Best way to measure Watts-

[cycledogg]

I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
Cheers and Happy Holidays,
Rick in Tennessee

[MagillaGorilla]

cycledogg wrote:

> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> Rick in Tennessee


You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very unlikely
the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge' of your power.

Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and 150-mile/week
cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and think they're
training scientifically.

In reality, most of your limitations in maximimizing your fitness are
going to be things like money, free time, rest time, daily stress from
your job/school, genetics, diet, etc..

In order to justify the cost of a power meter, it means you have all
these other things under control, which you don't.

So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help your
fitness more than a power meter.

Magilla

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Dec 3, 10:45 am, cycledogg <cycled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?

Each has advantages and disadvantages. "Best" depends on your
situation. PT appears to be more precise than SRM Amateur; roughly on
par with SRM Pro.

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Dec 3, 7:45 pm, cycledogg <cycled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> Rick in Tennessee

One thing that I realised when I was deciding whether to buy a power
meter is that the technology is not yet mature, that is, it is quite
likely that, independent of manufacturer, this piece of equipment will
probably not work perfectly and will require a lot of technical work.
For example, even without any other problem, you have to routinely
send the SRM back for calibration, and apart from removing and
installing cranks, who has an extra pair lying around?

With that in mind, I chose the PowerTap because it was accurate, much
cheaper than SRM, and there weren't any wires (I had already
previously ripped wires from 2 speedometers and didn't want to live
through that again). So far, it has worked flawlessly, except for
downloading. After many hours with Saris support, the download cradle
was finally identified as the culprit. 4 months later, downloading is
still not working smoothly, so they are sending me my 4th (!!) cradle
and 2nd CPU. Even though this may look bad, it does show that they are
extremely committed to supporting their product. Once I got to the
right department at Saris, everything went very well. I was quite wary
of SRM, since they never even responded to an e-mail question, which I
sent to test their customer support.

Hopefully, the situation will change with when Quarq and Garmin come
out with their wireless units, which will work with SRM or with the
Quarq sensor. For now, it seems to me that PowerTap is best suited for
training, SRM is probably better for racing, given all the different
wheels you need to use, and also because it works well for the track.

-ilan

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Dec 3, 10:45 am, cycledogg <cycled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?

Corrections for systematic errors can be applied, and good results can
be had, but intuitively: If you want to measure power at the hub, buy
a hub sensed meter. If you want to measure power at the crank, buy a
crank sensed meter.

But my primate friend is largely correct. If you've got the 99% of
conditioning extracted from your body (which requires only a bike,
time, and willpower), then you can think of dropping your bucks on a
power meter, if "high" priced gadgets are your thing, and that last 1%
is important to you.

Remember that most races where you will (or have had) a reasonable
shot at winning will be lost because of some bad split-second decision
you make (made), not your power output. /When/ you put out power is
more important than /how much/, for that first 99% of conditioning,
and that requires no gadgets, but simple experience and judicious
reflection.

On the other hand, if you simply like gadgets, then by all means buy
one. Don't get wireless -- there will be a built-in error of a few
percent due to background radiation from the big bang. I think using
energy from the big bang must be against UCI regulations. The UCI is
sort of like the pope, you know. I don't know what happens around
corners though. There is knife-edge diffraction on sharp corners, and
you might slow down.

Personally, I just listen to Highway Star before leaving on rides. It
does 99% of what can be done.

[Pete]

On 3 Dec, 18:45, cycledogg <cycled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> Rick in Tennessee

You are really not interested in accuracy. You are interested in
consistency if you want it at all.

If you buy something that says 250W when you're putting out 200, but
it does it consistently, you'll get the same training benefit of
always knowing how hard you're working (that's relative to your AT
anyway, and you'll have measured that with the same power meter..).

That said, they are so damn expensive - and you do most of your riding
on the same roads, and then you know pretty well how your speed and
power output correspond. Speedo costs about 1/50th of a power meter...
no contest.

Pete

[Andrew F Martin]

On Dec 3, 10:45 am, cycledogg <cycled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> Rick in Tennessee

I'd go with the PowerTap SL 2.4 Wireless built onto some decent rims.
I know Bontrager has a good setup (and you can get them in a matched
wheelset). The ability to swap them between bikes without all the
harness is pretty nice.

Note - I don't use power trainer and ChiefHiawatha hates me for it. I
say it's because I'm cheap, but it's really because I don't want to
know that I'm the weakest Cat1 in the country.

[chiefhiawatha@gmail.com]

On Dec 3, 1:27 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> cycledogg wrote:
> > I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> > season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> > from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
> > Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> > Rick in Tennessee
>
> You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
> parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very unlikely
> the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge' of your power.

This is ignorance speaking. In the truest sense of the word.

> Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and 150-mile/week
> cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and think they're
> training scientifically.

I do not know of even ONE person who did not improve after getting a
powermeter. It helps you to train better, monitor your training load,
see if you are improving.

There are people who don't want to like power training, and cannot be
convinced of anything.

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> cycledogg wrote:
>
>> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
>> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
>> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
>> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
>> Rick in Tennessee
>
>
> You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
> parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very unlikely
> the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge' of your power.
>
> Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and 150-mile/week
> cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and think they're
> training scientifically.
>
> In reality, most of your limitations in maximimizing your fitness are
> going to be things like money, free time, rest time, daily stress from
> your job/school, genetics, diet, etc..
>
> In order to justify the cost of a power meter, it means you have all
> these other things under control, which you don't.
>
> So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help your
> fitness more than a power meter.
>
> Magilla

I used a PowerTap to show that it is possible to
simultaneously cut power and accelerate in a velodrome
turn.

Bob Schwartz

[cyclintom@gmail.com]

On Dec 3, 11:27 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> cycledogg wrote:
> > I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> > season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> > from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
> > Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> > Rick in Tennessee
>
> You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
> parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very unlikely
> the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge' of your power.

As painful as it is, I have to agree with Magilla. Unless you're a Cat
1 or better the only thing you'll get from a power meter is an empty
wallet. Improved training techniques by hiring a good coach would
improve you a great deal better and faster. Talk to Adam Meyerson.

> Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and 150-mile/week
> cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and think they're
> training scientifically.

And they improve not because of the training methods they use but
because they're also racing more. Nothing leads to improved racing
muscles than racing.

[Donald Munro]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help your
> fitness more than a power meter.

Dumbass,
Perhaps if you got a power meter you'd be faster around turns.

[MagillaGorilla]

rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:

> On Dec 3, 10:45 am, cycledogg <cycled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
>>season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
>>from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
>
>
> Each has advantages and disadvantages. "Best" depends on your
> situation. PT appears to be more precise than SRM Amateur; roughly on
> par with SRM Pro.


Don't pay any attention to this answer. You don't need a power meter
unless you want to be a pro and have the genetics to be a pro.
Otherwise, the only thing you need if you want to get substantially
better is a willingness to endure pain and stare at asphalt for 4 hours
a day.

If for some strange reason you even found the spare time to actually
utilize the data from a power meter and assimilate it into a training
program (a nice little Ph.d. project that should take you 2-3 hours a
day to do properly), then you will find your are wasting your time with
trivial projects when you should be trying to bang some hot chick.

So delete your power meter auction links on ebay and put that money
towards some new Michelin clinchers and save the rest for a few dates
with a hot chick. You will gain more mental and physical motivation
from hitting that than graphing your power curves after every training
ride.

When Lance Armstrong won the world championships at 21, he didn't use a
power meter to do that. When Greg LeMond won.....

And all those jackasses you see on continental teams who have resumes
that read like a manager to a valet service for parking lot criteriums
who use power meters on their rigs - they are just kidding themselves.
The only reason they got them on their bikes is because everyone else
got them.

If you go to a pro race, you'll notice all the pro teams sit around in
the SAME type of folding chair. Do you know why? Because the people in
this sport are so fad-oriented and so cliquish, that whatever someone
else does, they do.

Monkey see, monkey do. Don't be another monkey. Be a gorilla.



Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

chiefhiawatha@gmail.com wrote:

> On Dec 3, 1:27 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>cycledogg wrote:
>>
>>>I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
>>>season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
>>>from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
>>>Cheers and Happy Holidays,
>>>Rick in Tennessee
>>
>>You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
>>parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very unlikely
>>the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge' of your power.
>
>
> This is ignorance speaking. In the truest sense of the word.
>
>
>>Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and 150-mile/week
>>cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and think they're
>>training scientifically.
>
>
> I do not know of even ONE person who did not improve after getting a
> powermeter. It helps you to train better, monitor your training load,
> see if you are improving.
>
> There are people who don't want to like power training, and cannot be
> convinced of anything.



This is hilarious. We're suppose to believe that you actually witnessed
that riders who got power meters got better and that it was due entirely
to their power meter. Hilarious. This is right up there with a claim
that psychics help solve criminal cases because people have supposeldy
witnessed it.

Riddle me this one, joker-face: Do you think guys from the 1970's ever
rode with other riders who "got better." Or are you the only one?

I also like how you imply that you've isolated the reason for their
improvement as being due solel to their power meter. How do you know it
wasn't due to their EPO injections, their diet, their experience, or
their extra mileage? How did you rule all these other factors out and
come tot he conclusion it was due to their power meter?

Vinokourov, Ullrich, Heras, and Tyler Hamilton also got better after
installing a power meter on their bikes.

You just earned yourself an invitation to the attitude adjustment
cycling camp I'm putting on at the Saulsalito cafe. See you there 3
p.m. this Friday.


Magilla

[chiefhiawatha@gmail.com]

These are people I have ridden with for years, so yes, they got a
powermeter, tested themselves, and in subsequent years, tested better.
It could be other things of course, but for me, I got a lot better at
training and knowing how to train because of the feedback the
powermeter gives me. I have concrete goals to shoot for.

The original poster should get a powermeter. It makes people train
better. If you don't agree, that's ok. I know it's fun for simpletons
to take the contrarian position.

[chiefhiawatha@gmail.com]

> You just earned yourself an invitation to the attitude adjustment
> cycling camp I'm putting on at the Saulsalito cafe. See you there 3
> p.m. this Friday.
>
> Magilla


Is this a variation of the "I'm faster or better than you so I am
right?" argument?

[MagillaGorilla]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> cycledogg wrote:
>>
>>> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
>>> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
>>> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
>>> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
>>> Rick in Tennessee
>>
>>
>>
>> You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
>> parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very unlikely
>> the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge' of your power.
>>
>> Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and 150-mile/week
>> cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and think they're
>> training scientifically.
>>
>> In reality, most of your limitations in maximimizing your fitness are
>> going to be things like money, free time, rest time, daily stress from
>> your job/school, genetics, diet, etc..
>>
>> In order to justify the cost of a power meter, it means you have all
>> these other things under control, which you don't.
>>
>> So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help
>> your fitness more than a power meter.
>>
>> Magilla
>
>
> I used a PowerTap to show that it is possible to
> simultaneously cut power and accelerate in a velodrome
> turn.
>
> Bob Schwartz



Hey Joker,

Bearing in mind that energy cannot be created or destroyed, where does
this extra energy come from?

You sound like someone who has submitted multiple patent applications
for a perpetual motion machine to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in
Washington D.C.

Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

chiefhiawatha@gmail.com wrote:

> These are people I have ridden with for years, so yes, they got a
> powermeter, tested themselves, and in subsequent years, tested better.
> It could be other things of course, but for me, I got a lot better at
> training and knowing how to train because of the feedback the
> powermeter gives me. I have concrete goals to shoot for.
>
> The original poster should get a powermeter. It makes people train
> better. If you don't agree, that's ok. I know it's fun for simpletons
> to take the contrarian position.


Listen to me and listen to me good. The original poster should
absolutely NOT get a power meter. He doesn't need a glass of milk. He
needs to learn how to milk a cow.

Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> On Dec 3, 11:27 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>cycledogg wrote:
>>
>>>I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
>>>season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
>>>from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
>>>Cheers and Happy Holidays,
>>>Rick in Tennessee
>>
>>You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
>>parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very unlikely
>>the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge' of your power.
>
>
> As painful as it is, I have to agree with Magilla. Unless you're a Cat
> 1 or better the only thing you'll get from a power meter is an empty
> wallet. Improved training techniques by hiring a good coach would
> improve you a great deal better and faster. Talk to Adam Meyerson.


See, everyone eventually sticks a weary hand through the cage to give
the gorilla a banana.


Magilla

[Andy Coggan]

On Dec 3, 3:12 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> the only thing you need if you want to get substantially
> better is a willingness to endure pain and stare at asphalt for 4 hours
> a day.

Is that how you made it up to cat. 1? Oh, right...you were never more
than pack fodder in local cat. 2 races, and couldn't break the hour in
a 40 km TT despite all my help. Now maybe if you *had* used a
powermeter for a few years, you could achieved these goals...

Andy Coggan

[BeeCharmer]

>
> If you go to a pro race, you'll notice all the pro teams sit around in
> the SAME type of folding chair. Do you know why?

Because they got 'em for free?

[chiefhiawatha@gmail.com]

> Listen to me and listen to me good. The original poster should
> absolutely NOT get a power meter. He doesn't need a glass of milk. He
> needs to learn how to milk a cow.

We think the same thing.

Having a powermeter, and learning about the body because training is
suddenly more interesting and rewarding, and seeing what results you
get from your training, and learning why you got dropped in a race,
and learning that you needed to train more by monitoring your CTL, and
realizing you weren't fresh because you didn't letup before that big
race enough, and seeing that after 3 hours of racing your power is way
down and your heart rate is up, and maybe you were dehydrated, so next
time you drink more and examine THAT file and see how you did.

Powermeters are IN MY OPINION, the best way to start really learning
about how to train. It unlocks a whole new world of information, and
yes, you can be a dope and do nothing with it, or you can use your
intelligence, willingness to learn, and curiosity and dig in.

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> cycledogg wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
>>>> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
>>>> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
>>>> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
>>>> Rick in Tennessee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
>>> parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very
>>> unlikely the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge' of
>>> your power.
>>>
>>> Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and
>>> 150-mile/week cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and
>>> think they're training scientifically.
>>>
>>> In reality, most of your limitations in maximimizing your fitness are
>>> going to be things like money, free time, rest time, daily stress
>>> from your job/school, genetics, diet, etc..
>>>
>>> In order to justify the cost of a power meter, it means you have all
>>> these other things under control, which you don't.
>>>
>>> So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help
>>> your fitness more than a power meter.
>>>
>>> Magilla
>>
>>
>> I used a PowerTap to show that it is possible to
>> simultaneously cut power and accelerate in a velodrome
>> turn.
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
>
>
> Hey Joker,
>
> Bearing in mind that energy cannot be created or destroyed, where does
> this extra energy come from?
>
> You sound like someone who has submitted multiple patent applications
> for a perpetual motion machine to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in
> Washington D.C.
>
> Magilla


Hopefully the physics mavens can chime in--it has to do with angular
momentum, but I'm pretty sure Bob is right--of course if power isn't
added then there will be a marked deceleration coming out of the turn.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Bob Schwartz]

Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>> cycledogg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
>>>>> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
>>>>> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
>>>>> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
>>>>> Rick in Tennessee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
>>>> parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very
>>>> unlikely the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge' of
>>>> your power.
>>>>
>>>> Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and
>>>> 150-mile/week cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and
>>>> think they're training scientifically.
>>>>
>>>> In reality, most of your limitations in maximimizing your fitness
>>>> are going to be things like money, free time, rest time, daily
>>>> stress from your job/school, genetics, diet, etc..
>>>>
>>>> In order to justify the cost of a power meter, it means you have all
>>>> these other things under control, which you don't.
>>>>
>>>> So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help
>>>> your fitness more than a power meter.
>>>>
>>>> Magilla
>>>
>>>
>>> I used a PowerTap to show that it is possible to
>>> simultaneously cut power and accelerate in a velodrome
>>> turn.
>>>
>>> Bob Schwartz
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey Joker,
>>
>> Bearing in mind that energy cannot be created or destroyed, where does
>> this extra energy come from?
>>
>> You sound like someone who has submitted multiple patent applications
>> for a perpetual motion machine to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
>> in Washington D.C.
>>
>> Magilla
>
>
> Hopefully the physics mavens can chime in--it has to do with angular
> momentum, but I'm pretty sure Bob is right--of course if power isn't
> added then there will be a marked deceleration coming out of the turn.
>
> Steve
>

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/schwartzpursuit.png

My very own Chung Chart. Coggan provides a good explanation.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/e9165fe820602ef4

Bob Schwartz

[Michael Press]

In article <fu_4j.2290$3W.22@trndny04>,
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com>
wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> > Bob Schwartz wrote:
> >
> >> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >>
> >>> cycledogg wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> >>>> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> >>>> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
> >>>> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> >>>> Rick in Tennessee
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
> >>> parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very
> >>> unlikely the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge' of
> >>> your power.
> >>>
> >>> Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and
> >>> 150-mile/week cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and
> >>> think they're training scientifically.
> >>>
> >>> In reality, most of your limitations in maximimizing your fitness are
> >>> going to be things like money, free time, rest time, daily stress
> >>> from your job/school, genetics, diet, etc..
> >>>
> >>> In order to justify the cost of a power meter, it means you have all
> >>> these other things under control, which you don't.
> >>>
> >>> So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help
> >>> your fitness more than a power meter.
> >>>
> >>> Magilla
> >>
> >>
> >> I used a PowerTap to show that it is possible to
> >> simultaneously cut power and accelerate in a velodrome
> >> turn.
> >>
> >> Bob Schwartz
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey Joker,
> >
> > Bearing in mind that energy cannot be created or destroyed, where does
> > this extra energy come from?
> >
> > You sound like someone who has submitted multiple patent applications
> > for a perpetual motion machine to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in
> > Washington D.C.
>
>
> Hopefully the physics mavens can chime in--it has to do with angular
> momentum, but I'm pretty sure Bob is right--of course if power isn't
> added then there will be a marked deceleration coming out of the turn.

The center of mass only accelerates when the kinetic
energy changes. This can occur if the COM changes
altitude, or if the rider changes power input. In a
purely kinematic analysis where the presence or absence
of a banked turn acts perpendicular to the velocity we
have zero acceleration.

The center of mass continues with the same instantaneous
speed as it did on the straight.

This assumes that the COM remains on the same gravitational
equipotential surface: i.e. the lean of the system combined
with the change in altitude of the contact patch combine to
leave the COM at the same altitude.

Given this situation with the COM maintaining the same
speed in the turn, as it must by conservation of energy,
the contact patch follows a concentric path with larger
radius than the path of the COM, and must travel faster.
This is a purely geometric-kinematic argument. Taking
the dynamics into account is a task well beyond the
native and learned capacity of a monkey.

--
Michael Press

[cyclintom@gmail.com]

On Dec 3, 1:24 pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>
> Hopefully the physics mavens can chime in--it has to do with angular
> momentum, but I'm pretty sure Bob is right--of course if power isn't
> added then there will be a marked deceleration coming out of the turn.

But you do that unconciously since the whole idea of racing is to "add
power". You have heard the term, "Accelerating out of the turn"
haven't you?

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <fj1sab$431$1@aioe.org>,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 11:27 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>cycledogg wrote:
> >>
> >>>I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> >>>season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> >>>from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
> >>>Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> >>>Rick in Tennessee
> >>
> >>You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
> >>parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very unlikely
> >>the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge' of your power.
> >
> >
> > As painful as it is, I have to agree with Magilla. Unless you're a Cat
> > 1 or better the only thing you'll get from a power meter is an empty
> > wallet. Improved training techniques by hiring a good coach would
> > improve you a great deal better and faster. Talk to Adam Meyerson.
>
>
> See, everyone eventually sticks a weary hand through the cage to give
> the gorilla a banana.
>
>
> Magilla

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

[MagillaGorilla]

chiefhiawatha@gmail.com wrote:
>>Listen to me and listen to me good. The original poster should
>>absolutely NOT get a power meter. He doesn't need a glass of milk. He
>>needs to learn how to milk a cow.
>
>
> We think the same thing.
>
> Having a powermeter, and learning about the body because training is
> suddenly more interesting and rewarding, and seeing what results you
> get from your training, and learning why you got dropped in a race,
> and learning that you needed to train more by monitoring your CTL, and
> realizing you weren't fresh because you didn't letup before that big
> race enough, and seeing that after 3 hours of racing your power is way
> down and your heart rate is up, and maybe you were dehydrated, so next
> time you drink more and examine THAT file and see how you did.
>
> Powermeters are IN MY OPINION, the best way to start really learning
> about how to train. It unlocks a whole new world of information, and
> yes, you can be a dope and do nothing with it, or you can use your
> intelligence, willingness to learn, and curiosity and dig in.


Interpreting power meter data is complex and beyond the scope of most
people, includiing trainers.

You don't need a power meter to ride a bike, race or bike, or get
better. Having one is just another expensive thing that breaks when you
crash.

The money can be better spent on tires and spare parts. A power meter
will not help you go faster because most people don't know how to
interpet the data anyway.

Magilla

[Andy Coggan]

On Dec 3, 3:39 pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:>

> even without any other problem, you have to routinely
> send the SRM back for calibration

This is not true.

Andy Coggan

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/schwartzpursuit.png
>
> My very own Chung Chart. Coggan provides a good explanation.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/e9165fe820602ef4
>
> Bob Schwartz


Thanks Bob!

Steve


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[MagillaGorilla]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>>
>>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> cycledogg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
>>>>>> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
>>>>>> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
>>>>>> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
>>>>>> Rick in Tennessee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
>>>>> parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very
>>>>> unlikely the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge'
>>>>> of your power.
>>>>>
>>>>> Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and
>>>>> 150-mile/week cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and
>>>>> think they're training scientifically.
>>>>>
>>>>> In reality, most of your limitations in maximimizing your fitness
>>>>> are going to be things like money, free time, rest time, daily
>>>>> stress from your job/school, genetics, diet, etc..
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to justify the cost of a power meter, it means you have
>>>>> all these other things under control, which you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help
>>>>> your fitness more than a power meter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Magilla
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I used a PowerTap to show that it is possible to
>>>> simultaneously cut power and accelerate in a velodrome
>>>> turn.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Schwartz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Joker,
>>>
>>> Bearing in mind that energy cannot be created or destroyed, where
>>> does this extra energy come from?
>>>
>>> You sound like someone who has submitted multiple patent applications
>>> for a perpetual motion machine to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
>>> in Washington D.C.
>>>
>>> Magilla
>>
>>
>>
>> Hopefully the physics mavens can chime in--it has to do with
>> angular momentum, but I'm pretty sure Bob is right--of course if power
>> isn't added then there will be a marked deceleration coming out of the
>> turn.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/schwartzpursuit.png
>
> My very own Chung Chart. Coggan provides a good explanation.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/e9165fe820602ef4
>
> Bob Schwartz



Physics 101: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from
one form to another.

So unless someone in here is Einstein and wants to change the
understanding of modern physics with a new theory on the conservation of
energy, I think it's safe to conclude there is no energy (or speed) gain.

I don't need to ask anyone else's opinion.

You can't gain speed or energy in a turn. Any speed gain you get from
your initial lean into a turn MUST BE lost (plus some) while exiting
that same turn because it takes longer (and more energy) to bring
yourself upright and raise yourself than it would had you ridden that
same distance on a straightaway and never had to lean up or down to
begin with.

On a straightaway, that same energy is put into the pedals. You are
losing substantial amounts of energy in a turn via friction.

Nothing is free in energy equations.


Magilla

[Ted van de Weteringe]

SLAVE of THE STATE schreef:
> Don't get wireless -- there will be a built-in error of a few
> percent due to background radiation from the big bang.

Only for the first three minutes of the race.

[chiefhiawatha@gmail.com]

> Interpreting power meter data is complex and beyond the scope of most
> people, includiing trainers.

That's just not true.

You just earned yourself an invitation to the powermeter file reading
interpretation camp I'm putting on United Center. See you there 7
p.m. this Friday.

[Andy Coggan]

On Dec 3, 5:46 pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/schwartzpursuit.png
>
> > My very own Chung Chart. Coggan provides a good explanation.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/e9165fe820602ef4
>
> > Bob Schwartz
>
> Thanks Bob!
>
> Steve

Ditto!

Andy Coggan

[bdbafh]

On Dec 3, 7:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
> >> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> >>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> >>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> >>>>> cycledogg wrote:
>
> >>>>>> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> >>>>>> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> >>>>>> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
> >>>>>> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> >>>>>> Rick in Tennessee
>
> >>>>> You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
> >>>>> parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very
> >>>>> unlikely the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge'
> >>>>> of your power.
>
> >>>>> Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and
> >>>>> 150-mile/week cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and
> >>>>> think they're training scientifically.
>
> >>>>> In reality, most of your limitations in maximimizing your fitness
> >>>>> are going to be things like money, free time, rest time, daily
> >>>>> stress from your job/school, genetics, diet, etc..
>
> >>>>> In order to justify the cost of a power meter, it means you have
> >>>>> all these other things under control, which you don't.
>
> >>>>> So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help
> >>>>> your fitness more than a power meter.
>
> >>>>> Magilla
>
> >>>> I used a PowerTap to show that it is possible to
> >>>> simultaneously cut power and accelerate in a velodrome
> >>>> turn.
>
> >>>> Bob Schwartz
>
> >>> Hey Joker,
>
> >>> Bearing in mind that energy cannot be created or destroyed, where
> >>> does this extra energy come from?
>
> >>> You sound like someone who has submitted multiple patent applications
> >>> for a perpetual motion machine to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
> >>> in Washington D.C.
>
> >>> Magilla
>
> >> Hopefully the physics mavens can chime in--it has to do with
> >> angular momentum, but I'm pretty sure Bob is right--of course if power
> >> isn't added then there will be a marked deceleration coming out of the
> >> turn.
>
> >> Steve
>
> >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/schwartzpursuit.png
>
> > My very own Chung Chart. Coggan provides a good explanation.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/e9165fe820602ef4
>
> > Bob Schwartz
>
> Physics 101: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from
> one form to another.
>
> So unless someone in here is Einstein and wants to change the
> understanding of modern physics with a new theory on the conservation of
> energy, I think it's safe to conclude there is no energy (or speed) gain.
>
> I don't need to ask anyone else's opinion.
>
> You can't gain speed or energy in a turn. Any speed gain you get from
> your initial lean into a turn MUST BE lost (plus some) while exiting
> that same turn because it takes longer (and more energy) to bring
> yourself upright and raise yourself than it would had you ridden that
> same distance on a straightaway and never had to lean up or down to
> begin with.
>
> On a straightaway, that same energy is put into the pedals. You are
> losing substantial amounts of energy in a turn via friction.
>
> Nothing is free in energy equations.
>
> Magilla


> Nothing is free in energy equations.

Gibbs energy is occasionally free, but that would head off the highway
of Newtonian mechanics and over into chemistry, which would probably
lead to the dark side ...

-bdbafh

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Physics 101:

Dumbass,

You mean Geometry 101, don't you. The largest effect
has nothing to do with physics.

Bob Schwartz

[Michael Press]

In article <fj25ok$3te$1@aioe.org>,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> >
> >> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> cycledogg wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
> >>>>>> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
> >>>>>> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
> >>>>>> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> >>>>>> Rick in Tennessee
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
> >>>>> parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very
> >>>>> unlikely the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge'
> >>>>> of your power.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and
> >>>>> 150-mile/week cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and
> >>>>> think they're training scientifically.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In reality, most of your limitations in maximimizing your fitness
> >>>>> are going to be things like money, free time, rest time, daily
> >>>>> stress from your job/school, genetics, diet, etc..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In order to justify the cost of a power meter, it means you have
> >>>>> all these other things under control, which you don't.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help
> >>>>> your fitness more than a power meter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Magilla
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I used a PowerTap to show that it is possible to
> >>>> simultaneously cut power and accelerate in a velodrome
> >>>> turn.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob Schwartz
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hey Joker,
> >>>
> >>> Bearing in mind that energy cannot be created or destroyed, where
> >>> does this extra energy come from?
> >>>
> >>> You sound like someone who has submitted multiple patent applications
> >>> for a perpetual motion machine to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
> >>> in Washington D.C.
> >>>
> >>> Magilla
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hopefully the physics mavens can chime in--it has to do with
> >> angular momentum, but I'm pretty sure Bob is right--of course if power
> >> isn't added then there will be a marked deceleration coming out of the
> >> turn.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >
> > http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/schwartzpursuit.png
> >
> > My very own Chung Chart. Coggan provides a good explanation.
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/e9165fe820602ef4
> >
> > Bob Schwartz
>
>
>
> Physics 101: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from
> one form to another.
>
> So unless someone in here is Einstein and wants to change the
> understanding of modern physics with a new theory on the conservation of
> energy, I think it's safe to conclude there is no energy (or speed) gain.

The speed of the center of mass does not change.
The difference in radius of curvature of the COM
path and the contact patch path demand that the
contact patch travel faster than the COM.

>
> I don't need to ask anyone else's opinion.

Ah, you argue from opinion.

> You can't gain speed or energy in a turn. Any speed gain you get from
> your initial lean into a turn MUST BE lost (plus some) while exiting
> that same turn because it takes longer (and more energy) to bring
> yourself upright and raise yourself than it would had you ridden that
> same distance on a straightaway and never had to lean up or down to
> begin with.
>
> On a straightaway, that same energy is put into the pedals. You are
> losing substantial amounts of energy in a turn via friction.
>
> Nothing is free in energy equations.

You are confused. Study some geometry and physics.
This stuff is simple. Then you can argue the hard stuff.

--
Michael Press

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Dec 3, 4:27 pm, Ted van de Weteringe <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid>
wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE schreef:
>
> > Don't get wireless -- there will be a built-in error of a few
> > percent due to background radiation from the big bang.
>
> Only for the first three minutes of the race.

Now I'm thinking about that very annoying sprint to the first
corner.

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:rcousine-40C5CE.16573903122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net],
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :


Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

I'll work on a new one !
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

"Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
- Louis Pasteur

That standard should please for a bit.

[MagillaGorilla]

chiefhiawatha@gmail.com wrote:
>>Interpreting power meter data is complex and beyond the scope of most
>>people, includiing trainers.
>
>
> That's just not true.
>
> You just earned yourself an invitation to the powermeter file reading
> interpretation camp I'm putting on United Center. See you there 7
> p.m. this Friday.
>


That time you spend discussing power meter data would be better spent
resting or training.

The most important thing cyclists need to have to improve is motivation
and happiness. Both of those depend on things like financial stability,
job happiness, relationship stress, etc. A power meter doesn't even
make the list.

And to sit here and talk about power meter data in a vacuum as a
function of traiining comes across as incredibly shallow.

There is NOBODY who works a 9-5 job or goes to college and can honestly
claim a power meter will help them more than simply training more or
resting more or being happy more or eating better.

One can accomplish the same thing as a power meter using nothing but
timed intervals up the same climb. You don't need a $2,500 power meter
to figure out your fitness.

If you want to micromanage your cycling training to the point where
you're staring at $2,500 graphs after 6 hour training rides, then you
need to lighten the **** up before you turn into a Jeff Evanshine headcase.


Magilla

[Scott]

On Dec 3, 11:01 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> chiefhiawa...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>Interpreting power meter data is complex and beyond the scope of most
> >>people, includiing trainers.
>
> > That's just not true.
>
> > You just earned yourself an invitation to the powermeter file reading
> > interpretation camp I'm putting on United Center. See you there 7
> > p.m. this Friday.
>
> That time you spend discussing power meter data would be better spent
> resting or training.
>
> The most important thing cyclists need to have to improve is motivation
> and happiness. Both of those depend on things like financial stability,
> job happiness, relationship stress, etc. A power meter doesn't even
> make the list.
>
> And to sit here and talk about power meter data in a vacuum as a
> function of traiining comes across as incredibly shallow.
>
> There is NOBODY who works a 9-5 job or goes to college and can honestly
> claim a power meter will help them more than simply training more or
> resting more or being happy more or eating better.
>
> One can accomplish the same thing as a power meter using nothing but
> timed intervals up the same climb. You don't need a $2,500 power meter
> to figure out your fitness.
>
> If you want to micromanage your cycling training to the point where
> you're staring at $2,500 graphs after 6 hour training rides, then you
> need to lighten the **** up before you turn into a Jeff Evanshine headcase.
>
> Magilla

It's not about training more, it's about training better.

Having said that, I have to agree with some of your earlier points.
For example, I agree that for most people a power meter is overkill.
I believe that most people who report great gains using them could
just as easily have achieved those gains with improvements in the
training/resting without a power meter. Perhaps it was having a power
meter that motivated them to train more, or helped them cut out
useless or even counterproductive riding they were doing before, or
whatever. It is much harder to figure out what to do about increasing
your power than just merely knowing what your power is to start with.

[Carl Sundquist]

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:fj2qg8$5na$1@aioe.org...
> chiefhiawatha@gmail.com wrote:
>>>Interpreting power meter data is complex and beyond the scope of most
>>>people, includiing trainers.
>>
>>
>> That's just not true.
>>
>> You just earned yourself an invitation to the powermeter file reading
>> interpretation camp I'm putting on United Center. See you there 7
>> p.m. this Friday.
>>
>
>
> That time you spend discussing power meter data would be better spent
> resting or training.
>
> The most important thing cyclists need to have to improve is motivation
> and happiness. Both of those depend on things like financial stability,
> job happiness, relationship stress, etc. A power meter doesn't even make
> the list.
>
> And to sit here and talk about power meter data in a vacuum as a function
> of traiining comes across as incredibly shallow.
>
> There is NOBODY who works a 9-5 job or goes to college and can honestly
> claim a power meter will help them more than simply training more or
> resting more or being happy more or eating better.
>
> One can accomplish the same thing as a power meter using nothing but timed
> intervals up the same climb. You don't need a $2,500 power meter to
> figure out your fitness.
>
> If you want to micromanage your cycling training to the point where you're
> staring at $2,500 graphs after 6 hour training rides, then you need to
> lighten the **** up before you turn into a Jeff Evanshine headcase.
>
>
> Magilla

Dude,

Speaking of lightening the **** up, you probably ought to get off the bike
for a couple of years to gain some perspective. You hold considerable
disdain for the riders who are not competing as a vocation. What you don't
see is that it is a hobby or an escape for them. You see the darker side of
a Walter Mitty-esque scenario, but I don't think the underlying drive is the
same (except for the potential residents of George's future condo
community). And as to the cost of the sport, compare it to many other sports
or recreational activities. What are the material and operating costs for a
boat or golf? Quit thinking like a cheap bastard. It's a quality of life
thing.

P.S. Speaking of flash in the pan juniors, whatever happened to Andrew
Gallatly?

[Donald Munro]

bdbafh wrote:
> Gibbs energy is occasionally free, but that would head off the highway of
> Newtonian mechanics and over into chemistry, which would probably lead to
> the dark side ...

If its a free lunch its probably andoulette.

[MagillaGorilla]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Physics 101:
>
>
> Dumbass,
>
> You mean Geometry 101, don't you. The largest effect
> has nothing to do with physics.
>
> Bob Schwartz


No, I mean physics. Energy equations and thermodynamics are a part of
physics.

Geometry is really just a science of logic more than anything else.

I think the largest factor in a velodrome turn is not the center of mass
calculation.

Think about what a turn in a velodrome really is...it's a 180-degree
change in inertia.

Imagine if you had a semi truck that weighed 40 tons and it was heading
directly towards you. And then imagine is you imparted some force onto
that truck that would cause it to turn 180 degrees away from you. That
force you would need would have to be tremendous to cause thhe truck to
divert from its inertial course (which is to keep going straight).

In a velodrome, you are taking 200 pounds of mass at 30 mph and changing
its vector velocity 180 degrees. Any person of science worth their salt
will tell you that in order to do this it requires a huge energy imput
(energy loss).

This energy loss occurs in the form of friction and increased rolling
resistance. Since no such energy llosss occurs when a rider is going
straight, it's pretty easy to suspect that you cannot be going faster in
a turn than a straightaway.

Now the center of mass argument is interesting and definitely appears to
be a gain. But as Holman calculated, it doesn't even compensate for the
loss of watts you get from increased rolling resistance. Add to that
about 7 other negatives and it seems intuitive that a turn is going to
cause a net loss in energy (and speed).

The bottom line is there are too many people in here who don't appear to
fully appreciate the concept that you cannot change the Momentum (M = m
x v) of an object 180 degrees and conserve its kinetic energy. Changing
the direction of a moving mass 180 degrees requires a tremendous input
of energy. And in the case of a cyclist on a velodrome, that energy has
to come from the rider.

The idea that leaning in a turn will somoehow compensate for this energy
loss means that you are trying to sell me on a sort of perpetual motion
machine velodrome where 100% of energy lost is recyled because of
leaning and that furthermore, the rider is actually gaining energy.

Nobody who took physics and actually understands it talks about
"gaining" energy unless you can explain where this extra energy comes
from. Leaning and reducing the distance your COM would have to travel
is not an energy gain. It's a cherry picked observation that although
shows a small SPEED gain for a given wattage when ISOLATED as a
variable, it fails to take into account that when you lean in a turn,
you are also doing like 10 severely negative things that SUBTRACT from
your energy and must therefore also subtract from your speed.

I don't get the feeling that you people truly appreciate the complex
physics that is occuring in a turn.


Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

Scott wrote:

> On Dec 3, 11:01 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>chiefhiawa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>Interpreting power meter data is complex and beyond the scope of most
>>>>people, includiing trainers.
>>
>>>That's just not true.
>>
>>>You just earned yourself an invitation to the powermeter file reading
>>>interpretation camp I'm putting on United Center. See you there 7
>>>p.m. this Friday.
>>
>>That time you spend discussing power meter data would be better spent
>>resting or training.
>>
>>The most important thing cyclists need to have to improve is motivation
>>and happiness. Both of those depend on things like financial stability,
>>job happiness, relationship stress, etc. A power meter doesn't even
>>make the list.
>>
>>And to sit here and talk about power meter data in a vacuum as a
>>function of traiining comes across as incredibly shallow.
>>
>>There is NOBODY who works a 9-5 job or goes to college and can honestly
>>claim a power meter will help them more than simply training more or
>>resting more or being happy more or eating better.
>>
>>One can accomplish the same thing as a power meter using nothing but
>>timed intervals up the same climb. You don't need a $2,500 power meter
>>to figure out your fitness.
>>
>>If you want to micromanage your cycling training to the point where
>>you're staring at $2,500 graphs after 6 hour training rides, then you
>>need to lighten the **** up before you turn into a Jeff Evanshine headcase.
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> It's not about training more, it's about training better.
>
> Having said that, I have to agree with some of your earlier points.
> For example, I agree that for most people a power meter is overkill.
> I believe that most people who report great gains using them could
> just as easily have achieved those gains with improvements in the
> training/resting without a power meter. Perhaps it was having a power
> meter that motivated them to train more, or helped them cut out
> useless or even counterproductive riding they were doing before, or
> whatever. It is much harder to figure out what to do about increasing
> your power than just merely knowing what your power is to start with.
>

-------


I think if you train 400 miles a week and are on the verge of being a
pro, you might be able to benefit from knowing what type of power you
can generate in order to match (or exceed) your fiteness from previous
years.

But as everyone who has seriously trained knows, when you start piling
on the miles, what matters most is what is going on in your life off the
bike.

If you have to work 50 hours a week and can only train 2 hours at night,
I don't know why you think getting a power meter (as opposed to a new
job) is the way to make the most significant impact on your riding career.

There's too many people who talk about training in a vacuum as if it
starts when you clip in and ends wen you clip out. In reality, it's a
24/7 thing. If you work as a waitor and have to stand on your feet for
8 hours a day, it would be strange to invest your waitor tips in a power
meter because that's not the 'problem' in your training regiumen.

Also, everyone who's seriously trained knows that elite fitness is
fleeting and it's not even something that is necessarily desirable to
have because the effort and time required to get there and keep it at
that level is an enormous stress. That's what has led to the concept
of peaking.

I get concerned when you have people using power meters to maximize
their fitness on every ride. Most people would be better off riding
liesure centuries during base training and not even worrying about their
power.

Second, knowledge of your power has almost nothing to do with you
ability to increase it.

Basically when you assimilate all the factors that are required to make
oneself a better cyclist, a power meter is quite insignificant. It
might even be harmful because it's just another expense to an already
ridiculously expensive sport. And the extra financial stress is bad for
fitness. The extra data is probably superfluous.

Anybody who argues that a power meter makes them a better rider needs to
ask themselves how all the pros from 1900-1995 got better without a
power meter.

The bottom line is if Bernard Hinault never used a power meter, then
chances are you don't need one either.

Magilla

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <fu_4j.2290$3W.22@trndny04>,
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com>
> wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>>
>>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> cycledogg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
>>>>>> season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
>>>>>> from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
>>>>>> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
>>>>>> Rick in Tennessee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
>>>>> parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very
>>>>> unlikely the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge' of
>>>>> your power.
>>>>>
>>>>> Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and
>>>>> 150-mile/week cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and
>>>>> think they're training scientifically.
>>>>>
>>>>> In reality, most of your limitations in maximimizing your fitness are
>>>>> going to be things like money, free time, rest time, daily stress
>>>>> from your job/school, genetics, diet, etc..
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to justify the cost of a power meter, it means you have all
>>>>> these other things under control, which you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help
>>>>> your fitness more than a power meter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Magilla
>>>>
>>>> I used a PowerTap to show that it is possible to
>>>> simultaneously cut power and accelerate in a velodrome
>>>> turn.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Schwartz
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Joker,
>>>
>>> Bearing in mind that energy cannot be created or destroyed, where does
>>> this extra energy come from?
>>>
>>> You sound like someone who has submitted multiple patent applications
>>> for a perpetual motion machine to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in
>>> Washington D.C.
>>
>> Hopefully the physics mavens can chime in--it has to do with angular
>> momentum, but I'm pretty sure Bob is right--of course if power isn't
>> added then there will be a marked deceleration coming out of the turn.
>
> The center of mass only accelerates when the kinetic
> energy changes. This can occur if the COM changes
> altitude, or if the rider changes power input. In a
> purely kinematic analysis where the presence or absence
> of a banked turn acts perpendicular to the velocity we
> have zero acceleration.
>
> The center of mass continues with the same instantaneous
> speed as it did on the straight.
>
> This assumes that the COM remains on the same gravitational
> equipotential surface: i.e. the lean of the system combined
> with the change in altitude of the contact patch combine to
> leave the COM at the same altitude.
>
> Given this situation with the COM maintaining the same
> speed in the turn, as it must by conservation of energy,
> the contact patch follows a concentric path with larger
> radius than the path of the COM, and must travel faster.
> This is a purely geometric-kinematic argument. Taking
> the dynamics into account is a task well beyond the
> native and learned capacity of a monkey.
>


I actually almost think I understand that--thank you, Michael!

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[MagillaGorilla]

Michael Press wrote:

> In article <fu_4j.2290$3W.22@trndny04>,
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>cycledogg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I am considering getting into using watts measured for training this
>>>>>>season. Which is the best or most accurate way to measure, Powermeter
>>>>>>from the rear hub or SRM from the crank?
>>>>>>Cheers and Happy Holidays,
>>>>>>Rick in Tennessee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You are better off setting aside that $2-3,000 for spare tires and
>>>>>parts. A power meter won't help you get better and it's very
>>>>>unlikely the rate limiting factor in your training is 'knowledge' of
>>>>>your power.
>>>>>
>>>>>Power meters are the lastest fad for a lot of morons and
>>>>>150-mile/week cyclists who micromanage their on-bike training and
>>>>>think they're training scientifically.
>>>>>
>>>>>In reality, most of your limitations in maximimizing your fitness are
>>>>>going to be things like money, free time, rest time, daily stress
>>>>>from your job/school, genetics, diet, etc..
>>>>>
>>>>>In order to justify the cost of a power meter, it means you have all
>>>>>these other things under control, which you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>>So I recommend you put that money into other things that will help
>>>>>your fitness more than a power meter.
>>>>>
>>>>>Magilla
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I used a PowerTap to show that it is possible to
>>>>simultaneously cut power and accelerate in a velodrome
>>>>turn.
>>>>
>>>>Bob Schwartz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hey Joker,
>>>
>>>Bearing in mind that energy cannot be created or destroyed, where does
>>>this extra energy come from?
>>>
>>>You sound like someone who has submitted multiple patent applications
>>>for a perpetual motion machine to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in
>>>Washington D.C.
>>
>>
>> Hopefully the physics mavens can chime in--it has to do with angular
>>momentum, but I'm pretty sure Bob is right--of course if power isn't
>>added then there will be a marked deceleration coming out of the turn.
>
>
> The center of mass only accelerates when the kinetic
> energy changes. This can occur if the COM changes
> altitude, or if the rider changes power input. In a
> purely kinematic analysis where the presence or absence
> of a banked turn acts perpendicular to the velocity we
> have zero acceleration.
>
> The center of mass continues with the same instantaneous
> speed as it did on the straight.
>
> This assumes that the COM remains on the same gravitational
> equipotential surface: i.e. the lean of the system combined
> with the change in altitude of the contact patch combine to
> leave the COM at the same altitude.
>
> Given this situation with the COM maintaining the same
> speed in the turn, as it must by conservation of energy,
> the contact patch follows a concentric path with larger
> radius than the path of the COM, and must travel faster.
> This is a purely geometric-kinematic argument. Taking
> the dynamics into account is a task well beyond the
> native and learned capacity of a monkey.
>


True, you are conserving angular momentum in a turn which results in the
increase in speed at the wheel track. All I'm addint to that equation is:

1). Without an increase in energy, you're speed cannot increase that
much from a philosophical standpoint.

2.) A turn causes many negative things to happen, some of which are
physiological and hurt your wattage output, and others which are physics
in nature. None of these negative things happen in a straightaway and
all of them subtract from any gain you willl get by decreaseing the CoM
distance.

3.) When you factor in the CoM argument with the all the negatives, I
submit to you that not only will you see a drop in speed in a turn, but
a drop in wattage.

4.) You are betting on a longshot horse when you say you are confident a
bike will go faster around a turn once you see it's apparent that both
your wattage and speed will be decreased because of negative factors
that do not occur in a straightaway. As for the CoM factor, I think
it's a red herring. It occurs alright, but it's not that significant
and I'm not sure why everyone latches on to it as the Hail Mary factor.

You people in here talk about a velodrome turn as if it imparts the same
kinetics as an Apollo lunar module that uses the moon's gravitational
pull to slingshot it around back to earth.

Plus, the fact that in every empirical example I can think of - track
runners, airplanes, NASCAR, motorcycle racing, speed skaters,
speedboats....every single one of them goes slower around a turn.

But somehow I'm suppose to ****ing believe cycling is different.
Somehow, you people want everyone to believe that cycling has different
physics involved in a turn from these other real-world examples when in
fact it really doesn't.

Magilla

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <fj4f38$s60$1@aioe.org>,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> > MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> >> Physics 101:
> >
> >
> > Dumbass,
> >
> > You mean Geometry 101, don't you. The largest effect
> > has nothing to do with physics.
> >
> > Bob Schwartz
>
>
> No, I mean physics. Energy equations and thermodynamics are a part of
> physics.
>
> Geometry is really just a science of logic more than anything else.
>
> I think the largest factor in a velodrome turn is not the center of mass
> calculation.
>
> Think about what a turn in a velodrome really is...it's a 180-degree
> change in inertia.
>
> Imagine if you had a semi truck that weighed 40 tons and it was heading
> directly towards you. And then imagine is you imparted some force onto
> that truck that would cause it to turn 180 degrees away from you. That
> force you would need would have to be tremendous to cause thhe truck to
> divert from its inertial course (which is to keep going straight).
>
> In a velodrome, you are taking 200 pounds of mass at 30 mph and changing
> its vector velocity 180 degrees. Any person of science worth their salt
> will tell you that in order to do this it requires a huge energy imput
> (energy loss).

Magilla, you dumb ape: it requires a huge force, not energy. The force
is provided by the velodrome rising up to meet you and spit you through
the corner.

Your logic probably has you wondering what will happen when the gravity
runs out.

Not that you're doing anything but trolling, but for the benefit of any
lurkers, I'd point out that you're measuring the ground speed several
feet from the centre of mass. Here's the stupidest-case scenario of
that: put a couple pounds of weight on the end of a strong metre-long
cable, grab the other end, and start spinning in a circle. You'll be
able to get the weight going very fast with little energy input. The
biggest limiting factor will be your capacity for holding in your lunch
while spinning in little circles.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> I don't get the feeling that you people truly appreciate the complex
> physics that is occuring in a turn.

You mean geometry, don't you?

Bob Schwartz

[MagillaGorilla]

Andy Coggan wrote:

> On Dec 3, 5:46 pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>
>>Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/schwartzpursuit.png
>>
>>>My very own Chung Chart. Coggan provides a good explanation.
>>
>>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/e9165fe820602ef4
>>
>>>Bob Schwartz
>>
>> Thanks Bob!
>>
>>Steve
>
>
> Ditto!
>
> Andy Coggan


Dude,

I hate to tell you but the only conclusion we came to was that Bob was
easing up in the turns due to inexperience. Because of this noise
factor, I conceded that these graphs do not prove that you go slower in
turns (even though at face value, they show a definitive, consistent
power loss in the turns).

Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

Andy Coggan wrote:
> On Dec 3, 3:12 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>the only thing you need if you want to get substantially
>>better is a willingness to endure pain and stare at asphalt for 4 hours
>>a day.
>
>
> Is that how you made it up to cat. 1? Oh, right...you were never more
> than pack fodder in local cat. 2 races, and couldn't break the hour in
> a 40 km TT despite all my help. Now maybe if you *had* used a
> powermeter for a few years, you could achieved these goals...
>
> Andy Coggan


Miguel Indurain, Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, Greg LeMond, Chris
Boardman, Obree....none of your heroes used a power meter.


Magilla

[Tom Kunich]

"Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ce820daf-3934-4be5-a64f-a15ed73b3f97@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 3, 3:39 pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:>
>
>> even without any other problem, you have to routinely
>> send the SRM back for calibration
>
> This is not true.

For all those who think of Andy as God - he's wrong. Ilan is a college
professor who expects the meter to read correctly. Andy is a far more
practical person who thinks that inaccuracy is OK as long as it's a
constant.

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Dec 4, 10:30 pm, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 3:39 pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:>
>
> > even without any other problem, you have to routinely
> > send the SRM back for calibration
>
> This is not true.
>
> Andy Coggan

OK, but I do remember reading at some point that you had to send them
back. Even if that is not necessary, any repair of the SRM will
require an extra set of cranks. On the other hand, a problem with
PowerTap will just involve an extra rear wheel, which I have (as I
suspect most people do). I basically don't have the ability to deal
with potential SRM problems and as I have written about extensively
the local shops in Paris are too horrible for me to deal with.

Other problems with SRM for me was that I live in France and the
distributor seemed awful. It is the bicycle shop Tourmalet, where I
had a previously good experience. However, further dealings with them
were terrible. In particular, the French distributor of SRM did not
have a single crank in stock and was not planning to have any either.
Of course, nothing to do with the actual company, probably more a
reflection of cycling distributors in France.

One good thing about SRM is their manual, which is better written than
most books.

Otherwise, I got my 2nd PowerTap CPU yesterday and installed it, and
it seems that the cadence readings are not consistent with the other
CPU. I will go on a ride tomorrow with both CPU's to see how they
compare. I don't know if that has been done before, research marches
on! While installing it, I also discovered an amazing PowerTap
"feature": The odometer can only be set in miles, that is, if you set
the odometer to 1000 while kilometers are chosen (using a computer,
PowerAgent software and USB cradle) then the CPU will then read
1609!!!

-ilan

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Dec 4, 10:30 pm, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 3:39 pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:>
>
> > even without any other problem, you have to routinely
> > send the SRM back for calibration
>
> This is not true.
>
> Andy Coggan

Well, I accept your criticism, and am fairly happy with it, because
the lack of any other comment implies that everything else I said was
true.

-ilan

[Kyle Legate]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Dec 3, 4:27 pm, Ted van de Weteringe <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid>
> wrote:
>> SLAVE of THE STATE schreef:
>>
>>> Don't get wireless -- there will be a built-in error of a few
>>> percent due to background radiation from the big bang.
>> Only for the first three minutes of the race.
>
> Now I'm thinking about that very annoying sprint to the first
> corner.
>
Usually, that's the only thing I could win.

[Ted van de Weteringe]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Your logic probably has you wondering what will happen when the gravity
> runs out.

http://snurl.com/grav01

[MagillaGorilla]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> In article <fj4f38$s60$1@aioe.org>,
> MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Physics 101:
>>>
>>>
>>>Dumbass,
>>>
>>>You mean Geometry 101, don't you. The largest effect
>>>has nothing to do with physics.
>>>
>>>Bob Schwartz
>>
>>
>>No, I mean physics. Energy equations and thermodynamics are a part of
>>physics.
>>
>>Geometry is really just a science of logic more than anything else.
>>
>>I think the largest factor in a velodrome turn is not the center of mass
>>calculation.
>>
>>Think about what a turn in a velodrome really is...it's a 180-degree
>>change in inertia.
>>
>>Imagine if you had a semi truck that weighed 40 tons and it was heading
>>directly towards you. And then imagine is you imparted some force onto
>>that truck that would cause it to turn 180 degrees away from you. That
>>force you would need would have to be tremendous to cause thhe truck to
>>divert from its inertial course (which is to keep going straight).
>>
>>In a velodrome, you are taking 200 pounds of mass at 30 mph and changing
>>its vector velocity 180 degrees. Any person of science worth their salt
>>will tell you that in order to do this it requires a huge energy imput
>>(energy loss).
>
>
> Magilla, you dumb ape: it requires a huge force, not energy. The force
> is provided by the velodrome rising up to meet you and spit you through
> the corner.
>

Correct, that force causes increased friction, which increases rolling
resistance leading to the decrease of kinetic energy (speed) of your
bicycle. I never said a rider loses energy in a turn (and if I did, I
was just being sloppy in that post). Although a rider does lose energy
because of physiological negatives (both circulatory and vertigo), I
acknowledge that you weren't debating that.

A rider also loses a slight amount of energy by having to lean up in the
exit of every turn. Again, we weren't talking about that here so I
won't try to attribute that to you in this debate.

Otherwise, pedaling in a turn vs. a straightaway wouldn't amount to a
measurable energy change.

But the kinetic energy of your bike IS decreased in a turn due to these
forces, causing a decrease in speed because kinetic energy is converted
to friction (heat). Whether the CoM factor cancels out all these
negatives is what we're debating.


Magilla

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

On Dec 5, 12:22 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>
> For all those who think of Andy as God - he's wrong. Ilan is a college
> professor who expects the meter to read correctly. Andy is a far more
> practical person who thinks that inaccuracy is OK as long as it's a
> constant.

but they both need koach kunich to put words in their mouth.

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Dec 4, 9:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Andy Coggan" <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > On Dec 3, 3:39 pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:>
>
> >> even without any other problem, you have to routinely
> >> send the SRM back for calibration
>
> > This is not true.
>
> For all those who think of Andy as God - he's wrong. Ilan is a college
> professor who expects the meter to read correctly. Andy is a far more
> practical person who thinks that inaccuracy is OK as long as it's a
> constant.

The SRM does not need to be sent back routinely for calibration.

[Andy Coggan]

On Dec 4, 11:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> For all those who think of Andy as God - he's wrong. Ilan is a college
> professor who expects the meter to read correctly. Andy is a far more
> practical person who thinks that inaccuracy is OK as long as it's a
> constant.

So I'm curious, Tom - what is that you think I do for a living?

Andy Coggan

[Howard Kveck]

In article <fj5cm5$i1t$1@aioe.org>, MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> Andy Coggan wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 3:12 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>the only thing you need if you want to get substantially
> >>better is a willingness to endure pain and stare at asphalt for 4 hours
> >>a day.
> >
> >
> > Is that how you made it up to cat. 1? Oh, right...you were never more
> > than pack fodder in local cat. 2 races, and couldn't break the hour in
> > a 40 km TT despite all my help. Now maybe if you *had* used a
> > powermeter for a few years, you could achieved these goals...
> >
> > Andy Coggan
>
>
> Miguel Indurain, Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, Greg LeMond, Chris
> Boardman, Obree....none of your heroes used a power meter.

For what it's worth, Boardman did use SRM cranks. Just sayin'.

--
tanx,
Howard

Safe when used as directed...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[seven-22]

On Dec 4, 10:24 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> Miguel Indurain, Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, Greg LeMond, Chris
> Boardman, Obree....none of your heroes used a power meter.
>
> Magilla

Although I agree with some of your arguments, please stop using the
one quoted above. It discredits you. Lemond was one of the first
pro's to use a powermeter.

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3660

Eddy wasn't riding on Michelin pro race tires. Why are you?

A powermeter is simply another tool to give feedback to the rider. It
is not the silver bullet. My time is up...have fun.

[Donald Munro]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>>>> Don't get wireless -- there will be a built-in error of a few percent
>>>> due to background radiation from the big bang.

Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
>>> Only for the first three minutes of the race.

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>> Now I'm thinking about that very annoying sprint to the first corner.

Kyle Legate wrote:
> Usually, that's the only thing I could win.

Team FTL, at least in the first few seconds of the race.

[Andy Coggan]

On Dec 5, 1:19 am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Dec 5, 12:22 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > For all those who think of Andy as God - he's wrong. Ilan is a college
> > professor who expects the meter to read correctly. Andy is a far more
> > practical person who thinks that inaccuracy is OK as long as it's a
> > constant.
>
> but they both need koach kunich to put words in their mouth.

Indeed.

Andy Coggan

[cyclintom@gmail.com]

On Dec 5, 6:53 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > The center of mass only accelerates when the kinetic
> > energy changes. This can occur if the COM changes
> > altitude, or if the rider changes power input. In a
> > purely kinematic analysis where the presence or absence
> > of a banked turn acts perpendicular to the velocity we
> > have zero acceleration.
>
> > The center of mass continues with the same instantaneous
> > speed as it did on the straight.
>
> > This assumes that the COM remains on the same gravitational
> > equipotential surface: i.e. the lean of the system combined
> > with the change in altitude of the contact patch combine to
> > leave the COM at the same altitude.
>
> > Given this situation with the COM maintaining the same
> > speed in the turn, as it must by conservation of energy,
> > the contact patch follows a concentric path with larger
> > radius than the path of the COM, and must travel faster.
> > This is a purely geometric-kinematic argument. Taking
> > the dynamics into account is a task well beyond the
> > native and learned capacity of a monkey.
>
> I actually almost think I understand that--thank you, Michael!

The long and the short of it is that the center of mass of the person
is going whatever speed when you enter the banked turn. Because the
center of mass is going that speed and takes a SHORTER path than the
wheels of the bike the bike itself and anything below the center of
mass has to accelerate to keep up.

As you come out of the turn and bring the bike erect the center of
mass continues on at the speed it was going while the bicycle below
him slows up to his speed.

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 3, 1:24 pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>> Hopefully the physics mavens can chime in--it has to do with angular
>> momentum, but I'm pretty sure Bob is right--of course if power isn't
>> added then there will be a marked deceleration coming out of the turn.
>
> But you do that unconciously since the whole idea of racing is to "add
> power". You have heard the term, "Accelerating out of the turn"
> haven't you?


Sure.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Tom Kunich]

<rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66ebb3dc-e48b-4ae1-aead-dafd7fe7a073@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 4, 9:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Andy Coggan" <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > On Dec 3, 3:39 pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:>
>>
>> >> even without any other problem, you have to routinely
>> >> send the SRM back for calibration
>>
>> > This is not true.
>>
>> For all those who think of Andy as God - he's wrong. Ilan is a college
>> professor who expects the meter to read correctly. Andy is a far more
>> practical person who thinks that inaccuracy is OK as long as it's a
>> constant.
>
> The SRM does not need to be sent back routinely for calibration.

And yet two of them will not give you the same answer on the same bike.

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Dec 5, 8:28 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> > The SRM does not need to be sent back routinely for calibration.
>
> And yet two of them will not give you the same answer on the same bike.

You know this because you've been putting two SRMs on the same bike at
the same time?

[Andy Coggan]

On Dec 5, 10:28 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:66ebb3dc-e48b-4ae1-aead-dafd7fe7a073@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 4, 9:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Andy Coggan" <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> > On Dec 3, 3:39 pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:>
>
> >> >> even without any other problem, you have to routinely
> >> >> send the SRM back for calibration
>
> >> > This is not true.
>
> >> For all those who think of Andy as God - he's wrong. Ilan is a college
> >> professor who expects the meter to read correctly. Andy is a far more
> >> practical person who thinks that inaccuracy is OK as long as it's a
> >> constant.
>
> > The SRM does not need to be sent back routinely for calibration.
>
> And yet two of them will not give you the same answer on the same bike.

They will if properly calibrated (which is something that you can do
yourself).

By way of example: my wife has SRMs on both her road and track bikes.
If you plot her maximal power vs. duration using the two sets of data,
the lines are practically superimposable (i.e., generally within a
watt or two), at least at/across all durations where she has made a
truly maximal effort on each bike.

Andy Coggan

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Dec 5, 8:28 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:66ebb3dc-e48b-4ae1-aead-dafd7fe7a073@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 4, 9:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Andy Coggan" <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> > On Dec 3, 3:39 pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:>
>
> >> >> even without any other problem, you have to routinely
> >> >> send the SRM back for calibration
>
> >> > This is not true.
>
> >> For all those who think of Andy as God - he's wrong. Ilan is a college
> >> professor who expects the meter to read correctly. Andy is a far more
> >> practical person who thinks that inaccuracy is OK as long as it's a
> >> constant.
>
> > The SRM does not need to be sent back routinely for calibration.
>
> And yet two of them will not give you the same answer on the same bike.

http://www.ukas.com/information_centre/technical/technical_uncertain.asp

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=measurement+uncertainty


You're saying they are out of spec?

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Dec 5, 9:28 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > The SRM does not need to be sent back routinely for calibration.
>
> And yet two of them will not give you the same answer on the same bike.

Even if I believed you had learned this by experience
with properly calibrated meters, which I don't, you describe
two different problems in metrology.

Problem 1 is a meter whose calibration drifts with time.
This would have to be recalibrated periodically to agree
_with itself_.

Problem 2 is (are) two meters whose readouts disagree.
This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with temporal
drift. If an SRM always gave the same reading, but another
SRM always gave a somewhat different reading, either
might be useful for training purposes as long as you didn't
switch between them. Of course, this implies that the
calibrations are off, and as Amit pointed out, it should be
fairly trivial to test an SRM's calibration by hanging
weights on the crank, unless you're a moonbat on the Moon.

My rule of thumb: Never calibrate anything twice.
Two power meters are worse than one. If you need to
check a calibration, you need three independent
measurements.

Ben
RBR Office of Standards and Practices

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
>> And yet two of them will not give you the same answer on the same bike.

rechungREMOVETHIS wrote:
> You know this because you've been putting two SRMs on the same bike at the
> same time?

Must have been a tandem.

[cyclintom@gmail.com]

On Dec 5, 9:43 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 5, 8:28 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > The SRM does not need to be sent back routinely for calibration.
>
> > And yet two of them will not give you the same answer on the same bike.
>
> You know this because you've been putting two SRMs on the same bike at
> the same time?


I know this because SRM says so.

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Dec 6, 6:35 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 5, 9:43 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Dec 5, 8:28 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > The SRM does not need to be sent back routinely for calibration.
>
> > > And yet two of them will not give you the same answer on the same bike.
>
> > You know this because you've been putting two SRMs on the same bike at
> > the same time?
>
> I know this because SRM says so.

Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. I know this because
sixteen American intelligence agencies say so.

[MagillaGorilla]

Andy Coggan wrote:

> On Dec 5, 10:28 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>><rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:66ebb3dc-e48b-4ae1-aead-dafd7fe7a073@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>On Dec 4, 9:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Andy Coggan" <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>On Dec 3, 3:39 pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:>
>>
>>>>>>even without any other problem, you have to routinely
>>>>>>send the SRM back for calibration
>>
>>>>>This is not true.
>>
>>>>For all those who think of Andy as God - he's wrong. Ilan is a college
>>>>professor who expects the meter to read correctly. Andy is a far more
>>>>practical person who thinks that inaccuracy is OK as long as it's a
>>>>constant.
>>
>>>The SRM does not need to be sent back routinely for calibration.
>>
>>And yet two of them will not give you the same answer on the same bike.
>
>
> They will if properly calibrated (which is something that you can do
> yourself).
>
> By way of example: my wife has SRMs on both her road and track bikes.
> If you plot her maximal power vs. duration using the two sets of data,
> the lines are practically superimposable (i.e., generally within a
> watt or two), at least at/across all durations where she has made a
> truly maximal effort on each bike.
>
> Andy Coggan
>


Is your wife a MILF?

Magilla

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Dec 6, 9:39 am, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 10:28 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:66ebb3dc-e48b-4ae1-aead-dafd7fe7a073@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Dec 4, 9:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > >> "Andy Coggan" <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > >> > On Dec 3, 3:39 pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:>
>
> > >> >> even without any other problem, you have to routinely
> > >> >> send the SRM back for calibration
>
> > >> > This is not true.
>
> > >> For all those who think of Andy as God - he's wrong. Ilan is a college
> > >> professor who expects the meter to read correctly. Andy is a far more
> > >> practical person who thinks that inaccuracy is OK as long as it's a
> > >> constant.
>
> > > The SRM does not need to be sent back routinely for calibration.
>
> > And yet two of them will not give you the same answer on the same bike.
>
> They will if properly calibrated (which is something that you can do
> yourself).
>
> By way of example: my wife has SRMs on both her road and track bikes.
> If you plot her maximal power vs. duration using the two sets of data,
> the lines are practically superimposable (i.e., generally within a
> watt or two), at least at/across all durations where she has made a
> truly maximal effort on each bike.

Forget the wattmeter. Everyone wants to know how you got your wife so
well calibrated. You could write your own version of "Women are from
Venus" and retire off the profit