Watts/Cadence
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 1,404
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 682 Post(s)
Liked 453 Times
in
338 Posts
I don’t have a latency issue with my Zwift connection. It’s actually very responsive to sudden power surges. But it just seems to artificially hang on to power for a couple of seconds whenever I back off. I’ve read about this trait in Zwift with some trainers and power meters but a lot of the online discussions are a bit vague and inconclusive. The Wahoo recoded data shows that it isn’t the bike causing this issue.
Non of this causes any issues in erg mode or any continuous pedalling under power. Neither does it affect the ride feel in sim mode. But it does distort reported power averages on a Zwift ride or race, which is quite annoying as I feed this data into an adaptive training App.
Non of this causes any issues in erg mode or any continuous pedalling under power. Neither does it affect the ride feel in sim mode. But it does distort reported power averages on a Zwift ride or race, which is quite annoying as I feed this data into an adaptive training App.
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,451
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4416 Post(s)
Liked 4,871 Times
in
3,015 Posts
Yes, I think so. I find that I can ease back quite a lot when riding in the pack or on descents, although I find that quite realistic. Obviously can't do that when climbing or going full gas just to hold on or bridge a gap. But if you do soft pedal for a few strokes you don't lose as much ground as you would in real life. I now see this effect quite clearly when comparing directly with my Wahoo wheel speed.
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 884
Bikes: Lemond Zurich/Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 570 Post(s)
Liked 773 Times
in
404 Posts
Zwift high cadence on the flats vs low cadence climbing similar power levels.
Did 100k flat ride at a normal cadence and a comfortable power level, 190w+\-. Zero fatigue, plenty of reserve power, easily in zone 2- fun ride.
Just did Mt Ventoux at the same power level with the trainer resistance set at 90% to allow for a slightly higher cadence-75 rpm average. I hour less time in the saddle, fully gassed at the end, never in zone 2, elevated heart rate and breathing. This ride destroyed me.
Climbing Vs flat- to rule the difference out. I also did Alpe de zwift with the trainer set at 75% allowing for normal cadence levels, and I averaged 50watts more and was never as gassed out.
not sure what to make of that.
Did 100k flat ride at a normal cadence and a comfortable power level, 190w+\-. Zero fatigue, plenty of reserve power, easily in zone 2- fun ride.
Just did Mt Ventoux at the same power level with the trainer resistance set at 90% to allow for a slightly higher cadence-75 rpm average. I hour less time in the saddle, fully gassed at the end, never in zone 2, elevated heart rate and breathing. This ride destroyed me.
Climbing Vs flat- to rule the difference out. I also did Alpe de zwift with the trainer set at 75% allowing for normal cadence levels, and I averaged 50watts more and was never as gassed out.
not sure what to make of that.
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 1,404
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 682 Post(s)
Liked 453 Times
in
338 Posts
Maybe just rested more for the first one but that sounds like a big difference.
What was “normal” cadence? 75 is pretty low. Maybe calling on less developed / trained muscle fibres?
What was “normal” cadence? 75 is pretty low. Maybe calling on less developed / trained muscle fibres?
#80
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 884
Bikes: Lemond Zurich/Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 570 Post(s)
Liked 773 Times
in
404 Posts
Equal rest +\- for all three rides.
On the Alpe, at normal cadence, I was able to start the climb in Z3, continue to add power, was doing FTP+ intervals on every other segment, and finished with a full on sprint at the top.
On Ventoux, at lower cadence, I couldn’t maintain low Z3 levels, forget about getting into z4, and at the top I was dead gassed out.
Hate to say it, but I have do both of them again while using my power meter pedals as well. Could be a trainer issue at lower cadence… my butt meter didn’t match the trainer readout at all.
Likes For Jughed:
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,451
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4416 Post(s)
Liked 4,871 Times
in
3,015 Posts
Zwift high cadence on the flats vs low cadence climbing similar power levels.
Did 100k flat ride at a normal cadence and a comfortable power level, 190w+\-. Zero fatigue, plenty of reserve power, easily in zone 2- fun ride.
Just did Mt Ventoux at the same power level with the trainer resistance set at 90% to allow for a slightly higher cadence-75 rpm average. I hour less time in the saddle, fully gassed at the end, never in zone 2, elevated heart rate and breathing. This ride destroyed me.
Climbing Vs flat- to rule the difference out. I also did Alpe de zwift with the trainer set at 75% allowing for normal cadence levels, and I averaged 50watts more and was never as gassed out.
not sure what to make of that.
Did 100k flat ride at a normal cadence and a comfortable power level, 190w+\-. Zero fatigue, plenty of reserve power, easily in zone 2- fun ride.
Just did Mt Ventoux at the same power level with the trainer resistance set at 90% to allow for a slightly higher cadence-75 rpm average. I hour less time in the saddle, fully gassed at the end, never in zone 2, elevated heart rate and breathing. This ride destroyed me.
Climbing Vs flat- to rule the difference out. I also did Alpe de zwift with the trainer set at 75% allowing for normal cadence levels, and I averaged 50watts more and was never as gassed out.
not sure what to make of that.
Comparing average power reported via Zwift in sim mode vs average power reported in my Wahoo app for the same ride was an eye-opener for me.
Likes For PeteHski:
#82
OM boy
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Posts: 4,369
Bikes: a bunch
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked 645 Times
in
438 Posts
the general consensus is that higher rpms are better since it stresses the cardiovascular system over the musculature. your heart/lungs can go longer than your legs.
but that doesn't mean its true for everyone. there are plenty of very experienced riders and racers who prefer a lower cadence. as with everything else, YMMV
but that doesn't mean its true for everyone. there are plenty of very experienced riders and racers who prefer a lower cadence. as with everything else, YMMV
Heart and Lungs going 'longer' is a very personal assessment. Depending on where one is relative to his 'motor's design (training) either power can be more optimized, or cadence (aerobic efficiency).
Comparison of a rider who bounces in their saddle at 90 rpm vs rider who can spin 120 easily but can;t with a 92"+ gear (scuze my oldschule gear inches)..
Real world is way different than a comparison of two curves with 'infinite' combinations of torque and cadence.
Many riders don't have the muscle structure to put out 1K watts, at any time. Many have such low efficiency that riding for 100 rpm for more than a few seconds has them bouncing uncontrollably on their saddles.
A wonderful part of cycling is what happens when all these variables combine. So a world class track sprinter can put out amazing torque at 130 rpm for an amazing time to put out 2000+ watts - ... enough to do 120-150 meters at that level. But may not fare as well in a 40K time trial.
Cadence (muscular efficiency) is a very important part of the equation, but certainly not the fully deciding part... same said for torque...
... so where are we... somehow one needs to work/train at both. 'Natural' is to fall into the one you find more suited for 'you' - hard (and very productive) is to work on what comes with more difficulty.
depending on the situation 'going longer' (as with using aerobic fitness/cadence) may not suit the Question asked of you. Spinning up a difficult 'Roller' may get you up there, ready to drive down the other side. BUT, if you're in a group where others are 'powering' up the roller and 25 yds ahead of you at the top - being 'shelled' off the back may mean a solo ride, behind...
If you're on your own, it just means 'that's my ride'...
... it all dependz...
Of course, if one never really taxes themselves in various situations - one never really knows where the strengths and weaknesses lie.
cadence - is easy to monitor and you get direct feedback when your riding is focused on that. And pedaling efficiency improvement has a broad affect on overall improvement.
torque, much harder to isolate and monitor - yes 'power' measurement, but also harder to measure relative to the other variables.
Ride On
Yuri
Likes For cyclezen:
#84
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,451
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4416 Post(s)
Liked 4,871 Times
in
3,015 Posts
... so where are we... somehow one needs to work/train at both. 'Natural' is to fall into the one you find more suited for 'you' - hard (and very productive) is to work on what comes with more difficulty.
depending on the situation 'going longer' (as with using aerobic fitness/cadence) may not suit the Question asked of you.
Given that the OP is looking to optimise power in a steady TT it is really about riding at a relatively comfortable, natural cadence with a sustainable HR.
Likes For PeteHski:
#85
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,421
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked 1,156 Times
in
494 Posts
A lot of the discussion has been very theoretical... cadence v torque. But reality is way different. There are limits to both and the curve to those points can vary dramatically, depending on the motor. [...] Real world is way different than a comparison of two curves with 'infinite' combinations of torque and cadence.[ ... ] ... so where are we... somehow one needs to work/train at both. 'Natural' is to fall into the one you find more suited for 'you' - hard (and very productive) is to work on what comes with more difficulty.
Likes For RChung:
#88
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,451
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4416 Post(s)
Liked 4,871 Times
in
3,015 Posts
So for example, if you pedal at 85 rpm in a low gear then you will produce less power and be slower than if you pedal at the same 85 rpm in a higher gear in the same conditions.
Likes For PeteHski:
#89
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,448
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3148 Post(s)
Liked 1,714 Times
in
1,034 Posts
Using watts, you can know your limits, and decide where you want to exert your efforts within those limits. Cadence is really just an adjunct to watts in terms of performance.
#90
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,816
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 503 Post(s)
Liked 634 Times
in
374 Posts
Folks are power happy these days. I don't care how many watts I'm putting out, I care how fast I can make my bike go, sure there is a correlation, but like I said, we are not electric motors. Right around July most race seasons, I could spin the 53/15 on a flat road and stay on top of it throughout a training ride, Don't know how many watts that was, but I know I never owned the 14 like that on a consistent basis. Saw Alex Steida (with his skinny legs) spin a 13 on a crit once, and knew instantly I would never do that...
#91
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 1,404
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 682 Post(s)
Liked 453 Times
in
338 Posts
It adds a lot to training. Especially for those of us who are never going to race (except the odd friendly TT maybe) and want some kind of objective yardstick. Speed isn’t always a useful measure of progress in changing weather and traffic conditions.
#92
Senior Member
*It has the flavor of keep the government's hands off my Medicare.
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 1,404
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 682 Post(s)
Liked 453 Times
in
338 Posts
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this*. There are two things that control how fast a bike goes. The power produced by the rider and the forces resisting motion. If you're interested in going faster you can increase the former, decrease the latter or both. I don't think you really believe the only way for you to make yourself faster is reducing the resistance.
*It has the flavor of keep the government's hands off my Medicare.
*It has the flavor of keep the government's hands off my Medicare.
#94
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,380
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2487 Post(s)
Liked 2,956 Times
in
1,679 Posts
I think he’s saying he cares about the end result and focusses on that (sometimes aero position, technique or racing tactics beats watts when it comes to increasing average speed so you can miss the bigger picture if you hyperfocus on power output. Also, see examples of Froome crashing due to too much Garmin)
The only info I found concerning Froome crashing referred to his catastrophic crash that all but ended his career:
"According to Poels and Brailsford, a strong gust of wind caught Froome's wheel and caused the Kenyan-born British rider to lose control. [Froome had one hand off the handlebar, blowing his nose.] Froome was traveling at nearly 55kph on a straight section of road lined by houses when he struck a low wall and crashed heavily on his right side."
#95
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,816
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 503 Post(s)
Liked 634 Times
in
374 Posts
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this*. There are two things that control how fast a bike goes. The power produced by the rider and the forces resisting motion. If you're interested in going faster you can increase the former, decrease the latter or both. I don't think you really believe the only way for you to make yourself faster is reducing the resistance.
#96
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,451
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4416 Post(s)
Liked 4,871 Times
in
3,015 Posts
It's simple, if I can make my bike go faster, I'm obviously putting out more power, so I train (or rather trained) to go faster, and the power takes care of itself, I don't care about the number. And while I wasn't referring to efficiency, that takes care of itself too.
Likes For PeteHski:
#98
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 1,404
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 682 Post(s)
Liked 453 Times
in
338 Posts
The bolded line is tangential to your point, obviously, but: what examples? Links?
The only info I found concerning Froome crashing referred to his catastrophic crash that all but ended his career:
"According to Poels and Brailsford, a strong gust of wind caught Froome's wheel and caused the Kenyan-born British rider to lose control. [Froome had one hand off the handlebar, blowing his nose.] Froome was traveling at nearly 55kph on a straight section of road lined by houses when he struck a low wall and crashed heavily on his right side."
The only info I found concerning Froome crashing referred to his catastrophic crash that all but ended his career:
"According to Poels and Brailsford, a strong gust of wind caught Froome's wheel and caused the Kenyan-born British rider to lose control. [Froome had one hand off the handlebar, blowing his nose.] Froome was traveling at nearly 55kph on a straight section of road lined by houses when he struck a low wall and crashed heavily on his right side."
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: NorCal
Posts: 506
Bikes: Santa Cruz Blur 4 TR, Canyon Endurace cf sl, Canyon Ultimate cf slx, Canyon Strive enduro, Canyon Grizl sl8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 219 Post(s)
Liked 851 Times
in
343 Posts
For a correlation between power and cadence, my cadence increases as my power increases. My "noodling along" cadence is around 90rpm and will go all the way past 100rpm for a max effort. Low rpm efforts with lots of pedal force, just fatigue me a lot more than increasing the revs and dropping the force(for an equal power reading.)
To add to that, the power meter is also the means to improvement and not just a measure of that improvement. By utilizing power zones nowadays, I'm much fitter/faster/stronger than when I was just simply riding lots and hard.
To add to that, the power meter is also the means to improvement and not just a measure of that improvement. By utilizing power zones nowadays, I'm much fitter/faster/stronger than when I was just simply riding lots and hard.
Likes For Sierra_rider:
#100
Newbie
Thread Starter
I think he’s saying he cares about the end result and focusses on that (sometimes aero position, technique or racing tactics beats watts when it comes to increasing average speed so you can miss the bigger picture if you hyperfocus on power output. Also, see examples of Froome crashing due to too much Garmin)