Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About
It is currently Sun May 01, 2016 5:31 am
Recently the board software has been updated and there are some known bugs/failures:
- Avatars are currently not being displayed
- Tapatalk connection is currently broken

Those bugs will be fixed ASAP (next few days) as they are unfortunately more serious than expected.

If you find more errors please post it here: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=139062


All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:25 pm
Posts: 254
Location: UK
The over day I did 3x10min even pace hill intervals and averaged 333W, with NP 333W

Today I did 2x10min crazy crit type attacks and averaged 306W, with NP 339W and 370W.

I'm interested in the correlation between average & NP - Can I expect to drag my 10min average up to 370W then?

(I can give my 5min max, 20min max, FTP etc for reference, but I'm interested in general thoughts on this. I guess as the time intervals get longer the more average and NP converge?)

Cheers!


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:53 am 
Offline
in the industry

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 824
Location: Ruidoso, NM
I can't make much sense of your post, but I can generate a much higher NP doing intervals than I could ever do with a steady effort. That isn't supposed to be the case but everyone is different.

_________________
formerly rruff...


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Posts: 8131
Location: Geelong
I think what he's asking is if he can push his average to what he is able to generate normalised.

Which given what normalised represents, being able to match that with an average power interval of the same length should be doable.

_________________
http://www.nicksquillari.com.au


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:25 pm
Posts: 254
Location: UK
TP - Correct and I'm encouraged you think it's doable!


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Posts: 8131
Location: Geelong
Alex Simmons is happy to use NP as either a check for FTP or to generate a FTP figure

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2008/ ... -sins.html

so with that in mind, my experience is that you should be able to come close to those NP figures as an average power.


Jumping on the ergo tomorrow and giving it a go is the best way to answer the question though.

_________________
http://www.nicksquillari.com.au


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:50 pm 
Offline
in the industry

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 824
Location: Ruidoso, NM
dynaserve wrote:
TP - Correct and I'm encouraged you think it's doable!


For most people that is approximately correct... but not for all.

When I do 20 60sec intervals with 90sec rest, I can get an NP more than 10% higher than I can ever do with a steady effort. For me the calculated NP is about twice as high over AP as it should be.

_________________
formerly rruff...


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:57 pm
Posts: 51
Location: CHicago
NP overestimates power by so much it is not worth looking at. GoldenCheetah has two normalizing power averages that are much more realistic as to what one would be able to produce in a steady effort.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Posts: 8131
Location: Geelong
Next pertinent questions would be:

- what power meter are you using

- what head unit

- are you taking NP off the head unit or after letting GC or TP crunch it?

As Garmin's certainly overestimate the displayed NP.

_________________
http://www.nicksquillari.com.au


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:37 am
Posts: 21
The issue is NP is not meant to be used over a 10min interval. NP is useful for longer durations. NP isn't useless if you know what it represents and how its calculated.

Read Alex's blog for a better understanding.

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2013/03/ ... rt-ii.html

If you are looking for how much power you can sustain for 10 or 20min intervals just look at your power duration curve.

_________________
2012 Cervelo S5 Team


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:57 pm
Posts: 51
Location: CHicago
Its still a worthless number. If you have to interpret its value based upon VI and length it looses its value as a tool for comparison. Most people get there best hour long efforts from road races and crits, and that is were NP is most useless.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:19 pm 
Offline
in the industry

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 824
Location: Ruidoso, NM
I agree. I've tried to goad the physiology experts into coming up with a better normalizer, but there was no interest.

IMO it would make much more sense to look at your full spectrum of max output (1min, 3, 5, 10, etc) and compute the stress on your body based on how close you came to those limits.

For instance, my 60min (FTP) might be the same as another guys, but if my max 1min is 600W and his is 500W, and we do a bunch of 1 min intervals at 450W, he is accumulating a lot more stress than I am, and will not be able to continue as long.

_________________
formerly rruff...


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Posts: 8131
Location: Geelong
You're talking more TSS Ron and less NP there. And in that example the rest he would need to get his NP the same as yours (that he has the same FTP as you notwithstanding) would mean you should (in theory) both still reach the one hour mark in close to the same state.

But I do wholeheartedly agree that something needs to be improved as far as a TSS goes that truly captures anaerobic work done within a ride.

_________________
http://www.nicksquillari.com.au


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 11:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:37 am
Posts: 21
That's what Bike Score was supposed to do, but as it turns out there isn't that much of a difference between it and TSS.

_________________
2012 Cervelo S5 Team


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 11:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:37 am
Posts: 21
JimV wrote:
Its still a worthless number. If you have to interpret its value based upon VI and length it looses its value as a tool for comparison. Most people get there best hour long efforts from road races and crits, and that is were NP is most useless.


You don't need to interpret it based on VI. All you need is sufficiently long enough time. Its designed to take variability in power from say a race and the sprint efforts required to stay with the group and normalize them so you can compare them to something like your FTP. If your NP from a race is 350w and the race was an hour, but you had your FTP set at 300w. NP is saying 350w is closer to your true FTP.

Thats it. Nothing special. Not hard to understand.

_________________
2012 Cervelo S5 Team


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NP v's Average Power
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 11:43 pm 
Offline
in the industry

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 824
Location: Ruidoso, NM
Tinea Pedis wrote:
both still reach the one hour mark in close to the same state.


The example I gave earlier was 20x1min intervals where I can beat my NP for a steady effort of the same duration by >10%. The other mythical rider would not be able to accomplish this. If I dialed back my effort to a level that would result in *his* max, then I'd be reasonably fresh and he'd be exhausted. So not the same at all.

Another thing that is wonky is the small difference given a 100% effort vs say 95%. They are both afforded nearly the same amount of stress, but in reality the 100% effort is *much* more taxing. By 100% I mean cross-eyed, coughing blood, legs refusing to function, and collapse at the end. If I ride a 40K TT or anything longer at 100%, then I'll need several days to recover, while a 95% effort would be easy.

_________________
formerly rruff...


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited