I have 0 cycling friends since I’m teenager and new to the sport. But as long as it’s consistent isn’t that what matters finding my zones? It’s also my 2nd pair of assiomas I guess Assioma just read high consistently.
1 Like
I may have missed this question above, but is there any chance you have the single-sided pedals and have the “double power” setting in use when it’s not appropriate? That has been done by some around here and leads to excessive power values that don’t make sense either.
Then a check on stuff like crank length setting and proper torque as worth a look.
2 Likes
Assioma is quite good imo, I would doubt you have received 2 pairs of inaccurate ones. My bet would be on a rather upright and therefore not very aero position. Add to that bulky winter kit and potentially slow tires etc and your speed is impute a bit.
I am sure there are several local clubs worth joining if you want to ride with others. Will be a lot more helpful for seeing where you are fitness wise than guessing here :p.
OP obviously needs to wax his chain and buy Silca aero socks
2 Likes
What bike & tires are you riding?
I was looking at your segment - it’s right by the ocean. What was the wind situation on these days?
1 Like
This is my thought. If OP is small and running shorter cranks, I think Faveros default to 175 and can get reset from the app by the head unit/watch so you need to make sure they’re all aligned. Or the power is doubled.
From the site:
“ Welcome to the oldest and most popular bicycle performance prediction calculator on the web - since 1997. Effortlessly compute speed or power for all important parameters, such as weight, grade, position and tire type. This is actually an “engineering model” that knows the relationships between power, speed, and the three major forces: gravity, wind resistance and rolling resistance.”
This model is literally just coded up with the ‘laws of physics’, which we refer to as ‘science’ in the realms of academia. Based on the empirical data that OP has provided, this model estimated his real world experience strikingly well (almost to the exact kph).
If you change the input on that model for the rider’s body weight to 75kg, all else the same, then the speed is approximately the same. Which we already seem to know by common knowledge: raw power matters on the flats, and strength to weight ratios matter on the climbs.
This whole thread is just suggesting things to do for marginal gains. The big change in speed will come from additional power. So, go eat some cheese burgers and get stronger. Good to hear you’re still a kid so there’s room for big changes on the horizon.
1 Like
Marginal gains would be adding aero socks.
The OP mentioned he’s wearing really baggy pants and jacket. That alone could be 20-30 watts pretty easily. We also still don’t know what kind of bike he’s even on, although he’s comparing to someone on a TT bike.
When there’s a lot of marginal gains to be made, the result isn’t marginal anymore. In this instance it could make a lot more sense than raising his 5.1 w/kg FTP.
3 Likes
As I mentioned before I have an FTP at your level and I also weigh 54-58 kg depending on where I am.
I compared your effort up the local mountain with an effort I’ve done on a similar gradient, but shorter.
My climb is 5,9 km, 7,9% grade and it took 21:12 with 269 watts. Looks similar in speed. My effort took part between 2400-2900 metres above sea level so it’s less wind resistance.
So I’m guessing you did at least 270 watts for 43 minutes. That’s almost 5 watts/kg.
My guess is you’re really talented but your flat road testing isn’t fair to yourself. It’s almost December, where I am situated right now everything just goes way slower, even with my best bike.
Try putting him in the drops rather than the hoods on your calculator.
The OP has a few threads about being slower than his w/kg would indicate but they really are not far off.
I do wonder if their crank length is set correctly on their head unit/favero app. They are running 170mm cranks and the default will be 172.5mm - so that would lower the recorded power a smidge.
I agree with you though, the OP is a talented climber, but I wouldn’t expect them to set the world alight on the flat even if his numbers are legit.
3 Likes
One loop of a mostly flat course, low wind day, 17m elevation gain (3 small bumps).
On a Canyon Aeroad, riding aero. Three loops same day - 293W / 41.5kmh, 286W / 39.6kmh, 288W / 40.1kmh. Only difference between the three was aero position - very aggressive on 1st lap, relaxed as I got tired. I’d expect a touch more than 37kmh for someone doing 295W @ 55kg, but it really isn’t as wildly off as people make it out to be 
If this person is doing 290-300W on flat roads and wearing baggy jerseys/jackets, then yeah … 35-37kmh is about right.
4 Likes
Went and looked at a recent ride of mine, very short out and back in winter kit (was around 3c), pan flat and no wind. Maybe my position is a bit more aero than most but it’s definitely nothing crazy.
Positioning and kit make a massive difference. Narrow bars, shrugging the shoulders and getting the head position nice and low plus some tight fitting and aero kit easily saves you 10s of watts even at lower speeds.
3 Likes
Hey everybody I have realized something. FARVERO ASSIOMA OVER READS AND NOT ACCURATE. There is a reason why it’s so cheap. Look at this data. First one shows someone with a farvero Assioma Duo I know. And next one is somebody with garmin power meter. 190W anvg and 25km/h? That’s what I would get. Extremely slow for the power. However look at the garmin pedals 230W and 38km/h avg. it’s on same day on same segment. I will be staying away from farvero from now on and switch to garmin pedals. Thank you very much
Favero Assioma is the gold standard for a reason, I would be extremely sceptical that it over reads. You cannot compare 2 completely different riders on different setups and come to any real conclusion for something like this.
It is much more likely to be your position and setup than the assiomas being inaccurate and over reading.
8 Likes
If it’s the same day and the same segment, why is it showing 2 different PR times for you?
I feel like the OP is just cherry-picking data.