Just started training with Power? Post your questions/comments here!
#8452
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Cali Caliente
Posts: 94
Bikes: Yes
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I normally set my FTP values (quarterly) by doing a 20 effort up a local hill. Close by, repeatable, etc.
I did one yesterday (10/2) and maintained 290 watts for 20 mins. 290x.95 = 275w FTP
While reviewing my power curve I noticed I had a higher 20 min value from a crit I did on Sunday (9/30) which listed 306w for 20 mins. 306x.95 = 290w FTP
The question now is which # should I use for my FTP? The race driven one or the repeatable effort one?
Thinking back to my most recent test, I'm not sure I could have held 290 watts for another 40 minutes...
Looking forward to your feedback.
I did one yesterday (10/2) and maintained 290 watts for 20 mins. 290x.95 = 275w FTP
While reviewing my power curve I noticed I had a higher 20 min value from a crit I did on Sunday (9/30) which listed 306w for 20 mins. 306x.95 = 290w FTP
The question now is which # should I use for my FTP? The race driven one or the repeatable effort one?
Thinking back to my most recent test, I'm not sure I could have held 290 watts for another 40 minutes...
Looking forward to your feedback.
#8454
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Cali Caliente
Posts: 94
Bikes: Yes
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#8455
Nonsense
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 13,918
Bikes: Affirmative
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 880 Post(s)
Liked 541 Times
in
237 Posts
Yeah, I mean if you're used to doing the 20min *.95 method and that's your best one as of recent I'd use it just to remain consistent with how you're measuring your FTP over time.
#8456
W**** B*
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Central IL (Chambana)
Posts: 992
Bikes: Several
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Your FTP is not your best 20m AP.
Most/all of the 20m FTP tests are designed to pre-fatigue you in a way such that the 20m power times a multiplier closely resembles your max 60m power.
Edit: Stick with your previous hill method (though probably not ideal). A random 20m best should/will always be higher than a "test" that is meant to mimic a 60m effort.
Most/all of the 20m FTP tests are designed to pre-fatigue you in a way such that the 20m power times a multiplier closely resembles your max 60m power.
Edit: Stick with your previous hill method (though probably not ideal). A random 20m best should/will always be higher than a "test" that is meant to mimic a 60m effort.
Last edited by ancker; 10-04-18 at 09:56 AM. Reason: More stuff, yo.
#8457
Nonsense
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 13,918
Bikes: Affirmative
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 880 Post(s)
Liked 541 Times
in
237 Posts
Well, he's doing the 20min * .95 method and it doesn't sound like he does the pre-fatigue effort, which I think implies he's red lining it for 20min rather than pacing it as if he intended to hold it for an hour. That being the case I think taking the best recent 20min power makes sense.
#8458
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Cali Caliente
Posts: 94
Bikes: Yes
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks for the feedback.
I can definitely see the value, both from a historical and a repeatability stand point to using my non-ideal 20 hill test * .95 (what is ideal?)
The reason why I asked is because I train to race, and if I'm getting higher numbers from a race event, then shouldn't I use those numbers instead?
It would seem that's what I need to replicate (or try to) in my training. Granted, it's only a 15 watt difference, but in the world of marginal gains this one stuck out....
I can definitely see the value, both from a historical and a repeatability stand point to using my non-ideal 20 hill test * .95 (what is ideal?)
The reason why I asked is because I train to race, and if I'm getting higher numbers from a race event, then shouldn't I use those numbers instead?
It would seem that's what I need to replicate (or try to) in my training. Granted, it's only a 15 watt difference, but in the world of marginal gains this one stuck out....
#8459
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,910
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 327 Times
in
161 Posts
You are only using the FTP number to set target ranges for training intervals, right? So ask the question, if those targets were ~15W higher would you be able to complete the intervals or would you blow up and go home early? If you don't know the answer, then go try it for a week at the higher number. The most important thing is to not lose any sleep over it .
#8460
Newbie racer
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,406
Bikes: Propel, red is faster
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1575 Post(s)
Liked 1,569 Times
in
974 Posts
I'm cheap and ended up putting the formulas into Excel successfully for CTL/ATL/TSB. I went back as far as I could stand to fill in cells. I'm seeing upper 40's CTL, mid 50's ATL, and TSB's routinely in the -10 to +10 range.
I'm time crunched, so don't get the stress input of longer/easier rides.
I just feel like the whole thing is a bit disappointing and leading me to believe I wouldn't pay for TP because it feels like it belies my actual fitness level. They have charts for CTL/TSS for different cat racing, and I barely meet the 4/5 targets.
However, my power and repeat-ability in the last couple months means I'm dropping the racer boys that show up to the hammer ride. Not just dropping the A-groupies.
But my CTL and weekly TSS you'd think I couldn't finish a metric century or hang on the hammer ride at all.
It feels like that part of the model doesn't take well into account time spent per zone. I'd almost like to know my current CTL/ATL/TSB per each zone. Like split the TSS score by zone.
If you're too positive for too long in your power-intervals zone, might not do well in a RR or crit. Trending positive for too long in Z1/Z2 then don't expect to enjoy a hilly century ride.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
I'm time crunched, so don't get the stress input of longer/easier rides.
I just feel like the whole thing is a bit disappointing and leading me to believe I wouldn't pay for TP because it feels like it belies my actual fitness level. They have charts for CTL/TSS for different cat racing, and I barely meet the 4/5 targets.
However, my power and repeat-ability in the last couple months means I'm dropping the racer boys that show up to the hammer ride. Not just dropping the A-groupies.
But my CTL and weekly TSS you'd think I couldn't finish a metric century or hang on the hammer ride at all.
It feels like that part of the model doesn't take well into account time spent per zone. I'd almost like to know my current CTL/ATL/TSB per each zone. Like split the TSS score by zone.
If you're too positive for too long in your power-intervals zone, might not do well in a RR or crit. Trending positive for too long in Z1/Z2 then don't expect to enjoy a hilly century ride.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
#8461
W**** B*
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Central IL (Chambana)
Posts: 992
Bikes: Several
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Thanks for the feedback.
I can definitely see the value, both from a historical and a repeatability stand point to using my non-ideal 20 hill test * .95 (what is ideal?)
The reason why I asked is because I train to race, and if I'm getting higher numbers from a race event, then shouldn't I use those numbers instead?
It would seem that's what I need to replicate (or try to) in my training. Granted, it's only a 15 watt difference, but in the world of marginal gains this one stuck out....
I can definitely see the value, both from a historical and a repeatability stand point to using my non-ideal 20 hill test * .95 (what is ideal?)
The reason why I asked is because I train to race, and if I'm getting higher numbers from a race event, then shouldn't I use those numbers instead?
It would seem that's what I need to replicate (or try to) in my training. Granted, it's only a 15 watt difference, but in the world of marginal gains this one stuck out....
2) We all train to race/perform. The difference isn't that your 20m numbers from a race are bad or should be ignored, it's that they don't represent what a 20m FTP represents. You can't just take your best 20m power, multiply by 0.95 (or is it 0.94, 0.98, etc) and assume that is your FTP. Similarly, you can't just look at two 8m intervals during a race and derive FTP from that, even though a 2x8m FTP test exists. The point is that the tests are designed to put you in a place to where the results closely match your absolute best 60m power. Any given 20m power best during a race *should* be higher than your existing FTP, because well, 20m is shorter than 60m. So your 20m power should be higher than your 60m power.
2a) If your 60m power from a race is higher than your FTP, I would definitely consider adjusting your FTP up to match.
3) If you want to see your true FTP, do a nice warmup, then do a 60m maximal effort. That will give you your true maximal 60m power, and thus your true FTP. It's really hard to do this, hence the plethora of shorter testing protocols.
4) All that said, I agree with cmh, bump your FTP for a week and see if you can complete your workouts. Too easy? Bump it another 5w and try another week. Too hard, drop it 5w. Try again. Repeat.
5) Marginal gains don't exist.
#8462
W**** B*
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Central IL (Chambana)
Posts: 992
Bikes: Several
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I'm cheap and ended up putting the formulas into Excel successfully for CTL/ATL/TSB. I went back as far as I could stand to fill in cells. I'm seeing upper 40's CTL, mid 50's ATL, and TSB's routinely in the -10 to +10 range.
I'm time crunched, so don't get the stress input of longer/easier rides.
I just feel like the whole thing is a bit disappointing and leading me to believe I wouldn't pay for TP because it feels like it belies my actual fitness level. They have charts for CTL/TSS for different cat racing, and I barely meet the 4/5 targets.
However, my power and repeat-ability in the last couple months means I'm dropping the racer boys that show up to the hammer ride. Not just dropping the A-groupies.
But my CTL and weekly TSS you'd think I couldn't finish a metric century or hang on the hammer ride at all.
It feels like that part of the model doesn't take well into account time spent per zone. I'd almost like to know my current CTL/ATL/TSB per each zone. Like split the TSS score by zone.
If you're too positive for too long in your power-intervals zone, might not do well in a RR or crit. Trending positive for too long in Z1/Z2 then don't expect to enjoy a hilly century ride.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
I'm time crunched, so don't get the stress input of longer/easier rides.
I just feel like the whole thing is a bit disappointing and leading me to believe I wouldn't pay for TP because it feels like it belies my actual fitness level. They have charts for CTL/TSS for different cat racing, and I barely meet the 4/5 targets.
However, my power and repeat-ability in the last couple months means I'm dropping the racer boys that show up to the hammer ride. Not just dropping the A-groupies.
But my CTL and weekly TSS you'd think I couldn't finish a metric century or hang on the hammer ride at all.
It feels like that part of the model doesn't take well into account time spent per zone. I'd almost like to know my current CTL/ATL/TSB per each zone. Like split the TSS score by zone.
If you're too positive for too long in your power-intervals zone, might not do well in a RR or crit. Trending positive for too long in Z1/Z2 then don't expect to enjoy a hilly century ride.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
The scale on TP is stupid. Ignore it. I sort of think it's artificially inflated to motivate you or something. You don't need to be 5W/kg to be a competitive Cat 3....
The second part of your post is supposed to be factored in. The algorithm weighs higher percentages of your FTP more so that you generate more TSS the closer you get (and beyond) your FTP. It probably doesn't weight them enough though.
#8463
Version 7.0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,140
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1349 Post(s)
Liked 2,493 Times
in
1,464 Posts
I am not sure how many here have sat around with a coach and other racers and discussed FTP and testing protocols. To say the least, everyone has an opinion and we all agreed that we can generate different FTP results depending on the course and equipment. My FTP is the highest climbing a constant grade on the hoods. Flat to rolling in the drops generates a different FTP as well as on the time trial bike. The trainer is another result and the track different again.
Power meters have strength and weaknesses as well as head units. IMO, most power meters and 1 second sampling work well for constant climbing power. In a crit with lots of acceleration and fast high torque situations, 1 second sampling seems too slow and transient response of most PMs except for maybe the SRM scientific poor.
My FTP can vary 10% across different technology modalities. However, if I am told to do an FTP test, being human, I am going to choose a nice steady 4 to 5% grade on my road bike riding on the hoods where I can shoot the lights out of the number. Sadly, that number should be highly discounted to convert to an hour equivalent flat to rolling on my TT bike.
Power meters have strength and weaknesses as well as head units. IMO, most power meters and 1 second sampling work well for constant climbing power. In a crit with lots of acceleration and fast high torque situations, 1 second sampling seems too slow and transient response of most PMs except for maybe the SRM scientific poor.
My FTP can vary 10% across different technology modalities. However, if I am told to do an FTP test, being human, I am going to choose a nice steady 4 to 5% grade on my road bike riding on the hoods where I can shoot the lights out of the number. Sadly, that number should be highly discounted to convert to an hour equivalent flat to rolling on my TT bike.
#8464
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Houston
Posts: 606
Bikes: Trek Madone, Blue Triad SL, Dixie Flyer BTB
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I normally set my FTP values (quarterly) by doing a 20 effort up a local hill. Close by, repeatable, etc.
I did one yesterday (10/2) and maintained 290 watts for 20 mins. 290x.95 = 275w FTP
While reviewing my power curve I noticed I had a higher 20 min value from a crit I did on Sunday (9/30) which listed 306w for 20 mins. 306x.95 = 290w FTP
The question now is which # should I use for my FTP? The race driven one or the repeatable effort one?
Thinking back to my most recent test, I'm not sure I could have held 290 watts for another 40 minutes...
Looking forward to your feedback.
I did one yesterday (10/2) and maintained 290 watts for 20 mins. 290x.95 = 275w FTP
While reviewing my power curve I noticed I had a higher 20 min value from a crit I did on Sunday (9/30) which listed 306w for 20 mins. 306x.95 = 290w FTP
The question now is which # should I use for my FTP? The race driven one or the repeatable effort one?
Thinking back to my most recent test, I'm not sure I could have held 290 watts for another 40 minutes...
Looking forward to your feedback.
#8465
Nonsense
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 13,918
Bikes: Affirmative
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 880 Post(s)
Liked 541 Times
in
237 Posts
I guess I don't know of anyone that can put out a higher max 20min effort in a peaky crit type situation than they can steady state on an ideal hill. If anything I'd assume it indicates his actual ideal hill 20min max is higher than 306. Maybe @arai_speed should go out and try for that 306 number for 20min and see if it is doable in training?
#8466
Version 7.0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,140
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1349 Post(s)
Liked 2,493 Times
in
1,464 Posts
I guess I don't know of anyone that can put out a higher max 20min effort in a peaky crit type situation than they can steady state on an ideal hill. If anything I'd assume it indicates his actual ideal hill 20min max is higher than 306. Maybe @arai_speed should go out and try for that 306 number for 20min and see if it is doable in training?
I am not a big testing guy but do as I am told. I just ride these things. But, if I had his 306 watt 20 minute ideal climb number and felt like I could have kept going at that rate for another 40 minutes (even if that assumption turned out not to be true), I would take the 306 out for spin and see if I could do workouts based on that number. If not adjust it downward.
#8468
W**** B*
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Central IL (Chambana)
Posts: 992
Bikes: Several
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
So got a nifty email from my Stages Dash/Link account saying my (second hand, pretty old) Quarq Riken battery is low. Neat.
Went to replace battery but could not get battery cap off. So I used a little persuasion....
Unfortunately the cap is fused or something and is *not* coming off. During my 'persuasion" the whole battery housing rotated by about 30 degrees.
It now won't wake up. I assume it's just dead, but does anyone know of a place to source replacement housings? I might try some soldering iron work to salvage it for my trainer bike.
Edit: I just snagged a "for parts" spider off ebay. I'll try to document my quarq surgery.
Went to replace battery but could not get battery cap off. So I used a little persuasion....
Unfortunately the cap is fused or something and is *not* coming off. During my 'persuasion" the whole battery housing rotated by about 30 degrees.
It now won't wake up. I assume it's just dead, but does anyone know of a place to source replacement housings? I might try some soldering iron work to salvage it for my trainer bike.
Edit: I just snagged a "for parts" spider off ebay. I'll try to document my quarq surgery.
Last edited by ancker; 10-30-18 at 01:22 PM. Reason: new data!
#8469
W**** B*
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Central IL (Chambana)
Posts: 992
Bikes: Several
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Update for those interested. This turned out to be much less eventful than I thought it would be.
1) I had to dremel the battery cap off. No idea why it was so fused.
2) The battery compartment is held on by a small allen screw.
- The screw provides the negative terminal connection to the internal electronics.
- The outer compartment, when screwed down fully, provides the positive terminal connection. (This is important, I had it on but the quarq was still dead, a 1/4 turn more of the allen screw and she came back to life.)
3) I had to dremel the old little allen screw as the allen head stripped easily for some reason. Luckily the threads in the quarq body were still good.
So end of the day, replacing a busted/stuck battery compartment on a RIKEN is relatively easy, provided the threads in the body itself are still good.
1) I had to dremel the battery cap off. No idea why it was so fused.
2) The battery compartment is held on by a small allen screw.
- The screw provides the negative terminal connection to the internal electronics.
- The outer compartment, when screwed down fully, provides the positive terminal connection. (This is important, I had it on but the quarq was still dead, a 1/4 turn more of the allen screw and she came back to life.)
3) I had to dremel the old little allen screw as the allen head stripped easily for some reason. Luckily the threads in the quarq body were still good.
So end of the day, replacing a busted/stuck battery compartment on a RIKEN is relatively easy, provided the threads in the body itself are still good.
#8470
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked 153 Times
in
72 Posts
Nice work on the surgery. Just a heads up, the one and only issue I've ever had with my Quarq's is when I messed with the battery casing. If it spins at all, your data will be inconsistent/wrong. After fussing with mine for a while and getting beyond frustrated, I ended up calling Quarq and then sending it back to get fixed. Never had another problem.
#8471
W**** B*
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Central IL (Chambana)
Posts: 992
Bikes: Several
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Nice work on the surgery. Just a heads up, the one and only issue I've ever had with my Quarq's is when I messed with the battery casing. If it spins at all, your data will be inconsistent/wrong. After fussing with mine for a while and getting beyond frustrated, I ended up calling Quarq and then sending it back to get fixed. Never had another problem.
I'll report back if I have similar issues. A the Zero Offset was within a handful of the last time it Zeroed before the surgery. I figured that was a good sign.
#8472
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
6 Posts
I'm cheap and ended up putting the formulas into Excel successfully for CTL/ATL/TSB. I went back as far as I could stand to fill in cells. I'm seeing upper 40's CTL, mid 50's ATL, and TSB's routinely in the -10 to +10 range.
I'm time crunched, so don't get the stress input of longer/easier rides.
I just feel like the whole thing is a bit disappointing and leading me to believe I wouldn't pay for TP because it feels like it belies my actual fitness level. They have charts for CTL/TSS for different cat racing, and I barely meet the 4/5 targets.
However, my power and repeat-ability in the last couple months means I'm dropping the racer boys that show up to the hammer ride. Not just dropping the A-groupies.
But my CTL and weekly TSS you'd think I couldn't finish a metric century or hang on the hammer ride at all.
It feels like that part of the model doesn't take well into account time spent per zone. I'd almost like to know my current CTL/ATL/TSB per each zone. Like split the TSS score by zone.
If you're too positive for too long in your power-intervals zone, might not do well in a RR or crit. Trending positive for too long in Z1/Z2 then don't expect to enjoy a hilly century ride.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
I'm time crunched, so don't get the stress input of longer/easier rides.
I just feel like the whole thing is a bit disappointing and leading me to believe I wouldn't pay for TP because it feels like it belies my actual fitness level. They have charts for CTL/TSS for different cat racing, and I barely meet the 4/5 targets.
However, my power and repeat-ability in the last couple months means I'm dropping the racer boys that show up to the hammer ride. Not just dropping the A-groupies.
But my CTL and weekly TSS you'd think I couldn't finish a metric century or hang on the hammer ride at all.
It feels like that part of the model doesn't take well into account time spent per zone. I'd almost like to know my current CTL/ATL/TSB per each zone. Like split the TSS score by zone.
If you're too positive for too long in your power-intervals zone, might not do well in a RR or crit. Trending positive for too long in Z1/Z2 then don't expect to enjoy a hilly century ride.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
#8473
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,476
Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3377 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times
in
253 Posts
I am well aware this is a Zombie thread. Was it really 6 or so years ago I was posting my controversial ideas that you should not really train to a power meter?
I know the coaches like them. I just never saw they helped make anyone faster.
Cam Wurf broke a couple Kona records - not using one. This article just popped up.
Ditching the power meter is getting me results, says Alex Dowsett (msn.com)
I know the coaches like them. I just never saw they helped make anyone faster.
Cam Wurf broke a couple Kona records - not using one. This article just popped up.
Ditching the power meter is getting me results, says Alex Dowsett (msn.com)
#8474
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,570
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1852 Post(s)
Liked 679 Times
in
430 Posts
I am well aware this is a Zombie thread. Was it really 6 or so years ago I was posting my controversial ideas that you should not really train to a power meter?
I know the coaches like them. I just never saw they helped make anyone faster.
Cam Wurf broke a couple Kona records - not using one. This article just popped up.
Ditching the power meter is getting me results, says Alex Dowsett (msn.com)
I know the coaches like them. I just never saw they helped make anyone faster.
Cam Wurf broke a couple Kona records - not using one. This article just popped up.
Ditching the power meter is getting me results, says Alex Dowsett (msn.com)
Of course, I'm also focuesd on sprinting... so, it's all a lot of power.
Likes For topflightpro:
#8475
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,476
Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3377 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times
in
253 Posts
There are those that (still) think you should train to, race to a number as opposed to training to a feeling based fatigue level. Seems you are doing that. You are training to sprint, and power is just a measured result, not something you are using to determine how hard to go.