Richard Cranium

How many of you know what this chart means? Is this chart as helpful as other types of apps? How do these stats look for an 60-year-old cyclist?

valygrl

The only thing that can be gleaned from that is a general idea of the course profile.

What do YOU think it means?

ericm979

Or the course could have been dead flat and windless and his power varied. It's impossible to know from this chart.

Divtos

Unless it was all downhill it looks pretty good :-)

gregf83 

It might tell you something if you had some more info but it doesn't tell us much since we don't know your position on the bike or your power profile during the TT.

So on it's own it's not a particularly useful chart.

Richard Cranium

Yeah - the TT course was flat - someone could not bother to read the temp and wind stat - so I guess i have to use a bigger font.

I know there are different ways to display metrics - withe a power tap setup being - of course - the best. I guess there are some people who are using garmin etc too.

I just wanted to see whether anyone would even "pick out" the stat series in the background. I gave the chart some thought - but can see that it is pretty much lost unless you "want" to look. I've never seen any of the online progrmas do any of the kind of calcs this chart displays.

Thanks for the comment.

Richard Cranium

Oh yeah - I think the chart shows the cyclist is pretty good at picking a sustainable pace for a flat 24 miles course. I think that the average speed data series (in pink) shows that the cyclist did his best work early in the ride and may or may not have given enough effort is the last part of the third quarter, 17,18 mile mark area......

The last part most likely shows that the overall pace chosen was not far from optimal...... However, additional power or HR rate information could have confirmed this.

Looigi

I'm not commenting on interpretation or value, but the way I'm familiar with doing moving averages, there's a new one for every data point. First moving avg for 6 points occurs at point 6 and is the average of points 1 through 6. The next occurs at point 7 and is the average of points 2 through 7. The next is at 8 and averages points 3 through 8. Etc...

The main purpose of doing this is removing short fluctuations that might obscure the broader trend. It's a basic form low-pass filter. There are other types of low-pass filters.

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

gregf83 

If the course was flat and the wind steady (i.e. no vehicles driving by) then I would say the pacing wasn't as even as one would like as there are significant speed changes at miles 5 and 20. Perhaps the course wasn't dead flat?

Also, the moving averages don't appear to have been calculated correctly as there shouldn't be step changes in their values.

mr_pedro

Right, what the graph is showing is the average over the first, second, third and fourth 6 miles, not the 6-mile moving average.

cyclezen

without some corollation to 'effort', the chart really isn;t much of a training tool. No way to actually tell where the rider was in their 'capcity of effort'. One 'assumes' they are some where near their highest effort, but that can;t be assumed. Nor can one assume their level of 'form'.
The only thing I get from this chart is that the rider didn;t go back, into the wind, at as high a speed as they had with the wind. Whether that was because they couldn't or because they were held back or whatever, is not discernable.

The 6 & 12 mi moving avg is usless. The split point avg speed is mostly useless.

To use some metric for training, per the op's Q, the metric needs to be reasonably replicated for most conditions - course, equipment, enviromental conditions, rider health and general demeanor, and then the results reviewed relative to prior 'tests', corollated to some measure of 'effort'.

Richard Cranium

Thanks - i knew I was misusing the term - but didn't want to type out "6 mile" or "12 mile" averages

What are the correct names for "all" of the data series?

Richard Cranium

Yes - accept for the fact that the chart is being given back to the person performing "the effort." I would imagine that the cyclist should have some memory or memories of perceived exertion along the course - regardless of power readings....

But I guess without seeing the "list data" in numerical form - there's nothing to compare.

But your comments are noted - the bigger deal - what i wanted to know - is : Does seeing a graphic evoke any noteworthy aspects to a given rider?

In the end - this exercise has answered all my questions. Thanks.