurs in the form of friction and increased rolling
resistance. Since no such energy llosss occurs when a rider is going
straight, it's pretty easy to suspect that you cannot be going faster in
a turn than a straightaway.

Now the center of mass argument is interesting and definitely appears to
be a gain. But as Holman calculated, it doesn't even compensate for the
loss of watts you get from increased rolling resistance. Add to that
about 7 other negatives and it seems intuitive that a turn is going to
cause a net loss in energy (and speed).

The bottom line is there are too many people in here who don't appear to
fully appreciate the concept that you cannot change the Momentum (M = m
x v) of an object 180 degrees and conserve its kinetic energy. Changing
the direction of a moving mass 180 degrees requires a tremendous input
of energy. And in the case of a cyclist on a velodrome, that energy has
to come from the rider.

The idea that leaning in a turn will somoehow compensate for this energy
loss means that you are trying to sell me on a sort of perpetual motion
machine velodrome where 100% of energy lost is recyled because of
leaning and that furthermore, the rider is actually gaining energy.

Nobody who took physics and actually understands it talks about
"gaining" energy unless you can explain where this extra energy comes
from. Leaning and reducing the distance your COM would have to travel
is not an energy gain. It's a cherry picked observation that although
shows a small SPEED gain for a given wattage when ISOLATED as a
variable, it fails to take into account that when you lean in a turn,
you are also doing like 10 severely negative things that SUBTRACT from
your energy and must therefore also subtract from your speed.

I don't get the feeling that you people truly appreciate the complex
physics that is occuring in a turn.


Magilla
 
On Dec 3, 3:12 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> the only thing you need if you want to get substantially
> better is a willingness to endure pain and stare at asphalt for 4 hours
> a day.

Is that how you made it up to cat. 1? Oh, right...you were never more
than pack fodder in local cat. 2 races, and couldn't break the hour in
a 40 km TT despite all my help. Now maybe if you *had* used a
powermeter for a few years, you could achieved these goals...

Andy Coggan
 
On Dec 3, 3:39 pm, [email protected] wrote:>

> even without any other problem, you have to routinely
> send the SRM back for calibration

This is not true.

Andy Coggan
 
On Dec 3, 4:27 pm, Ted van de Weteringe <[email protected]>
wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE schreef:
>
> > Don't get wireless -- there will be a built-in error of a few
> > percent due to background radiation from the big bang.
>
> Only for the first three minutes of the race.

Now I'm thinking about that very annoying sprint to the first
corner.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> > MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> >> Physics 101:
> >
> >
> > Dumbass,
> >
> > You mean Geometry 101, don't you. The largest effect
> > has nothing to do with physics.
> >
> > Bob Schwartz
>
>
> No, I mean physics. Energy equations and thermodynamics are a part of
> physics.
>
> Geometry is really just a science of logic more than anything else.
>
> I think the largest factor in a velodrome turn is not the center of mass
> calculation.
>
> Think about what a turn in a velodrome really is...it's a 180-degree
> change in inertia.
>
> Imagine if you had a semi truck that weighed 40 tons and it was heading
> directly towards you. And then imagine is you imparted some force onto
> that truck that would cause it to turn 180 degrees away from you. That
> force you would need would have to be tremendous to cause thhe truck to
> divert from its inertial course (which is to keep going straight).
>
> In a velodrome, you are taking 200 pounds of mass at 30 mph and changing
> its vector velocity 180 degrees. Any person of science worth their salt
> will tell you that in order to do this it requires a huge energy imput
> (energy loss).

Magilla, you dumb ape: it requires a huge force, not energy. The force
is provided by the velodrome rising up to meet you and spit you through
the corner.

Your logic probably has you wondering what will happen when the gravity
runs out.

Not that you're doing anything but trolling, but for the benefit of any
lurkers, I'd point out that you're measuring the ground speed several
feet from the centre of mass. Here's the stupidest-case scenario of
that: put a couple pounds of weight on the end of a strong metre-long
cable, grab the other end, and start spinning in a circle. You'll be
able to get the weight going very fast with little energy input. The
biggest limiting factor will be your capacity for holding in your lunch
while spinning in little circles.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> I don't get the feeling that you people truly appreciate the complex
> physics that is occuring in a turn.

You mean geometry, don't you?

Bob Schwartz
 
"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ce820daf-3934-4be5-a64f-a15ed73b3f97@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 3, 3:39 pm, [email protected] wrote:>
>
>> even without any other problem, you have to routinely
>> send the SRM back for calibration
>
> This is not true.

For all those who think of Andy as God - he's wrong. Ilan is a college
professor who expects the meter to read correctly. Andy is a far more
practical person who thinks that inaccuracy is OK as long as it's a
constant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Re: Best way to measure Watts-
Replies
0
Views
451
Road Cycling
Carl Sundquist
C
Noueezer
What is best to measure heart rate?
Replies
21
Views
909
Cycling Equipment
Spunky99
Spunky99
R
Best way to measure cholesterol
Replies
2
Views
1K
Health Nutrition and Supplements
rclouviere
R
claytid
What are the best brands for entry-level road bikes?
Replies
11
Views
52
Bike buying advice
paulc13
paulc13
I<3Carbs
Best lights for commuting and gravel riding
Replies
4
Views
39
Cycling Equipment
jrisles
jrisles
floridabiker
Mounting Your Phone on Your Bike: The Best Options
Replies
12
Views
58
Cycling Equipment
tridennisr
tridennisr
nho09
Cooking on the Go: Best Portable Stoves for Cyclists
Replies
12
Views
65
Cycling Equipment
yeroc602
yeroc602
jhaake
GPS computer with the best navigation features
Replies
11
Views
114
Cycling Equipment
AlanZ
AlanZ
Sassonian
The Best Cycling Lights for Night Rides
Replies
12
Views
120
Cycling Equipment
BadjerJim
B
A
Best power meter for a triathlon bike
Replies
13
Views
111
Power meters
stevekim
stevekim
Top Bottom Back