FWIW- I'm looking forward to attending one of their webinars next week to hear/see a little more about how this is all supposed to work. I've just downloaded my first ride into WKO 3.0 and 2.2 from the LYC and the intervals that appear in 2.2 somehow have been "lost" in 3.0.
Oh- and I haven't been able to figure out how to download from the 310XT using the Device Agent directly yet- it seems like you still have to download to GTC first? I dunno- but I don't have the time right now to fuss with it.
Nemo - you do not need to use GTC to get at your 310xt files (after they've downloaded via the stick sync).
See my post here on how to avoid using GTC and get directly at the 310xt history file sitting right on your machine.
FWIW- I'm looking forward to attending one of their webinars next week to hear/see a little more about how this is all supposed to work. I've just downloaded my first ride into WKO 3.0 and 2.2 from the LYC and the intervals that appear in 2.2 somehow have been "lost" in 3.0.
Oh- and I haven't been able to figure out how to download from the 310XT using the Device Agent directly yet- it seems like you still have to download to GTC first? I dunno- but I don't have the time right now to fuss with it.
Nemo - you do not need to use GTC to get at your 310xt files (after they've downloaded via the stick sync).
See my post here on how to avoid using GTC and get directly at the 310xt history file sitting right on your machine.
Actually, if you remove the checkmark beside "Send my data to Garmin Training Center(r)" it will turn it off. Maybe they added that in the latest version of Ant Agent - can't recall if it was there before.
So to echo the above, technically you don't need to run GTC - Ant Agent will yank the files from your 310XT and drop them on your hard drive - you can then use WKO Device Agent (or drag and drop, or whatever) to grab the resulting .TCX (or .FIT) files. I think I recall reading that the Ant Agent actually grabs a .FIT file off the 310XT, then converts to .TCX automagically.
As for the 305 (and the other devices they temporarily orphaned - apparently they're working on fixing it), drag and drop of the files will continue to work, so I wouldn't worry too much about that.
Looking forward to the forthcoming Quadrant Analysis threads!
OK folks. I did a short ABP ride today and recorded my PT data on both the Garmin 310XT and the Saris LYC. I created a few "intervals" just to see what would happen and to help with the comparison. I uploaded the LYC data into both 2.2 and 3.0 but only bothered to upload the Garmin into 3.0. Here is what I've found so far:
1- The Saris LYC Summary data and Graph look identical. HOWEVER- for reasons I can't yet explain, none of the intervals I created show up in WKO 3.0. They are there in 2.2 so I know I didn't just imagine anything.
2- The Garmin 310XT and Saris LYC data in v 3.0 look MUCH more similar than they used to. No- they are not identical, but the values appear much more within a reasonable range.
3- The Garmin 310XT Intervals in 3.0 look very similar to the Saris LYC intervals in 2.2 and they are directionally consistent (The Garmin always seems to show slightly less watts)
Here is the comparison of the ride, no snickering at my L'il Peep watts, clearly I like the Saris data better :
PS- Yes, my FTP is set the same in both 2.2 and 3.0- I did double check that.
Just a few more observations (sorry- dinner was ready and I had to cut the last post short).
The Graph page looks "choppy" on the Garmin 310 vs the LYC in v 3.0. And the raw data for the Garmin appears different as well with no data every 5 seconds. I'm guessing ??? this has something to do with the fix. Again, the data seems directionally correct- it's just not the nice smooth line you see with the LYC data.
As for the new Scatter and Quadrant graphs- they look very similar between the Garmin and LYC with the Garmin again appearing to have less data points. But the general pattern of all the little dots along with their groupings and the value curves are basically the same. That said- I really don't have a great idea what I'm looking at with those charts yet- so who knows!!!
I'm in the recent purchase group but not 30 days. I have a 305 and would be interested in the downloads or issues with that that were mentioned earlier in this thread.
I stayed away from the 310XT because of the problems so I really have no need to upgrade. I might be interested in upgrading to the Joule sometime but I have bought myself enough toys for this christmas. I am saving for a bike while the dust settles.
Gordon- I had a 305 and found no real issues with using it and WKO 2.2. The issues we are having with the 310 are power related (not even a possibility for the 305). As long as you are correcting the elevation of your file each time so that the rTSS score is valid, you should be fine with 2.2 and the 305.
OK folks. I did a short ABP ride today and recorded my PT data on both the Garmin 310XT and the Saris LYC. I created a few "intervals" just to see what would happen and to help with the comparison. I uploaded the LYC data into both 2.2 and 3.0 but only bothered to upload the Garmin into 3.0. Here is what I've found so far:
1- The Saris LYC Summary data and Graph look identical. HOWEVER- for reasons I can't yet explain, none of the intervals I created show up in WKO 3.0. They are there in 2.2 so I know I didn't just imagine anything.
2- The Garmin 310XT and Saris LYC data in v 3.0 look MUCH more similar than they used to. No- they are not identical, but the values appear much more within a reasonable range.
3- The Garmin 310XT Intervals in 3.0 look very similar to the Saris LYC intervals in 2.2 and they are directionally consistent (The Garmin always seems to show slightly less watts)
Here is the comparison of the ride, no snickering at my L'il Peep watts, clearly I like the Saris data better :
PS- Yes, my FTP is set the same in both 2.2 and 3.0- I did double check that.
Garmin
Saris LYC
Entire Workout
114
117
Duration:
47:53:00
47:39:00
Work:
271 kJ
335 kJ
TSS:
47 (intensity factor 0.849)
57.4 (intensity factor 0.855)
Norm Power:
127
128
VI:
1.11
1.09
Pw:HR:
10.64%
8.80%
Pa:HR:
16.63%
13.96%
Distance:
12.176 mi
12.251 mi
Thanks for sharing Nemo! Looks much better than what folks were seeing with the 310XT and WKO 2.2 but I find it Interesting that most of the metrics are fairly close but there a TSS delta of over 10.
Gordon- I had a 305 and found no real issues with using it and WKO 2.2. The issues we are having with the 310 are power related (not even a possibility for the 305). As long as you are correcting the elevation of your file each time so that the rTSS score is valid, you should be fine with 2.2 and the 305.
Nemo,
This was in response to Craig's post. It seems that WKO 3.0 does not support Garmin 305.
Device Agent 3.0 (Build 12) DOES NOT currently support these devices:
As noted above, I upgraded from WKO 2.2 to 3.0. I have just figured out that the new version uses Device Agent to pull data from the Garmin and PT, unlike 2.2. I can't get my Device Agent to work. I got a pretty lousy e-mail back from tech support saying that (a) Device Agent doesn't support the Garmin 305, and (b) there a a couple of work arounds, but fixing the actual problem wasn't in the cards. So now I either have to use an old version of Device Agent and load the devices into TrainingPeaks and then sync with WKO or load the Garmin and PT software to pull data and then drag and drop the files into WKO 3.0. I may just keep WKO 2.2 for a while
As noted above, I upgraded from WKO 2.2 to 3.0. I have just figured out that the new version uses Device Agent to pull data from the Garmin and PT, unlike 2.2. I can't get my Device Agent to work. I got a pretty lousy e-mail back from tech support saying that (a) Device Agent doesn't support the Garmin 305, and (b) there a a couple of work arounds, but fixing the actual problem wasn't in the cards. So now I either have to use an old version of Device Agent and load the devices into TrainingPeaks and then sync with WKO or load the Garmin and PT software to pull data and then drag and drop the files into WKO 3.0. I may just keep WKO 2.2 for a while
tom
WHA?? OK, that's one step forward and two steps back!!! FWIW- If I didn't have a 310XT (which for all practical purposes just doesn't really work with 2.2 when it comes to power files) then I wouldn't be all that geeked out about lining up to upgrade to 3.0. You won't be missing all that much by staying on 2.2.
FYI... a new build of WKO 3.0 was released yesterday. If anyone is already using it you may want to go download the new version as it is supposed to fix an issue that was causing NP to be incorrectly calculated.
FWIW, I'm going to upgrade, however I'm probably going to sit tight for at least anohter week or so and watch the bugs get worked out first.
I upgraded to 3.0 since I'm using a Garmin 310xt with my quark PM. Did a ride yesterday and this average watts are still 10-12 watts lower in WKO than on the actual device or in Garmin Connect. Very frustrating. Guess I will poke around the various forums to see what I can learn. Right now I'm just basing my FTP and workouts off of average watts from Garmin Connect since that is what matches what I see while actually riding. It just nukes my historical comparisons etc. because WKO NP is too low as is TSS.
I upgraded to 3.0 since I'm using a Garmin 310xt with my quark PM. Did a ride yesterday and this average watts are still 10-12 watts lower in WKO than on the actual device or in Garmin Connect. Very frustrating. Guess I will poke around the various forums to see what I can learn. Right now I'm just basing my FTP and workouts off of average watts from Garmin Connect since that is what matches what I see while actually riding. It just nukes my historical comparisons etc. because WKO NP is too low as is TSS.
Mark, do you have the Garmin including or excluding zeros in the average? WKO includes zeros and if you the garmin exclude them there will allways be a difference unless you never coast in the entire ride.
I tested this with the Garmin edge 500 and when I had it include the zeros in the average, the numbers matched in the device, garmin training center, and wko 2.2. However, when the edge 500 was set to not include the zeros, the averages were off as I expected.
FWIW, the same is true with the powertap little yellow computer and I have found that the average that excludes the zeros is actually a decent estimate for NP while you ride (not perfect though).
Of course I do not have a 310XT, so this still may be an issue with it and WKO however I wanted to share my experience with the edge 500 and LYC in case that helps you.
Matt, Thanks for your guidance. I have no clue if it is including or excluding zeros and have paged through all the menus and can't see a setting for it. Your comment on the P-ave excluding zeros being close to the NP makes sense to me based on my past riding experience with my ergomo. I'll go to the garmin forum to see if I can figure out how to include zeros.
Just to be clear, it's *Device Agent* 3.0 that doesn't support the 305 (yet - they're working on fixing it). *WKO* itself supports it - you just have to get the data into WKO a slightly different way (e.g. drag and drop).
All in all, I think 3.0 is definitely a step in the right direction, and Device Agent, despite the minor step backwards with a few devices, is a positive change. If they had had this architecture in place for 2.2, they probably would have been able to fix the 310XT issues a lot faster.
Mark - would you be willing to post a few files that are giving you problems?
With the 310XT, it turns out there is no way to change "Zero Averaging" (like there is with the 500 and 705) - it is always off. I asked Garmin and they said they were looking at adding this functionality.
With the 310XT, it turns out there is no way to change "Zero Averaging" (like there is with the 500 and 705) - it is always off. I asked Garmin and they said they were looking at adding this functionality.
This would seem to explain what Mark is seeing. I took a look at my file from Friday and compared it to the History on the Garmin to see if I had the same issues. For me this is pretty easy to figure out because I ride in total flat land so there's no hills to worry about messing this up. If I'm doing an "on" interval- there's no coasting. If I'm doing a "rest" interval- I will coast a little (even if just for a few seconds to catch my breath).
Sure enough- during my "On" intervals, the Garmin History appears identical (or within a watt or two) of the WKO data. But during my "rest" intervals, the Garmin History shows a higher Average Watts than what WKO shows.
Craig- good to know Garmin is looking at adding the functionality. But I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for it. They have a pretty big list of "feature requests" to work through with the Garmin 310XT.
Nemo, Thanks for the info. When I switched from my Ergomo to the Quark, it was right at week 8 (from the Oct Out season) so I conveniently had a FTP test. The data from WKO had my FTP dropping about 10 watts where as if I just took the Garmin p-avg data (which should be pretty close in an FTP test as it is very consistent pedaling) it was consistent with my previous FTP test. My conclusion was that the new power meter had a different reading and that is why my FTP did not rise in the past 8 weeks and that the data from WKO 2.2 was not valid given that it was confirmed that WKO did not deal with the data properly. (It showed a 10 watt drop in FTP for the test 8 weeks prior). I now have to determine if I should drop my FTP back to the numbers in WKO...... Seems like I wouldn't be working hard enough if I did that.
Another thing I noticed on my run today is that WKO does not take out the time from the run where I stop the clock (e.g. street light, bathroom, etc. It shows the total duration and the time actually running for each mile but at the entire workout section it just shows the total elapsed time.
Craig, Im happy to post my files. Just let me know what you are interested in seeing....
Nemo, Thanks for the info. When I switched from my Ergomo to the Quark, it was right at week 8 (from the Oct Out season) so I conveniently had a FTP test. The data from WKO had my FTP dropping about 10 watts where as if I just took the Garmin p-avg data (which should be pretty close in an FTP test as it is very consistent pedaling) it was consistent with my previous FTP test. My conclusion was that the new power meter had a different reading and that is why my FTP did not rise in the past 8 weeks and that the data from WKO 2.2 was not valid given that it was confirmed that WKO did not deal with the data properly. (It showed a 10 watt drop in FTP for the test 8 weeks prior). I now have to determine if I should drop my FTP back to the numbers in WKO...... Seems like I wouldn't be working hard enough if I did that.
Another thing I noticed on my run today is that WKO does not take out the time from the run where I stop the clock (e.g. street light, bathroom, etc. It shows the total duration and the time actually running for each mile but at the entire workout section it just shows the total elapsed time.
Craig, Im happy to post my files. Just let me know what you are interested in seeing....
Mark,
Not sure if I am reading this correct but are you making the assumption that the numbers from the ergomo should be identical to the quarq and drawing a conclusion that the reason the numbers are different is the 310 wko plus interface?
Not sure if I am reading this correct but are you making the assumption that the numbers from the ergomo should be identical to the quarq and drawing a conclusion that the reason the numbers are different is the 310 wko plus interface?
Chris, Not at all. I would expect the readings to be different if each PM is +/- 5% I could have as much as a 20 watt swing between the two. There were too many variables in motion for me to figure it all out. When I started with the new PM my FTP test had different sets of numbers depending on where I took the data. Looking at WKO 2.2 my new Quart FTP would be about 10 watts lower than my Oct outseason start with the ergomo, but if I took the p-avg from Garmin Connect, my new FTP was essentially the same as the 8 week previous ftp from the ergomo. Given that TrainingPeaks said that the 310xt was not compatible with WKO, I opted to use the p-avg data from Garmin Connect and have based my workouts off of that FTP.
This weekend I upgraded to WKO 3.0 and essentially, the data that I got from my Saturday ride had the same consistent discrepency between Garmin connect and WKO that I used to see with 2.2. Since I now understand about the zero averaging, I am assuming that WKO was right all along in both 2.2 and 3.0. Sorry to go on and on about this. All I really want to do is set the right FTP and then ride to it.... as long as I can figure out what the heck it is
Sounds like you are on the right track. At this point in the year use the bigger number and hold on for dear life.
I always have the zero averaging off in my LYC but admit that I rarely look at any average numbers on the fly. If at all I look at them and then make a WAG about what the NP will be when I download. I am interested to play with the 310 as a power head unit a bit more now that 3.0 is out. Maybe if I had the bike mount for the thing I would consider it a viable option but it is hard to see on my wrist when climbing out of the bars so essentially useless for keeping me honest on hills which is a bad thing.
I imagine that all of these "issues" will be resolved by the time I ride outside again anyhow
Mark - I'd just be interested in seeing a few rides where you're seeing a discrepancy - to try see if it's because of Zero Averaging and/or Stopped time (or something else...).
This thread has helped reinforce the conclusion I've been meandering towards for the last month or so - namely, that differences between the 310XT and LYC from a power perspective are due primarily to:
a) zero averaging
b) differences in how the LYC/Garmin/WKO treat auto pause or stopped time
Differences in other variables (altitude, etc.) were a result of WKO not parsing Smart Recorded data well, but power, if you understand what it is (and isn't) doing, is relatively ok. But you can connect the dots and see how the differences could be magnified in certain situations.
FYI- I've now done a few rides with intervals and have consistently found that WKO 3.0 does not recognize the intervals from the Saris LYC (but it does see them on my Garmin 310XT). I checked the TrainingPeaks forum and found others have reported this issue as well. There was no response yet in the TP Forum from the WKO folks so I don't know when/if they plan on fixing this.
Soooo- If you do not really NEED to upgrad to TrainingPeaks 3.0 at this time, I'd highly recommend you hold off until they work out some of these bugs!
I don't see a need right now unless you use a Garmin 310XT or FR60. I did the upgrade anyway and only downside I see it at the moment I can't download direct from a Garmin 305, but other than that I'm pleased.
I've used the mutli file/range analysis a few times and like it, but I haven't really figured out how to apply the scatter plots to our training.
X2 what Matt said. If you don't "Need" 3.0, I don't see a huge reason to switch. The only other "need" that you might consider is if you wanted a second license for WKO so you could run it on multiple systems. With 3.0 the licensing changes and you can have it on 2 machines and move the license from machine to machine at will.
I think that the scatter plots are good for rodies. In a road race, or fast group rides, your power is constantly going from 0 to 500 and back. For timed events, the power is pretty consistent so there is no need to over anayze the power data
I think I'm going to overcome my urge to upgrade and stick with the 2.2
I did a workout with my Garmin 305 and footpod outside. While I was running it was using GPS for speed/distance and had the cadence from the foot pod...which is how I like to use it.
Got home and downloaded the file to GTC, everything looked good and cadence was there, exported it to a TCX file and then imported to WKO 3.0 and the cadence was lost.
At first I assumed it was a WKO issue, but it actually looks like GTC is not including the cadence when it exports the file to TCX. I also tried from Garmin Connect and no luck.
When I have more time I'll check garmin and training peaks boards to see if anyone has brought this up to both of them yet.
The good news, is that training peaks is planning to update the device agent to allow direct downloads from the 305 into WKO. Since this worked correctly in WKO 2.2 with the cadence I'm hoping they get it right in 3.0 as well.
I've got the same problem, the garmin software seems to drop the cadence when it exports. Hopefully device agent will support the 305 sooner rather than later.
My cadence works fine. I use the footpod with my 305, mostly outside, so I'm usually connected to a satallite. Cadence shows in the Garmin Traininig Center, and when I export the file and drag it over to WKO+ 3.0, I see the same cadence numbers there. I also pushed it into Training Peaks from WKO+ 3.0, it was there too.
I haven't run indoors since getting up to speed with3.0. Is it posible that the issue is indoor vs. outdoor?
Comments
Thanks. Now I just need to remember how to change the Garmin Connect settings so it stops sending the files to GTC and auto-launching GTC every time.
Nemo -
Check your Garmin ANT Agent preferences:
Send data to Garmin Connect:
[X] Never
Garmin Training Center is always going to load your latest files whenever you start it up, no way to turn that off. This is not a bad thing.
Actually, if you remove the checkmark beside "Send my data to Garmin Training Center(r)" it will turn it off.
Maybe they added that in the latest version of Ant Agent - can't recall if it was there before.
OK folks. I did a short ABP ride today and recorded my PT data on both the Garmin 310XT and the Saris LYC. I created a few "intervals" just to see what would happen and to help with the comparison. I uploaded the LYC data into both 2.2 and 3.0 but only bothered to upload the Garmin into 3.0. Here is what I've found so far:
1- The Saris LYC Summary data and Graph look identical. HOWEVER- for reasons I can't yet explain, none of the intervals I created show up in WKO 3.0. They are there in 2.2 so I know I didn't just imagine anything.
2- The Garmin 310XT and Saris LYC data in v 3.0 look MUCH more similar than they used to. No- they are not identical, but the values appear much more within a reasonable range.
3- The Garmin 310XT Intervals in 3.0 look very similar to the Saris LYC intervals in 2.2 and they are directionally consistent (The Garmin always seems to show slightly less watts)
Here is the comparison of the ride, no snickering at my L'il Peep watts, clearly I like the Saris data better
:
PS- Yes, my FTP is set the same in both 2.2 and 3.0- I did double check that.
Garmin
Saris LYC
Entire Workout
114
117
Duration:
47:53:00
47:39:00
Work:
271 kJ
335 kJ
TSS:
47 (intensity factor 0.849)
57.4 (intensity factor 0.855)
Norm Power:
127
128
VI:
1.11
1.09
Pw:HR:
10.64%
8.80%
Pa:HR:
16.63%
13.96%
Distance:
12.176 mi
12.251 mi
Just a few more observations (sorry- dinner was ready and I had to cut the last post short).
The Graph page looks "choppy" on the Garmin 310 vs the LYC in v 3.0. And the raw data for the Garmin appears different as well with no data every 5 seconds. I'm guessing ??? this has something to do with the fix. Again, the data seems directionally correct- it's just not the nice smooth line you see with the LYC data.
As for the new Scatter and Quadrant graphs- they look very similar between the Garmin and LYC with the Garmin again appearing to have less data points. But the general pattern of all the little dots along with their groupings and the value curves are basically the same. That said- I really don't have a great idea what I'm looking at with those charts yet- so who knows!!!
I'm in the recent purchase group but not 30 days. I have a 305 and would be interested in the downloads or issues with that that were mentioned earlier in this thread.
I stayed away from the 310XT because of the problems so I really have no need to upgrade. I might be interested in upgrading to the Joule sometime but I have bought myself enough toys for this christmas. I am saving for a bike while the dust settles.
Gordon
Thanks for sharing Nemo! Looks much better than what folks were seeing with the 310XT and WKO 2.2 but I find it Interesting that most of the metrics are fairly close but there a TSS delta of over 10.
Nemo,
This was in response to Craig's post. It seems that WKO 3.0 does not support Garmin 305.
Gordon
tom
WHA?? OK, that's one step forward and two steps back!!! FWIW- If I didn't have a 310XT (which for all practical purposes just doesn't really work with 2.2 when it comes to power files) then I wouldn't be all that geeked out about lining up to upgrade to 3.0. You won't be missing all that much by staying on 2.2.
FYI... a new build of WKO 3.0 was released yesterday. If anyone is already using it you may want to go download the new version as it is supposed to fix an issue that was causing NP to be incorrectly calculated.
FWIW, I'm going to upgrade, however I'm probably going to sit tight for at least anohter week or so and watch the bugs get worked out first.
I upgraded to 3.0 since I'm using a Garmin 310xt with my quark PM. Did a ride yesterday and this average watts are still 10-12 watts lower in WKO than on the actual device or in Garmin Connect. Very frustrating. Guess I will poke around the various forums to see what I can learn. Right now I'm just basing my FTP and workouts off of average watts from Garmin Connect since that is what matches what I see while actually riding. It just nukes my historical comparisons etc. because WKO NP is too low as is TSS.
Mark, do you have the Garmin including or excluding zeros in the average? WKO includes zeros and if you the garmin exclude them there will allways be a difference unless you never coast in the entire ride.
I tested this with the Garmin edge 500 and when I had it include the zeros in the average, the numbers matched in the device, garmin training center, and wko 2.2. However, when the edge 500 was set to not include the zeros, the averages were off as I expected.
FWIW, the same is true with the powertap little yellow computer and I have found that the average that excludes the zeros is actually a decent estimate for NP while you ride (not perfect though).
Of course I do not have a 310XT, so this still may be an issue with it and WKO however I wanted to share my experience with the edge 500 and LYC in case that helps you.
Matt, Thanks for your guidance. I have no clue if it is including or excluding zeros and have paged through all the menus and can't see a setting for it. Your comment on the P-ave excluding zeros being close to the NP makes sense to me based on my past riding experience with my ergomo. I'll go to the garmin forum to see if I can figure out how to include zeros.
Just to be clear, it's *Device Agent* 3.0 that doesn't support the 305 (yet - they're working on fixing it). *WKO* itself supports it - you just have to get the data into WKO a slightly different way (e.g. drag and drop).
This would seem to explain what Mark is seeing. I took a look at my file from Friday and compared it to the History on the Garmin to see if I had the same issues. For me this is pretty easy to figure out because I ride in total flat land so there's no hills to worry about messing this up. If I'm doing an "on" interval- there's no coasting. If I'm doing a "rest" interval- I will coast a little (even if just for a few seconds to catch my breath).
Sure enough- during my "On" intervals, the Garmin History appears identical (or within a watt or two) of the WKO data. But during my "rest" intervals, the Garmin History shows a higher Average Watts than what WKO shows.
Craig- good to know Garmin is looking at adding the functionality. But I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for it. They have a pretty big list of "feature requests" to work through with the Garmin 310XT.
Nemo, Thanks for the info. When I switched from my Ergomo to the Quark, it was right at week 8 (from the Oct Out season) so I conveniently had a FTP test. The data from WKO had my FTP dropping about 10 watts where as if I just took the Garmin p-avg data (which should be pretty close in an FTP test as it is very consistent pedaling) it was consistent with my previous FTP test. My conclusion was that the new power meter had a different reading and that is why my FTP did not rise in the past 8 weeks and that the data from WKO 2.2 was not valid given that it was confirmed that WKO did not deal with the data properly. (It showed a 10 watt drop in FTP for the test 8 weeks prior). I now have to determine if I should drop my FTP back to the numbers in WKO...... Seems like I wouldn't be working hard enough if I did that.
Another thing I noticed on my run today is that WKO does not take out the time from the run where I stop the clock (e.g. street light, bathroom, etc. It shows the total duration and the time actually running for each mile but at the entire workout section it just shows the total elapsed time.
Craig, Im happy to post my files. Just let me know what you are interested in seeing....
Posted By Chris G on 20 Dec 2009 08:11 PM
Not sure if I am reading this correct but are you making the assumption that the numbers from the ergomo should be identical to the quarq and drawing a conclusion that the reason the numbers are different is the 310 wko plus interface?
Chris, Not at all. I would expect the readings to be different if each PM is +/- 5% I could have as much as a 20 watt swing between the two. There were too many variables in motion for me to figure it all out. When I started with the new PM my FTP test had different sets of numbers depending on where I took the data. Looking at WKO 2.2 my new Quart FTP would be about 10 watts lower than my Oct outseason start with the ergomo, but if I took the p-avg from Garmin Connect, my new FTP was essentially the same as the 8 week previous ftp from the ergomo. Given that TrainingPeaks said that the 310xt was not compatible with WKO, I opted to use the p-avg data from Garmin Connect and have based my workouts off of that FTP.
This weekend I upgraded to WKO 3.0 and essentially, the data that I got from my Saturday ride had the same consistent discrepency between Garmin connect and WKO that I used to see with 2.2. Since I now understand about the zero averaging, I am assuming that WKO was right all along in both 2.2 and 3.0. Sorry to go on and on about this. All I really want to do is set the right FTP and then ride to it.... as long as I can figure out what the heck it is
Sounds like you are on the right track. At this point in the year use the bigger number and hold on for dear life.
I always have the zero averaging off in my LYC but admit that I rarely look at any average numbers on the fly. If at all I look at them and then make a WAG about what the NP will be when I download. I am interested to play with the 310 as a power head unit a bit more now that 3.0 is out. Maybe if I had the bike mount for the thing I would consider it a viable option but it is hard to see on my wrist when climbing out of the bars so essentially useless for keeping me honest on hills which is a bad thing.
I imagine that all of these "issues" will be resolved by the time I ride outside again anyhow
Mark - I'd just be interested in seeing a few rides where you're seeing a discrepancy - to try see if it's because of Zero Averaging and/or Stopped time (or something else...).
Soooo- If you do not really NEED to upgrad to TrainingPeaks 3.0 at this time, I'd highly recommend you hold off until they work out some of these bugs!
So, to the first bunch of Ginnie pigs, does it worth the upgrade?
I can manually calculate 20'FTP*0.95,,, no need to pay $65 for that,,,
Do you see any other benefits?
I've used the mutli file/range analysis a few times and like it, but I haven't really figured out how to apply the scatter plots to our training.
thanks for your feedback!
I think that the scatter plots are good for rodies. In a road race, or fast group rides, your power is constantly going from 0 to 500 and back. For timed events, the power is pretty consistent so there is no need to over anayze the power data
I think I'm going to overcome my urge to upgrade and stick with the 2.2
Found another 3.0 small issue today...
I did a workout with my Garmin 305 and footpod outside. While I was running it was using GPS for speed/distance and had the cadence from the foot pod...which is how I like to use it.
Got home and downloaded the file to GTC, everything looked good and cadence was there, exported it to a TCX file and then imported to WKO 3.0 and the cadence was lost.
At first I assumed it was a WKO issue, but it actually looks like GTC is not including the cadence when it exports the file to TCX. I also tried from Garmin Connect and no luck.
When I have more time I'll check garmin and training peaks boards to see if anyone has brought this up to both of them yet.
The good news, is that training peaks is planning to update the device agent to allow direct downloads from the 305 into WKO. Since this worked correctly in WKO 2.2 with the cadence I'm hoping they get it right in 3.0 as well.
I've got the same problem, the garmin software seems to drop the cadence when it exports.
Hopefully device agent will support the 305 sooner rather than later.
Fraser
My cadence works fine. I use the footpod with my 305, mostly outside, so I'm usually connected to a satallite. Cadence shows in the Garmin Traininig Center, and when I export the file and drag it over to WKO+ 3.0, I see the same cadence numbers there. I also pushed it into Training Peaks from WKO+ 3.0, it was there too.
I haven't run indoors since getting up to speed with3.0. Is it posible that the issue is indoor vs. outdoor?
tom