Ok I was convinced they stated precision and just made it sound like they test accuracy. Seems like they don’t.
both of my units claim to auto-zero and require no manual calibration. The quarq not only auto-zeros when starting a ride but does it again every time you back pedal even mid ride.
2 Likes
Yeah, and sadly (from memory reading the looong DCR thread and even ours here) some people are seeing real differences between the Kickr Bike and various pedal power meters. They sure could match, but it’s also possible for a meaningful delta. Without some way to compare the two against a 3rd source (power meter pedals), it’s impossible to know. So it’s just another question mark in this scenario.
1 Like
Happy to be of service.
1a. Get more bigger fans. 
1 Like
I wish there was a way to use pedals and still return them. 
I guess when my kid switches from tennis shoes to bike cleats I’ll get some power meter pedals and do some experiments
1 Like
On a related note, if I want to move my Stages crank arm over to my trainer bike to check power data between it and my Hammer…will any workout do? Or should I do something like a kitchen sink Zwift workout with every sort of effort? I would think a steady state workout would be best…but I’m an idiot so what I assume is usually wrong.
For years I was a firm believer in the TR position referenced above, and improvements to cooling and paying more attention to hydration have certainly helped significantly. The power meter discussion is relevant for some setups, but I am using the same power pedals for all workouts. And still, I can produce more power outdoors than indoors.
Literature is very limited, but the article below does put the discussion in a different light. Yes, the number of participants is small (n = 12), but conditions were well controlled and the gap in output is enormous (much bigger than I personally experience). That in combination with various articles on the differences in pedaling biomechanics between indoor trainers and outdoor cycling makes me believe there is a real difference that cannot be solved easily with additional fans.
And the conclusion is not favorable for us indoor warriors: “…it may be assumed that our participants received a better training stimulus outdoors than indoors…”
5 Likes
Mic drop
/thread
If you want a comprehensive approach, I’d consider these:
2 Likes
I am far from an expert at looking at studies (totally rookie to be honest), but the biggest initial note from me (after reading just the Abstract) is that they are setting the efforts based on RPE as the constant, and measuring the deltas in power and other variables.
That seems SUPER important to me in light of the fact that TR is based almost entirely on power based training. That matters because it takes the subjective RPE partly out of the equation. As such, assuming you are using the same power data/device inside and outside, that may well nullify the conclusion of the study.
To summarize my take on the study and their conclusion:
- Training with consistent RPE leads to lower power levels inside vs outside… which may lead to lower training stimulus and related adaptations.
However, if we standardize with POWER (not RPE) and get to a point where there is minimal power gap (as is the goal of handling the variables identified by TR), I think there is less gap on the Inside vs Outside training results.
I admit, it may not be possible to get to equal in all cases. Despite that, there are realities present in life that may make the inside training the only option in that given moment. Weather, parental duties and countless other reasons lead people to train inside. So if that is unavoidable, that training is still better if the alternative is nothing.
Then consider the potential of imperfect conditions and related training when taking that outside. It’s one thing to do a single 40km test as they did. It’s yet another to do a series of workouts with varying power levels outside. Road conditions, weather, sharing road access and other conditions can all lead to less than perfect implementation of any given workout. Some people have great conditions, while others are in terrible spots.
The consistent and predictable nature of inside offers some real advantages if we look at the core issue of applying loads to the body in order to drive adaptations. I don’t know if “perfect” intervals are necessary or lead to better results, but for many people, there can be a notable difference in execution of training intervals between inside and outside.
The study is interesting, but well short of telling a full picture of what it means to train on a longer and larger scale.
Edit to add during my reading in the “Experimental Trials” section:
During the laboratory trial, participants were not allowed the use of a fan.
- Biggest of big red flags right there! They make statements about consistent environments, which only seems to mean that outside was similar to outside for each test, and inside was similar to inside for each test. Later on:
The trials occurred in late August to early October, at a time of day when the environmental conditions outside were closest to the general conditions of the laboratory (i.e., low wind, similar temperature, and relative humidity, etc.).
-
Despite the similar temperatures & humidity, the total lack of a fan for cooling inside is monumental IMO, and enough to call the conclusions into question right there. I don’t think anyone can claim that this is an equal test compared to outside with the cooling effect that we know it provides (even if the T&H were identical).
-
They point to the 2.5mph wind speed, but totally ignore the relative wind speed of the rider at speed outside. IMO, that is not negligible when compared to a static rider inside and provides a known improvement to evaporative cooling effect.
-
At most, the conclusion I see from this is “Training inside without a fan is harder (higher RPE) than outside.” which is news to no one.
- With respect to your indoor setup, what about the other factors covered above besides Cooling and Power Data? Are those all optimized to a similar degree for best results inside?
2 Likes
I don’t get all you “outside power is better folks”. When I look at my Personal Records over the past 3 years from 1:30 min - 2 hours, I’d estimate that 95% of my PRs are from TR indoor workouts. This is using the same PM indoors and outside.
7 Likes
My short term power outside (sub a couple of minutes) is higher (perhaps they external factors like air cooling) but my longer term power is a lot better inside when I don’t have to worry about pushing to the edge (traffic, falling off, getting home etc).
2 Likes
But, like…FTP isnt physiological…at least to some physiologists who know more than me….
Alright, now that I threw that grenade, I’m going to run and hide.
1 Like
Same…my numbers line up extremely well and many records are set on the trainer.
I’m the opposite. The majority of intervals in TR i do are likely to be repeated throughout the workout and therefore not all out efforts. But i suppose a lot depends on the workouts you’re doing.
Think i need a bigger fan. Big difference for me despite power sources being less that 1% different.
Bigger, maybe. Better, definitely.
I can’t stress how much better the blower style fans are compared to any of the half dozen circular fans I have tried.
Couple that with at least one of those blowers in front AND in back (2 total in use), and you can consider that a decent start. I still get people questioning me about my rear fan. If I had to pick one fan position only, I am 90% sure it would be the rear one. It seems more effective considering the flow and surface area I can get it to hit. Boot to hips, lower back all the way to my neck and back of my head. It’s a massive area and potential for improvement if people are still using front fans only.
2 Likes
I think difference is mainly because off difference between outdoor VS indoor roadfeel. I ride indoor on Tacx neo and my stages power meter. Watts do match but outdoor FTP is 15-20w higher. Cooling and mental are no issue. For me it is the inertia that gives another level of fatigue in muscles. Indoor they need to work harder to complete the full pedal stroke.
1 Like
I see basically the same power on inside and outside workouts. However I do a LOT more riding outside than inside. There are some exceptions - 2014/2015 was 50/50 split, but no power data; and 2019 was 25/75 in/out split but low volume and lower fitness.
Pulling up TrainingPeaks app and looking at top 5 at these durations - 5-sec, 1-min, 5-min, 10-min, 20-min, 60-min, and 90-min - gives 35 total top-5 PRs and only 3 are indoor. So 85% outside for my all-time top-5 PRs at those 7 durations.
My #1 and #3 all-time 10-minute power bests were in the gym on a (brand new) Stages SC3 stationary bike, in Sept-Oct 2016. Back then the bikes were new, and I didn’t know how to zero reset the bikes, so the power might be off a bit.
Recorded that #1 10-min PR on my Garmin 520 and so I know it was 77 degrees at 7:45pm in the spin room. That room has really bad fans, definitely poor airflow but better than nothing. For context I had been riding outside 8 hours/week in 90-100 degree heat, and it was a time-crunched 35 minute workout.