In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Before I accuse someone of faking data I need something better than one "inconsistent" file. For instance, here is some data that looks a tad "faked" from the supposed "good" portion of the data, the very first 27 data points. That is about 30 seconds of data with an average of over 50 watts power with an average cadence of zero. And during this period his speed varied from a low of 4 km/hr to over 13 km/hr. An "impossibility". Yet, there it is in the part of the file for which there would be no reason to fake and which was used as a model of consistency to discredit the climb part of the file.
I'm guessing you haven't looked at a lot of Power Tap files (I have). Cadence drop-outs are pretty common, whether cadence is estimated at the hub or using the cadence sensor. They don't affect the power reading, however (the Power Tap measures power by measuring both torque and velocity at the hub--there's a small magnet in the hub). Crank velocity has nothing to do with power measurement (on a PT).
Interestingly, there's only one section of the ride that
doesn't have any cadence drop outs. Guess which section that would be? Hmmmmm........
I've seen literally thousands of power tap files, and I've never seen one like this one. The data have very obviously been manipulated. I actually wondered if the PC's had some sort of affect on the power--except that the speed and HR data has been clearly manipulated as well.
I know you won't believe anyone on here, since we're all out to get you--so I suggest you send the file to someone that you trust who regularly reviews power files, and ask him or her their opinion in the matter.
OK, let us be Miss marple or Sherlock Holmes and deduce what happened here. You ride up La Morcuera and, to your dismay, get home and find out the PT file only shows you averaging 300 watts yet you everyone you averaged 350 watts. But, you want everyone to believe you did 350 watts and youhave promised them the file. What would you do?
1. Take the spreadsheet and increase each power number 16% which would give you the power numbers you have been telling everyone?
2. Take the spreadsheet and manually change the 1600 power, torque, speed, and HR numbers (in lieu of a 16% straight substitution done by the computer which would keep all the normal variation intact and make it not possible to find any patterns in the numbers proving this inartful manipulation), leaving the distance numbers alone.
Which would you choose to do? Human nature says the typiical person would take the easy way and just change the power numbers. Why go to the bother of doing all this other stuff? Who is going to look? Only the ST mafia but who would have suspected?
Thanks for letting me know how the PT works. Except you forgot to say whether the power measurement comes from peak, average or minimal torque during the period and peak, average, or minimal velocity during the period. Do you know? How it works could make a difference in evaluating and possibly explaining these inconsistencies without a need to invoke nefarious intent.
Can you tell me the significance again that there were no cadence drop outs during this 100% effort, 30 minute climb when compared to his other efforts, when there was probably some coasting?
Hey, I am not so sure that anyone here is "out to get me" as this file is not mine. However, I wonder about the rush to accept nefarious intent here because of some inconsistencies in the file. I accept there are some inconsistencies I cannot explain (especially the speed/distance issue and a HR profile that looks "strange") but I do not accept that this is evidence that Joaquin deliberately manipulated the file to make himself look better than he is. If I wanted to change a PT file to look better than I am I would simply change the torque and power numbers by a set percentage across the board and leave everything else alone. This would be undetectable using all the methods you folks have used to examine this file.
--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks