Nice programming break for me, but now I must get back on my bike.

Well, carry on and continue living your best life.

1m@465w
5m@300w

At that point I will switch to Assiomas for testing.

Mary uses them already, and Favero seems to be the only manufacturer willing to provide basic information about their product, so I was really impressed by this:

VIDEO REVIEW

But even there, the reviewer often complains Favero is not totally forthcoming.

I could offer the answer to their confusion when they plotted cadence vs power error (22:16), but no need to bother till I confirm the Assiomas provide correct enough data for efficient communication of my explanation.

In the meantime my top priority is a routine of floor exercises meant to smooth and strengthen my spin.

Not a trick really, just a clear understanding of how the mechanical advantage of a bicycle works.

I had a goal, tried twice to acheive it, learned from my misses, set up again, hit my mark, and BOOM... no problem with very little effort.

Click for larger
12/10/2021

How long do you expect it to take?

According to quantum physics it has already happened.

In summary that means I have already accomplished the steady state 465 watt hour, and I hold the World Record; but, given my temperament, that is not nearly enough.

Since I already beat everybody else, I must now beat myself, which is the position I was in the day I began the quest.

So I guess quantum theory is once again proven correct and my lifetime goal remains to continually beat myself.

I hope that answers your question.

Everything else about this is simple earthbound classical physics and basic math.

Mary, Strava sucks!

Well, not totally, but we now have more than enough objective data from our reliable repeatable source to confirm absolutely Strava (mostly) sucks ... at least in terms of precision training.

The on-bike data from your Queening of the Belching Widder segment today offered another clear confirmation.

The worst part of Strava is the bullshit wattage typically reported, and today was no different.

Usually Strava overstates wattage by 20 to 100 watts.

Such as for your last recorded Lake Station segment; the watts were calculated by Strava as 227 while your Powertap measured only 205.

The main thing to remember is that Strava "calculates" while Powertap "measures".

For your massive Queening today Strava reversed its standard nonsense by under calculating.

Strava calculated only 182 watts while your Powertap measured 223.

This is part of the reason you are going to eventually dust every other competitor on these segments.

They will be relying on bullshit data.

Fortunately for Cranky, she already saw the writing on the wall and has taken her ball and gone home.

Good riddance; she only ever won by using group rides and cheating anyway.

On the other hand Jocelyn seems to be doing it just right, so when the two of you get done with these segments the Queens will be unreachable for every other woman in the world ... pro or not.

Of course, you know we are still a long way from the days you could maintain a 7 minute effort at the level of Cat 3 (for MEN), but that goal is certainly retrievable, and will be surpassed!

That was an incredible improvement you showed me today on the FMS hurdle test.

As your next step for the Belching Widder and Wid's Dem segments, you will pin down your current spin cadence and make sure it is smooth, plus do some strength workouts.

We'll do the spin tests on Hicks in order to get your spin bursts back up to 180 rpm.

We'll do the strength work on Wid's Bel which was established for that purpose.

The fact that you were able to power up to 24 mph at the bottom of this doubly Queened hill implies that with just a little work and coming onto the hill at 24 instead of under 16 like today (plus a little work on your spin), you will power past the first bump (with a 125 rpm average cadence goal), and getting over the first bump with less effort will leave you a reserve for the next bump; then at the top of the first step of the double-step you will have extra power to re-pace ... and so on and so forth.

My prediction is that by attacking the turn a little faster (now that you saw the site distance is much better than expected), you should minimally be able to take 5 seconds off Wid's Dem and 10 seconds off Belching Widder all in a single blow, and you could do it tomorrow morning if required.

But let's do a little spin and strength work first.

I am sorry I couldn't get out with you to watch your performance (and judge the smoothness of your spin), but somebody had to stay home and keep the studio open.

On the other hand, I fully understand why you had to run out on the spur of the moment to burn off the anxious energy after your successful two day effort completing that $4,000.00 custom watercolor job.

How 'bout buying me a fancy new bike with that quick down payment?

Ok, so Strava sucks for us, but it is about to start sucking a whole lot more for all those other riders (men included).

In any case, Powertap is also not without its problems which is attested by its missed recording of the 24 mph spin-up, despite your old Polar CPU showing it in real time as you tucked and started working.

I look forward to the day I find somebody who is actually using power meters for serious training, so I remain open to suggestion and maybe you're the one.

What are all those strands of ride loops called?

You never know when you're gonna step on a sticky one, get stung, and 'eht.

Here is why (as for my religion) that I am a proud Edu-byterian, or possibly an Episcollegian.

Yesterday while looking for running psych-ups, I ran across this study maxim.

"Don't study until you get it right. Study until you can't get it wrong."

Thanks to Sugar Loaf I had forgotten that I'm not the only person in the world who knows this stuff.

During your transition from athlete to academician (it's all the same thing), you might keep in mind:

"Don't train until you win. Train until you can't lose."

It's hot and humid like I love it (an odd September 90°), so I'm hitting the trails in Goosepond and running the 4 mile course with rock scramble.

Once we began getting a handle on the true meaning of cadence, torque, and watts as it relates to power (speed), 99.9% of the old paperwork was merely an exercise to keep you focused and thinking rationally (productively) about your rides.

All together the process gave you insight into performance results that otherwise would appear to be totally random.

You may not have enjoyed the paperwork, but it was like the requirement of being open every day and putting up with assholes in order to sell your paintings.

If you stopped riding because of it that is unfortunate [I'm sure it was the compartment syndrome that put you out]; but, if you want to continue beating those who refuse to do such work plus are ignorant of the true function of cadence, torque, and watts even if they do, you will resume logging your rides.

It should be easier now that we can add what we know to the fairly solid data summaries taken from the rides of others.

Though STRAVA data is hopelessly flawed by imprecision, tracking segment results will at least get rid of any residual "Oh my god, they have gotten so fast, and I am so old!" bullshit excuses.

We will focus on only one segment at a time.

It will drive them crazy.

Bring the old log sheets upstairs, and I will work through them to give you an updated simplified tracking shorthand.

Never get on your bike without a goal and a plan.

And after taking only one Queen of the Mountain while posting in the top three of several others plus beating numerous men (again).

Not to mention continuing to hold top honors on Kain!

I've been riding for only 3 years, but I'm still in my 30s, so maybe I'll be fast when I'm your age.

2 questions:

1. dead spot myth. Trying spinning crystals, both legs slow down at 12 o clock. Question is: why does this really matter? When one leg is at 12 my other leg is at 6 and pulling backwards, which will push the other forward through 12 o clock.

2. estimated watts.
Right now I can't afford a power meter, I've been using my phone GPS and Strava, and using the power estimates Strava does to compare wattage after I ride. Curious if you have used Strava and compared to the real deal power meters, and if it is accurate.

Thanks!

Nobody using a real power meter has ever needed to ask a question about the book.

A couple of moments with valid, immediate, reliable feedback regarding perceived exertion versus actual power output, and it is all just too, too simple and obvious.

I can remember when the first CD recorders cost $85,000; and, considering the advantage, I almost bought one for my recording studio.

Just as I started to write the check, I noticed the price had dropped $5,000 in less than two months, so I decided, "Well, maybe give it a couple more months. I mean laser printers are already supposed to be dropping under 5k soon, so who knows?"

A few years later every new laptop computer came with a Red Book compliant recordable CD already installed ... almost for free.

I expected the same price drop would be true for power meters, and that by now they would be cheap standard equipment on every bicycle sold ... considering the advantage.

I have stopped holding my breath waiting for that day to arrive.

In any case, why would you not want to have both legs totally involved and doing the best they can at every point in your stroke, much less adding resistance with one that must be overcome by the other?

I hope you are not just trolling me ... : )

Get out on your bike, and enjoy your freedom!

After you wrote in the Cycling Performance Simplified forum I have been pleased to see you returning to check info and use the calculator, so being more comfortable that you are not just trolling me, here is some unfinished business for this project that you might like to investigate yourself.

Whereas I have confirmed numerous times that a 20 mph pace is less than the effort required to pick a full cycling water bottle off the floor and place it on a table, I never acheived a baseline 200 watts for 20 mph on a loop outside.

Though it has been obvious that stop and go is the problem, not the hills.

I came very close, but blew out my hip from too many rides too close in a row, while not understanding the dysfunction of my hip.

My hip is now much better, but in the meantime I am now too fat and out of shape to begin the testing again.

Also, I was trying to do it on our Saturday fast ride course which is 36 miles with lots of odd aggravating intersections with traffic, so I had dropped back to a shorter time trial course of 8 miles, but only realized after my hip failed that the shorter course actually has more intersection turns, so the percentage of stop/go was actually far greater than for the longer course.

All of which points to the major calculation I was trying to approach but also never confirmed.

Here is the question.

For a given number of watts which will of course reslove to a given speed (all things considered), how long does it take to acheive terminal velocity?

The useful extension of that calculation will provide insight to the real problem with the 200 watt / 20 mph loop.

What is the minimal amount of "over wattage" that will be required at intersections to recover pace?

More or less, of course, not an ultra-precise absolute; just an easy to remember rule of thumb.

Thanks for using the book, and I hope your cycling is progressing as you would like (ok impossible, but at least progressing then).

I recently accepted the position of Assistant General Counsel and chief litigation attorney for the Florida Department of State. Our offices just happen to be in the R.A. Gray building that houses the Museum of Florida History. They actually let us choose artwork for our offices from the paintings that are not currently being used by the museum, but – thanks to Aunt Mary – I didn't need the help.

The picture shows what I see when I sit at my desk. So Mary's paintings are still my 'happy place'.

Endico paintings
special arrangement

BTW, getting back to our much earlier discussion about 'walking yourself well' I have continued to improve so much in my back, neck, knees, etc., that I have taken up backpacking again. Since June I have walked over 80 miles on the Appalachian Trail with a full pack. With zero neck, back or knee issues. It's like a freakin' miracle as I had pretty much given up backpacking for life. I just got back from an overnighter on the AT with my middle son and his wife (the one getting a doctorate in physical therapy) and their trail dog (see pic). We did 27.3 miles, most of it in the rain, and had a blast. The picture is from the second day on the lookout tower on top of Wayah Bald in North Carolina.

Wayah Bald
special people

Anyway, just wanted to check in with you and let you know what Mary's paintings have been up to here in Tallahassee.

Take care.

D. Fugett

You keep hanging out with those people.

One of the women we walk our dog with in the local parks has been winning her age group in races and just placed 4th for her age and 167 overall in her first 1/2 Marathon of 1500 people ... she left it up to us to calculate how many men she beat because she's "not competitive".

A while back she was telling me how she was doing one legged stiff-legged deadlifts and I tried one ... couldn't come close with my left.

"Hmmm," thought I and began trying one every time I picked up the dog's stick during park walks.

Eventually I expanded what was learned into climbing and descending stairs with groceries, standing up from chairs, and the toilet etc.

Long story short my left hip is like a new creature, and I can now feel this big puffy pillow (which is my ass and gluteus medius) catch my hip like a giant cupped hand and stop it from escaping to the left.

I never even knew there were muscles there before ... didn't know I was trying to hold my hip stable with my knee (small muscles on the wrong end of the lever do not do the job; just makes you wonder why a nail gun keeps hitting your knee in random spots periodically).

The new hip strength has given me a whole new more balanced standing position on my bike for hills ... stretch high and lightly toss my handle bars left and right.

Plus I have made inroads stopping my right hip rotating forward while riding seated.

And your cousin, John Mitchell, reports he avoids driving anywhere that he can ride his bike, and he was just not too long ago sitting in the canopy somewhere down in the Amazon after rope climbing up and into it with some friends.

Hearing all this stuff makes my life more or less complete!

If it is ok, I will drop your email (with name) into a few of my Forums.

BTW: Couple weeks ago Mary sold $14,000 worth of paintings in five days to random people who walked into her studio, so she has become extra feisty on her bicycle.

On the other hand, those sales are going to pale in comparison to her excitement seeing your more than perfect display of her work that you have crafted (or your wife did if memory serves) ... not to mention the story.

WOW!

-b

Now, put down your keyboard and get out on your bike.

Or as the great Twin Lynn once put it so perfectly, "Just as hard as you can push ... forever!"

It more or less boils down to your 1hr-Time Trial effort which I like to test by doing an actual 1hr-TT.

Below is my edit of one of your website pages as a thank you for the house call.

A copy/paste of your current web page is on the left, and my suggested changes are on the right.

Hopefully, you can quickly copy/paste the changes to your website and get immediately back to the real job of doctoring patients.

Thanks again for the house call ... very uncommon these days.

So what do you say kids?

Have we all found our new primary care physician, or what?

Don't forget to ask Dr. Johnson about his new local currency based on a concept out of Cornell which for some time has been making the rounds in Ithaca.

Here in Sugar Loaf, NY we call the doctor's local currency SugarCoin.

You are an ecosystem. Microbes make up 90% of the cells of our body We share our bodies with 100 trillion microbes, living on our tongues, teeth and skin and in our intestine. While we have just over 20,000 human genes; our microbes have eight million. These microbes are quite small, with all 100 trillion weighing only 3 to 4 pounds in total, but, working together, they exert powerful effects. Modifications to our diet (with pesticides and antibiotics) and our environment (chemicals and unnatural hygiene levels) change our microbes.How are you caring for the ecosystem that is you?

This ecosystem develops right from birth. Infants with colic have more bacteria that are known to produce gas, whereas anti-inflammatory bacteria acquired from the vaginal canal are more common in colic-free infants. In one study infants were classified as excessive criers, significantly less frequently when randomized to receive prebiotic and probiotic instead of a placebo (19% vs 19% vs 47%, respectively; P = .02). In another study infants randomized to receive probiotics had NO Autism or ADHD at age 13, while the rates were 17% in those not given the probiotics. Perhaps the reductions in infantile colic, allowed better brain development.

The right balance of microbes is essential to good health and digestion. Obese and lean individuals have different gut flora composition. Obesity is associated with alterations in bacterial gut microbiota, with mainly a reduction in Bacteroidetes. Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium may have a critical role in weight regulation. Odds of being overweight adults are 26% higher for C-section babies, possibly because they miss those healthy birth canal microbes.

Microbes are important in training our immune system on what to attack and what not to. Many of the diseases of modern life are caused by our own immune system attacking our body, and there is emerging evidence that exposure to diverse microbes can be protective. Autoimmune diseases like asthma, hay fever, Type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis are much less common in the developing world and in children raised on farms or in large families. In contrast, asthma and hay fever rates are increased both in cities and in children given early antibiotics. The hygiene hypothesis says we need more exposure to the outdoors and dirt.

Antibiotics are a great innovation and continue to save countless live when used appropriately. Unfortunately, antibiotics target not only the harmful bacteria. When bacteria in our intestines are disturbed by antibiotics, a common side effect is diarrhea. One way to limit side effects and prevent a resistant organism is to be sure to take a probiotic whenever you take an antibiotic. Probiotics are available in pill form and in food. Another key is limiting antibiotic overuse both in human medicine and in livestock. Many factory farms rely heavily on antibiotics. Using antibiotics for viral illness like the common cold doesn’t help, but can upset your protective microbial ecosystem.

We are only just beginning to understand the complex working of our microbes. But this much seems clear — the healthiest microbes are grown when the major ingredient in our diet is a diverse array of unprocessed plants and fermented foods. Eat a colorful array of vegetables and grow your healthy ecosystem. I love the benefits of technology and am not heading back to full paleo living. But please pass the sauerkraut, yogurt and miso soup. They come with healthy bacteria and help tend my inner garden.

Nathan Johnson, MD, is a Family Medicine Physician

You might not have thought of it before, but you are an ecosystem.

Microbes make up 90% of the cells of your body.

Each of us shares our body with 100 trillion microbes living on our tongues, our teeth and skin, and in our intestine.

While we humans have just over 20,000 genes, our microbes have eight million.

These microbes are quite small with all 100 trillion of them weighing only 3 to 4 pounds in total.

Working together, however, they exert a powerful influence on our health and well being.

Modifications to our diet (with pesticides and antibiotics) and to our environment (chemicals and unnatural hygiene levels) change our microbes.

Which begs the question, "How are you caring for the ecosystem that is you?"

Consider this.

The ecosystem that is you develops right from birth, and infants with colic have more bacteria that are known to produce gas, whereas anti-inflammatory bacteria acquired from the vaginal canal at birth are more common in colic-free infants.

In one study it was found that the number of infants classified as excessive criers was significantly less among those randomized to receive prebiotic or probiotic instead of a placebo (19% and 19% vs 47% respectively; P = .02).

[Double, triple, quadruple check the changes I made to the previous paragraph. Plus, does P stand for range of assumed statistical error +/-?]

06/29/15: Dr. Dog replies - P stands for the probability that the difference is due to chance. So the 'P = 0.02' means there is only a 2% chance the results were due to chance rather than the effects of the probiotic. Generally a P less than 5% is considered significant. It is probably fine to leave P out of the article for a general audience.

And Bob (me) counter replies - Due to the fact that generally there ain't no audience on the three sites where I posted this edit, I'm leaving the P here as generally of great interest to my highly not so general audience while Dr. Dog will of course be wise to drop it from his own.

Everybody continue reading with my apologies for the green and orange text.

In another study infants randomized to receive probiotics had absolutely NO Autism or ADHD at age 13, while the rates were 17% in those not given the probiotics.

Perhaps the reductions in infantile colic allowed better brain development.

Additionally the correct balance of microbes is essential to good health and digestion.

Obese and lean individuals have differing compositions of gut flora.

Obesity is associated with alterations in bacterial gut microbiota — mainly a reduction in Bacteroidetes.

Levels of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium may have a critical role in weight regulation.

Odds of becoming an overweight adult are 26% higher for C-section babies, possibly because they miss those healthy birth canal microbes.

Microbes are important in training our immune system on what to attack and what not to attack.

Many diseases of modern life are caused by our body being attacked by its own immune system, and there is emerging evidence that exposure to diverse microbes can be protective.

Autoimmune diseases like asthma, hay fever, Type 1 diabetes, and multiple sclerosis are much less common in the developing world and in children raised on farms or in large families.

In contrast, asthma and hay fever rates are increased both among people living in cities and in children who are given early antibiotics.

One theory called the hygiene hypothesis says we need more exposure to the outdoors and dirt.

Antibiotics are a great innovation and continue to save countless lives when used appropriately, but unfortunately antibiotics target not only the harmful bacteria but our good bacteria as well.

When bacteria in our intestines are disturbed by antibiotics, a common side effect is diarrhea.

One way to limit side effects while helping prevent antibotic resistant organisms is to be sure to take a probiotic whenever you take an antibiotic.

Probiotics are available both in pill form and in food.

Another key to preventing antibiotic organisms is limiting antibiotic overuse both in human medicine and in livestock.

Using antibiotics for viral illnesses like the common cold doesn’t help, but it can upset your protective microbial ecosystem.

Many factory farms rely heavily on antibiotics being given to their livestock, and those antibiotics are passed on to people through the food they eat.

We are only just beginning to understand the complex working of our microbes.

However, this much seems clear: the healthiest microbes are grown when the major ingredient in our diet is a diverse array of unprocessed plants and fermented foods.

Eat a colorful array of vegetables in order to grow your healthy ecosystem.

Personally I love the benefits of technology and am not heading back to full paleo living.

But please pass the sauerkraut, yogurt, and miso soup.

They come complete with healthy bacteria and help tend my inner garden.

Nathan Johnson, MD, is a Family Medicine Physician

You are an ecosystem. Microbes make up 90% of the cells of our body We share our bodies with 100 trillion microbes, living on our tongues, teeth and skin and in our intestine. While we have just over 20,000 human genes; our microbes have eight million. These microbes are quite small, with all 100 trillion weighing only 3 to 4 pounds in total, but, working together, they exert powerful effects. Modifications to our diet (with pesticides and antibiotics) and our environment (chemicals and unnatural hygiene levels) change our microbes.How are you caring for the ecosystem that is you?

This ecosystem develops right from birth. Infants with colic have more bacteria that are known to produce gas, whereas anti-inflammatory bacteria acquired from the vaginal canal are more common in colic-free infants. In one study infants were classified as excessive criers, significantly less frequently when randomized to receive prebiotic and probiotic instead of a placebo (19% vs 19% vs 47%, respectively; P = .02). In another study infants randomized to receive probiotics had NO Autism or ADHD at age 13, while the rates were 17% in those not given the probiotics. Perhaps the reductions in infantile colic, allowed better brain development.

The right balance of microbes is essential to good health and digestion. Obese and lean individuals have different gut flora composition. Obesity is associated with alterations in bacterial gut microbiota, with mainly a reduction in Bacteroidetes. Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium may have a critical role in weight regulation. Odds of being overweight adults are 26% higher for C-section babies, possibly because they miss those healthy birth canal microbes.

Microbes are important in training our immune system on what to attack and what not to. Many of the diseases of modern life are caused by our own immune system attacking our body, and there is emerging evidence that exposure to diverse microbes can be protective. Autoimmune diseases like asthma, hay fever, Type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis are much less common in the developing world and in children raised on farms or in large families. In contrast, asthma and hay fever rates are increased both in cities and in children given early antibiotics. The hygiene hypothesis says we need more exposure to the outdoors and dirt.

Antibiotics are a great innovation and continue to save countless live when used appropriately. Unfortunately, antibiotics target not only the harmful bacteria. When bacteria in our intestines are disturbed by antibiotics, a common side effect is diarrhea. One way to limit side effects and prevent a resistant organism is to be sure to take a probiotic whenever you take an antibiotic. Probiotics are available in pill form and in food. Another key is limiting antibiotic overuse both in human medicine and in livestock. Many factory farms rely heavily on antibiotics. Using antibiotics for viral illness like the common cold doesn’t help, but can upset your protective microbial ecosystem.

We are only just beginning to understand the complex working of our microbes. But this much seems clear — the healthiest microbes are grown when the major ingredient in our diet is a diverse array of unprocessed plants and fermented foods. Eat a colorful array of vegetables and grow your healthy ecosystem. I love the benefits of technology and am not heading back to full paleo living. But please pass the sauerkraut, yogurt and miso soup. They come with healthy bacteria and help tend my inner garden.

Nathan Johnson, MD, is a Family Medicine Physician

You are an ecosystem. Microbes make up 90% of the cells of our body. Each of us shares our body with 100 trillion microbes, living on our tongues, our teeth and skin, and in our intestine. While we have just over 20,000 human genes, our microbes have eight million. These microbes are quite small, with all 100 trillion weighing only 3 to 4 pounds in total; but, working together, they exert powerful effects. Modifications to our diet (with pesticides and antibiotics) and our environment (chemicals and unnatural hygiene levels) change our microbes. How are you caring for the ecosystem that is you?

This ecosystem develops right from birth. Infants with colic have more bacteria that are known to produce gas, whereas anti-inflammatory bacteria acquired from the vaginal canal are more common in colic-free infants. In one study infants were classified as excessive criers significantly less frequently when randomized to receive prebiotic and probiotic instead of a placebo (19% and 19% vs 47% respectively; P = .02). [what does P stand for?] In another study infants randomized to receive probiotics had NO Autism or ADHD at age 13, while the rates were 17% in those not given the probiotics. Perhaps the reductions in infantile colic, allowed better brain development.

The correct balance of microbes is essential to good health and digestion. Obese and lean individuals have different gut flora composition. Obesity is associated with alterations in bacterial gut microbiota — mainly a reduction in Bacteroidetes. Levels of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium may have a critical role in weight regulation. Odds of becoming overweight adults are 26% higher for C-section babies, possibly because they miss those healthy birth canal microbes.

Microbes are important in training our immune system on what to attack and what not to. Many of the diseases of modern life are caused by our own immune system attacking our body, and there is emerging evidence that exposure to diverse microbes can be protective.

Autoimmune diseases like asthma, hay fever, Type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis are much less common in the developing world and in children raised on farms or in large families. In contrast, asthma and hay fever rates are increased both in cities and in children given early antibiotics. The hygiene hypothesis says we need more exposure to the outdoors and dirt.

Antibiotics are a great innovation and continue to save countless lives when used appropriately, but unfortunately antibiotics target not only the harmful bacteria.

When bacteria in our intestines are disturbed by antibiotics, a common side effect is diarrhea. One way to limit side effects and prevent a resistant organism is to be sure to take a probiotic whenever you take an antibiotic. Probiotics are available in pill form and in food. Another key is limiting antibiotic overuse both in human medicine and in livestock. Many factory farms rely heavily on antibiotics. Using antibiotics for viral illness like the common cold doesn’t help, but they can upset your protective microbial ecosystem.

We are only just beginning to understand the complex working of our microbes. But this much seems clear — the healthiest microbes are grown when the major ingredient in our diet is a diverse array of unprocessed plants and fermented foods. Eat a colorful array of vegetables and grow your healthy ecosystem. I love the benefits of technology and am not heading back to full paleo living. But please pass the sauerkraut, yogurt and miso soup. They come with healthy bacteria and help tend my inner garden.

Nathan Johnson, MD, is a Family Medicine Physician

Greetings from the Czech republic.

I read Cycling Performance Simplified a few years ago, and I have wanted to read it again, but I could not open the link.

There is a redirect to the following page ███, which is empty.

Is it possible to read your material again?

Regards,
Krystof

Thanks for the heads-up.

It seems a recent server upgrade broke some of my code.

I did some maintenance with a quick check, and it appears everything is back to normal.

Thanks again for the help.
Bob

06/20/15 update: Today noted somebody still experienced problem viewing Power Calculator Explained page, now fixed. Will keep reviewing logs and fixing errors.

I am also writing a book about cycling, with a slant on the foibles and humor.

I have used many technically-informative internet based sites and wish to know whether I need your permission to reference your site and Fugett's work.

I make limited use of it and reference it of course ...

You may make use with appropriate attribution, and thanks for asking.

Bob Fugett

Should I be doing repeats in the one session, if so how many, and I assume I would then do it again over subsequent weeks to test progress?

I have a nice 11 speed cassette with some closely spaced climbing ratios so that should mak the exercise easier.

Check with your coach regarding how many, etc to fit in with your goals and current level.

The important thing is to test the concept and understand what you are seeing.

And yes, you will want to return to the test periodically to check progress; that is exactly what it is for.

Don't forget your floor exercises, not to be underestimated.

Also test against results with the Quarq and see if you can't get coach to say, "That's cool!"

I can't wait to hear the results.

What I am talking about is not a way to derive wattage without a power meter but how to address the major training problem that power meters are supposed to address.

The problem is that of finding a reliable performance baseline to work from and then monitoring your progress in real time.

Beach Road is maybe a little too flat for this, and I am assuming it is also an example of the worst possible place to get reliable feedback, that is to say I am guessing it is often windy, with changeable winds.

So let me try to describe this in rather vague terms, because I am sure your coach already knows this and can help at your end.

My technique is to restrict variables by finding a climb steep enough to force you to work a little, long enough to challenge your heart rate, and covered from prevailing winds enough so that you have some hope of returning to the same slope again and again as you improve.

Whereas the Powertap does make a distinction between torque (at the pedals) and watts (at the wheel), it only does so in the software after download.

Therefore when I noticed the wildly wide variation in effort on the pedals that is possible to receive any given amount of wattage output (speed), I was perturbed to find the Powertap torque measurement is not available while on the bicycle (and SRM doesn't give it ever), so I had to figure out a way to get a reliable reference for my wife to use while she was riding, and once we established that system, I realized it could be done without a power meter, just a cadence counter.

It has to be a magnet and sensor absolute reading, not a derived from formula cadence.

I saw that the torque data was very consistent if looking at known wattages, on a known slope, at a given cadence, so I started having her watch her cadence instead of her wattage.

One can call the effort Watts, Newton Meters, or Shrimps on the Barbie for all I care, I just wanted a reliable, repeatable measurement, and cadence (in a given gear over the same slope hidden from the wind) does a perfectly adequate job.

Choose your smooth steady slope (where you can get a good 1 to 2 minute interval); find the gearing which allows you your highest comfortable cadence (your coach might take a look at that for you); then monitor using your Averaged Cadence Interval.

My wife uses two units, one showing average and one showing current cadence, but I am hoping your 810 can give you both readings at the same time.

The goal is to be able to increase your gear by one click higher while holding the same cadence over the same challenging interval on your known slope that is hidden from the wind (best it can be).

To work on your spin efficiency you might instead just try to increase your averaged cadence by 1 or 2 rpm.

The only thing that any of the current power meters will give you insight into beyond this use of cadence is how insanely variable the amount of effort on the pedals is required for any given wattage.

You can be pushing really, really, really hard for 200 watts, or really easy for 400 watts, and speed of cadence is a large part of that equation (given you have a smooth even balanced spin at the given cadence).

Wattage is of course more of an absolute reference to speed than it is to effort on the pedals.

I am sure your coach knows this, so I would be very interested if they can repeat the results I found with the Powertap using the Quarq.

If she ever has a minute, see if you can get her (or him) to go up one of the longer rollers, establish a smooth relatively high wattage, then click down two gears easier while increasing cadence.

The power meter should spike 10 watts higher (more or less, if it is responsive enough and the delayed reading inherent in all these devices is considered) while the effort felt in the legs will be less.

People used to be absolutely flabbergasted when they saw this happen, but with power meters available to more people (and my book pointing it out), it has probably become common knowledge.

In any case, thank you for allowing me to use you as my guinea pig

I haven't purchased the Vectors yet.

I thought it would be useful to pick a power meter which measures torque at the crank as well as watts given your advice in the book concerning the importance of efficiency as well as watts.

Given the Garmin measures watts through analysing force at the pedal crank it seems to me it is really measuring torque rather than watts and presumably translating to watts by a linear formula.

There is a Garmin speciality dealer near me, so I will invstigate through them.

I have been training using HR mainly and estimated power based on Strava charts, with my coach who has a quarq and swears by it.

The price for the Vector is down to $1250 AUD here now which is still more than want to pay, so I will hold off for a while.

That is if also you are in an area with some really good hills with one of about a quarter mile of a relatively regular moderate slope.

Though you might be able to do it on a stationary trainer as well.

By your IP# and your comfortable English, it appears you may live in Australia.

BTW: I am sure that by now you are aware Strava is routinely off by 1 to 2 tenths of a mile one way or another most of the time, making precise measurements impossible.

Otherwise I have been disappointed far too many times with regard to product promises vs actual product performance to even hazard a guess.

Last time I looked at the information Garmin provides, the pedals are the right idea, but it does not appear they have yet overcome the basic problems in terms of sampling speed, on bicycle reporting, and accuracy.

But neither has Powertap, SRM, nor anybody else.

I would caution Garmin that merely paying me to take a look at their pedals would not guarantee a positive review, and I would of course maintain control of my research to publish here.

In any case, I am not sure the correctness of the data is relevant to most riders as the main goal generally appears to be showing up for a group ride with the appropriate cycling bling.

On the other hand, I would be intensely interested in hearing about your own results with the pedals, Mark, so feel free to report here in the Forum.

I would add that given the number of people who use my online power calculator and read Cycling Performance Simplified, there actually does seem to be some interest in correct data, and your reading pattern of the book implies you are in that camp (as opposed to the bling for bling's sake camp).

So thank you for the question, and post here anytime.

Or as Lynn Meyer so eloquently puts it, "As hard as you can push the pedals ... forever."

Although there are all kinds of nonsense formulas to derive it from shorter efforts, I like to test it using a full 1-hr time trial on the road.

Basically if you can do it for an hour, you can do it forever, give or take.

Just keep notes, because pain after all is pain, and if that is all you look at you'll miss seeing how much better you are getting.

If you have a standard loop that is more or less circular, just make note of how long it takes, then do constant comparisons as you repeat it over the coming months and years.

You wouldn't even have to do any specific training at all, or push to any type of limit, to see great gains ... if you go out consistently.

Just do the loop easy, check your time, do it again, and again, and again, and marvel at how much faster you are getting without really even trying.

Of course, specific training can fine tune, speed your improvement, and help you over sticking points.

A power meter just gives you a reliable reference so you don't get fooled by the extreme variability of cycling.

BTW: That okfoundry sure looks like an interesting place, and a place to learn a lot of good stuff about the physical world around us.

My guess is you have the personal observational skills to figure this all out in rather short order.

You might like to do a full 1-hour time trial on that stationary at your earliest convenience just to record your startup baseline.

You are never again going to be in this bad of shape with the opprotunity to see such great gains in performance ... later you are going to be worrying about taking off a minute here, or a second there.

Take advantage of your current golden opportunity: 1-hour, real time.

However, that is very much the most general of guidelines and your instructor will take a closer look.

Actually you may find the bike gets out of your way when it is not rigid, so a high candence will be easier.

In any case, floor work like Egoscue will work miracles for you, and don't forget to take a look at the FMS.

Are you using a power meter?

Whoops, I don't have a product.

Maybe I should have a product.

No, that sounds like work, and I would rather be on my bike.

In any case, thanks for the thanks ... now get out on your bicycle.

My racer does not have a power meter as yet - but it is coming ...

The reference table t@P/W for 5s, 1m, 5m and FT particularly caught my attention. at 180W and 82kg, I manage 2.2W/kg "for a semi-eternal amount of time"... however, according to the table - and assuming I should check under FT - that basically means I have never been sitting on a bike, and am in reality an "untrained" 350lb couch potato barely able to breathe; which is not accurate... or not quite let's say...

Now - following Chris Horner's victory of the Vuelta yesterday, and widespread press-speak of possible doping, I came across his power meter transcript for stage 14, which he had released to the press earlier last week.

What I found is that his average power output on that mountain stage was 210W for 66kg of body weight.

This gives a 3.18W/kg performance over the stage's course... that puts Chris Horner somewhere in the lower stretches of that same table in the FT column... far away from the world-class athlete that he actually is.

So I wonder what this all means? I know you said it is all a bit relative, and we should look at our own performance instead of drawing comparisons. However, to me the FT column in that table just seems off.

I was almost relieved this morning when I realised that I was not alone, and that Chris Horner was in my team when it came to ranking oddly in that league table.

Thanks for shedding some light into my power cave :)

Best Wishes,

g

First off, there is no Bill here; I am Bob, so either that is a typo or somebody has figured out a way to put this forum on their own website and trick people into thinking they are me.

As for the numbers, it all means that a generalized averaged number over an entire stage race does not account for teamwork, drafting, and team strategies: "We can go pretty easy most of the time, so long as on that one climb we actually work and just long enough for a photo op with some commentator making it seem like we are all putting in never before seen superhuman efforts, then right back to meandering."

It means that you (and I, who can apparently easily beat you) would do well in such a race, if we could only convince everybody to ride it the way we want them to, push where we choose, ease off where we select, never jump too hard on a severe slope, etc.

Also you will note that the results were published in Watts, not Torque, and there is a big difference in turning 210W on the flat, and turning 210W on a 22% climb.

When you get your power meter (assuming you get one that is accurate and reports Torque at the pedal as well as Watts from the wheel), this will all make perfect sense to you.

If not, come back and ask a question.

Sometimes you have to.

Also, performance numbers have steadily fallen from the late 90's for the majority of riders.

So I wouldn't be any faster if I used PED's for the past few years?

If EPO has such short term effects why would pro's take it in the off season then some stop or reduce it before racing?

From what you guys are saying EPO wouldn't benefit them in off season training. Not wanting to argue more interested in learning about it.

To address your final statement first with regard to "you guys":

There are no "you guys" here, only somebody who posted using the name "Charles Hodges" (easily spoofed), and the next posting by "A. Stute" which is my own posting using a made up name to address the fact that there is no way to verify the name provided by the post previous to it.

Whether or not you are the same person as the previous "Charles Hodges" is also not something that can be verified.

In any case, the first "Charles Hodges" post was certainly a joke, because the chart in question has nothing to do with anything except pointing toward a rational set of goals for cycling performance along with an indication of how to use the information derived from power meters to meet those goals.

The chart will never need to be updated, because it is only a dataset assembled at a certain point in time under a certain set of circumstances and provides a baseline for understanding the data provided by power meters.

Nobody wins or loses anything (certainly not money, fame, nor credential) by besting any number on that chart, while power meters (the correct ones) only provide a repeatable reliable way to overcome the massive variables and myth confronting serious riders who want to logically improve their performance ... based on their own performance.

One of the things I track very closely is the usage of this website, and while the information about power meters is read often, the IP# associated with the previous "Charels Hodges" post and the one associated with this current "Charles" are two separate numbers neither of which were observed reading much of anything regarding power meters either before or after posting.

Of course it is always possible that whoever posted both "Charles" were in fact the same person and that person actually did read a lot of the material provided on this website but arrived from another IP# or two.

However, that is very unlikely, because the person would then understand that nothing about this forum has anything at all to do with PED's or EPO's or any such acronyms.

Plus anybody serious about their long term health would not have the slightest interest in that crap anyway.

Not to mention anybody truly interested in their cycling performance would not be posting in forums but would be grabbing as much information as quickly as they can then getting out on their bike.

My own numbers have been steadily improving since the late 90's due to following that process.

Therefore, it is probably best for me to consider these types of questions and comments merely trolling and nothing more, so I will leave these posts here to put people on notice, but further such nonsense will be toggled off without comment.

There are people showing up here who actually want to learn something.

In fact, as far as I can tell, the person who posted that didn't even read the book before doing so.

I guess it will need to be updated, because as soon as top athletes stop doping themselves for short term gain, and destroying their bodies in the process, their careers will extend long enough for them to easily beat all the figures currently on the chart.

That combined with the removal of a multitude of "how to" myths power meters have revealed to be false.

On the other hand, why do you believe the sport will ever be cleaner ... just because somebody you admire tells you it will?

Have you forgotten already?

My name is Nicole, and I work for Ski Magazine.

I am writing a story on DIN (the torque it takes to release you from your bindings), and I was hoping to relate it to something outside of skiing.

Since a lot of skiers also bike it seemed like the perfect reference.

Could you help me out with a couple questions?

1. Since torque is a direct representation of strength, how does it change?

2. What kind of strength is needed to achieve a torque of 232 Nm?

3. What kind of strength is needed to achieve a torque of 325 Nm?

Thanks for your help!
Nicole

All of my information regarding Torque as it relates to cycling comes from direct measurements of real world performance using a Powertap.

Take a look at this page:

You will notice the chart near the top of the page shows a cyclist at the end of a very competitive club ride achieving over 30 mph in the front group sprint.

The rider's maximum measured torque for that effort was 12.2 Nm; therefore the 232 Nm and 325 Nm figures you asked about would be quite significant indeed.

A full 32 oz cycling water bottle picked from the floor and placed on a table would require less than 10 Nm, but on a bicycle that amount of force could easily maintain a 20 mph pace.

Here is how I would test the strength required in your own case.

Remove a cleat from a ski boot; attach a simple torque wrench to it; use the wrench to pop the cleat out of the binding and record the number.

Simple, right?

As for my own experience with ski releases: we once watched as my nephew fell over on a virtual flat in what appeared to be a slow motion non-pressure fall from an almost completely standing still position.

Because the ambient temperature was near freezing his binding had warmed and refrozen so that it failed to release.

His tibia and fibula shattered in three (3) places.

We couldn't understand why he was crying, because the fall appeared so inconsequential.

You mention the use of Spun Crystals.

I attempted a search online for a better understanding of what they are and how you use them.

I did not find a good explanation; can you help provide some insight on this tool?

I also struggle with piriformis and psoas issues and am looking forward to reading the research you have linked on these topics.

Thanks for your effort in the research and writing of this information for others to utilize.

Reid

It comes from my background in teaching music where I worked out similar techniques on musical instruments (see my book: Impulse and Strength).

I have shown Spun Crystals to a few people, but I left it vague in the book on purpose partly to puff up my knowledge of the arcane cycling arts to the local riders (my nemeses) but mostly in hopes somebody would ask about it, and I am shocked it took this long.

Riding right next to somebody and stepping them through the technique has been hard enough, so if I have any success expressing it to you through writing, I will give myself a sound congratulatory backslap.

Let me start as simply as possible (which may be more than enough for you to get it), and if you have trouble just report back, so I can expand and try again.

Spun Crystals was the best name I could come up with, but I have always been dismayed by the term.

It does sound full of magical power (got your attention) but it is really just this:

You know when you are at a wedding dinner (or similar) and people make their crystal glassware sing by wetting their finger and rubbing it around the upper lip of the glass?

Keeping that tone going requires a very precise light pressure on the glass, and the same with keeping your most powerful (but easiest most efficient long lasting) spin on your bicycle.

Checking your ability to do this on your bicycle should be done at the beginning of every ride.

Forget strength for the moment, I mean your basic functional movement, and you can learn a lot about what is right and what is wrong with your body at any given moment by checking it against a super light slow motion spin.

No need to be surprised by something falling apart deep in a ride; know what to expect right out of the parking lot.

Get moving fast enough on the flat so that you do not have to worry about balance; clip out one foot and with the other clipped in foot trace a path around the crank as slowly as you can while just barely touching the peddle.

Make sure to do it with absolutely no forward pressure; it should feel as if your chain is dropped.

In fact, if you are on a stationary trainer (not rollers) you can drop your chain for the exercise, but be aware a fixed position bicycle will give a slightly skewed false reading due to the extra support it provides.

You should feel for the edge of the circle just like the lip of a crystal glass; make it sing.

You will find out an amazing amount of information about your basic spin this way.

Every person that I have shown this to has been shocked with the realization that one of their legs (at least) refuses to come over the top (or stutters significantly ) at some point (usually between 9 and 12 o'clock back to front), and by shocked I mean they are really, really shocked.

The tendency is for them to fall back on the age old myth of the cycling dead spot.

Sometimes the lack of functional movement is so hidden to them, I must point it out several times before they feel it.

Part of why you want to do the movement with absolutely no forward pressure is because your leg can be helped over the top by ramping itself up on the crank arm, so you will not notice that the hip and leg (with associated support structures) are dysfunctional.

I always start my rides with two sets of four strokes each (as part of my flightcheck): one of the sets with no pressure at all (right/left), then one set with forward pressure (right/left).

I start with the right leg because my right is most correct, and I compare the left to it.

You might like to repeat the no pressure set while reviewing what you noticed on the first series.

Ok, maybe that will be enough for you.

Try it out, and report back if you run into trouble.

Dollars to doughnuts Spun Crystals will be one of the useful aids you use to fix your piriformis and psoas problems so they become a distant memory.

Currently the book is not in print, but your question has given me the solid reason for moving it to print.

I have held off bringing it to hard copy due to how important the interactive Power to Weight and Race Category calculator has proven for people, and the calculator would not be available in book form...even an e-book.

Also I wanted to take one final pass at confirming Watts to Speed over a long course while establishing a procedure for calculating the minimal extra watts required to return to pace after a slow down for turn or stop.

You have touched on the third hold up which is that I have never seen any strong advantage to print over the online version.

However, being able to keep closely associated notes is certainly a big advantage.

While waiting for the print version, feel free to print out any pages you wish for note taking.

Wondering if 320 watts for an hour is considered threshold or is anything over 30 minutes threshold?

I assume 320 for an hour is a harder goal than 30 minutes.

I also realize Taylor Phinney does 400 watts for an hour but 300 watts per hour equals his w/kilo, but he would destroy me in a TT.

One local rider has put it in perfect context like this: "Functional Threshold? That just means, 'How hard can you push the pedals...forever.'"

In any case, whatever criteria one uses in the attempt to generalize comparisons with other riders, things very quickly degrade into an apples to oranges situation.

The purpose of the figures and calculations provided here in Cycling Performance Simplified is to help riders identify reliable repeatable criteria to use in fine tuning their own performance when compared specifically against their own performance.

In summary it is a simple matter of: "Is what I am doing actually improving my performance or only making it worse?"

While the first consideration is of course: "How can I be sure?"

I'm sure you have found this site by now in your search for cycling data sites...but in case you haven't: ██████.

Seems they are on the same wave length or at least could chat with you about yours. aml

Pretty easy to be on the same wave length as me, just the very simplest classical earth bound physics and most basic elementary biomechanics.

Nothin' to it.

I don't know.

I'm just doing what I do, what feels right.

I'm trying to figure out how to take it to the next level,.

Where can I find these answers?

Then work your way through the remaining References.

Arnie Baker's book smart cycling has 100 pages as Part 4 dedicated to Racing and tactics.

Also a lot of practical lessons are found on the Video Links page.

I see from my web usage logs that you have already gone through most of the Cycling Performance Simplified pages, but it may not be apparent that an insane amount of improvement on your bicycle is found by doing the correct exercises off your bicycle in order to correct and balance your overall movement patterns.

It is easy to discount how important having balanced movment patterns are, but since I started looking closely at this, I have never seen one rider who is fully even and balanced.

I will leave you with this thought.

Last year a rider at a club ride was asking me about his gearing for a planned trip to Colorado and for some day long climbs.

I suggested changes to his setup, and he asked, "Are you sure that will help?"

To that I responded, "Absolutely. In fact I can guarantee that if you get the right gears and learn to spin smoothly you will positively be one to two tenths miles an hour faster for the exact same effort."

He spit, "What? One or two tenths mile an hour. That is all?!"

I explained, "I said it was faster. I didn't say it was magic."

BTW: Glad to see you spent some time on the Torque page.

When I do my workout program, they all use the Powertap which is displayed on screen.

When I match their speed and cadence, my watts match theirs, but what I am confused on is how to become more efficient like you talked about not chasing someone up a hill.

What should I focus on during a race?

How do I train to be most efficient?

In the last 3 years I have done over 70 races.

I have just finished an 8 week power training program.

I use the iSport Pro power meter.

The thing I'm confused about is how do I put the info I read about to use?

I'll edit this post as I work my way through.

Right now I have begun reading an article about a power meter that I assume is similar to the one you are using: article.

It took me awhile to go through the article, and then I spent some time on the iSport website trying to find an actual statement regarding the manner in which iSport measures forces.

Maybe you will know better about it, but best thing I could figure is that it is some variation on wind resistance and speed.

If that is the case, no wonder you are confused.

I was excited to find a cheaper power meter, but calling the iSport a power meter is to be calling it something it is not.

You may certainly find it somewhat useful in training (until you get closer to your ultimate potential), but it is not for precision work, and the manner in which it was compared to a Powertap would of necessity show similar results over the long haul.

One could get the same results using a reliable speedometer, or better yet a stopwatch.

In order to understand the content in Cycling Performance Simplified, you would need a measuring device that gives you very quick feedback, and I should add here that the Powertap is itself way too slow.

However, given your level of experience and MTB riding, you probably already know the gist of it anyway: a quick smooth cadence is inherently more powerful (faster) than a slow plodding mash.

That is why you have MTB gears for steep climbs.

Please tell me I am wrong, that I missed the part about how the iSport works, and that you can tell me exactly how it measures "forces."

Are you saying to spin faster with less Torque = faster speed?

How long have you been cycling and at what level?

Also what power meter are you using, and to what chapter, paragraph, and sentence are you referring?

I read your articles about power training, power to speed and weight etc.

I own a bicycle shop in Reno Nevada, and we do a ton of computrainer training.

I am much more about building base, bike fit, and pedal stroke efficiency before working on true interval power.

However, to cut to the chase, we were doing Hour Power testing with a full hour course.

I feel that when testing for hour power, you really should do it for an hour.

There is a mental and physical component missing from testing for 2 intervals at 6, 8, or 12 minute bursts, then averaging and multiplying by some percentage to get your threshold power.

Anyway, during the test I noticed that when a heavier rider was compared to a lighter rider there was an anomaly.

In 3 different cases, the heavier rider won the race by time, but lost by watts per kilo.

Most notably was a 176 lb rider who turned 325 watts at 4.07 w/kilo.

He lost by a minute to a 220 lb rider who turned 358 watts but at 3.59 w/kilo.

The course was flat, no hills, no wind, and no drafting.

Calibration was done to a warm tire, and all riders calibrated around 2.5.

It was a simple 23 mile time trial.

There were 3 other riders where the heavier rider won by time, but lost by w/kilo.

So, my question is simply why.

When I punched these numbers into your power and weight to speed calculator, I got the same results where the heavier rider was going almost a mile per hour faster than the lighter rider even though the lighter rider is turning a higher w/kilo by almost .5 w/kilo.

What the heck am I missing?

Thanks for your input
Rich Staley

The Cycling Performance Simplified power to weight and speed calculator does not consider rider weight in the speed calculations.

Therefore, if you matched the results with Computrainer, you have merely revealed a flaw in the Computrainer readings.

That is to say, although Computrainer purports to be providing calculations based partially on rider weight, it is not doing so, but is reporting speed based on an assumed weight.

My own Cycling Performance Simplified calculator states that a rider weight of 85 kilograms is assumed (for speed calculations) which would imply the Computrainer is using a similar figure if you matched results.

So you haven't missed anything in your process (everything you prefaced is dead on correct), and you have only pointed out the imprecision of the current measuring tools.

Not to mention the Torque value is missing from Computrainer measurements and that might also help explain the results you observed.

Otherwise, who is Bill Hill, and why would you expect that a posting here would be read by him?

Also, why would you expect me to believe you are Rich Staley just because you say you are?

Did you give Steve Brown and me credit for chasing your skinny butt around all those streets of London?

And do you remember laying out the quarter-mile oval in the grass with Mr. King at the Catholic School since we did not have a quarter mile track for practice?

Those were good times!

In any case, I have moved this discussion to the London, OH forum, so people coming here for help with their numbers don't have to watch two geezers trying to remember their names.

Plus nobody is going to believe we had to make our own 440 practice track out in a cow pasture anyway.

BTW: You might want to get on a bicycle yourself.

The numbers and formula were abstracted from the Wikipedia article linked below:

Be aware the calculations will only be meaningful assuming a more or less circular course which ends at the starting point, or an out and back, where wind will be neutralized.

Also be sure to review my chapter on Torque.

I personally spent a lot of time confirming the validity of these numbers in the real world.

You should have no trouble reversing the order of the Power to Speed calculations.

BTW: Is this you?

On the other hand, when that guy got hit on the head with an apple and came up with a measuring system based on the weight of an apple falling out of a tree, people called that genius as well.

Except the ideas here are not really my own, just settled science that the functioning of the Powertap is based on, although I do seem to have looked at the situation a little more closely than most...the people currently at Powertap included.

Well, ok, maybe some of the ideas are my own.

The first elements of CPS were posted the beginning of January, 2008, and I do recall at the time nobody called it genius, they just referred to me as that stark raving lunatic.

However, the results of everything mentioned here are easy to reproduce, so some of that talk has died down of late.

In any case, thanks for reading and for writing.

BTW: Is this you?

We are the green building across from the church in Sugar Loaf, and my wife is Mary Endico the watercolorist.

I probably didn't make it clear when I handed you the card (didn't want to cheapen the product), but I don't charge for this stuff.

I just keep that fancy card on the refrigerator reminding me to not eat.

In any case, the wheel is currently loaned out to Keith over at The Bicycle Doctor in Middletown but should be back next week.

Keith just won two divisions over at the Sussex series by riding them back to back all season, but he is still looking for ways to get better and showed an interest.

I put the wheel in his hand quick as I could.

Like I said, should be back next week, borrow it anytime, plus I'll be glad to go out with you and give a quick how to.

I don't know who many of you are, but see from the IP#'s that readers are from all over the world.

Again, many many thanks.

With your permission I would like to translate some of the material into Hebrew and post it on my blog.

Of course, all references to the origin, to this site, as well as your short bio shall be added.

Thanks,
Tomer

Have at it, and thank you for asking first.

Hope you enjoyed the ride. I have to wait to 5 before I can go for one. The weather is looking promising.

I found out the Nook uses ePUB format and also accepts PDF, so I decided I could probably put something together for you in those formats.

I have another book available in both of those formats as well as Kindle.

However, when I started stepping through the process, I realized there are a couple essential aspects to the web browser version of Cycling Performance Simplified that would be lost in both ePUB and PDF.

The most important element lost would be the interactive Power to Weight Calculator which automatically assigns power data to Race Categories (based on the data gathered by Allan and Coggan).

Those calculations are central to making the book easy to understand, because a lot of the discussion is too counterintuitive without a solid objective reference—due to the mythology built up over years of cycling performance being measured by highly unreliable criteria.

In fact, even though I know this stuff inside out, I still have to remind myself of the facts almost every ride.

Such as, "I'm pushing really hard. I must be generating a lot of power and speed."

Couldn't be further from the truth: correctly pushing very lightly can be significantly more powerful and faster. (see: Torque and Dead Spot)

Another main element that would be lost to ePUB and PDF is the Table of Contents vertical navigation bar (left side of all pages).

It is not merely a static listing but is actually output from a database, which allows me to easily make global changes to address feedback from readers when they get lost.

On the other hand I fully understand the convenience of a resource in your pocket.

I do a lot of my own reading and daily chores on my aging iPod Touch.

But when it comes time to get down to business, I still default back to my laptop, its big screen, and thinking with 10 fingers while not bothering to look at them.

Still, if you want some aspect of Cycling Performance Simplified ported over to ePUB or PDF, I could take a run at it.

Is the only source the web site?

It would be handy to put it on my Nook.

cheers -

KC

Here is a link to a YouTube video:

I absolutely love the Cycling Performance Simplified book.

It has answered so many of my questions!!

Thanks for putting it out there.

David

Here's a link to the Orange County Bicycle Club website which has weekly rides over the best courses known to humankind: link.

Although most of their rides are less than an hour from you, I took the liberty of Google mapping directions to the closest most regular one.

Here is a little more info.

Be sure to read them in numerical order (5657, 5669, 5672 bottom to top) to see the persistence of false logic.

Make note the person asking these questions is no freaking idiot either... otherwise I wouldn't have bothered answering.

His questions were so well written I credited him in Ackknowledgements.

Thanks ... I think you may have missed my point on this one, though.

If I understand your argument, then you establish an objective of maintaining an average of 180 watts over all terrain (hills). Or using a different metric, 20mph average.

So for example, that would mean ride 20mph on the flats, 10mph on each uphill and then 30mph on the downhill. Thus, 20mph average.

Switching to using power, that would mean 180 watts on the flats, 360 watts on an uphill and then zero watts on the downhill. Thus, 180 watt average.

So let's use two rides:

1) Ride A: perfectly flat, 180 watts.
2) Ride B: some hills, each canceling out the wattage average to arrive again at 180 watts. All flats at 180 watts.

That's where I believe your logic differs from what I would expect.

To say that ride A and ride B require the same amount of effort does not seem logical.

Effectively, ride B is the same as doing intervals above your functional power threshold, with recovery after each (downhill).

But we all know that doing intervals forces the rider to go anaerobic, which creates a larger amount of lactic acid and accelerates fatigue.

Even with recovery in between.

Said differently, to ride over a route that looks like a row of sharks teeth vs. a flat line/pancake, the hillier ride will generally create more fatigue.

The key is that the up hills force the rider to cross into a level that produces chemical changes (anaerobic system used for energy production) which cannot be cancelled out during the same route by simply coasting downhill.

Did I miss something?

Unless we both are working from the same objective data, it is probably impossible to reach an understanding.

It is 180 Watts everywhere: uphill, downhill, and on the flats.

The belief that one needs to overwork the uphills, then underwork the downhills, while only maintaining power on the flats is exactly the false logic that everybody without a power meter (and even lots of people with one) is probably doomed to follow.

You have probably seen it in every group ride you've ever been on.

People hammering the hill, then coasting the downhill.

A 180 Watt loop is a 180 Watt loop no matter hills or no hills.

The person who hammers 600 Watts on the uphills then recovers on the downhills to average 180 Watts (overall) will get to the finish at the same time as the person who maintains a steady state 180 Watts both up, down, and flat.

However, the person who maintains steady state will get there a lot less wasted.

Of course this assumes no team tactics or group efforts through drafting for both riders.

It is about Time Trialing.

Like I said, this is insanely counter-intuitive until you see it happen.

Somebody could probably figure it out without an objective external reference, but it would take many, many years of experience.

Probably the only way to catch on to this without a meter is by trying the following technique next time you are getting gapped (just slightly) by somebody on a hill:

Click down (not up), and spin a little faster.

The first time I showed this to somebody they were dropping off my left shoulder, and I said, "Click down 2 and spin faster."

They passed me and reported it was easier.

Simple mechanics of levers.

In any case you do realize that while we are writing this stuff, neither of us is getting any stronger, don't you?

I saw the reply there and appreciate your diligence in the response. I think what I’m asking about is perhaps a blend of physics (torque vs. power/watts) and data processing.

That is, want to be able to feed a GPX file (common format for GPS units) into a formula/utility/program that calculates some relative degree of effort required to perform that ride.

To do that, we have to assume some fixed variables (e.g., rider weight, wind conditions, temperature, same bike, etc.).

Additionally, let’s assume the exact same speed over all terrain (I know that’s very unrealistic, but it’s required for this exercise).

Otherwise, if you allow the speed to be reduced for every hill climb, then that effectively negates any hills in the first place and it becomes essentially a “flat” ride.

And for flat rides, given the number of fixed variables, the only effort difference is the distance.

As I think about it more, we’re really attempting a simulation that fixes SPEED rather than TORQUE/WATTS.

That forces the effort to increase for hills and thus helps differentiate different rides beyond just the distance that each represents.

Know a way to do this?

The Power to Weight Calculator is specifically designed to give you those figures.

However, without a power meter to test the facts (in the real-world) the explanation of why it works is not going to make much sense to you.

This is a very non-intuitive situation.

Consider this: a consistent 180 Watts output will result in about a 20 mph pace on a more or less circular loop no matter what the terrain.

Just so long as you maintain 180 Watts constant output over the entire course.

Downhills cancel out uphills.

Tailwinds cancel out headwinds.

The true limiting factor is if a technical course requires you to slow down for curves and stop signs.

Overcoming inertia to regain your 20 mph pace is really what takes the most energy and is affected by rider weight significantly more than anything else.

Otherwise 180 Watts on one of your courses (if they are all loops) will very closely match any other course.

How to acheive those Watts consistently may be your biggest problem and is determined significantly by having the correct gearing to allow you to maintain the correct cadence both uphill and downhill.

A complicating aspect of this type of performance is that it demands a high level of efficiency in your pedal stroke.

There are individually at least 360 points of possible failure for each leg plus a wealth of other personal performance factors.

It all seems non-sensical doesn't it?

I have tested this type of ride numerous times and found the figures hold true.

Unfortunately without a power meter it is very hard to understand how an easier effort on a hill can sometimes be significantly more powerful (faster).

For point of reference the energy required for a 20 mph pace is about the same as required to pick a full bicycle water bottle off the floor and place it on a table... again and again.

In summary the relative difficulty of your loops is probably better compared by the number of cross roads, stop signs, and tight turns rather than the number of hills and their slope.

I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains … each ride I do has a variety of climbs to it and of course distances vary as well.

But at the end of the day, if we assume that a rider/conditions stays the same (same weight, same posture, same wind speed, same bike) AND maintains a steady speed for the entire route, then there has to be a way to calculate the relative difficulty of the ride.

I don’t have a speedometer or a power meter, so this is just a way to rank my regular routes in terms of order of relative difficulty.

What I’m interested in is how the % incline of a climb impacts the difficulty of the ride.

Thus, a 2% incline is one that you can arguably go “easy” on, but a 11% incline will always be difficult – it doesn’t seem possible to go “easy” at that pitch.

But that’s only for one climb … over the course of a ride, there are many climbs each with a different length/pitch.

So I want to be able to rank my rides overall for their degree of “effort” required to complete the route.

My challenge is that some will argue, “just use a power meter”.

But with a power meter, you can just reduce your speed as the climb gets steeper and thus maintain a constant power output.

However, the climbs I sometimes do approach 15%+ and thus continually reducing speed to maintain a certain power goal just isn’t possible – you’ll fall over!

Thus, at times, you must produce a higher power output just to stay upright.

Thank you, CS

Even if you did this comparison with a Power Meter and considered only the Watts, you would still not get an accurate result with regard to your effort.

Watts are variable against your effort (Torque) much the same way as your speed is variable against slope and wind.

This disparity has caused much confusion among riders, partly because only Powertap gives a separate number for Torque, so people don't have easy access to how the two numbers interact.

Without using a power meter, you can get a rough comparison of your rides using my Watts Required for a Climb Calculator and compiling expected Power requirements (per your weight) totaled from segmented sections of each ride.

A more accurate comparison would be derived by notating the average cadence you can maintain in specific gears for each section.

In fact, using averaged cadence is as good or better than a power meter for precision training where you want to track "how strong are you" and are your workouts "making you stronger."

In any case as the saying goes, "You can never step in the same river twice."

Just in case you need a slope calculator you can use: this.

Finally, salient info presented in an accessible manner (narrative "sweet-spot") with no shortage of humor.

Maxwell

Within my own search I can definitely relate.

I'm looking for something similar to what you put together.

Could you share the assumptions you used to put together your speed calculator?

Thanks! Owen

If you haven't seen that page take a look.

It gives a rundown of my methodology, and I will be more than happy to answer questions and clarify anything not covered.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

For example I am currently 230 pounds and recently did a 15 mile ride in 57 min (or about 15.8 mph avg).

Given the same watts output, can your calculator somehow figure out what my avg speed would be if at 200 pounds?

Or 190 pounds?

Click on the image of the calculator at the right of the page to open the live interactive version.

Otherwise, my own calculator is meant as a quick rule of thumb check to begin gaining insight into how to go faster at your current weight and power no matter what that might be.

You will find its calculations track very closely to the graph for speed vs watts at the bottom of that page, and I have seen in practical application how that graph is fairly true for a range of body weights.

The process to make yourself lighter is going to also make you more powerful, so your watt numbers will go up as your weight comes down anyway.

I was myself over 230 lbs when I began cycling, have been close to that again several times since, and was 155 lbs as of this morning, so I can tell you without a doubt that a 30 or 40 lb weight loss will make you considerably faster.

Thank you for taking the time to ask the question, and I'm sure I can count on you to not add my e-mail address to any lists.