Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [zedzded] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
zedzded wrote:
TulkasTri wrote:
burnthesheep wrote:
TulkasTri wrote:
burnthesheep wrote:
synthetic wrote:
my weight right now is 158.

the person who told me to do this post says to add in another data tid bit.
2 years ago I did a 29min 20k TT , 70rpm @ 355 watts. body weight 169. he says that is ridiculous. low end felt tri bike stock set up


Geez, how much elevation that ride have?! Or was it one-direction into a headwind? 29min in 20k is only like 26mph. I can do (and many others) close to 26mph on a boat load fewer watts.

355w on a TT course that isn't crazy elevation, or one-direction into a headwind on a tri bike ought to be a LOT faster than 26mph. Not even 26mph. It's 25.7 mph. Even on an elevation intense 20k course, 169 isn't that big.

Something sounds off about that.


Fiesta Island TT in San Diego. So pretty much pancake flat.


Then, assuming a number isn't a typo in there or error in math to get 26mph from 29min 20k...........yeah, it's ridiculous per the topic title.

I'm not an anybody in TT, but dabble and chase KOM's and PR's. When doing pursuit 5min intervals at around 320w in road kit on my TT bike I'm well well faster than 26mph.

Not sure that was the original question here, but certainly worth looking into even if the question was something different.


I think his question is "Is my virtual effort close to reality based on my real world efforts".

Real world: 20K TT: 29' @ 355W (25.7mph)
Virtual Workd: 90K TT: 2:14 @ 282W (25mph)

Yeah, something is way off.


I reckon if you can hold 282 for 90km you can hold 355w for 20km, but those watts seem pretty high, especially for those times. On a flat course, decent tarmac, no wind, for the OPs 20km/29min I would be holding 220 - 240w. Unless the course was hilly, windy, crappy tarmac, I would have expected a quicker time for both real and virtual. Not calling you out OP, but perhaps your PM is out?

I agree. I'm also not calling out OP, but I think his power meter is off.
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [alex_korr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Some of us just have slow cadence. I could spin sub 60 easy for a ironman or a half and be fast. I spent an entire winter spinning at 90 for 6 months on a trainer and every year i go out and mash those gears again haha!
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [synthetic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is impressive, but I've known some really good bikers who naturally have low cadence, and it works for them (running is an issue for them). Male and female. I was wondering if you were a rower (I was) and used to the lower cadence, high power of an ergometer. I like powering in the 70-rpm range, though I've learned to bump that into the 80's and higher. Knowing that power meters can be inaccurate and do need regular calibration and re-calibration, I would recommend that, but I salute the "diesel power" high torque engine you've got!
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [AG Tri Newbie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think there is a bit of a myth out there about running and slow cadence,I just checked my strava and I will say the last year or so i have bumped up cadence in races a bit just naturally, and i think to a point the more experienced you are the faster you will spin. but it is relative to what faster is for you. my cadence last year was 77in the two races i just checked oceanside and maryland, before that in previous years i was low 60s and i had some great runs for me off those slow spins. took me 7 years of riding to get up to 77 haha. and that is fast for me i do a ton of training slower. i kinda bet ill maybe never break 80 average on a race.
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [AG Tri Newbie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AG Tri Newbie wrote:
This is impressive, but I've known some really good bikers who naturally have low cadence, and it works for them (running is an issue for them). Male and female. I was wondering if you were a rower (I was) and used to the lower cadence, high power of an ergometer. I like powering in the 70-rpm range, though I've learned to bump that into the 80's and higher. Knowing that power meters can be inaccurate and do need regular calibration and re-calibration, I would recommend that, but I salute the "diesel power" high torque engine you've got!

not a rower historically but I always set it to level 10 on concept 2. I just dont feel my muscles working on high rpm stuff.
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [synthetic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What was the original question?
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [jroden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jroden wrote:
What was the original question?

OP wants to know if his power Meter is accurate and gave us two examples:

Real World: 20K TT @355W -> 29:30
Zwift World: 90K TT @282W -> 2:14:XX

So he us getting almost the same speed between the two, but IRL he needs to push 70W more to match the speed.

I guess the question is: is he super un-aero, or is his power meter reading high?
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [TulkasTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TulkasTri wrote:
jroden wrote:
What was the original question?


OP wants to know if his power Meter is accurate and gave us two examples:

Real World: 20K TT @355W -> 29:30
Zwift World: 90K TT @282W -> 2:14:XX

So he us getting almost the same speed between the two, but IRL he needs to push 70W more to match the speed.

I guess the question is: is he super un-aero, or is his power meter reading high?


the 355w is when i was 11lb heavier. yet you insist on using that data point. If you do the conversion to current weight, for the 29min 20k TT it is 331w

another data point if you want, tri jex I averaged 22.5mph @ 288w. so if I match this effort to zwift 90km it should have been a time of 2:29

so as things scale, for every 1 mph is ~15w
Last edited by: synthetic: Apr 11, 20 11:25
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [synthetic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Speed does not scale with power linearly.
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [synthetic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
synthetic wrote:
another data point if you want, tri jex I averaged 22.5mph @ 288w.

What kind of road surface were you on or was it hilly? That's a truckload of power for not a lot of speed. I rode a 5.17 with average speed for IMWA in December and power was 180w.
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [zedzded] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
zedzded wrote:
synthetic wrote:

another data point if you want, tri jex I averaged 22.5mph @ 288w.


What kind of road surface were you on or was it hilly? That's a truckload of power for not a lot of speed. I rode a 5.17 with average speed for IMWA in December and power was 180w.

mexico... half highway roads - half town potholey roads.

but why do people here seem to be focused on the absolute watt numbers vs w/kg ?
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [synthetic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Because in general W/Kg matters going uphill and most tris are not major uphill efforts. People are trying to tell you your watts/CDA is not good.
230 watts gets me over 24 MPH.
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [synthetic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
synthetic wrote:
zedzded wrote:
synthetic wrote:

another data point if you want, tri jex I averaged 22.5mph @ 288w.


What kind of road surface were you on or was it hilly? That's a truckload of power for not a lot of speed. I rode a 5.17 with average speed for IMWA in December and power was 180w.


mexico... half highway roads - half town potholey roads.

but why do people here seem to be focused on the absolute watt numbers vs w/kg ?

This is another classic synthetic thread.

1. Humblebrag
2. Arrogance
3. No idea what you're talking about
4. Nobody else has any idea what you're talking about

It baffles me that people still trying to respond intelligently to you.
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [Piche] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Eh... it's not his Watts/cDa... it's his power meter. No one's cDa is as bad as it would take to get the results he's seeing.
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [nash031] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
well i just upgraded my pedals firmware and adjust crank length. the numbers seem normal now. just makes me wonder how many other people in zwift A category are the real deal... I will have to drop down to B now
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [RoostBooster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RoostBooster wrote:
synthetic wrote:
zedzded wrote:
synthetic wrote:

another data point if you want, tri jex I averaged 22.5mph @ 288w.


What kind of road surface were you on or was it hilly? That's a truckload of power for not a lot of speed. I rode a 5.17 with average speed for IMWA in December and power was 180w.


mexico... half highway roads - half town potholey roads.

but why do people here seem to be focused on the absolute watt numbers vs w/kg ?


This is another classic synthetic thread.

1. Humblebrag
2. Arrogance
3. No idea what you're talking about
4. Nobody else has any idea what you're talking about

It baffles me that people still trying to respond intelligently to you.

Post of the day. Perfectly explained.
Quote Reply
Re: because i was told this is ridiculous, told to consult the ST experts [synthetic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
my kickr gives false power at cadences that low. reads high. it is a known issue.
Quote Reply

Prev Next