Pace is close enough to power most of the time for running. Track enduros mostly train on the road, and, all else equal, very few coaches would choose to get rid of power. The relatively constant conditions of track make it less valuable than road, but I'd wager nearly all endurance coaches would rather base workouts on power, then time, then cadence.

Cadence may be king of determining whether you're using the right gear, but only the direct relationship to speed on the track means it's useful for determining how well you're going.

ok- so if you are a 12.00" 200m rider, and your gear selection has you running 140rpm for the effort, whats next? you would have to knock nearly .5" off your time to get to 145rpm. Thats more progress than most intermediate sprinters make in a year.. so based on your cadence ranges, you know that there is only 1 gear to use.. basically forever
whats the next step?
my question was how does todays cadence data affect or change tomorrows training?

I would argue that your weights analogy makes more sense as a support for Power meter training, since weights and power data are less affected by outside forces.. to quote Henry Rollins: "two hundred pounds is always two hundred pounds". Flying 200m time, speed and cadence can be greatly affected by atmospheric pressure, Temperature, Wheels, Kit, Helmet.... Power can reveal the actual output..


as i said before- Ive had great success with zero power data-
i just don't understand why you think it is the preferred method

Here's one way to do it:

Every now and then (let's say every 2 or 3 weeks) you'll do a full aero test (skinsuit, aero helmet, aero wheels) for several flying 100s on multiple gears to see where you are. Jennie had me do this. Take that data back and look at it. You'll see that between flying 100M efforts on 94", 96", 98", 100" gears, there is a point where you simply can't turn over the pedals and you simply can't make any speed or cadence. You know that bogged-down, "can't get on top of the pedals" feeling?

As Steve told me when I was working with him and I really wanted to ride like a 98" gear one day, he said, "Learn to pedal first. As you progress through the ranks, the gears will get bigger but the cadences will stay the same."

There is a sweet spot of torque and rpm that you are looking for.

Ever see guys do flying 200M on 96" early in the season, then 98" mid season then 100" during a peak for nationals? That's the fitness coming along. I'd venture to guess that the cadences were the same along the way. Ever see a guy put on that 100" for Nationals an flop? Because he expected his peak to take him to the next level (literally) but it didn't work. The thing is, this can be spotted in warmup flying 100M jumps before the actual event.


I'm not saying that you *can't* do this stuff with power meters, I'm just saying that for a sprinter, Power data is about as important as HR data. It's not nearly as important for decision-making as Speed and Cadence data. And to racers on a budget, spending $1500-3500 for a power meter won't make you as fast as if they spent that money elsewhere.

Hell, I'm a data nut. If anyone would benefit from having power data it would be me. I analyze everything. And in doing so, I realized that Power rarely ever factored into decisions that I or my coaches made.

What would be really nice is to have the chainring/cog saved in the files for each effort that we do. I do my best to save that info as a note in the file when I get home (i.e. "Efforts 1-4 on 45/13. Efforts 5-8 46/13" etc...) but it's not 100% complete. It'd be nice to be able to do that from the head unit on the bike so we won't have to rely on memory when we analyze the file later.

That's why I wrote that enduros would probably be interested in monitoring HR data!

Power and HR are very closely related.

Power = "What you are doing."
HR = "What you did."

I believe that there is like a 5-10" lag between your legs doing something and your heart rate responding. This really isn't that significant when you think about a 3 or 4 minute steady state pursuit effort.

(I may be off with the following numbers, but you'll get my gist)

If you are enduro training, an example would be: Find a gear that allows you to spin at 130 RPM at 155 BPM.

- If I push a certain gear steady state at 130RPM but my HR is 165BPM, then the gear is too big.
- If I push a certain gear steady state at 130RPM by my HR is 140BPM, then the gear is too small.

Or

Given a certain gear, the exercise or race could be paced such that every lap is ridden according to a certain HR range in order to not "blow up" to early and also not "leave anything behind".

I do think that power meters are more useful to Enduros than Sprinters. But, I see new racers clamor to buy power meters and I think they can get the info they need other ways.

If you are an elite national/international level rider and have a coach that will thoroughly review your power files, then it could be useful. But, from what I've seen from my travels, 90% of people with power meters simply don't need them (myself included). They can get the info they need from speed, cadence (and for enduros HR) data.

cadence is non-zero, power is zero avg, and recording is smart record.

I will change these up and see how it looks. It will be a 2 weeks before I am back at the track though so will update when I get it :)

What Decisions are you making with the data?

What gear I should use for an event/effort.

As a (wannabe) sprinter, I simply train to be as strong as possible and as powerful as possible and to be able to hold it for as long as possible. So, pretty much everything is maximal.

Think of yourself as a drag racing car.

- You have a certain weight (Honda Civic vs 60s Chevy Camero SS)
- You have a certain engine (4 banger, V6, V8, Rotary)
- You have a certain drag strip length (1/8 mile, 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile)
- (hypothetically) You have a standing start OR a rolling start depending on the event.

Now let's hypothetically say that your race league says you can only use ONE gear :D No shifting!

If you were a driver competing in events like that, power would be important, but GEARING would be the most important decision. You are going to tell the mechanic, "Hey, I need as much power as you can legally produce with that engine." But, the million dollar question that wins and loses races for you will be gearing. You'll pay more attention to RPMs than anything else.


The most prominent number is on race car dash boards are RPMs:

F1
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_viCh1SFyGr...-1920x1440.jpg

NASCAR:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6031/5...19d8d5a6_z.jpg

Rally:
http://www.speedhunters.com/wp-conte...B-RX7-8632.jpg

Notice that you don't see anything about Horsepower on any of those (unless I missed it).

Why? Because the engine is gonna do what it can do and that's all it can do. Decisions about gearing will affect how fast you go.

I'm not totally poo-pooing power meters. They can be very useful in certain situations.

One example: At one time, my flying 200m times were just awful and no one could figure out why. I was doing a standard "come in hot" windup but my jump was always a dud.

Like, my final 200M splits of a standing lap were literally faster than my flying 200M on the same gear on the same day! I was 0.5" faster from a standing start! Something was obviously wrong.

Looking at my file, Rich Voss determined that I was actually going anaerobic and burning a good bit my turbo boost before my jump. So, I never had the full benefit of it in order to get to max speed at the right time. He suggested that I do my windup abnormally slow and keep my wattage (and HR) down below a certain level before my jump.

You know what? BOOOOOM! That analysis instantly took 0.5" off of my flying 200M.

That being said, that same analysis could have happened based on my HR alone.

My point in this discussion is not whether PMs are useful. It's whether they are worth the added expense. Think of it this way: A set of Mavic Io and Comete wheels are very useful. But, the gains you get from them (if any) may not be worth the added expense over much cheaper options.

Not to be semantic, but RPM is directly related to horsepower in a car. For example, we tune a car to have peak power at X for the fact it is in a usable range and we use the tachometer to know when we are in it (and not explode the engine). You are suggesting to not even know the horsepower before/during/after.

but anyway, I do get your point, and I do agree that in a race the power numbers are fairly pointless. This goes for road, cross, track, basically anything outside of individual efforts. Since I do not get to choose the speed/power required to keep up/win, what does it matter what it is. All I really have control over is how fast my feet are moving based on my gearing choice. A pursuit or to an extent a kilo is more valuable. Split times only tell the story so far.

BUT, that is why a PM is not a racing tool, rather a training tool. I can't even glance at my screen and try and comprehend what it is saying when Im on the gas, let alone racing 3 wide around a 140m track at 50kmh. Its an after the fact, did I really have no gas in the 3rd race or did it just FEEL that way. That last F200 was a personal best but was it due to power or line? There are lots of things a PM can teach you if you use the data. But it is not a gauge on the dashboard that gives you anything you need at the time.

Ill also add, PMs are about 1/3rd what they cost 5 years ago. I needed a new crank anyway, so the power2max add on ended up being around $800 including our socialist taxes and shipping. A 3k option is something to justify, ~$1000 is often what I spend by accident at the bike store.

gtrob, I don't mean to make it seem like I think you shouldn't have gotten the power meter. Look, I bought 2 SRMs, one used for over $2,000 and one new for $3,500. I've been there.

Regarding horsepower, to clarify:

Most athletes, cannot explode their engines. So, you have to assume that in my car example that the engine has some sort of natural limiter on it, too....a restrictor plate :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictor_plate

So, for a given race, let's add these facts:

- We have a certain amount of regular fuel (aerobic energy)
- We have a limited amount of Nitrous Oxide boost (gylcogen) that replenishes if allowed to.
- Depending on how hard you press the gas pedal, you may or may not engage the Nitrous Oxide.

Does Cav have a race radio? Or is that a warmup picture with him just rocking out?

It is unfortunate that this discussion is happening under the "interesting finds" thread..
its a good topic- and one that is misunderstood...

this is where i think you are over stating the value... you said above that you are shooting for a goal RPM of 140.. assuming that most of us are fairly consistent with our 200's, and improving them by a 10th or 2 is a big gain- it pretty much leaves us each using 1 gear... i don't see where the big value is in that.. and i can get that info with a stopwatch and a gear chart..

This is true. Which is why track cycling has had decades of great racers who never used power meters :D

There are days when 1 tooth either way can make or break you. Paying attention to cadence will help with that decision. How many times have you heard a racer say "I was under-geared. I was spinning out" or "I could never get on top of the gear. I was struggling to turn the pedals over."? We often do this based on feeling (racers are very perceptive). They are talking about cadence.

How many times have you agonized over which chainring you should use for the same event? We rarely agonize about how much power we should apply to the pedals :D

zero

Mr. Dick Lane:

Aight so you've probably seen the movie Breaking Away and you've probably heard of the Little 500, a bike race - sort of - held at Indiana University every spring. I knew of it but not much about it until I watched the video below of the 2014 Little 500.

Here's a brief rundown: 200 laps of a 1/4 mi cinder track. Teams of 4 who have to make (I think) 10 exchanges during the race. Each team has 2 bikes - 56cm Schwinns with coasterbrakes, flat pedals, geared at 46/18.

It was kind of crazy - obviously, it is the racing of bicycles but there's all this stuff that seems kind of unique to this race, and developed sort of in a vacuum, so my reaction to the whole thing is "it's both bike racing and not bike racing at the same time." Everybody looks a little bit silly on the bikes, everybody looks a little bit silly pushing on flat pedals, the exchanges are sort of nuts, and really inefficient - every time I think someone is attacking they're really just getting out in front of the group to make an exchange. Anyone with any cyclocross experience is going to shake their heads at the goofy remounts.

The announcers talk about tactics that don't seem to make a whole lot of sense (resting for a few laps? are you serious? wouldn't it be more worth it to just risk the time losses of making exchanges?). Also - it's ****ing carnage out there. You know how there are a few videos of j-keirins that are total chaos that get passed around the interwebs? this blows them all away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAIypjiw77w

That was a crazy finish. Hopefully it hurts less to crash on cinders...

Interesting concept, kind of like a Madison with standing start exchanges and extreme gear restrictions.

Yeah, the Little 500 is a weird thing.

Personally, I wouldn't call it "track racing". It's about as close to track racing as BMX is. It's more like short track, single-speed cyclecross...on bikes with coaster brakes.

http://www.indiana.edu/~lxa/BArmstrong.jpg

An old teammate of mine went to IU. He's told me stories and I've seen the special Little 500 bikes. They are special made for the event and each club/frat only gets one. It's a big deal if it gets stolen. It's a real "bro" environment.

What's worse is that you can't adjust the bike between handoffs. So the bike has to be setup for the smallest rider. Also, only platform pedals.

oh yeah def not track cycling. not cyclocross, either - cx is about mixed media.

It really seems like the strategy is "stay with the front group, make clean exchanges, and try not to crash." Looks like some teams keep a guy fresh for the finale.

it's just a weird one-off environment...

Seems from the video they get two, so they are able to adjust between riders. Also, since they are using platform pedals, saddle height doesn't have to be so precise.

Ah. Thanks for the correction.

I think it was this thread...but anyway I got back to the track for another PM test

As you can see its still funky (this is with the changes quinn suggested). This is the only effort that was off, the others were smooth and accurate, this is the only one that drops. For example we did '1min' intervals and they look fine. I can't figure out what is unique about it, but this would be a lap the field effort (this was a double on a short track). So a jump followed but pretty hard effort, ending with putting on the brakes to get on the back of the paceline. So the zero power at the END is accurate, but the cadence didnt drop off so it seems its NOT dependent on that.

http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps250059ea.jpg


Its almost like it drops when Im leaning hard in the corners, as those pulses are about that timing. It would have taking about 3-4 laps to do this effort, or 6-7 corners. hmmmm the g-force of our 138m track is throwing it off?

Damn, man. You could be right! If the cranks use inertia (or whatever the proper term is) to sense the cranks going around, whipping around on a tight track like yours could certainly upset that.