|
|
HR and age relevancy
Last Post 05/17/2013 05:27 PM by 79 pmooney. 35 Replies.
|
Sort:
|
|
 Prev Next |
You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
79pmooney
Posts:3180
 |
| 05/16/2013 11:11 PM |
|
CK, it's that power to CDa that sucks. I'm built like a daddy long legs with power output to match.
The place I see HR monitors as really valuable is on non racing, very hilly/mountainous organized bike rides. I have used the monitor to stay below 155 of all the early climbs, letting a lot of people go. One the biggie, I kept it under 166. Had enough left to tackle all the climbs on the way back. And passed a lot of toasted riders.
Now, that was a few years ago. I'd have to spend some time on the trainer to learn my new numbers and zones.
Ben |
|
|
|
|
CERV
Posts:151
|
| 05/17/2013 02:14 AM |
|
power to CDa = more steady state speed, good for TTs
power to weight = better climbing, yes, but also acceleration, which means less energy required each time you need to get up to a given speed. makes you faster in more situations in races |
|
|
|
|
CarbonGecko
Posts:42
|
| 05/17/2013 08:36 AM |
|
Power is the rate of doing work. Work is force over a distance. Distance per unit time is speed. Since our weight is supported on the bike, on a flat course once we overcome inertia and maintain a relatively steady pace then weight is not much of a factor and the force to overcome wind resistance is a much bigger factor (up to or >30% of effort). It is true that every time you accelerate though you need to overcome a certain amount of inertia.
The point I was trying to make is that power is just a number. If you know you have a critical power for a certain event (40 km TT) then you can use a power meter to stay at that critical power. If you know where particular training zones are then you can use power to guide your training; to control how hard you stress yourself or to know you are at a level that allows recovery.
But, the vast majority of recreational cyclists and amateur racers use power as a metric just like speed... "I pulled 400W going up that hill". It is just a number. Most use heart rate essentially the same way. They have very little clue about training zones. They don't have any structured plan to stress their system and then rest and super-compensate. Even if they have a concept of stress and recovery they don't really have an idea of what power outputs equate to what effort or where the point between recovery and stress is.
I have ridden with a lot of pretty serious cat 1, 2, riders who have power meters. I have ridden with a lot of cat 3, 4, 5 and cat nothing riders who have power meters. I have met a handful who I think use it for anything more than a glorified speedometer. |
|
|
|
|
Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
|
| 05/17/2013 08:55 AM |
|
Cerv, on relatively flat to rolling roads, weight as a factor of acceleration is a small factor. Aero trumps weight every time in those situations. All the data supports this.....
CG, I largely agree with what you are saying, but would point out that because people don't know how to use power properly isn't a negative against power as a training tool.....it is a limitation of the user.
At the end of the day, power is the most important metric when training on the bike. Everything else (speed, HR, etc) is a response to power.
Again, there are any number of reasons why riders may train without power....goals, budget, etc. But if your primary goal while training is performance, then investing in a power meter is the best choice as a training metric......as long as you take the time to understand how to use it. It really isn't that hard either.....establish a FTP, set your training zones and go. Stuff like TSS, IF, NP and Quadrant Analysis is great if you are a data geek, but it is not critical to using a PM effectively. |
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
CERV
Posts:151
|
| 05/17/2013 05:07 PM |
|
Posted By Cosmic Kid on 05/17/2013 08:55 AM
Cerv, on relatively flat to rolling roads, weight as a factor of acceleration is a small factor. Aero trumps weight every time in those situations. All the data supports this.....
On a relatively flat to rolling road, yes. In a road race where cat and mouse games are going on, or in a crit where you have to accelerate after every corner, I would argue weight does make a very noticeable difference. Two riders who are capable of putting out similar amounts of power, one at 68kg one at 78kg. The 78kg lb rider would become fatigued from those accelerations much sooner.
Say 10kg weight difference. Say accelerations from around 30km/h to 50km/h (8m/s to 13.8m/s) lasting 10 seconds each.
To accelerate 10kg of mass (no wind resistance) from 8m/s to 13.8m/s requires 632 joules of work. To do it in 10 seconds requires 63.2 watts less power output for those 10 seconds for the lighter cyclist.
68kg cyclist needs to produce 430 watts average to cover the acceleration.
78 kg cyclist needs to produce 493 watts to cover the same acceleration.
Do several of those accelerations and the fatigue would add up. |
|
|
|
|
79pmooney
Posts:3180
|
| 05/17/2013 05:27 PM |
|
CERV, to add to that, if you factor in the additional work that is needed if you cannot sustain that higher power and therefore have to do a small chase to close after each of those corners, you see that weight making an even bigger difference.
CK and I will never see eye to eye on rim weight, but I felt it made a huge difference to me using very light rims because as a slow-twitch climber, the chases out of corners and matching accelerations took a huge toll on me. Being a couple of feet closer to that wheel pulling away from me was the difference between making the cut and not many times.
Ben |
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
Active Forums 4.1
|
|
No articles match criteria.
|