FTP

On 26/11/20 12:29 am, Lou Holtman wrote:


Good post! A PM tells you how to value good tires with a low RR. 10-15 W differents between good and crappy tires is very significant on you average power.

Lou, Today's ride 190 W average during 2,5 hr


You're from Venlo, Limburg, Netherlands ?

If so, interesting to compare our 2020 stats side by side.

You've had 30 more rides this year (163 to 133), and although my rides
are on average 4 km longer, you've cycled 1558 km further. However,
I've climbed nearly 3 times as many metres, 34,401 m to 99,727 m.

My last ride was 88 km at estimated average power of 194 W.

--
JS

On 27/11/20 7:59 am, Mark J. wrote:


90 Calories per second would be 376 *kilo*Watts.Â* No.Â* Just no.
As it is, 90 small-c calories - which Garmin *does not* report - burned
per second is indeed 376.8 Watts of energy *burned*.

"Watts of energy *burned*"?

Perhaps you meant 376.8 Joules of energy burned per second?


Many years of reverse-engineering students' incorrect results have
prepared me for this moment.Â*


Excellent.

--
JS

On 11/26/2020 8:53 PM, James wrote:
On 27/11/20 7:59 am, Mark J. wrote:


90 Calories per second would be 376 *kilo*Watts.Â* No.Â* Just no.
As it is, 90 small-c calories - which Garmin *does not* report -
burned per second is indeed 376.8 Watts of energy *burned*.

"Watts of energy *burned*"?

Sorry, 376W "burn *rate*". As opposed to "power output rate"
Mark J.


Perhaps you meant 376.8 Joules of energy burned per second?


Many years of reverse-engineering students' incorrect results have
prepared me for this moment.Â*


Excellent.

Op vrijdag 27 november 2020 om 05:43:50 UTC+1 schreef James:
On 26/11/20 12:29 am, Lou Holtman wrote:


Good post! A PM tells you how to value good tires with a low RR. 10-15 W differents between good and crappy tires is very significant on you average power.

Lou, Today's ride 190 W average during 2,5 hr

You're from Venlo, Limburg, Netherlands ?

Yes. I assume you researched that from Strave (I have no secrets).

If so, interesting to compare our 2020 stats side by side.

You've had 30 more rides this year (163 to 133), and although my rides
are on average 4 km longer, you've cycled 1558 km further. However,
I've climbed nearly 3 times as many metres, 34,401 m to 99,727 m.

My last ride was 88 km at estimated average power of 194 W.

--
JS

It was a good cycling year for me because of Covid19 and my new gravel bike ;-). The only downside was that all except for one holidays to the mountain were cancelled or were not wise to go, hence my climbing numbers.

Lou

On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 1:01:39 PM UTC-8, Mark J. wrote:
On 11/26/2020 11:24 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op donderdag 26 november 2020 om 19:14:15 UTC+1 schreef :
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 9:41:36 AM UTC-8, Mark J. wrote:
On 11/24/2020 12:00 PM, Mark Cleary wrote:
To the question on Functional Threshold Power. Is there anyway to
estimate what mine is without a power meter. I am mean based on a time
trial of say 30 minutes? Power numbers don't mean much to me I am a
rider who bases things on average speed. I realize that means zero
given conditions. But lets assume a flat course with no wind. What are
the power out puts at various speeds?
TO add to my prior reply, I just ran across this article:
https://www.velonews.com/training/wh...to-improve-it/

It has some more detail (and additional testing options).
We're back to the point of - who cares about full time power? And why? If you're racer, sure, it is important to use for training purposes. If you AREN'T a racer, you ride the way you want to ride. If I want to measure my FTP just for interest, I do a 20 mile TT on flat ground that is local. Inserting frontal area and ignoring wind strength my Garmin gives me the number of calories burned. 90 Calories Per Second to Watts = 376.812. I think that last year I got up to 412 for one hour.


What do you mean by 90 Calories Per Seconds to Watts = 376.812?
The calorie burned estimation of a Garmin is crap.

Lou
Yup. Crap just like the Strava non-power-meter estimates. Since I have
a (genetically) low heart rate, before I got a PM, Garmin gave me low
estimates for calories burned. They jumped up dramatically when I got
the PM. Still unimpressive, but a lot higher.

As to Tom's math, he's confused calories with kilocalories (or
"calories" with "Calories", a notational distinction that really gets
used by physiologists, with big-C Calories being shorthand for kilocalories.
The Garmin reports an estimate of "Calories" or kilocalories burned.

90 Calories per second would be 376 *kilo*Watts. No. Just no.
As it is, 90 small-c calories - which Garmin *does not* report - burned
per second is indeed 376.8 Watts of energy *burned*.
[90 cal/sec = 90 cal/sec * 4.184 Joules/cal = 376.8 J/sec = 376.8W]

Problem is, trained cyclists are around 25% efficient, i.e.
power out ~= (power in)/4. The Garmin is estimating (badly) the power
in. Tom has also confused power in with power out, and no idea where he
got the 90 Calories or calories per second.

So his "412 [Watts] for one hour," which would have put him in Coggan's
"Exceptional / Domestic Pro" category, really comes out to around 103
Watts *output* power for one hour, which puts him off the bottom of
Coggan's chart (below "Untrained"). I suspect he's better than *that*.
Oh, and frontal area doesn't enter into this calculation, nor does
Garmin's estimate of Calories burned ask for that input.

Many years of reverse-engineering students' incorrect results have
prepared me for this moment.

Mark J.
So a misspelling was too much for you to overcome? Why was that? Speed, weight and frontal area are enough or most people to get a good enough estimate of power output. Again I would like to know of what use it is to know what your power output is? Do you need it for riding down to get a sandwich at the local deli?

On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 11:27:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Op vrijdag 27 november 2020 om 05:43:50 UTC+1 schreef James:
On 26/11/20 12:29 am, Lou Holtman wrote:


Good post! A PM tells you how to value good tires with a low RR. 10-15 W differents between good and crappy tires is very significant on you average power.

Lou, Today's ride 190 W average during 2,5 hr

You're from Venlo, Limburg, Netherlands ?
Yes. I assume you researched that from Strave (I have no secrets).

If so, interesting to compare our 2020 stats side by side.

You've had 30 more rides this year (163 to 133), and although my rides
are on average 4 km longer, you've cycled 1558 km further. However,
I've climbed nearly 3 times as many metres, 34,401 m to 99,727 m.

My last ride was 88 km at estimated average power of 194 W.

--
JS
It was a good cycling year for me because of Covid19 and my new gravel bike ;-). The only downside was that all except for one holidays to the mountain were cancelled or were not wise to go, hence my climbing numbers.

One of he bad things about bikes today is that you hesitate to ride them in gravel because f the impending damage to the expensive frameset. My Basso's were light bikes and of what worth is it topping out on a climb 15 seconds slower than you would with my Trek Emonda. Wednesday I was passed by three girls pretty fast on a hard climb. But they stopped up at the next intersection while I carried on and topped out onto Skyline. They never caught up again. Maybe they use that climb as a training route. I notice that many people think of a 25 mile ride as LONG. I think of it as hardly worthy of riding unless there is significant climbing on it.

On 27/11/20 6:27 pm, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op vrijdag 27 november 2020 om 05:43:50 UTC+1 schreef James:
On 26/11/20 12:29 am, Lou Holtman wrote:


Good post! A PM tells you how to value good tires with a low RR.
10-15 W differents between good and crappy tires is very
significant on you average power.

Lou, Today's ride 190 W average during 2,5 hr

You're from Venlo, Limburg, Netherlands ?

Yes. I assume you researched that from Strave (I have no secrets).

Yes. Me neither.


If so, interesting to compare our 2020 stats side by side.

You've had 30 more rides this year (163 to 133), and although my
rides are on average 4 km longer, you've cycled 1558 km further.
However, I've climbed nearly 3 times as many metres, 34,401 m to
99,727 m.

My last ride was 88 km at estimated average power of 194 W.

-- JS

It was a good cycling year for me because of Covid19 and my new
gravel bike ;-). The only downside was that all except for one
holidays to the mountain were cancelled or were not wise to go, hence
my climbing numbers.


I understand. I've also taken some routes on my gravel bike that my
road bike isn't suited for. Opens up a whole new world.

--
JS

On 28/11/20 4:50 am, Tom Kunich wrote:


One of he bad things about bikes today is that you hesitate to ride
them in gravel because f the impending damage to the expensive
frameset.
There is a huge range of frames available over the spectrum of price and
weight. If people use "impending damage to the expensive frameset" as
an excuse not to ride their bicycle on a smooth gravel road, they don't
really want to ride on a gravel road, otherwise they'd buy a cheaper and
more robust frame that they don't have to worry about.

--
JS

On 11/27/2020 3:39 PM, James wrote:
On 28/11/20 4:50 am, Tom Kunich wrote:


One of he bad things about bikes today is that you
hesitate to ride
them in gravel because f the impending damage to the
expensive
frameset.
There is a huge range of frames available over the spectrum
of price and weight. If people use "impending damage to the
expensive frameset" as an excuse not to ride their bicycle
on a smooth gravel road, they don't really want to ride on a
gravel road, otherwise they'd buy a cheaper and more robust
frame that they don't have to worry about.


Famous Person riding along, thinking, "What. me worry?"

https://rayhosler.files.wordpress.co...mmit_2003f.jpg

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Op vrijdag 27 november 2020 om 22:40:02 UTC+1 schreef James:
On 28/11/20 4:50 am, Tom Kunich wrote:


One of he bad things about bikes today is that you hesitate to ride
them in gravel because f the impending damage to the expensive
frameset.
There is a huge range of frames available over the spectrum of price and
weight. If people use "impending damage to the expensive frameset" as
an excuse not to ride their bicycle on a smooth gravel road, they don't
really want to ride on a gravel road, otherwise they'd buy a cheaper and
more robust frame that they don't have to worry about.

My bad weather, gravel and winter bike happens also to be my most expensive bike. So on my requirement list was:
- it has to be robust,
- doesn't corrode,
- don't have a paint job that can be ruined,
- must have brakes that always work
- no cables that get stuck or need a lot of maintenance.

Lou