Full Time Power

[Tom Kunich]

I forget where I was reading it but the claim was that you measured FTP by your output for 20 minutes. Well, I held over 19 mph this morning for over 20 minutes. The young guy that was following me then passed me when I came to stop at a red light.

Judging from some of the other readings I've gotten off of the Garmin I would estimate that to be at least 250 watts.

So perhaps I have been having some long term health problems that are finally beginning to resolve themselves. As soon as my back clears up I will try real climbing rides.

Unfortunately one of my favorite rides looks, via Google Earth, to have the "Half Way House" not just closed but totally removed from the property. That ride has about 50 miles and 2500 feet of climbing That's a little too far for me to do without a rest half way out.

[Lou Holtman]

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:16:21 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> I forget where I was reading it but the claim was that you measured FTP by your output for 20 minutes. Well, I held over 19 mph this morning for over 20 minutes. The young guy that was following me then passed me when I came to stop at a red light.

No the FTP is defined as the max power you can sustain for an hour. You can do a 20 minutes test and multiply the result with 0.95 to get a good estimate for the hour test.

>
> Judging from some of the other readings I've gotten off of the Garmin I would estimate that to be at least 250 watts.

On the flats? I don’t think so. Did a 83 km ride yesterday 30.5 km/hr average at an average power of 170 W. Measured not calculated.

Lou

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:16:21 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> I forget where I was reading it but the claim was that you measured FTP by your output for 20 minutes. Well, I held over 19 mph this morning for over 20 minutes. The young guy that was following me then passed me when I came to stop at a red light.
>
> Judging from some of the other readings I've gotten off of the Garmin I would estimate that to be at least 250 watts.

Wind and terrain are significant factors. That's why FTP efforts are always measured indoor. An average speed outdoor is not indicative at all of your actual FTP.

[Lou Holtman]

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:53:58 PM UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:16:21 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > I forget where I was reading it but the claim was that you measured FTP by your output for 20 minutes. Well, I held over 19 mph this morning for over 20 minutes. The young guy that was following me then passed me when I came to stop at a red light.
> >
> > Judging from some of the other readings I've gotten off of the Garmin I would estimate that to be at least 250 watts.
> Wind and terrain are significant factors. That's why FTP efforts are always measured indoor. An average speed outdoor is not indicative at all of your actual FTP.

You can do it anywhere but you need a powermeter. Problem outside is that you have to deal with traffic. Problem I have inside is that it is harder for me to get to high power and that you are stationary on the bike. 250 Watt inside feels like 300 Watt outside.

Lou

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:28:37 AM UTC-4, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:53:58 PM UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:16:21 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > I forget where I was reading it but the claim was that you measured FTP by your output for 20 minutes. Well, I held over 19 mph this morning for over 20 minutes. The young guy that was following me then passed me when I came to stop at a red light.
> > >
> > > Judging from some of the other readings I've gotten off of the Garmin I would estimate that to be at least 250 watts.
> > Wind and terrain are significant factors. That's why FTP efforts are always measured indoor. An average speed outdoor is not indicative at all of your actual FTP.
> You can do it anywhere but you need a powermeter. Problem outside is that you have to deal with traffic.

and weather, wind, and terrain (including road surface conditions). There are too many variable to get consistent results.

> Problem I have inside is that it is harder for me to get to high power and that you are stationary on the bike.

Why is it hard for you to sustain high power indoors? I find it significantly easier since I can concentrate on form, breathing, and RPE in general. I can do intervals nearly as well outside, but for sustained focused power efforts I always stay inside.

> 250 Watt inside feels like 300 Watt outside.

Do you mean the same RPE gives you a lower power effort indoor than it does outdoor?

[Lou Holtman]

I am just uncomfortable on a stationary bike. It feels different.

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

l don't know how it calculated it but on my normal rides the Garmin has been reporting 200 watts. So since until yesterday I've been slow since March, either they are full of shit or your power meter isn't properly calibrated. I will connect my power meter up to the Ridley when it is completed.

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 06:28:34 -0700 (PDT), Lou Holtman
<lou.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:53:58?PM UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:16:21?PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > I forget where I was reading it but the claim was that you measured FTP by your output for 20 minutes. Well, I held over 19 mph this morning for over 20 minutes. The young guy that was following me then passed me when I came to stop at a red light.
>> >
>> > Judging from some of the other readings I've gotten off of the Garmin I would estimate that to be at least 250 watts.
>> Wind and terrain are significant factors. That's why FTP efforts are always measured indoor. An average speed outdoor is not indicative at all of your actual FTP.
>
>You can do it anywhere but you need a powermeter. Problem outside is that you have to deal with traffic. Problem I have inside is that it is harder for me to get to high power and that you are stationary on the bike. 250 Watt inside feels like 300 Watt outside.
>
>Lou

It doesn't seem to me to be a useful measurement, nor do the bicycle
power meters. IMO, the useful bicycle measurements are speed and
distance, and maybe, as in my case, heart rate for puposes of not
pushing too hard. What good is how much power I lay down if it
doesn't translate to speed and/or distance?

[Lou Holtman]

Then don’t use a powermeter that is OK with me but if someone mention FTP then you need a powermeter because the unit of FTP is Watt and not bpm, km/hr or km.

Lou

[Lou Holtman]

My powermeter is not calibrated correctly, all three of them? You trust the sketchy calculation of Garmin more than a actual powermeter? Okay dokay…

Lou

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:20:03 -0700 (PDT), Lou Holtman
<lou.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

I had to look up the term, and my thought was, " I don't see any
reason to do that." And then I thought, "why don't I express that
thought."

It's not like I said, "Power meters and FTP measurments are bad and
should be banned.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

I felt the same way until I started using Computrainer at a triathlon coaching center 20 years ago. I won't go so far as to say it changed my life, but it certainly dramatically affected how I looked at training in general.

[Lou Holtman]

That the problem imho with internet and social media. Everyone has to express their opinion on everything. It is what it is.

Lou

[Lou Holtman]

I am almost 67 yo and I do my best, but I don’t take it too serious. Works for me.

Lou

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

dumbass, you made a generic statement " It doesn't seem to me to be a useful measurement, nor do the bicycle power meters." They are incredibly useful for people interested in maximizing their performance. there are also data geeks who just love all the information that can be gleaned. That isn't you, we get it. so your comment should have been more personalized.

[Tom Kunich]

No, I thought it was clear that I don't trust the calculations of Garmin for a 20 minute ride, but for a 4 hour ride it has to be more accurate. If you use a power meter how are they calibrated? The things are nothing more than a stress gauge and you use stress and time to get power. So I have very little more trust for the power readings of a power meter than a long term calculation of a 4 hour loop that includes 2.500 feet of climbing. If you calibrate a power meter it is very good at displaying absolute power. I'm not sure what training value this gives to racers but surely it would give people like Pogacar knowledge of where to begin his mountain top sprints so that he can ignore it and go too early.

[Lou Holtman]

You don’t make any sense again. How does Garmin know how hard the wind blows, what your posion on your bike is or what tires you use? Powermeters are calibrated at the factory. It isn’t that hard. I have calibrated load cells myself several times. Before every ride I calibrate my powermeter for temperature change. Please don’t put a powermeter on your bike. You have no clue.

Lou

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:56:28 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:28:37 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:53:58 PM UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:16:21 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > I forget where I was reading it but the claim was that you measured FTP by your output for 20 minutes. Well, I held over 19 mph this morning for over 20 minutes. The young guy that was following me then passed me when I came to stop at a red light.
> > > >
> > > > Judging from some of the other readings I've gotten off of the Garmin I would estimate that to be at least 250 watts.
> > > Wind and terrain are significant factors. That's why FTP efforts are always measured indoor. An average speed outdoor is not indicative at all of your actual FTP.
> > You can do it anywhere but you need a powermeter. Problem outside is that you have to deal with traffic. Problem I have inside is that it is harder for me to get to high power and that you are stationary on the bike. 250 Watt inside feels like 300 Watt outside.
> >
> > Lou
> l don't know how it calculated it but on my normal rides the Garmin has been reporting 200 watts.

And he claims to be some sort of software genius who programmed AI.

> So since until yesterday I've been slow since March, either they are full of shit or your power meter isn't properly calibrated.

You stated repeatedly that you don't have a power meter. Now you're claiming that your Garmin reports power. Garmin doesn't make a computer that extrapolates power, you have to have a power meter. Besides that, the calibration process is very-well defined in the Garmin manual.

> I will connect my power meter up to the Ridley when it is completed.

What power meter?

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

I'm still trying to figure out how he's getting a power reading at all. He's using a Gamin 830 which doesn't report power without a sensor. Strava will extrapolate power, but that isn't coming from the Garmin.

>
> Lou

[Tom Kunich]

That is what I thought as well but in one place in the Garmin Express it reported power.

[Tom Kunich]

I have a power meter around here somewhere that used wind speed and frontal area to calculate power. It is surprisingly accurate and takes into account strong head winds which stress gauges don't. As far as a stress gauge is concerned you could be a really fat guy riding over bad pavement.

[Roger Meriman]

Unless it’s a power meter your looking at 30% margin of error bit like
calories burned it’s essentially technobabble.

Speed/distance/elevation should be close enough and average gradients on
climbs but power/calories unless you have a power meter don’t bother it’s
garbage data.

Glad you had a good ride and feeling faster though!

Roger Merriman

[Roger Meriman]

Garmin and strava will attempt to calculate power but it’s has huge
limitations and thus error margins 30% is a ball park figures I’ve heard
quoted.

Essentially not worth noting!

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

Even with a power meter you have large errors and you have to treat it as an indication of the changes in your fitness. I really don't pay any attention to anything but the speedo and any changes in my weight which for the last three years has remained fixed.

[Tom Kunich]

If the ride is a long loop so that the upwind is compensated by the downwind and you have a long enough ride, the power estimation is more accurate and with less errors.

[Lou Holtman]

I wouldn’t count on it. Going up a big climb and going down the same climb would give the same average speed as when you ride the same distance on the flats? Not my experience. Same for a loop with a fierce wind blowing versus the same loop when there is no wind. Calculated power is in an order of a magnitude less accurate that with a powermeter. You don’t have to use a powermeter but stop mentioning ridiculous values based on calculated power by your Garmin.

Lou

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Not my experience either.

> Calculated power is in an order of a magnitude less accurate that with a powermeter.

I would say probably more than that. A calibrated power meter these days is easily capable of 1%. One report here: https://www.cyclistshub.com/power-meter-accuracy-vs-consistency/ states the majority of meters met 1% accuracy but is vague on repeatability.

But this report gives enough food for though to question those results: https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0043-102945

Bear in mind the latter study was conducted in 2017 - an eon in the technology world, where as the former sreport was written last year (though there are no details about methodology).

Extrapolation however only considers speed over distance with a given mass with gradient if you're lucky. I wouldn't be surprised to that error approaching 50% in many cases.

> You don’t have to use a power meter but stop mentioning ridiculous values based on calculated power by your Garmin.
>
> Lou

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Yes, you have mentioned in the past the you have a PowerPod. DC Rainmaker really liked it https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/03/powerpod-depth-review.html. It doesn't use frontal area, but it does calculate CdA.

Strain gauges don't directly measure headwinds, but the fact is that pushing 20 mph into a headwind uses dramatically less power 20 mph with a tailwind. If after analyzing the data you see that your speed was up dramatically at the same power output and heart rate over a known course, it's not a stretch to attribute that to a tailwind. Powerpod will give you an accurate wind speed number, a strain gauge meter will not

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 10:56:40 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what training value this gives to racers but surely it would give people like Pogacar knowledge of where to begin his mountain top sprints so that he can ignore it and go too early.

A power meter is quite possibly the most valuable and cost-effective piece of equipment one can buy for improving fitness. It can be used for structured workouts to improve both power and aerobic condition. It can be used to assess fatigue. It can be used during races to more accurately meter your effort and not let your RPE get the better of you (though many racers don't like the distraction during a race, some go so far as to tape over the display). It's of little use to people who aren't competitive, or those who simply ride for the joy of riding. If you're serious about being a faster and stronger rider, a power meter is beyond doubt the best bang for the buck.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/11/2023 10:45 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>
>
> I am almost 67 yo and I do my best, but I don’t take it too serious. Works for me.

Who let these little kids in here? ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

And that was from a guy who slams almost every statement I make, even if
it's defensible by measuring with a ruler.

He's a crotchety, timid old man trying to puff up his lost manliness.
He's unwilling to admit his weaknesses, or to admit that others know
much more than he does.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Roger Meriman]

Unlikely to be, as it will be making all sorts of assumptions, assuming you
have given the unit Garmin edge 830 your weight/Height, if you have a heart
rate monitor I’d assume would be closer than with out, but even so. All of
the stuff I’ve read/listen to by technical bods is you need a power meter
to get reliable results.

Which is what Garmin says ie the units can estimate power but for more
accurate measurements use a power meter.

And if you look at your 830 My Stats/FTP to enable auto calculation it
needs heart and power meter for it to be enabled.

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just want to know what knowing the actual power does for you as Joe Average Rider. Bragging rights? I can tell my power increases from week to week by the speed I'm going up hills.

[Tom Kunich]

I think that you should invest in at least three power meters for your bikes. That way you can always know how much power you're putting out. Because THAT is what is important and not the ride.

[Tom Kunich]

Well, I have a heart rate monitor but usually I only wear it on hard rides to keep me in the safe zone.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/11/2023 4:43 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you. I just want to know what knowing the actual power does for you as Joe Average Rider. Bragging rights? I can tell my power increases from week to week by the speed I'm going up hills.

Tom, Funky has explained what it does for a competitive rider trying to
train for competition. For those guys, it's valuable.

I think you're correct that a power meter does very little for Joe
Average rider. Would it motivate him to exercise a bit more? Maybe,
maybe not.

It probably wouldn't even give bragging rights, because most people
using power meters are probably more serious and put out much higher
power. Your numbers would look terrible by comparison.

But speaking of bragging: There are only two people who regularly post
here saying "I'm manly because today I rode X miles at an average speed
of Y mph!" One of the two adds "... and did Z feet of climbing!" (The
other's altitude gain is always zero.)

What's the point of those posts?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 13:49:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:52:59?PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

It's not important to me. I woudn't spend a nickel for any power
meters.

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:31:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 8/11/2023 10:47 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

Oh... poor baby....

>He's a crotchety, timid old man trying to puff up his lost manliness.

That's from the crotchety, timid old man who recently bragged about
riding his bicycle a pidly 8 or 9 miles across town.

>He's unwilling to admit his weaknesses,

<LOL> Actually, I've posted quite a bit about my weaknesses. I have
some hearing problems, I suffer from vertigo, and balance problems. I
sometimes get light headed and I have passed out because of standing
up too fast. I currently have iliotibial pain, but it seems to be
getting better.

> or to admit that others know
>much more than he does.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that many people know more than me. Of
course, neither you nor Junior are included in that list.


--

Yes, little fella, I ride a Catrike, always alone, mostly on bike
trails, carrying a gun, and never without attaching my feet to
the pedals. Nowdays, I always truck my bike to where I start my
ride and don't use the bike for transportation, only for pleasure.
I am arrogantly proud of my bicycle rides and all my other
accomplishments.

[Tom Kunich]

1. I don't usually talk about average speed because it is meaningless.
2. Does it hurt your feelings to know that you've put in 500 miles for the year and I've done over 5,000? If not why are you talking about it. There are people on the group that like to compare their performance. That is what this site is about in case you missed it. All the other bicycle related groups are gone.
3. Does climbing hurt your feelings as well since you live on a poker table?

[John B.]

And, at least to date, you don't have any friends who leap out of the
bushes just in time to provide "proof" of your arguments :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 09:56:41 -0400, Catrike Rider
<sol...@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 06:28:34 -0700 (PDT), Lou Holtman
><lou.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:53:58?PM UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:16:21?PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> > I forget where I was reading it but the claim was that you measured FTP by your output for 20 minutes. Well, I held over 19 mph this morning for over 20 minutes. The young guy that was following me then passed me when I came to stop at a red light.
>>> >
>>> > Judging from some of the other readings I've gotten off of the Garmin I would estimate that to be at least 250 watts.
>>> Wind and terrain are significant factors. That's why FTP efforts are always measured indoor. An average speed outdoor is not indicative at all of your actual FTP.
>>
>>You can do it anywhere but you need a powermeter. Problem outside is that you have to deal with traffic. Problem I have inside is that it is harder for me to get to high power and that you are stationary on the bike. 250 Watt inside feels like 300 Watt outside.
>>
>>Lou
>
>It doesn't seem to me to be a useful measurement, nor do the bicycle
>power meters. IMO, the useful bicycle measurements are speed and
>distance, and maybe, as in my case, heart rate for puposes of not
>pushing too hard. What good is how much power I lay down if it
>doesn't translate to speed and/or distance?

But "power output" per se, is almost meaningless, other then to brag
about, of course. It is percent of maximum power that the rider can
output and even that number has to be qualified by the length of time
the power is output,". A study of 144 professional racers showed that
about 23.26 watts per kilogram weight of rider was possible for 1
second, for 1 minute it dropped to 10.74 and was only 4.42 watts per
kg for 4 hours.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:56:40 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 09:56:41 -0400, Catrike Rider
> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 06:28:34 -0700 (PDT), Lou Holtman
> ><lou.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:53:58?PM UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:16:21?PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> > I forget where I was reading it but the claim was that you measured FTP by your output for 20 minutes. Well, I held over 19 mph this morning for over 20 minutes. The young guy that was following me then passed me when I came to stop at a red light.
> >>> >
> >>> > Judging from some of the other readings I've gotten off of the Garmin I would estimate that to be at least 250 watts.
> >>> Wind and terrain are significant factors. That's why FTP efforts are always measured indoor. An average speed outdoor is not indicative at all of your actual FTP.
> >>
> >>You can do it anywhere but you need a powermeter. Problem outside is that you have to deal with traffic. Problem I have inside is that it is harder for me to get to high power and that you are stationary on the bike. 250 Watt inside feels like 300 Watt outside.
> >>
> >>Lou
> >
> >It doesn't seem to me to be a useful measurement, nor do the bicycle
> >power meters. IMO, the useful bicycle measurements are speed and
> >distance, and maybe, as in my case, heart rate for puposes of not
> >pushing too hard. What good is how much power I lay down if it
> >doesn't translate to speed and/or distance?
>
> But "power output" per se, is almost meaningless, other then to brag
> about, of course.

Which is completely untrue.

The ability to measure power consistently has developed into probably _the_ most valuable training metric. There are even a few people over the years who have advocated that power is the _only_ metric that matters to the extent that they started to ignore other metrics such as heart rate. They're quite wrong, but it does underscore the value of monitoring power during competitive events and structured training using power zones as the target. Absolute power in and of itself has to be viewed in the context of power/weight ratio. Yes, the ability to sustain 500 watts for ten minutes is impressive no matter who you are, but it's vastly different if the rider weighs 150 pounds vs 300 pounds. Here's a little Google Scholar help for ya, since ya seem to be suffering from kunich-itis with ignorant pontification.

Validity of using functional threshold power and intermittent power to predict crosscountry mountain bike race outcome - Miller et al.
https://www.jsc-journal.com/index.php/JSC/article/download/78/108
"Both [Intermittent Power] and [Functional Threshold Power] models were able to significantly predict
race performance"

The Validity of Functional Threshold Power and Maximal Oxygen Uptake for Cycling Performance in Moderately Trained Cyclists - Sørensen et al.
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/7/10/217
"These findings indicate that a 20 min FTP test is a more valid test for prediction of performance in mass-start bike races than a VO2max test for moderately trained cyclists."

Reliability of the Functional Threshold Power in Competitive Cyclists - Borszcz et al.
https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/a-1018-1965
"Overall, trivial differences were found between FTP20 with FTP60, AnT, and MLSS. These metrics were moderately to almost perfectly correlated despite the individual variability in the prediction"

> It is percent of maximum power that the rider can
> output and even that number has to be qualified by the length of time
> the power is output,". A study of 144 professional racers showed that
> about 23.26 watts per kilogram weight of rider was possible for 1
> second, for 1 minute it dropped to 10.74 and was only 4.42 watts per
> kg for 4 hours.

welll....DUH!
Sustained power above lactate threshold drops over time. That's true of any physical effort, and you don't need a power meter to prove it. BTW, 4 W/Kg for 4 hours is pretty fucking impressive.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 5:08:13 PM UTC-4, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>
> I'm perfectly willing to admit that many people know more than me. Of
> course, neither you nor Junior are included in that list.

I've never once claimed to be an ultimate authority on any subject, dumbass. Any time I've made any claims of fact, I've back it up with links and references. I've even proven my own assumptions wrong on a few occasions in this forum, unlike you, mr 'the ar15 was a weapon the military never wanted and never used' dumbass....

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 5:09:34 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:04:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 8/11/2023 4:43 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not disagreeing with you. I just want to know what knowing the actual power does for you as Joe Average Rider. Bragging rights? I can tell my power increases from week to week by the speed I'm going up hills.
> > Tom, Funky has explained what it does for a competitive rider trying to
> > train for competition. For those guys, it's valuable.
> >
> > I think you're correct that a power meter does very little for Joe
> > Average rider. Would it motivate him to exercise a bit more? Maybe,
> > maybe not.
> >
> > It probably wouldn't even give bragging rights, because most people
> > using power meters are probably more serious and put out much higher
> > power. Your numbers would look terrible by comparison.
> >
> > But speaking of bragging: There are only two people who regularly post
> > here saying "I'm manly because today I rode X miles at an average speed
> > of Y mph!" One of the two adds "... and did Z feet of climbing!" (The
> > other's altitude gain is always zero.)
> >
> > What's the point of those posts?
>
> 1. I don't usually talk about average speed because it is meaningless.

You talk about your average speed all the time you idiot. You started this thread with "I held over 19 mph this morning for over 20 minutes. "

> 2. Does it hurt your feelings to know that you've put in 500 miles for the year and I've done over 5,000? If not why are you talking about it. There are people on the group that like to compare their performance. That is what this site is about in case you missed it.

The point of this forum is bicycle technology, not cycling performance, idiot.

> All the other bicycle related groups are gone.

No, they aren't, you've just been kicked out of them for being a dick.

> 3. Does climbing hurt your feelings as well since you live on a poker table?

says the guy that can't afford to move out of his mothers house.

[John B.]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 05:30:57 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

You do get carried away don't you. I stated that ""power output" per
se, is almost meaningless" and you say that it isn't. Really?

So you mean that because a bloke in the Olympics was able to put out
3634 watts of power it has some meaning relative to what you, a
(relatively) puny bike racer can do? Sorry, I don't believe that it
does but feel free to get some honest witnesses and show us what you
can do.

As for lactic threshold and all that. you rather enforce my statement
that power output declines with time, don't you.

(per se ~ adv "with respect to its inherent nature")

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 20:19:18 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It seems to me, that if the goal is to travel a given distance in the
least amount of time, that is, itelf, the only metric that matters.

[Tom Kunich]

Training for WHAT? Is your living and your wage depend on how much wattage yoy can develop on your bike? WAKE UP. By the way - people that train to the highest levels have the shortest lifespans usually. There are exceptions but few.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

I'm saying Power output is not meaningless, with no qualifier, in fact Power output is a critical metric, and every even half-serious training program concentrates of power zones. Power is monitored during races and analyzed to minute details after the race. This data is used to monitor the riders fitness well as adjust changes to training, training which is based on power zones.

> So you mean that because a bloke in the Olympics was able to put out
> 3634 watts of power it has some meaning relative to what you, a
> (relatively) puny bike racer can do?

Yes.

> Sorry, I don't believe that it
> does but feel free to get some honest witnesses and show us what you
> can do.

Sure. My peak power output ever recorded was just over 800 watts. That's a measly 12W/Kg in my case. A pro can put out 24 W/Kg. My FTP was never more the 250, That's a pretty measly ~ 4W/Kg. The average pro FTP is in the high 5 range, with TT specialists in the mid 7 range.

FTP is a solid predictor of performance. Knowing ones FTP relative to your competitors gives a reasonably good indication of how well you would do competing against them. Racing isn't all about power, and there are plenty of instances where the strongest racer doesn't win the race, but if you don't know what your relative ability is is severely hamstrings your training efforts, as well as knowing how deep you can go during competition. In my case it tells me I never could have hoped to have been competitive in a professional race, and why I never progressed beyond a cat 3. The best I ever did was to line up in a few pro/am races and finish with the pack - which was my goal, and I treated it as a training event more than a target race. You can't get better unless you race with better.

>
> As for lactic threshold and all that. you rather enforce my statement
> that power output declines with time, don't you.

As was evidenced by "well....DUH!"

> (per se ~ adv "with respect to its inherent nature")

<sarcasm>
Gee, thanks, I had never heard that term before
</sarcasm>

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Racing, shithead.

> Is your living and your wage depend on how much wattage yoy can develop on your bike?

No, I'm not a professional cyclist. This doesn't mean I don't have a training program in order to stay competitive. Just about every cyclist I know uses a structured power plan to stay competitive.

> WAKE UP.

I'm already awake and miles ahead of you, in every respect, except age and stupidity.

> By the way - people that train to the highest levels have the shortest lifespans usually. There are exceptions but few.

lol...more bullshit from the sphincter of kunich.

[John B.]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 09:43:30 -0400, Catrike Rider

Which is one of the reasons I said that power, per se, is a
meaningless number.

And the distance you travel in a given time is dependent on a number
of things. The Mt. Washington race is 7.6 miles and the current record
is 9 mph (:-0)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 15:55:23 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

All you are doing is confirming my argument that power, per se, is
meaningless.

You quote your power output and compare it with "a pro" then you talk
about averages of others and even say "Knowing ones FTP relative to
your competitors gives a reasonably good indication..."
Then you talk about training and on, and on, and on.

And all the time you are comparing one power output with another.

The Term "per se" means
"by or of itself"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/per-se
"by, of, or in itself or oneself or themselves"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perse
Per se is a Latin phrase literally meaning “by itself.” It has the
sense of “intrinsically,” or “in and of itself.”
https://www.dictionary.com/e/translations/per-se/

>
>>
>> As for lactic threshold and all that. you rather enforce my statement
>> that power output declines with time, don't you.
>
>As was evidenced by "well....DUH!"
>
>> (per se ~ adv "with respect to its inherent nature")
>
><sarcasm>
>Gee, thanks, I had never heard that term before
></sarcasm>
>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/13/2023 6:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> My peak power output ever recorded was just over 800 watts. That's a measly 12W/Kg in my case. A pro can put out 24 W/Kg. My FTP was never more the 250, That's a pretty measly ~ 4W/Kg. The average pro FTP is in the high 5 range, with TT specialists in the mid 7 range.

When I was a new faculty member, the Human Performance department of the
university did some free measurements and consultations for faculty
members. I did a treadmill test (despite asking for a stationary bike
test). They later told me I had hit almost 2000 Watts.

I was absolutely astonished (that came to 2.6 HP) until I realized they
were talking about energy consumed, not energy produced. A wild guess of
20% metabolic efficiency gives a much more humbling figure. And that
wasn't FTP, it was one run to exhaustion.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

By the way, I'm surprised nobody has yet corrected Tom's idea that "FTP"
stands for "Full Time Power."

It's "Functional Threshold Power."

So, yet another Kunich mistake. There are so many to choose from!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 2:43:36 PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
>
> It seems to me, that if the goal is to travel a given distance in the
> least amount of time, that is, itelf, the only metric that matters.
>

Small quibble in the light of monstrous failures of logic and initiative in this thread by people who call themselves "engineers":
You need either another run by yourself over the same course, or at least one other rider you can beat, to have a benchmark to compare against, otherwise "least" is unanchored.
>
Andre Jute
Meters just make the measurement easier, but a bit of knowledge imaginatively applied enables a manual measurement without the meter.

[Andre Jute]

What a piece of shit Krygowski is! You can just hear the spittle dropping salaciously from his fangs as his schadenfreude yet again overcomes whatever good manners his mama taught him -- or perhaps didn't. -- AJ
>

[Andre Jute]

>
Gee, so many of the chattering monkeys who call themselves engineers, all agreeing that someone with a little algebra and appropriate professional knowledge CANNOT MAKE A CLOSE ESTIMATE OF EFFORT REQUIRED FOR A PARTICULAR TASK.
>
CATEGORICALLY: Meters just make the measurement easier, but a bit of knowledge, imaginatively applied, enables a manual measurement without the meter.
>
Everyone knows this. Engineers from decent colleges should be presumed to have been taught this. It is not rocket science, it is the very basis of the physics of which engineers are applied journeymen. To deny it, as seen in this thread in the rage of self-styled "engineers" to flame Tom, is the essence of professional irresponsibility, and in the case of several, given their propensity to perpetrate the same irresponsibility year after year, it reaches knowingly lying on professional matters.
>
In my early years as a motor racer, before I got offers to just turn up and test or race a professionally prepared car for rich entrants or the factory, I prepared my own cars and sold engines and suspension components, same as I raced, to other racers. I had my own dynamometer and convenient access to a professionally calibrated rolling road and, with some advance scheduling, a fighter-plane-size wind tunnel. But, best of all, I had one of the first five hundred computers in the world, big and slow and expensive to run with all those thermionic tubes, but it could calculate anything if one knew how split an algorithm up into its component parts so the machine could be programmed.
>
So where did I get my data? Actually, in the beginning not from the meters, which the machines above are. Instead I got it from a 20+ mile stretch of well-surfaced flat, straight highway with friendly provincial policemen willing to detour normal traffic around it, used for national speed record runs. If you know one or two of the inputs to a formula, you can normally determine several others from a timed run over a measured distance. In motorcars as on bicycles, if you know the frontal area, which you can measure with a ruler, and the likely aero coefficient of a cyclist in skintight gear, you can determine power. If there is enough of a runup to reach the highest sustainable speed and that speed is held over the measured kilometre or mile, you're good to say that is peak power. After I lucked into this computer (it was given to me by a cousin who was the chairman of the largest insurance company in the country, my university gave us a basement to install it, and one of my godfathers made a sinking fund to pay the salaries of the techies I hired to operate it) I used it to recalculate all my previous runs over this stretch of road, and discovered that my back of envelope calculations, which I had always assumed were within 5 percent, on a 300hp car (that's 300hp at the road -- shaft hp is a very tricky thing to work wit, barely OK in the initial stages of getting the engine to breathe better), was in fact 1.5hp, which on a 300hp engine is the difference between a coolish day and a slightly warm day at the track, or a slight change in the quality of fuel at the track, in any event, 0.5 percent is a most impressive level of accuracy when your meter is the road.
>
I see zero reason why the same process and reasoning cannot be applied to a cyclist's power output on the road.
>
What meters do you think James Watt had available when he defined power output as the unit which carries his name? Because you appear to be curious only when a quick Google hit can be used to denigrate Tom, I'll tell you. He had maybe a pocket watch, or otherwise a nearby church tower clock indexed for five-minute measurements, a bucket for a standardised weight, and a horse plodding around and around.
>
Even if you don't have the imagination to use simple tools like Watt did, you can work by analogy with known facts in the public domain. I described the process in detail in DESIGNING AND BUILDING SPECIAL CARS (Batsford, London and Robert Bentley, Boston) for hotrodders, nearly forty years ago, so it isn't exactly an esoteric or unknown or proprietary method -- for that matter, it is also process that many newbie engineers have worked out for themselves on their first day on the job. We know the CdA of a cyclist of such height and such body mass on his bike, we know within reason the CdA of road bike and rider in combination. We know the rolling resistance of tyres of various brands.
>
It would have been entirely adequate to ask Tom for his speed over a measured mile from a flying start, to calculate (look up the formula in my book if you don't know it off by heart) his power. Instead we have a whole thread that sounds like an advertisement for power meters -- or would, if it weren't so nasty. And you wonder why nobody wants to come to this shitheap of a so-called "tech" conference?
>
Andre Jute
Sad. Very.
>

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

No, in fact I'm saying the opposite.

>
> You quote your power output and compare it with "a pro" then you talk
> about averages of others and even say "Knowing ones FTP relative to
> your competitors gives a reasonably good indication..."
> Then you talk about training and on, and on, and on.
>
> And all the time you are comparing one power output with another.

Yes, because that's how you measure gains in performance.

>
> The Term "per se" means
> "by or of itself"
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/per-se
> "by, of, or in itself or oneself or themselves"
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perse
> Per se is a Latin phrase literally meaning “by itself.” It has the
> sense of “intrinsically,” or “in and of itself.”
> https://www.dictionary.com/e/translations/per-se/

None of that renders a power measurement meaningless. By your twisted logic, that would render measuring your weight meaningless, since in order for it to be meaningful it must be taken in the context of your morphology.

FTP and measuring power are not meaningless. Your attempts to play jute-esque semantics are as successful as jutes attempts to plat semantics, all t's showing is your ignorance on the subject and your arrogance to accept that you might be wrong.

[Lou Holtman]

So you are saying that you can calculate power in an awful cumbersome way with a lot of assumptions/inaccuracies? Yes you can but it would be stupid to do that if one can measure power with a power meter which operates with the basic definition of power (speed times force) directly measured at the crank. If Mr. Watt would still alive today he would agree with me.

Lou

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

No, instead what we have are a couple of old ignorant and arrogant luddites with little actual understanding of the dynamics of power measurement related to exercise physiology suggesting that power is a useless measurement and now from this shitstain - using a stopwatch with an ENIAC is just as accurate (more fabricated stories of your exposure to early computers notwithstanding).

Go back to your bedpan you shitstain, Your time has passed, you're now as useless as a human as that flaccid appendage between your legs ever was as a reproductive tool.

BTW - I'll be passing through Bandoon on september 13. I'll be sure to look up your assisted living quarters and share your level of socialist indulgence with the group.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Right, we didn't get _any_ of that from this post of yours.....what a shitstain.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:18:28 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> By the way, I'm surprised nobody has yet corrected Tom's idea that "FTP"
> stands for "Full Time Power."
>
> It's "Functional Threshold Power."
>
> So, yet another Kunich mistake. There are so many to choose from!
>

Since he didn't make any direct reference that FTP = Full Time Power, I didn't catch it, but it would be a pretty typical kunich mistake.

[Lou Holtman]

It is discussing this with a 2 year old.


Lou

[John B.]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 02:44:54 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Are you deliberately being obtuse? Or do you not understand the
English language?

I said that a statement of power, in itself, is meaningless.

You argue quite the opposite and then proceed to repeatedly compare
power output with some reference.

I'll try once more. The horse produces 7,500 watts of power. O.K. now
you know that the horse produces 7,500 watts of power. And what does
it mean? Is this a strong horse, a weak horse? Will the horse win the
race?
In short the number means nothing at all unless you have something to
compare it with.

Which is what I said.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

I don't see where "awful cumbersome" comes into it. Both my phones and both my smart watches will report by voice every time a kilometre or mile is covered and the speed. Either a phone or a smartwatch can be programmed to calculate power and instantly report it by voice announcement. Seems to me to do the same job with existing equipment as yet another meter with yet more tiresome wiring.
>
Andre Jute
Cycling used to be the workingman's sport and transport. Now it is for elitists with meters.
>

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Nice back pedal. Too bad you tried it with a bendix brake.

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

[Lou Holtman]

Power is force times speed or torque times angular velocity. This exactly what a power meter measures and displays that number on your headunit.. Phone, smartwatch, calculations voice pfff cumbersome.

Lou

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Right, You aren't then also burdened with "why was my speed so much faster/slower than the last time" when jute's luddite version doesn't take into account a local wind gust (amoung other factors) - the power meter will tell you where a dip/surge occurred that accounts for it.

And FWIW - cycling still is a "working 'persons' sport and transport". John and jute are afflicted with not understanding what actually constitutes a modern working person. They also don't understand the value of real-time data.

[Lou Holtman]

Frank once stated that he could tell the power of his dynohub by the drop in speed he noticed when he turned on his dyno light. It is around 5-6 W. If you ever used a powermeter you know that this sheer impossible.

Lou

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 01:14:18 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:18:28?AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> By the way, I'm surprised nobody has yet corrected Tom's idea that "FTP"
>> stands for "Full Time Power."
>>
>> It's "Functional Threshold Power."

Thanks. I missed that mistake because to me, FTP means "file transfer
protocol". I also don't pay much attention to the thread subject
because the topic usually changes after about two replies.

>> So, yet another Kunich mistake. There are so many to choose from!

>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>What a piece of shit Krygowski is! You can just hear the spittle dropping salaciously from his fangs as his schadenfreude yet again overcomes whatever good manners his mama taught him -- or perhaps didn't. -- AJ

Nice retort. If you can't find anything wrong with the content, you
just attack the author. Nice imagery, as in a painting of you as
Dorian Gray.

Also, thank you for unloading another load of politicized rubbish from
the pages of townhall.com into RBT. Of course, that attracted the
attention of Tom Kunich, who predictably used your Fauci posting as a
launching pad for his expanded views on almost every Covid-19 related
topic previous discussed to death in RBT. I was enjoying the relative
tranquility of your absence from RBT where Tom mostly concentrated on
cycling instead of politics.


--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 01:11:13 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Meters just make the measurement easier, but a bit of
>knowledge imaginatively applied enables a manual
>measurement without the meter.

Long ago, I was designing radios for Intech Inc. We had a laboratory
full of the latest test equipment that the company could afford to buy
or rent. Everything had to be calibrated and traceable to NBS
standards. However, I had a problem. After hours, my technician
would work on converting one of our marine VHF radios from marine band
frequencies to what could be used by the CAP (Civil Air Patrol).
However, instead of using the best test equipment available, he would
tune the transmitter to produce the brightest output on a light bulb
and tune the receiver by ear for maximum quieting (least noise). When
asked why he preferred to use primitive measurement methods, he
explained that he was accustomed to their operation and that he could
produce results that were equal to what could be done with proper test
equipment. It didn't take much to demonstrate that he was wrong. When
I tested his radio with proper test equipment, the difference was
obvious and substantial. Later, I had to sell the same technician on
the idea that one should record numbers so that he could tell if he
was making progress and improvements.

I suspect that your "bit of knowledge imaginatively applied" will be
much less accurate than a proper power meter. That works well for
rough approximations but not so well for comparing fitness programs,
mechanical changes and optimizing components. If you have the proper
equipment, use them. If you don't have proper equipment, don't
demonstrate your jealousy by denigrating those who have the proper
tools and know how to use them.

No RBT posting would be complete without end with a personalized
insult. In college, I attended various shop classes intended to give
future engineers a feel for the tools of the various trades. A key
character in the instruction books and movies was "Primitive Pete".
Your preference for crude measurements reminds me of Pete:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=primitive+pete&tbm=isch>

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/14/2023 9:53 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>
>
> Frank once stated that he could tell the power of his dynohub by the drop in speed he noticed when he turned on his dyno light. It is around 5-6 W. If you ever used a powermeter you know that this sheer impossible.

What I _actually_ described was the accidental engagement of a roller
dynamo on a tour. While I no longer remember the precise speed numbers,
here was the event:

I was on a solo tour, fully loaded, heading to visit a family member in
Indiana. Flat, smooth four lane road, almost no traffic, and I was very
pleased, at my age, to be cruising at about 20 mph. Then I hit a lateral
seam in the otherwise smooth pavement and got quite a jolt. I then
noticed a slight whirring sound, and noticed I was riding more slowly,
maybe 1 to 1.5 mph slower.

I worried that I might have damaged something with the bump, or perhaps
that my panniers somehow knocked into contact with a tire. Then I
realized my roller dynamo (behind my bottom bracket) had jolted on. I
stopped, turned it back off and all was as before.

This was back in the day when Steven M. Scharf was writing entire web
pages and linking them here to "prove" that dynamo lighting was bad,
that it slowed you terribly, etc.

To me, it was a near-perfect "natural experiment" demonstrating the low
severity of the roller dyno drag. Hub dynos are generally even better.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Lou Holtman]

It was a coincidence Frank. As you see how much instant power can vary when you think you put constant power on the pedals you would know. It is not important though in this discussion so don’t worry about it.

Lou

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/14/2023 6:09 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>
>
> It is discussing this with a 2 year old.

Or worse. Two year olds can eventually learn.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Well Flunky's life depends on how fast he can run.

[Tom Kunich]

Frank - what is the threshold?

[Catrike Rider]

<sigh> another anecdotal story from Krygowski.



--

Yes, little fella, I ride a Catrike, always alone, mostly on bike
trails, carrying a gun, and never without attaching my feet to
the pedals. Nowdays, I always truck my bike to where I start my
ride and don't use the bike for transportation, only for pleasure.
I am arrogantly proud of my bicycle rides and all my other
accomplishments.

[Tom Kunich]

Our friends seem to believe that a looped course speed offers no data.

[Tom Kunich]

Why are you responding to Slocomb as if he had something to add to the conversation?

[Tom Kunich]

I've been telling you that these guys are spouting nothing but nonsense. You're not taking them seriously are you? That research paper on the coefficient of friction of carbon composites I would accept only with very grave exceptions. If you're just retiring then I am sure you have watched the huge drop in competence among graduate engineers. Surely the comments Krygowski has made and him supposedly being a college teacher would give you a clue to that source of growing incompetence?

[Tom Kunich]

Liebermann, I know you love to comment on things you don't know about but the best measure of horsepower is speed. Now tell me that it could be coefficient of drag as if my statement didn't assume using the same vehicle in the same setup. I'm sure that you can change the argument to how many pennies make a dollar.

[Tom Kunich]

Frank, the trouble is that you can't. Without the least experience in carbon fiber you're willing to tell us that knowledge isn't necessary. As the ass you are you never even bothered to look up the coefficient of carbon composites. You just natter on like an idiot.

[Roger Meriman]

One of the guys on the club evening chain gang, is apparently notorious for
surging etc, partly as he has a heart rate but not a power meter.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all that power varies hugely.

Roger Merriman

[Lou Holtman]

Most people have 3 sec average displayed on their headunit like me and average power.

Lou

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

A power meter won't help that. The instantaneous display on a power meter on the road is all over the place (I once heard it described as stochastic, which it isn't, but looking at short term power data on the road certainly presents that way). Surging guy is just inexperienced and/or undisciplined. A smooth steady pace is a mindset, data collection tools don't really help with that. Some people never get it.

>
> It wouldn’t surprise me at all that power varies hugely.

It does. Just maintaining speed on a not-quite-flat course shows large variations. This is why FTP tests aren't usually done outdoors - too many variable affect the effort.

>
> Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

Like I said, I had a power meter on my Colnago and after reading a couple of times and recording that 298 watts it matched what I thought I was making and I had no further need for it. It is still laying around here somewhere but I couldn't care less. I'm not racing and Flunky is too old to even race maters so w\ho is he fooling about "training"?

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 5:48:05 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> This was back in the day when Steven M. Scharf was writing entire web
> pages and linking them here to "prove" that dynamo lighting was bad,
> that it slowed you terribly, etc.

> --
> - Frank Krygowski
>
That's a maliciously unfair characterisation by Krygowski of the massive contribution Scharfie made to the nighttime safety of cyclists by publishing plans of how decorators' MR11 and MR16 lamps could be used by cyclists to achieve car-strength lamps on their bicycles. I built several sets for me and for friends, and we all found them vastly superior to the dim glimmers of available hub dynamo lamps before B&M's IQ Cyo came along.
>
Andre Jute
Frank Krygowski is a Klown for all seasons. He spreads disinformation like real people breathe.
>

[Frank Krygowski]

Sorry, Lou, I don't think it was coincidence. The road (in eastern
Indiana) had been dead flat for miles. My speed had been very
consistent. I hit the bump, the whirring noise started and my speed
reduced. When I realized what happened and shut the dynamo off, my speed
returned quite precisely.

One variable was accidentally changed. I observed the effect. I restored
the previous conditions. The effect precisely reversed. Natural
experiments don't get much better than that.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 13:18:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Tom. My comments were in response to Andre, not you. However, I
can't resist demonstrating your lack of engineering knowledge.

>...the best measure of horsepower is speed.

Wrong. Speed is commonly known as velocity in meters/second.
Mechanical horsepower has many units of measure.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Definitions>
There's no way to convert watts to horsepower or any of the equivalent
definitions. For example, if someone was riding at a constant 10 mph
(4.47 m/s), how would you convert that to horsepower?
Hint: If the units don't work, you made a mistake somewhere.

>Now tell me that it could be coefficient of drag as if my
>statement didn't assume using the same vehicle in the same
>setup.

The drag coefficient has nothing to do with measuring power. I have
no idea what statement you are referring and why you are introducing a
vehicle when the topic of under discussion is power meters and FTP as
used in cycling:
<https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/ftp-cycling-363865>

Tom: Are you trying to waste my time by posting intentional mistakes
and buzzword salads? If so, I could make your life easier by simply
replying with a +1 or -1. Is that what you would prefer?

[John B.]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 21:40:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 13:18:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
><cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Tom. My comments were in response to Andre, not you. However, I
>can't resist demonstrating your lack of engineering knowledge.
>
>>...the best measure of horsepower is speed.
>
>Wrong. Speed is commonly known as velocity in meters/second.
>Mechanical horsepower has many units of measure.
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Definitions>
>There's no way to convert watts to horsepower or any of the equivalent
>definitions. For example, if someone was riding at a constant 10 mph
>(4.47 m/s), how would you convert that to horsepower?
>Hint: If the units don't work, you made a mistake somewhere.
>
>>Now tell me that it could be coefficient of drag as if my
>>statement didn't assume using the same vehicle in the same
>>setup.
>
>The drag coefficient has nothing to do with measuring power. I have
>no idea what statement you are referring and why you are introducing a
>vehicle when the topic of under discussion is power meters and FTP as
>used in cycling:
><https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/ftp-cycling-363865>
>
>Tom: Are you trying to waste my time by posting intentional mistakes
>and buzzword salads? If so, I could make your life easier by simply
>replying with a +1 or -1. Is that what you would prefer?

If you jump out of an airplane and fall in what's known as the
"stable" position you will be traveling at 120 - 140 MPH. The drag
coefficient ( Cd ) is about 1 for the average size human. the amount
of horsepower expended is "zero".
(:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:40:28 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 13:18:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Now tell me that it could be coefficient of drag as if my
> >statement didn't assume using the same vehicle in the same
> >setup.
>
> The drag coefficient has nothing to do with measuring power.

> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
>
Really? Are you trying to tell us that deliverable and delivered power is not influenced by the aerodynamic drag of a moving vehicle and any part of its payload exposed to that moving liquid, air? You're wanking, Liebermann. In your sick urge to flame Tom, you're starting to sound just like the dumbos in the Krygowski Klown Klutch. Soon you'll be joining that moron Flunky in telling us that Science is what Democrat HQ says it is on the morning of any particular day, well, at least until lunchtime, when they change their minds and Science is something else again. (It's so ludicrous that even that foolish little man Flunky, deep in the phlegm of irrational, swirling hatreds that animate him, can sense people with brains are laughing at him, and now refuses to say what his latest concept of Science is.)

Unsigned for the usual reason.

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:07:12 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>
> If you jump out of an airplane and fall in what's known as the
> "stable" position you will be traveling at 120 - 140 MPH. The drag
> coefficient ( Cd ) is about 1 for the average size human. the amount
> of horsepower expended is "zero".
> (:-)
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
>

Are you malicious or merely stupid, Slow Johnny? Choose only two answers. Of course energy is expended when a body with mass falls toward earth. It is expended by the force of gravity, by the air resisting the falling object, even by the parachutist moving his limbs infinitesimally or breathing because he must.
>
Andre Jute
If your argument depends on splitting hairs, you must split them all, or I'll turn you into a public idiot, easy as breathing, because you are an insufferably smugr idiot. Come to think of it, even if you somehow manage to split every possible hair, I'll still turn you into a public idiot because it is a moral duty to do so.
>

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 20:13:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 8/14/2023 12:56 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:

<SIGH>

https://www.statology.org/correlation-does-not-imply-causation-examples/

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:16:24 AM UTC-4, shit stain wrote:
>
>
> deep in the phlegm of irrational, swirling hatreds that animate him, can sense people with brains are laughing at him,

Your projection is duly noted. However Personal reflection is a positive step, Glad to see you taking steps in that direction

> and now refuses to say what his latest concept of Science is.

No matter how many times you tell that lie, it will never become true

>
> U̶n̶s̶i̶g̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶u̶s̶u̶a̶l̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶s̶o̶n̶.̶
Andre Jute McCoy, a writer of vanity novels and diarrhea-mouthed, long winded poster to the Usenet - where he pretends to be famous.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

It's so amusing when floriduh dumbass thinks he understands science.....

[Lou Holtman]

Power is speed times force (m/s*N = Nm/s = J/s =Watt) or torque times angular velocity (Nm*1/s =Nm/s =J/s = Watt). The purpose of a power meter is to train at certain power levels. The drag is irrelevant then. At a higher drag you will be slower at a given power level.

Lou

[Frank Krygowski]

Personally, I'm sincerely wishing for much better luck for both Jute and
Kunich.

If Jute were actually to find a publisher, he might not resort to
blathering on r.b.tech in order to see his drivel in print.

And if Kunich were actually to find a job, he might be able to move out
of his hellhole, buy a bike that would finally make him happy, and stop
venting his misery here.

If only, if only!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

:-) He knows about three catchphrases he considers clever, and thinks
that's the sum of scientific knowledge.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

+1 - Drag is only relevant when trying to maintain speed, not power. The power deliverable to the real wheel has very little to do with drag. Someone capable of hitting 1000 watts can do that regardless of the CdA.

This is what the cool kids are doing these days:
https://www.facebook.com/globalcyclingnetwork/videos/parachute-training-method/2676672759226372/

>
> Lou

[Frank Krygowski]

Ah! The coming successor to disc brakes! No squeal at all - just a
little fluttering.

--
- Frank Krygowski