Lower VI = easier ride

jimmy augustine

I thought that this was interesting. I ride this loop around my house when the plan calls for a 2hr ride. Below are my 3 most recent trips. The ride times are pretty much identical which is odd in itself but the erson that I am posting is that it illustrates the effect that riding a lower VI can have on a given course. The first ride of the three has the lowest VI and it also has the lowest avg HR, the lowest avg power and the lowest NP. It was the easierst ride in terms of effort but the time was the same. Looks like a good arguement for riding a lower VI.

 

 

Back to Activities

Remove sat abp Cycling Sat, Oct 20, 2012 6:48 AM

Remove ABP Cycling Sat, Sep 22, 2012 2:28 PM

Remove sunday abp Cycling Sun, Aug 5, 2012 6:39 AM

Summary

Distance	34.06 mi	33.99 mi	33.86 mi
Time	1:48:24	1:48:29	1:48:27
Avg Speed	18.8 mph	18.8 mph	18.7 mph
Avg Pace	3:11 min/mi	3:11 min/mi	3:12 min/mi
Calories	1,100 C	1,125 C	1,169 C

Moving Time	1:48:19	1:48:25	1:48:23
Elapsed Time	1:50:06	1:49:53	1:48:54
Avg Moving Speed	18.9 mph	18.8 mph	18.7 mph
Avg Moving Pace	3:11 min/mi	3:11 min/mi	3:12 min/mi
Max Speed	33.8 mph	32.1 mph	33.2 mph
Best Pace	1:46 min/mi	1:52 min/mi	1:49 min/mi
Elevation Gain	1,759 ft	1,386 ft	2,457 ft
Elevation Loss	1,837 ft	1,390 ft	2,458 ft
Min Elevation	1,156 ft	1,119 ft	1,024 ft
Max Elevation	1,506 ft	1,502 ft	1,487 ft
Avg HR (bpm)	138 bpm	147 bpm	142 bpm
Max HR (bpm)	163 bpm	162 bpm	183 bpm
Avg HR (% of Max)	86 % of Max	92 % of Max	89 % of Max
Max HR (% of Max)	102 % of Max	101 % of Max	114 % of Max
Avg HR (z)	4.6 z	5.2 z	4.9 z
Max HR (z)	6.0 z	6.0 z	6.0 z
Avg Power (W)	170 W	173 W	181 W
Max Power (W)	381 W	453 W	491 W
Normalized Power (NP) (W)	174 W	182 W	187 W
Avg Power (z)	3.7 z	3.8 z	4.0 z
Max Power (z)	7.0 z	7.6 z	7.9 z
Avg Bike Cadence	77 rpm	81 rpm	81 rpm
Max Bike Cadence	167 rpm	202 rpm	209 rpm

Less Detail

 

Dino Sarti

Interesting! Side note - What program is that?

William Jenks

Nice.

mgraffeo

Also a good note on the variability of other factors, such as wind and temp. Under constant conditions, same AP rides will yield the same times. Absolutely spot on, lower VI is better for execution all around. Higher VI can be good for training, but not good for efficient racing.

jimmy augustine

Dino - that is the garmin software.
It is also disconcerting to see the massive differences in elevation gain / loss recorded over the exact same loop. The Max/Min elevations are pretty close but the total gain/loss seems to be pretty inaccurate.

rbogle

Re: Elevation gain loss accuracy:

Vertical accuracy in GPS is notoriously bad no matter what GPS you use. Mathematically you need to lock more satellites at various angles to get better Vert. accuracy but  even in the best survey grade systems is usually 2-3x worse than horizontal accuracy, mostly due to poor look angles and interference. So the variation you see is likely due to  random bounce that the GPS records as well as the number of sats it was able to lock and keep at the time. Its the nature of the beast. 

jimmy augustine

rian = too smart for me...

me just know data not luk so gud. me no trust.

rbogle

 Ha! Nah, I just work with GPS a bunch, so I know how bad they can be. 

rmiller

The layman's explanation:
Elevation with GPS is a bit like trying to determine how many light years away a star is when looking through a pair of binoculars from here on Earth. Kind of a depth of field thing. Computers that use barometric pressure provide far better accuracy (for elevation, not how far away a star is).