Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Track Cycling: Velodrome Racing and Training Area (https://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=210)
-   -   54 sec Wattbike 1k (https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=1172310)

Adamda 05-06-19 10:56 AM

54 sec Wattbike 1k
 
Hi. i did a 54 second 1k on a Wattbike. It said that my average power was over 900 watts. I had the air setting on 10 and the magnetic setting on 4 or 5. I don't really do much cycling and haven't been on a Wattbike before. I'm about 82kg.
I didn't get a picture of the screen afterwards.
This time seems a bit fast. Is there something I might have done wrong with the settings? Or do the bikes become inaccurate after a while?

Morelock 05-06-19 12:18 PM

Well, Pervis' World Record (at altitude) is 56" - so my guess is either there are some hardware issues OR you need to call your national team :)

(900w for 54" is beastly as well.)

carleton 05-07-19 09:29 AM


Originally Posted by Adamda (Post 20916627)
Hi. i did a 54 second 1k on a Wattbike. It said that my average power was over 900 watts. I had the air setting on 10 and the magnetic setting on 4 or 5. I don't really do much cycling and haven't been on a Wattbike before. I'm about 82kg.
I didn't get a picture of the screen afterwards.
This time seems a bit fast. Is there something I might have done wrong with the settings? Or do the bikes become inaccurate after a while?

Hi, Adamda, and welcome to the forum.

The good news:
Studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between power output on an ergometer in a laboratory (read: spin bike) and power output on the track.


The bad news:
There are a lot more factors in play that make a good rider that will turn in a good time. They don't hand out medals for Wattbike performances. You have to do it on the track against a stopwatch.

Next Steps:
Get started on the track! See how you do. Hang out with us here.

DaleG85 05-07-19 04:56 PM


Originally Posted by carleton (Post 20918233)
The bad news:
There are a lot more factors in play that make a good rider that will turn in a good time. They don't hand out medals for Wattbike performances. You have to do it on the track against a stopwatch.

With a small jump from a wattbike to a smart trainer, then they do actually hand out medals for them (Esports) 😜 lol.

lean88 05-08-19 08:22 PM


Originally Posted by carleton (Post 20918233)
The good news:
Studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between power output on an ergometer in a laboratory (read: spin bike) and power output on the track.

you have more info about that? a link? i would like to read more about that.

:thumb:

carleton 05-08-19 10:00 PM


Originally Posted by lean88 (Post 20920738)
you have more info about that? a link? i would like to read more about that.

:thumb:


Validity of cycling peak power as measured by a short-sprint test versus the Wingate anaerobic test.


Abstract

To validate the measurement of peak power output (PPO) using a short cycling sprint test (inertial load (IL) test), we compare it to the widely accepted Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT). Fifteen healthy, young, active subjects performed 2 experimental trials. In each trial, subjects warmed up and sprinted 4 times for the IL test. After recovery, they cycled for 30 s at maximum capacity for the WAnT. The experimental trial was replicated 3 d later to test for reliability. Inter- and intra-day PPO measured with the IL test was very reliable (R(1) = 0.99 and R(1) = 0.94, respectively). The correlation between the IL and WAnT was highly significant (r = 0.82; P < 0.001), although the absolute PPO values were markedly higher for the IL test (1268 +/- 41 W vs. 786 +/- 27 W; P < 0.001). In conclusion, cycling PPO can be validly assessed with the IL test. The higher PPO attained with an IL test could be related to better identification of peak power, since both velocity and resistance are free to vary during the sprint in comparison with the WAnT, where resistance is fixed. Owing to the short duration of the sprint (4 s) and high intra-day reliability despite a short recovery time (180 s), the IL test is optimal for repeated measurements of anaerobic performance.

carleton 05-08-19 10:04 PM

More:

Maximal torque- and power-pedaling rate relationships for elite sprint cyclists in laboratory and field tests


Performance models provide an opportunity to examine cycling in a broad parameter space. Variables used to drive such models have traditionally been measured in the laboratory. The assumption, however, that maximal laboratory power is similar to field power has received limited attention. The purpose of the study was to compare the maximal torque- and power-pedaling rate relationships during “all-out” sprints performed on laboratory ergometers and on moving bicycles with elite cyclists. Over a 3-day period, seven male (mean SD; 180.0 3.0 cm; 86.2 6.1 kg) elite track cyclists completed two maximal 6 s cycle ergometer trials and two 65 m sprints on a moving bicycle; calibrated SRM powermeters were used and data were analyzed per revolution to establish torque- and power-pedaling rate relationships, maximum power, maximum torque and maximum pedaling rate. The inertial load of our laboratory test was (37.16 0.37 kg m2), approximately half as large as the field trials (69.7 3.8 kg m2). There were no statistically significant differences between laboratory and field maximum power (1791 169; 1792 156 W; P = 0.863), optimal pedaling rate (128 7; 129 9 rpm; P = 0.863), torque-pedaling rate linear regression slope (−1.040 0.09; −1.035 0.10; P = 0.891) and maximum torque (266 20; 266 13 Nm; P = 0.840), respectively. Similar torque- and power-pedaling rate relationships were demonstrated in laboratory and field settings. The findings suggest that maximal laboratory data may provide an accurate means of modeling cycling performance.

carleton 05-08-19 10:08 PM

However, there is one study that contradicts those:

Differences between sprint tests under laboratory and actual cycling conditions


In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that POpeak, Fo, and time to obtain POpeak were different between laboratory and actual cycling conditions. To perform a valid estimation of the POpeak in the seated and standing positions in laboratory it would be necessary to use the personal bicycle of the cyclist and a set-up that permits lateral oscillations. However, the better sprint tests seem to be those performed in actual cycling.
So, basically, the lab bikes were awkward to sprint on and that may account for the lower numbers in the lab than on biies.

carleton 05-08-19 10:11 PM

In my own testing with SRM power meters on my bikes over the years on the track and locked into a mag trainer and using multiple CycleOps spin bikes with power meters: Whatever I saw at home I'd see on the track and vice-versa

lean88 05-10-19 07:18 PM

thanks for that read, and for share your experience. :thumb: :popcorn
i dont have any system for measure the power, only rpm. for now....

carleton 05-10-19 11:06 PM


Originally Posted by lean88 (Post 20924069)
thanks for that read, and for share your experience. :thumb: :popcorn
i dont have any system for measure the power, only rpm. for now....

Speed, Cadence, & Heart Rate tell you everything you need to know. Power is bonus information :D


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:32 AM.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.