Veloclinics
"holy grail of holy grails of dynamic adaptive power duration modelling"
p(t) = (w1start - integral: w1used*exp(-(t-u)/tau1a)) + integral: w1used*exp(-(t-u)/tau1b)) - integral: w2unused*exp(-(t-u)/tau1c)))/(t+tau1) + (w2start - integral: w2used*exp(-(t-u)/tau2a)) + integral: w2used*exp(-(t-u)/tau2b)) - integral: w2unused*exp(-(t-u)/tau2c)))/(t+tau2)
Just a little bit more complex than NP.
NP v's Average Power
Moderator: Moderator Team
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Why have a PM at all? Most people use TSS (which requires an accurate NP) to track their training load and time base, build, rest, and peak periods.
Also it is very valuable for evaluating race performance and strategy. With a poor model it is impossible to draw conclusions... like was my power output during this race really high or low compared to prior efforts? Did I lose too much during those attacks or not? In a MTB race, did you just go too hard on the steep climbs or was the overall pace too high?
*I* wouldn't use it for pacing during a race, because I'd rather be focused on physical sensations and the task at hand. But if you aren't distracted by numbers, you could use it for that.
Also it is very valuable for evaluating race performance and strategy. With a poor model it is impossible to draw conclusions... like was my power output during this race really high or low compared to prior efforts? Did I lose too much during those attacks or not? In a MTB race, did you just go too hard on the steep climbs or was the overall pace too high?
*I* wouldn't use it for pacing during a race, because I'd rather be focused on physical sensations and the task at hand. But if you aren't distracted by numbers, you could use it for that.
formerly rruff...