Label the Intensity Metric Plot

I was pointed to a version of this graphic over on a thai forum:



I couldn't figure out the source of the info for the graphic since it wasn't cited, but it was an interesting plot for me to consider and think about in the context of this forum discussion:

http://biketechreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2608

so, are you up for the challenge?

Let's hear what you think are the intensity metric labels for the different squiggly lines in the image above!

Field Testing: on-road rolling resistance

I just got back from a little vacation - it's always nice to catch up with family you haven't seen in a real long time...and that whole vacation thing can sometimes be a bit re-energizing too!

Here's a pretty neat shot I managed to snap of a small cabin in the woods that we were helping to stock up in Northeastern Oregon last week:



Hey, now that I'm all re-energized and whatnot, I decided to take another look (kind of in aggregate) at the data I gathered in this BTR Forum thread:

http://biketechreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2552

All in all, thus far, I have managed to do 6 runs at 140 psi and 4 runs at 120 psi on a road that I would characterize as pretty rough. There's a picture of the road surface in the thread linked above, so you can make up your own mind, though.

As it turns out, the 140 psi runs on the road had an average Crr that was ~10% lower than the 120 psi runs.

Interestingly, I also tested the same tires on my smooth aluminum rollers in the garage just after these on-road field tests...and not too surprisingly, the 140 psi run was around 8-10% lower in it's Crr than the 120 psi run.

One might also expect that the on-road Crr values would be higher than the smooth aluminum roller case...and, indeed the on-road values were in the 35% higher ballpark. So, that'd mean that if one was using the Crr values here to estimate things/tradeoffs:

http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/AFM_tire_crr.htm

you might only have to multiply the crr of the tires by 15% or so...more work to be done on this topic, though, eh?

These preliminary results are encouraging to me, in that things seem to be consistent (trend-wise). It's good to pursue multiple, independent, lines of inquiry when exploring a topic, eh? But dang, this field testing stuff is pretty tedious and just about as much fun as watching grass grow! :-)

In Summary:

-140 psi was a wee bit faster on average than 120 psi in this comparison
-rough roads seem to have a higher Crr than smooth rollers
-field testing in order to determine Crr is difficult and boring business

Old Chain vs New Chain

This deal is nothing new, really...

Probably 5 years ago or so, a guy sent me a bunch of data that used an external dynamometer and a bunch of different SRM's and PT's that suggested, statisticaly, that a new chain would save a handful of watts compared to an old, worn-out chain. My memory seems to be fading these days, so don't quote that "handful" of watts or anything, OK? ;-)

Well, I don't ride much these days, and so, I reckon that means I don't go through a bunch of equipment like I did back in the day. So, I've got that going for me! A month ago or so, I busted out my chain length checker and found that the chain was in desperate need of replacement.

I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've needed to swap out the chain on this bike - which I built up in Q2 of 2008 or so? But, I've always wanted to independently check the data that the guy previously mentioned had shared many moons ago. The exercise just never was convenient, as I don't really like to ride around using both the PT/SRM, since the PT I have is 9 spd and all and I'm riding 10spd stuff these days. That kloodged together setup still works, though, suprisingly.

I gathered simultaneous SRM/PT data on the road for a few weeks prior to getting on the rollers yesterday and doing a bit more of a controlled test. And during this process, I finally got a chance to use a new bike tool for me - a master link separator that I got from these guys:

www.skabtoolz.com

the last time I tried to gracefully remove a master link, I tried to use a regular pair of pliers and wound up taking a chunk of flesh out of my hand! Then, I proceeded to break the chain the old fashioned way.

Let me tell you, those master link pliers worked like a charm - stick 'em around the master link, apply a bit of side pressure to the master link...squeeze the pliers shut, and boo-yeah, broken chain.

I didn't wind up spending a whole lot of time taking data on the rollers with the old and new chains, but the little I did does seem to suggest that there are indeed a few watts to be had when going from a worn-out kinda krusty old chain to a brand-spanking new SRAM 10spd chain.

More details and protocol nuggets about this mini-test can be found in this thread over on the BTR Forum.

Wow!

...that's the hip, errrr.... kinda odd ad campaign the Trek folks are running during the US coverage of this years Tour:

http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/

while researching that link above, hey, check this video out that I found:



and this screengrab :30-odd seconds in...so, is that CxA value below for Contator, Leipheimer, or rider "misinformation X"...




anyway, "WOW!!!" is about all I can say after seeing what happened today between kloden and the NEW LANCE and what happened four years ago by my calcs:

http://www.biketechreview.com/performance/la_cant_doit.htm

and, within that article this image strikes me as the heart of "WOW!!!" :



yeah... WOW!!! That's a big reversal, there between Kloden and the NEW LANCE, eh?

Kloden and LANCE

I was watchin' the tour coverage this morning as events transpired...it was pretty amazing to see Kloden and LANCE, two, what I perceived as, bitter rivals of the past - remember stg 17 of the 2004 TdF:



Anyway, to see these guys "teaming up"...well, that's a bit strong, I reckon...I mean, one of them was working on a salary basis setting tempo for the other who was dropped, and limiting losses...the LANCE, well, let's just say it's a safe bet that he's probably betting on something longer term, financially, than this year's efforts, with a higher ROI than the UCI minimum salary, eh?

Anyway, pretty crazy to see how someone who allegedly/is accused of taking on blood transfusions three years ago:

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/may09/may13news3

stacked up against LANCE on the alpe d'huez four years ago:

http://www.biketechreview.com/performance/la_cant_doit.htm

and more specifically this chart within the linked article above:



Which estimates (hey, that's an estimate, lawyer guys, eh?) LANCE at 6.4 w/kg and kloden at 6.0 w/kg. The NEW LANCE is going better than he was during two of his 7 previous victories, according to pre-tour interviews, though? As Trek likes to say during their tour de france versus coverage: "WOW"...

both of these guys (Kloden and Armstrong) are getting a bit long in the tooth (kloden is 34 while the NEW LANCE is 37 - which is, hey, the same age as yours truly - so I guess I know a thing or two about how performance at 37 rates against performance 3-4 years ago...or heck, 10 years ago for that matter...), but, how today's events transpired became a bit of a head scratcher for me, given all of that previous data/information... Though, now that I think about it a bit, well, I'm pretty sure Kate Hudson is what is behind it all for the NEW LANCE's performance:



Bring on the new generation of bike racing and bike racers - can't wait to see how things shape up 10 years from now!

Bring it!

Wiggins Stage 1 - Tour de France TT

the Garmin boyz posted Wiggins' tcx file from the first stage of the tour, so I made the same plot as I did for the Giro TT.



yeah, some linear power variation with slope there, eh?

I've got some more plots from the stage 1 TT I've been playing with over on the forum. Check 'em out here:

http://forum.biketechreview.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2560

Palomar!

Well, it'd been quite a while since I've climbed Mount Palomar in any sort of fashion...So, I decided to give it a go in order to understand how bad things can get at the nadir of my fitness! Here's my "aww...man, this pretty much sux" face:



;-)

http://www.rickclemson.com/UploadScript/Gallery/CM_70759.jpg

I've never met Amber Neben before, nor seen her in person...but, if I was making a bet, I'd say I saw her yesterday doing repeats on Palomar. I saw her about 7 minutes into my effort on the way up, and then again after I bailed and was heading back down about an hour or so later...not too many people do repeats on Palomar these days! Can anybody confirm that it was Amber who I saw yesterday git'n 'r dun on this big ol' hill in N. SD county??

Well, despite my best efforts, I was only able to give a maximal effort for around 43 minutes - I couldn't continue past that at the pace I was wanting to do -> now, that's what I would call a maximal effort for the duration, eh?!

uggh-yeah, this effort was confirmation that I'm not going so well at the moment -> I'm up in KG's and down on power -> which is a pretty good recipe for slowness up Palomar! :-)

So, for 43 minutes I made 269+/-W -> after 15 mins it was ~ 276W -> at 30 minutes it was ~273W. I tried my best to make it an even effort, but dang, I just can't make the watts I'd like to be able to right now.

Good news is that these 265-270W are about where I thought things were based on my recent 20MP efforts up Couser Canyon -> which had me in the low 290's or so. Good to know that my perceived exertion and ~20MP efforts are still aligned in terms of predicting my 50-60MP!

Here's the kicker for all the gizmo power fans out there...This past Wednesday - or maybe it was Tuesday - after a hard days worth of sitting behind a desk git'n all puffy and stuff -> I was able to rip off a non-maximal "scatter the plot" type of ride that posted a gizmo power in excess of 300W for 55 minutes. At the time that made me chuckle a bit inside, to be honest. That'd be a gizmo power to average power ratio (non-maximal GP vs maximal AP for the duration+) in excess of 1.1X -> does that satisfy one of the "many" definitions of a "gizmo power buster"??

In order to be thorough, though, I backed up that kinda large standard deviation effort with a maximal steady state deal up Palomar. Oh, yeah, BTW, I'd say I probably stood up on the pedals more during my effort on Palomar than I did during the mid-week ride -> I probably did stand up on the recovery portions of the mid-week ride, stretching/shaking out the Pro/E bugs! ;-) How should we correct for that?!

In the grand scheme of things, I guess I still don't see the relevance of "pinning a single number on the deal". Y'know, I see these type of rides as two separate deals -> one "fills the right" and the other "scatters the plot". But neither of these rides really focuses on "raising the left", which is where I've found things to be at when it comes to racing bikes on the road/doing Ironman Triathlons while preparing for these style of efforts with minimal time investment.

If I were estimating my maximal 60MP right now, well, then, I guess I'd put it in the 265-ish range based on the supercomputer and what I've actually been able to do in practice -> which, FWIW, is an all time low by about 5W or so... Not so bad considering I've not really gone hard in awhile...though, I have been doing primarily 75-100 minute rides where I just ride kinda hard/tempo -> I guess this is further reinforcement that for me, "filling the right" doesn't really enable "raising the left".

Anyway, some stuff for y'all to consider (or dismiss as some folks will be wont to do!).

YMMV,

-k

Wiggins Stage 12 - 2009 Giro ITT

I was turned on to a power file for Bradley Wiggins' effort during the stage 12 ITT of the 2009 Giro d'Italia:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/Wiggins-Giro09-12.csv

Here's a plot I quickly whipped up:



definitely looks like he has some trending going on when the road tilts up, there, eh?

By my figgerin' he ramps up his watts by around 2.5% per % of incline for this effort (when slope is positive or flat). With a little work, we can probably also parse out the bits where he was braking and whatnot, cuz, yeah, it gets a little ragged when the road starts going downhill, eh?

Interesting too, to note that he spent roughly 2x the amount of time going up/flat compared to time spent going downhill - and the splits pretty clearly indicate that he lost gobs of time on the second uphill portion of the effort.

Until next time!

Power Meter Field Testing - WLB Method

Over the past few months, I've been slowly generating data on a variety of field test venues with my SRM power meter.


Any of the variety of field testing methods out there can produce a number. The thing that has always made me curious about those #'s that are generated is "how reliable are they".


The best I've been able to do with the various field testing I've done is +/- several percent on aero props and Crr props using a tedious regression technique that takes about 45 minutes to generate data on a couple setups.


I spent some time and whipped up a script that incorporated a suggestion (thanks Adam!) - where one uses the work per lap of a loop course to generate estimates for cxa and crr -> more discussion here:


http://forum.biketechreview.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2307



the last step for me was to use these estimates and assume that cxa doesn't change over the laps (reasonable!) and calculate the crr on a per lap basis. If one did 6 laps, they'd have 6 independent estimates of crr assuming a consant cxa generated from Adam's work per lap regression method. Similarly, one can use constant crr values across laps to come up with 6 independent cxa estimates (1 per lap).


We can then bootstrap these data sets to get an idea about how reliable the final estimates for cxa and crr are.


Here's a sample plot that shows the output from one of my field tests:







pretty crafty, I reckon -> Adam is a pretty smart dood to figure that one out!


So, yeah, I reckon I'll call this compilation of data reduction techniques the "WLB" method -> y'know, Work per Lap Bootstrap... d'oh!


Here's the wordle version of the data reduction script:





holy cow, that's pretty nerdy, huh!?

My Lunch hour ride today...

...bonus points for those that can decipher the 3-d histograms below (they are the same plot, just from different perspectives)!






ooooh - look at the pretty colors! :-)

I haven't fired up this matlab script in awhile, but when I do, I find that it's a pretty descriptive way to discover the "gold" in my srm files.

From the looks of it, it seems that I can do about 13+ minutes @ 6+W/kg in 70-80 second chunks in around 40 minutes.

Murrieta

One of these days, I'll have to write up a little review of the Cannondale system six bike I tried to get used to over the past four months. In a nutshell, the caveman review would not be so good...

I never got that bike where I needed it to be position wise, and I had kind of forgotten that bottom brackets are not supposed to creak and groan with every pedal stroke.

Last wednesday, I pedalled the old pinarello for the first time since November. It felt like I had ridden it just the other day - kinda like a comfortable pair of old slippers - ya know, the slippers your dog has abused... the one's that look kind of funky, or smell funky, yeah, the one's that are molded to your feet and have some distinctive signs of personality and uniqueness...

yeah, that's what the pinarello is like for me - felt good on the bike for the first time in awhile.

Here was my training week:

M - off
T - off
W - 45 minutes with 14 minutes above 5.2 W/kg
th - off
F - 30 minutes with openers
Sat - tour de murrieta crit (1:15)
Sun - tour de murritea circuit race (2 hrs)

that's a pretty typical week for me - I usually do one more day during the week where I get 20 minutes in the 5-5.5 w/kg range.

I still am having the leg problems - not so bad on saturday, though, I had to modulate effort to avoid what I feel as if are calf cramps.

Sunday I felt good, and was doing my best to cover important moves in the circuit race - followed three distinct ones that I remember in the last 30 k or so? Covered one with Mark Scott, one with Thurlow - countered that one with a dig of my own. I spent another chunk of fun tickets covering a big dig by Pat Caro. You can pretty much see those efforts in the srm screen capture above (the circuit race is the upper plot, the crit is the lower). Whaddya know, "the move" that finally succeeded included Thurlow, Scott, Noble, and Caro...

I really had to modulate my left leg on some of those efforts - I am getting pretty good at bringing the effort right up to the point just before my left calf just wants to curl up into a little, knotted, painful ball...

The finale was a pretty good demonstration of how sprinting is not really all about being able to put out gobs of power. I had full-on double calf cramps during the last 150 meters (basically from the moment I started pedaling out of the last corner before the finish) and was unable to stand or make maximal power. Because of pretty good positioning, I was able to sneak into the top 10 in the field sprint.

Here are the weekends results:

http://www.scnca.org/schedule2008.asp?category=Masters+35%2B&event=Tour+de+Murrieta+Stage+1&rank=0

http://www.scnca.org/schedule2008.asp?category=Masters+35%2B&event=Tour+de+Murrieta+Stage+2&rank=0

and the overall:

http://www.scnca.org/schedule2008.asp?category=Masters+35%2B&event=Tour+de+Murrieta+GC&rank=2

I'll give the legs another go with a midweek crit here in Del Mar (shhhh... don't tell my boss I'm leavin' a wee-bit early! LOL!) tomorrow and then we'll see about a really hard weekend of training/racing in the run up to the San Dimas Stage Race for the end of the month!

see ya out there,

Sprints with the PowerTap

I mentioned some oddities I experienced with the powertap I currently have on the bike I'm riding a few posts ago - ya'know, the whole exact same power readings during a sprint deal.

Here's a a screenshot from the download of yesterday's file where I was doing some sprints:

one thing to note is that when I stopped pedaling, I then glanced at the PT head unit as I was coasting - it kept reading the same value for a bit - and this observation is reflected in the download.

So, this observation would suggest that the PT is doing some unknown filtering in their data acquisition. This could be good, or it could be bad - in the case of short efforts , it appears that it's doing some weird things as it relates to reality.

Not that this sprinting observation really matters in the grand scheme of things (it's been kind of refreshing for the past couple weeks not to give any credence to the flashing numbers on the power display!) - but it is a worthwhile thing to note.

Speaking of power meters - did y'all see the dueling press releases from ergomo/gita this past week?

Guess that is a partial explanation as to why I never got an ergomo to evaluate from the "important folks" at ergomo-usa. Then again, the excuse I continually got was that "there just isn't any availability right now for demo's" - or words to that effect - which from the sounds of the Gita position is a factual statement...

Anyway - I reckon my original thoughts on the ergomo still have some relevance:

-measure one leg and double it and all the doubt that that brings up

-ease of installation

-reliability of "zero-ing" out the unit prior to riding

-measure one leg and double it and all the doubt that that brings up

did I mention "measure one leg and double it and all the doubt that that brings up" ;-)

Seriously, though - I reckon if a gadget helps you ride your bike more intelligently/purpose/reliably then that's a good thing.

I used to keep training logs back in the day where I'd actually write things down - that was a good tool to make sure I was doing what I had set out to do on a given day. Nothing like the satisfaction of writing down HR's and times and distances and RPE's in that journal entry for the day!

Downloading a power meter file can have a similar effect on training, in my experience.

The PowerTap Experience

I've been riding with a PowerTap for the last couple weeks or so - one week in tandem with my SRM Pro on the Pinarello, and this past week or so by itself on the Cannondale I'm transitioning to.

I've done a myriad of different efforts and rides with the PowerTap, and there's a few things during this experience that have really made me think a bit.

First off, damn, trying to download the PT on a windows Vista machine was a total pain! I have an older hard wired PT pro with a serial download cable. I downloaded the newest version of the PT software off of the saris site, and couldn't get it to work since Saris is no longer supporting serial connections and only supporting USB connections (I'm no expert on this stuff, so it's entirely possible that I just didn't push the right sequence of buttons and rub my belly while tapping my head just so in order to make my configuration work out). :-)

Next, I used the CD that came with the power meter (that I bought used a few years back and had re-furbished by saris after it mysteriously just stopped working a summer or two ago) - the software I tried installing was Link ver 1.04 - and that software also wouldn't work.

I tried many times with the PowerLink Lite CD, that also came with the PM, to just download the data - and eventually got that sucker to work... Several times during the past week, though, I got weird downloads - just crap data with big spikes. These (obviously jacked up) downloads went away on a second attempt at downloading, but really, it was just a painful experience...

Additionally, I've been doing some sprints lately with the PowerTap, and it just seems really odd that I'm able to generate the exact same wattage for 3 or 4 consecutive 1.26 second samples. I seriously doubt that I'm that consistent over that 5 second-ish period. I'm not sure what to believe with that data... Oh, where is the SRM config that will work on this bike??? :-) It looks like this coming Monday I'll have all the parts I need to make that happen - but I reckon I'll have some challenges I didn't anticipate when trying to make it all work... If there is one thing I have learned in the past 35 years, it's that nothing is "easy"! :-)

The last thing I've been trying to get my hands around is the whole "interval" feature of the PowerTap. I've always taken for granted how the SRM integrates this feature. I like to see how things went during the last interval I did while I'm rackin' up those bonus points coasting back down to the bottom of the hill. With the SRM it was as simple as hitting the set button at the end of the effort and seeing the time of the interval, and the average watts of the interval. If I wanted to review the first interval while coasting down during the third interval (to see if my power to RPE ratio is in check...) I just simultaneously hit the "mode" and "pro" buttons (or whatever sequence that is that I instinctively do now...) and cycle through the interval data of interest. Takes a few seconds or so...

With the PT, I haven't yet figured out how to get the same information as the SRM until I download. But then again, I haven't RTFM. Anybody else figured out how to actually make use of the PT interval functions???

Anyway, a side benefit of the whole PT experience is that I don't really look at the display while going hard anymore - I just kinda "go hard" - ya know ridin' by feel, all retro and stuff! Interesting to note that I am not limited by the flashing numbers with the PT, and I go just as fast - well, faster on some efforts recently - than I've done in the past.

'Course - I'm a couple kg's lighter than I've ever been before too - so that confounds the whole "pissed off at the powertap" effect! :-)

Seriously, though, if anyone can help me make sense of the whole powertap interval function thing, I welcome the input!

Turkey Weekend Project

I've had this Cannondale frame/fork and build kit laying around since around March or so - just haven't had the motivation or drive to finally build it up.

I know, I know... Pretty crazy, huh?!

Well, my employer was nice enough to give us a few hours off on Wednesday prior to this long turkey day weekend - so, I took advantage of this early departure...

...and went for a ride!

hah! - but when I got back to "villa de Willett", I set out to get this bike built up!

It's been a long process, ya see, I'm kinda addicted to SRM based power and all, and this bike has/is making that a difficult thing to accomplish! Cannondale loves to do things "their way" so, that made the SRM Pro crank I've been using since '02/'03 obsolete - that Campy square taper crank compatible SRM doesn't work with the proprietary Cannondale BB/Hollowgram crank arms.

So, the quest began - and I've had lots of help along the way. First, Jason Yanota of the bikeage helped me out by selling me a barely used Cdale SRM spider/chainrings that I'd eventually be needing. Then, I picked up an SI crankarm from Craig over at wiredbike.com. I thought I was set at this point back in the April-ish time period...

Well, much to my dismay, it turns out that in order to fit an SRM on a Cdale, you need a slightly wider BB spindle. I could have made some modifications to the crank that came with the frame/fork (that I bought throug the team I raced for this year - JambaJuice/TaylorMade http://www.sd-fogracing.com ). So, it was April/May and the season was in top gear - I didn't really want to dork around with the position/bike I'd been riding for the last 15,000 km's...

Plus, I'm pretty lazy! :-)

Around comes last week, and I was figgerin' I needed to build this sucker up pretty soon in order to not be shamed on the next team ride I showed up for. So, I shot an email over to Craig @ wiredbike.com (make sure that if you are in the power meter market you give him a shot at the sale - he'll give you $50 off with a special BTR code, BTW) and it looks like he'll eventually be helping me buy an SRM compatible Cannondale spindle. Nice!

Also, a couple months ago, I saw an opportunity to pick up used SI Cannondale crank arms/BB spindle while perusing the obra.org mailing list (oooohhh, my disdain at the time for the obra officials was overridden by the need for cheap, used bike parts - LOL! :-) ).

Then, a few months passed...

With all the parts in hand to get this sucker together (albeit sans SRM power capability), I busted out the hacksaw, star nut setter, and some elbow grease/patience and finally built up the cdale on Wednesday afternoon. It went together really easily - the Campy Record 10spd parts are pretty sweet. Total pie to assemble.

I'm no pro when it comes to building bikes, so I'm sure you'll give me plenty of grief if you see me out on the road, but here it is after the first ride I took it on this morning:



Here's a close-up of a saddle I took a chance on - it's a Selle-San Marco Aspide - no padding, just the carbon shell:



I was surprised at how comfortable it appeared to be after the 70 minute jaunt I took it out for today. We'll see how it works out long-term.

You'll notice that I have a PowerTap power meter on the bike whilst I'm waiting to get the SRM on-line.

The trials I've had with that thing will have to wait for another post! ;-)

The PowerTap seems to work OK, but damn, trying to download that sucker (it's an older model with a serial port connector) proved to be quite a challenge!

As for the Cannondale, it didn't seem to make me break any of my previous records I have thrown down while going up Couser Canyon Road near where I live, but dang - new bikes always feel pretty cool!!!

I am having a bit of a hard time getting where I'd like to be position-wise - I reckon I'll need a shorter stem (120mm currently on it) and a seat post with a wee-bit more setback. Hard to get italian seat tube angles these days for us "old skoolers"... ;-)

Hope you all had a great holday weekend here in the U.S., and if you are elsewhere in the world - I hope you just had a great weekend! :-)

peace,
-kraig