HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:18 am
Posts: 208
I did some upgrade to by roadbike and before i review the item, can anyone help me to analyze the data I gathered from my garmin collected during an indoor trainer.

before
8th Aug 2013
average speed 31.9
cal 298

avg HR 153
max HR 179

avg cadence 78
max cadence 112


after
10th November 2013
average speed 33.6
cal 327

avg HR 163
max HR 181

avg cadence 88
max cadence 105


since 8th Sept i have not been riding my road by focus on marathon running - half marathon. I did some upgrade to my bike on the 16th Sept.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:14 am 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:11 pm
Posts: 223
seems you tried harder in the "after" (based on cadence and HR)… so was this "upgrade" to you or the bike ? really not making much sense here to me… need more info.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:39 pm
Posts: 124
As above not nearly enough data. What are you assessing? drivetrain efficiency changes and stiffness changes are the only real options to test on a turbo. Highly likely any results would be less within cumulative errors from data collection and methodology. In order to draw any scientific or logical conclusions from the data sets we would need lots more constants.
Session of identical power outputs ( or fragment thereof to test)
Same turbo
same turbo resistance setting
same turbo temperature (affects resistance curve, depending on type and function)
same tyre + condition
same tyre pressure
same contact pressure between tyre and turbo roller.
same gear ratio ideally (makes things easier to compute.)
Probably a few more I can't think of straight away.

At the moment what you are asking is impossible, its like saying on monday i ran at an average of 13kmph in ~z3 with trainer x, and on tuesday i ran at 15kmph in ~z4 with trainer y. Which is the faster trainer? two entirely different sessions and different conditions, with sufficient information (i.e. lots of measurements some quite difficult and imprecise) you may be able to set up a curve to calibrate against, but it will have at least ±5-10% error and probably more dependent on the hydration state, blood glucose level and general fatigue levels of the athlete.

Oh and please ignore Garmins calorie data, you might as well throw a dart at a random number table to get a figure. I've seen people break all laws of physics with those numbers, both too high and too low.

All you can really conclude is you worked substantially harder mainly by pedaling faster, probably taxing different energy systems to varying degrees between the two rides.
cadence and speed are proportional but not directly so.
5.32% increase in speed av
12.82% increase in cadence av
6.54% increase in HR av


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:44 am
Posts: 1
The moment what you are asking is impossible, its like saying on monday i ran at an average of 13kmph in ~z3 with trainer x, and on tuesday i ran at 15kmph in ~z4 with trainer y. Which is the faster trainer? two entirely different sessions and different conditions, with sufficient information (i.e. lots of measurements some quite difficult and imprecise) you may be able to set up a curve to calibrate against, but it will have at least ±5-10% error and probably more dependent on the hydration state, blood glucose level and general fatigue levels of the athlete. since 8th Sept i have not been riding my road by focus on marathon running - half marathon. I did some upgrade to my bike on the 16th Sept.

_________________
http://www.braindumps.com/MCSA-SQL-Server-2012.htm
https://www.isaca.org/
http://duke.edu/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:44 am
Posts: 1285
correlation does not imply causation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 1:16 pm
Posts: 518
Location: muc
+1

_________________
sorry vor mai bed englisch!


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:01 pm 


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] 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:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Bicycle frame analysis on FEA

in Road

An1MuS

11

1017

Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:22 pm

An1MuS View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Favorite post-ride analysis program?

in Training

53x12

13

1228

Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:27 pm

eric View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Mavic 3G aerodynamic data

in Road

Kasparz

0

372

Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:36 pm

Kasparz View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Garmin Edge 510 map data problem?

in Training

ToffieBoi

1

236

Sun May 18, 2014 9:12 am

mentok View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. New Data From Novermber Bikes - Tire Width

in Everything wheels

bombertodd

1

277

Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:18 am

HillRPete View the latest post


cron
It is currently Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:13 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB