How important is weighted avg power over avg power?

[RojoRacing]

So post Tejas 500 although I know my performance was stellar I can't help but feel like I fell 5% short of what I thought my body could do when I envisioned my growth since Berrego Springs 10 months ago. The short story was I averaged 150 watts at Berrego so I was hopping for something like 165-170 for a race also close to 24hours. I was doing just that for the first 20 hours with an average of 167 watts but then things started going sideways fast. In the end I averaged 160 watts so a gain of 10 watts with an additional 3 hours of riding but what if we compare weighted averages because the Tejas course is anything but flat like Berrego.

Berrego avg 150 weighted avg 157 so a 7 watt difference means it was a pretty steady ride without much coasting or stopping.

Tejas 500 avg 160 weighted avg 172 so a difference of 12 watts because there was more climbing and thus more coasting down after each hill while not pedaling.

So did I improve 10 watts focusing on my bare avg or did I improve 15 watts by looking at my weighted average instead? I will point out that both races had equal stopped pit time of about 45 mins during the events so that shouldn't factor into the weighted avg. My avg HR was lower by 7 bpm in this Tejas race so that would mean I'm producing more power on less effort but maybe all this could just be variance in the power data from my pedals over a years time.

Tejas
https://www.strava.com/activities/1200426609

Berrego
https://www.strava.com/activities/767191778

 

[ccf]

Weighted how?

 

[bladderhead]

Donuts.

 

[ed72]

Who knows what secret sauce they use to calculate weighted power or normalized power levels. The anaerobic burst up a hill get more weight and tends to drive up the NP or weighted power compared to flatter efforts. I do think the difference is important in terms of training stress and indeed, TrainingPeaks and others use NP to estimate a training load. In fact, CTL, ACL, TSS, TSB, etc. are all based off the ratio of NP to FTP. In terms of racing, I am new to bents but I already understand the importance and difference in momentum maintenance on a bent compared to a DF. Your weighted power levels just tells me the courses were very different and you responded appropriately........

Texas TT had 15,000+ feet more of climbing than Borrego Springs, which in itself has a full 10,000+ feet. Not sure how this is flat. Anyway. Essentially, you did about the same distance at both. The extra 15,000 feet took *only* an extra 2.5 hours or 6000 vertical feet per hour, which would have been Marco Pantani territory up L'Alpe Du'Huez; therefore, one can probably conclude that your overall performance was far superior than last year at Borrego over the course of the entire Texas TT race. 15 watt difference in weighted average says to me that the Texas course has a lot of little ups and downs (I did not look at the profile) that required you to put mash the gas pedal to maintain momentum whereas Borrego only has the 2-3% rise before the Christmas Circle (after the right turn) although it is slightly uphill after the start but inconsequential. The secret sauce calculating the weighted power gave you more "credit" for these humps and bumps at Texas.

On my bent the roads around here tend to have some very steep pitches and I'm either doing 400-500 watts or nothing and always have a fairly big difference between average and normalized power. Drives me crazy. Like every ride is an interval session. I usually get average and NP fairly close together on flat courses because the efforts are steady state whereas on the grumpy, hilly climbs that require bursts of power, these bursts are weighted more than other efforts pushing up the NP or weighted average power. Weighted how? The sauce is secret.

 

[RojoRacing]

Weighted how?

It's a term used to discribe a modified average power value over the course of a ride. If you rode at a steady 200 watts for two hours then both your avg and weighted avg would be 200 watts. If you were riding in a group and there was a bunch of attacks and surging above and below 200 watts but it still ended up averaging 200 watts then that would be your average but since high watt effforts get exponentially harder as you go higher they weight the higher wattage efforts with more value and you overall weight effort for that 200 watt ride may be 230 watts. This makes sense because you are going to feel you worked harder during the non steady so they give you a secondary value that reflects that.

 

[DavidCH]

I looked at that Strava link. You were up and down like a jojo

You had the correct Thor seat for sure.

 

[bladderhead]

You need to measure power on a logarithmic scale, like decibels.

 

[Bill K]

You might find this to be interesting:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Training/Cycling/How_to_Analyze_a_Power_File_4311.html

 

[Osiris]

I've stopped regarding "average power" as a meaningful number. I've noticed that on various Strava sprints where I stop pedaling before reaching the end of the segment, my average speed is virtually unaffected, but the drop in my average power is considerable.

 

[jond]

I've stopped regarding "average power" as a meaningful number. I've noticed that on various Strava sprints where I stop pedaling before reaching the end of the segment, my average speed is virtually unaffected, but the drop in my average power is considerable.

Note that when recording your metrics for power zeroes ie pedal out downhill they are counted in your avg power numbers . With cadence the zeroes are not counted. Note that on the Garmin edge devices I have used you have the option to count or not count the zeroes for these two metrics. However they should be set as above.

On the trainer is where power should be examined in minutiae but out on the road of many variables I believe it should be used as a very very good guide only.

In the end the only power that truly matters is the joy of cycling first second and third.

Winning is good fun too

 

[Osiris]

Thanks for that information jond. I'll see if I can set up my Garmins so that the times when I'm moving but not pedaling isn't factored into the average power calculations.

 

[LarryOz]

In the end the only power that truly matters is the joy of cycling first second and third.

Yeah - what Jon said!

 

[jond]

Thanks for that information jond. I'll see if I can set up my Garmins so that the times when I'm moving but not pedaling isn't factored into the average power calculations.

Setting your Garmin like that will inflate your average power. You count the zeroes for power average as above. So that when you stop pedalling your power avg goes down quickly.

Seems cruel I know lol.

Hence the advent of weighted avg power to make us feel better about our chicken legs and those big hills.

I am rated as 1.5 chook power per kg roasted n plucked. Somehow the bike gets over the hillocks even if I have to get off and push.