Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
01-02.-2008, 02:41 PM
|
#31 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Posts: 658
|
Re: power
Quote:
 Seriously, calibration has to be an issue when comparing numbers. Would think +/- 5% is likely considered "within calibration" for most trainer units. Perhaps the SRM and other expensive units are closer when new, but unless they are checked and recalibrated routinely, they can drift out. Still, suppose posting PM readings is a lot better than saying "I'm riding 23 mph on the flats", or "I average 19 mph on my rides". Second, some guys have great genetic ability and don't seem to need any structured training to reach fairly high levels. A local rider here consistently finishes in the top 1% on the regional mountain-challenge century rides, beating out lots of racers. He never "trains" per se but just goes out on hard club group rides and has fun. |
|
|
|
All kidding aside, if you are posting numbers like that without years of a structured training, you should go far.
Linear Mode
