Highest power output??



Billsworld said:
Tring to learn what works...PT , inch lbs. No one mentions it, only wattts. BTW this is alot chaeper that cars:) I wonder if hammerhead will sell me his name??
Maybe not here, but both frenchy and I have done a little work on both acceleration and top end at different cadences, for sprints. I tend to favor smaller gears and higher cadences, for both acceleration and top end. I even use small gears off the line in TTs because I have tested just about every initial gearing and I find that I am sufficiently faster off the line in a small gear that I can even pay the price of backing off briefly while I upshift from the small to the large ring. Can't reveal all the goodies.
 
Billsworld said:
Tring to learn what works...PT , inch lbs. No one mentions it, only wattts. BTW this is alot chaeper that cars:) I wonder if hammerhead will sell me his name??
Ok, you meant is torque worth looking at *on the bike.* :p

I'm no track expert, but I'd think you'd be very interested in it for fixed-gear standing starts at the very least. I read somewhere (I think on that excellent post by Norseman on Fixed Gear Fever.com - I'll post the link tonight if someone else doesn't do it before I get home) that many shorter track events at the high levels are won or lost based on the hole-shot. Maybe you could use this graph and the associated discussions ( http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id6.html ) to help assess how much of your strength you're able to convert into torque. I've looked at torque a little after some of my 'jump' sets (maximal power from a slow start), and it's interesting to see, but as RDO mentioned, we roadies don't rely on torque nearly as much because we have a much better gear selection.

This probably goes without saying for an engine builder, but for the benefit of all the lurking computer-nerds out there, when you're looking at torque as measured by a PT (ie, 'hub' torque), don't forget to multiply it by the gear ratio to determine the torque at the cranks and associated pedal force.
 
Billsworld said:
Tring to learn what works...PT , inch lbs. No one mentions it, only wattts. BTW this is alot chaeper that cars:) I wonder if hammerhead will sell me his name??

Wouldn't it be great if training was like engine building? You may have a small bore, but you can always swap out the crank. You ever hear of externally referencing the power valve?

I will give up "HammerHead", but you have to be my lead out man for the entire season. :)
 
frenchyge said:
Ok, you meant is torque worth looking at *on the bike.* :p

I'm no track expert, but I'd think you'd be very interested in it for fixed-gear standing starts at the very least. I read somewhere (I think on that excellent post by Norseman on Fixed Gear Fever.com - I'll post the link tonight if someone else doesn't do it before I get home) that many shorter track events at the high levels are won or lost based on the hole-shot. Maybe you could use this graph and the associated discussions ( http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id6.html ) to help assess how much of your strength you're able to convert into torque. I've looked at torque a little after some of my 'jump' sets (maximal power from a slow start), and it's interesting to see, but as RDO mentioned, we roadies don't rely on torque nearly as much because we have a much better gear selection.

This probably goes without saying for an engine builder, but for the benefit of all the lurking computer-nerds out there, when you're looking at torque as measured by a PT (ie, 'hub' torque), don't forget to multiply it by the gear ratio to determine the torque at the cranks and associated pedal force.
That article answered alot of questions. I hve been wondering how lifting transfered directly to cycling . It makes me wonder if the top guys are only looking for any small edge that they can by sqatting and deadlifting heavy. Maybe its only a 2,3,4,5% advantage over just spinting.......Also you hear big watts numbers from a few TDF guys that I assume do little or no lifting, and mostly ride for tours.........Hammerhead. I have never heard of that valve thing. But I understand engine performance alot more than the cycling stuff. Way easier untill you get to high levels.Makes buying a power tap seem like changing your socks though. I am still learning , I am not sure where I would "lead you out to":)
 
frenchyge said:
3rd post down - http://fixedgearfever.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=795&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

Bill, if you haven't seen this yet you'll probably find it very interesting.
I have read that a bunch of times. Just read it again. I wonder what its like to have 3 hours to do 3 sets.:rolleyes: Its a good read though. Did you notice where they use film to get angles right on thier weight training to replicate cycling. Also Shane Kelly being able to race road and the medal in the Kilo. BTW I figured out how to extract , 5 sec, 1 min etc off PT Thanks again Frenchi
 
Damn this thread! Making me want to get a powertap again.

Patience velomanct! You will get a powertap once you go well above last years best speeds!


I have heard stories of a sprinter that I know, who broke spokes on his Kysrium wheel while sprinting up an 11% .25 mile hill in his big ring. I tried that hill yesterday in my big ring, and gave up about half way because I was tired. I can conclude that this rider was averaging at least 1400watts for about 30 seconds. He looks more like a bodybuilder than a cyclist.
 
Is everyone using average power or normalized power for your efforts > 30 seconds? I am wondering what is more appropriate when using the Power Profiling spreadsheet?
 
Most certainly real average power. I have had a normalized power of over 1000w for a minute, but I'm no where near Tournant! (sprint, coast, sprint, coast)

I wouldn't use normalized power for anything under 10 minutes. Even longer durations can be misleading. (I've done crits with NP near 400, way above my LT)
 

Similar threads