Originally Posted by
carleton
I used several pieces of software when I was anylyzing files:
- SRM PC software (the Mac software sucked at the time. Not sure if it's better now. I don't think so.)
- PowerAgent (made by PowerTap. I even used this to analyze SRM files.)
- Golden Cheetah
Golden Cheetah was my favorite.
BTW, you can import .SRM files into Golden Cheetah then export into other formats (.CSV if you want to import into PowerAgent).
One of my favorite custom charts was Torque vs Cadence. Basically, "How hard are you pushing at X RPM?" This was useful in determining what gears I was good at riding at high speeds. Even though I could spin 160+ rpm on the bike, my max
effective cadence (where I was actually adding a useful amount of torque per pedal stroke) was around 140rpm. So, basically, any RPM over 140 was useless. I wasn't adding any acceleration (or any force to counter deceleration).
Conclusions:
- This lead me stop trying to use 150 RPM as a target cadence in flying 200M as used to be the conventional wisdom.
- I was vindicated when detailed photos of the London Olympic Flying 200M event would show 135-140-ish RPM on the racer's SRM head units during the fastest part of their flying 200s
Wisdom-gained:
Q: "What gear should I use for the Flying 200?"
A: "The biggest gear that you can get to 135-140rpm. If you get to +145rpm, it's too small. You are revving-out and not applying any torque."
I've been using WKO+, and TrainingPeaks online tools, to analyze data for a while. I've generally found these bits very useful for data analysis. A graph that seems pertinent to you, Carelton, is the "Quadrant Analysis." The graph plots torque along the Y axis, and circumferential pedal velocity along the X. I've not read much about the chart, but it shows pretty much exactly what you describe. High CPV and low torque aren't adding speed!
I've only recently started using Golden Cheetah, and have very mixed thoughts on the software. I must be dense (precedent has been set when I try to find things at the hardware store, fruitlessly), but the interface is not intuitive at all. The absurd number of metrics, options, optional metrics, and metric options, is overwhelming in by it's own right. Adding to this, some of the menus seem mislabeled, or poorly labeled at the least. However, the graphs looks much nicer, and display better than WKO does. The automatic highlighting of "efforts" is super rad. Oh, and it's FREE? Sold. Once the user learns what they're looking for, it could be invaluable.