Variability Index / Rider profile

What you're proposing makes sense to me, but the confounding factor is terrain: unless all the riders you're comparing are training/racing over similar terrain, the impact of the latter may "swamp" any differences due to rider characteristics.

acoggan said:

What you're proposing makes sense to me, but the confounding factor is terrain: unless all the riders you're comparing are training/racing over similar terrain, the impact of the latter may "swamp" any differences due to rider characteristics.

Yes - I see that. I felt however that, even though the terrain has an impact, that there are still differences to be seen between different styles of riders and that as an ongoing metric, a pattern may emerge.

I can't seem to get VI on a CP graph but can set up NP-60 mins Vs AP-60 mins.

I can see the value in what you are suggesting, but I think there is a distinct difference between the observed VI in a race versus the results of performance testing rides designed to produce both low and high VIs. The problem with using observed data from races is that the terrain and demands of the races drove the results. OTOH, one could construct two different training rides holding duration and NP constant but with very different VIs. Of course, there is the slight problem of how the cyclist is to follow the training ride pacing plans. Oh well, details, details, ...😄

RapDaddyo said:

I can see the value in what you are suggesting, but I think there is a distinct difference between the observed VI in a race versus the results of performance testing rides designed to produce both low and high VIs. The problem with using observed data from races is that the terrain and demands of the races drove the results. OTOH, one could construct two different training rides holding duration and NP constant but with very different VIs. Of course, there is the slight problem of how the cyclist is to follow the training ride pacing plans. Oh well, details, details, ...😄

Yes - but many clients include club or team rides in their training and these are relatively unstructured. On these ride files I have begun to pick up the "type" of rider and it has begun to corelate with the power profile but in fact often has been the earlier of the two indicators and hs helped me identify a rider's strengths and weaknesses.

peterwright said:

helped me identify a rider's strengths and weaknesses.

Actually, what I think it is identifying is the cyclist's sustainable power (and AWC) relative to the field. The rider who is in the mid to lower half of the field will be largely responding to attacks and sitting in when possible. The rider who is in the upper half or better of the field will be launching more attacks, attacking on the extended climbs and leading bridges, producing a higher VI. At least it would for me. Again, I think the path you are pursuing is valid but that race results can fog the data because other factors are driving the rider's VI than just his relative strengths and weaknesses. This is only one of many testable factors and is the direction I think we should be going with power data, given the right tools.

P.S., We will have many interesting debates in the coming months about the insights to be gained from structured vs. unstructured rides.😄

peterwright said:

In our team rides I find that I am often the rider changing the pace or attacking on a climb but will then need a decent recovery before becoming active again - once recovered I find myslef back on the front pacing for say 15-20 mins etc etc.

In looking at other riders on the same ride, the more constant and smooth paced riders generate a lower VI I think.

In addition to the other comments about terrain, I'm wondering if what you're observing isn't *solely* a function of your preferences with regard to terrain. I'm hearing that you feel you're a certain type of rider who prefers a high VI, but is that the case on flat terrain as well? IOW, Do you feel a need to change pace frequently on flat terrain also, or is it just on hills?

I, too, like to hold my pace uphill and *hate* (😠 ) getting caught behind someone's wheel on a climb. I've never interpreted this to mean that I'd prefer higher VI's in a more general sense, however.

frenchyge said:

In addition to the other comments about terrain, I'm wondering if what you're observing isn't *solely* a function of your preferences with regard to terrain. I'm hearing that you feel you're a certain type of rider who prefers a high VI, but is that the case on flat terrain as well? IOW, Do you feel a need to change pace frequently on flat terrain also, or is it just on hills?

I, too, like to hold my pace uphill and *hate* (😠 ) getting caught behind someone's wheel on a climb. I've never interpreted this to mean that I'd prefer higher VI's in a more general sense, however.

I hear what you are saying, but in fact I find the longer durations on the flat courses a scenario where I will also very likely work hard on the front pacing and trying to cause some action but then need to sit in for a while to recover.

I agree that this is a function of recovery and AWC but I also think that the reason I ride like this is because pf the type of rider I am and where my strengths lie - hence my original thoughts about using it as an early indicator of a rider's profile.