Is the Verve Infocrank power meter accurate enough for professional-level racing?

[swampy1970]

What specific aspects of power measurement do professional-level racers prioritize when evaluating the accuracy of a power meter like the Verve Infocrank, and how do these priorities impact the assessment of its suitability for high-level competition? Is it solely a matter of absolute wattage accuracy, or do factors like cadence, torque, and responsiveness also play a critical role in informing training and racing decisions? Furthermore, how do the unique demands of professional racing, such as high-intensity efforts and rapid changes in pace, affect the power meters ability to provide reliable and actionable data?

Infocrank supplied British Cycling with power meters for many years and many an Olympic medal was won and many a world record broken. The Infocrank is a pretty simple and very robust design. Track cyclists, especially the sprinters, put the cranks through things that road cyclists never will. At pro level you have to factor in the sponsorship aspect. Many of the Shimano teams are using the Shimano Dura Ace powermeter cranks not because they're better but it's part of their deal. Pogi - he can ride Shimano and SRM cranks, because he's Pogi. It was a win for Shimano to get him of Campag.

Using a power meter isn't like having some key to success strapped on the bars when you look down and see watts. It's a tool and the key is understanding how to use that tool to monitor specific things. What are you looking to measure? They key is looking for a reasoned choice of metrics that constitute a marker. Reaching that marker or target may imply that you should do well in your event.

Is it 5 second sprints, where the key is max power? Many people that can't seemingly break 1000 watts aren't limited by lack of power but more lack of coordination. A program that incorporates very short sprints over a period of time on a regular basis will show improvement because you're doing more of them than you regularly would. The gains are through efficiency of movement rather than an improvement in physiological aspects. Once you've been doing these intervals for a few months then you'll see gains drop off and then it becomes about actually developing more power, until then you're basically a flailing fish on a bike flapping around in a way that you hope makes you go faster. When riding by yourself you can't feel the increase over time and that's where the power meter comes in handy. Maybe you're looking to improve in a TT. You're chasing watts Vs aero. It's not just about smashing more watts (more watts never hurts) but it's about making what you have faster (via aero) and upping what you can do in that position (through watts). If you change your position using roll down tests as an aero indicator for improvement, you can then follow power on your TT bike or bike with clip on bars to measure gains in watts.

If you wanted to get nerdy you could even look at power progression throughout the year as you reach your goals. Look at markers that are relevant to your targeted event - do you need repeated 10 minute efforts or a nice all day average. How do those power numbers stack up as you may lose weight. If you go below a certain weight, do the numbers drop off and if they do, does it improve the watt/kg and improve performance or does the weight loss hurt performance?

Watts are just a single metric. They're important as more power is always good but you have to combine this with other aspects like weight, aero, duration and if you're road racing, mixing different types of intensities. Are you looking to road race yet your long training session don't feature sprints in the last quarter? If not why not and how do you track your ability to sprint after 2 or 3 hours on the bike?

If someone could time travel me some Infocranks and a bottom bracket back to the mid 80's when I started racing, I'd be looking at power over short intervals, power in shorter intervals after 2 or more hours of hard riding as well as the customary FTP check. Where I struggled in races, being 140lb soaking wet and 5'11" was in those short efforts (sub 5 minutes but especially those brutal 20 second kicks). I could get aero and my low weight helped on the hills but those short efforts killed me, even on narrow roads on descents, which were like twenty 5 second sprints through the English hills. Do that over a dozen hills...

 

[swampy1970]

Sure, wattage accuracy matters, but let's not overlook the value of simplicity for beginners. They might not need all the bells and whistles at once. Mastering the basics is key, and a singular focus on wattage can help build a solid foundation. But what about the role of intuition and experience in cycling? Can a power meter, no matter how advanced, replace the value of a rider's instincts? Or is there a sweet spot in balancing data with intuition? And how do pros determine that balance? #CyclingInsights ‍

Tell me about "instincts" for a newbie.

35 miles into a hard ride, only 25 more to go. 10 miles later bonked to high heaven and cramping due to going to hard. A simple FTP test and extrapolation of what you might be able to hold over 3 hours is a much more reliable indicator. It's the golden fastrack that we would have loved to have had 40 years ago when instinct was all we had unless you took the plunge and bought a Polar SportsTester heart rate monitor. Yes, I'm that old.

Thinking back to an article written by one of the Aussie track coaches back in 2009 (I think it was then but it was the year after an Olympics where they trounced the English and got revenge and could have been 2005). It was about training the creatine system and 6 second sprints for track sprinters. Instincts weren't allowed. If the rider was hitting PB power numbers, regardless of how they felt, they were told to cool down and sit and have some tea and biscuits. Data showed that repeatedly smashing PB's too often caused burnout. Better to limit those 6 second efforts and eek the power very slowly upwards. Cold hard watts in an event where you'd think it'd be all about smashing it and feeling great for just a few seconds.

Instincts. Do a hard ride for a couple of hours and find a hill where the gradient constantly changes. Ride it at a perceived effort and then look back later at the power and speed. Ride that climb again but hold the watts. What you will see is that when the gradient drops, the perceived effort stays but the power drops. You still accelerate because the gradient has dropped so you think you're doing great. Keep the power where you need it to be and keep upping the gears as needed. This really does take lots of practise over a long period of time to make it come something that you can do from instinct. It needs to be learned. The only other way to learn it is race or ride with people way better than you and suffer in the hurt locker more than you expected to suffer.

 

[elphyn]

You've made some interesting points about relying on instincts versus data, particularly in the context of varying riding experiences. For a newbie, "instincts" could be understood as that inherent sense of how their body feels during a ride, such as perceiving exertion levels or detecting muscle fatigue. However, as you've mentioned, data can act as a reality check, preventing novices from pushing themselves too hard and potentially causing burnout or injuries.

Indeed, learning to balance data and intuition is an ongoing process, even for seasoned cyclists. The Aussie track coach's approach highlights the importance of data-driven training, particularly in managing efforts to avoid overexertion and prevent burnout. Nevertheless, it's essential to remember that data should complement and refine a rider's instincts, not suppress them entirely.

As for the hill climb example, it emphasizes the value of consistent pacing and power output management. However, it's also crucial to acknowledge that, in real-world racing conditions, variables like wind, terrain, and rider positioning might impact power data, making it difficult for beginners to rely solely on numbers.

In essence, fostering a healthy balance between data and intuition from early on can help newcomers build a strong foundation for their cycling journey. Perhaps, experienced cyclists could share their strategies for blending data and intuition, providing valuable insights for those just starting.

 

[murph75]

So, we're all obsessed with data—wattage, cadence, torque. But in the heat of a race, does that fancy power meter even matter when your legs are screaming and your heart's about to burst? Racing's chaotic; one minute you're in a rhythm, next you're dodging a pothole or a competitor's elbow. How do pros sift through that noise? What’s the real weight of power data when you’re in the red zone? Do they just trust their gut when the numbers start to blur? Or is there a moment when the tech just becomes background noise?