Cable Off Road Classic…

…just getting back from a hot May morning of MTB racing.  While there are WORS & MNSCS races on the backside of the weekend, most people I talk too will say it’s hard to pass up the Cable Off Road Classic.  It’s got a mix of everything and amazing terrain to work with.

Maybe a better race recap later, managed an 8th place overall finish today.   A few questionable race choices otherwise came in on respectable terms for the first race of the season. 

So great to see so many friends & familiar faces.  I remember 10 yrs ago going to these races and thinking… damn, I don’t know a soul here.  Now it’s the other way around, like who I don’t know to say Hi to or catch up.  It’s a great sport in that regard, many great friendships you get to build.  Today.. let’s see, saw…Nate (I’m-the-sucker-who-didn’t-race -today) Lille, Nate Klump, Tom Carpenter (& Marie), Chad Sova, Mike Bushey, Todd  & Di McFadden, Scottie & Sara Kylander Johnson, TG, Charlie Tri, Marcy Madson, Jamie Sajdak,  Brian Hammond, CJ Faulkner, Barry Tungseth, Tom Gaier, Mike Gregor, Steve Spangle, Cam Wilcox, Bob & Tony Ferrara, Matt Hudson, Bart Rodberg, Kevin(to-big-of-a-single-speed-gear-today)Roytek, Aaron Sturgis, Matt Dale, the Endersbe’s(thanks for the helmets!) and I know I’m still missing a bunch of others.

Interesting for some perhaps in that I had two power meters running on the bike today!  The Saris Cycle-ops SL+ MTB disc brake hub power meter & the Quarq Quatro crankset power meter, each running a separate cycling computer, the Cycle-Ops using the Joule, and the Quarq using a Garmin 500.  The Garmin & the Quarq are recent additions, so I wanted to see how they stack up against each other.  I’ll try to post more on it later but in short, they should have near identical readouts when it comes to distance, altitude, & most importantly power.  However I found the Quarq to be 3-5% higher in the numbers it recorded than the Cycle-ops.  In the 1:46 hr race I  had average power of 243watts & Normalized power of 279 watts with the Quarq -- but 237 & 272 respectively with the Cycle-Ops… next time I’m doing a 20min threshold test… I’m using the the Quarq…bigger numbers.  Only wish that was true & made a guy faster.  Better bragging numbers I guess.

A quick summary or assessment I have about the various Power meter tools/devices.  I like the Cycleops Joule 2.0 head unit quite a bit better than the Garmin 500.   Primarily because one screen carries ever bit of info you want, Garmin 500 doesn’t have the same amount.  A lot of times preference what you are used to.  Previously I didn’t like the Joule because the readout was smaller than the previous Cycleops Powertap computer head unit.  But again you adjust.  Also I like to use the Cycleops Power Agent Software for it’s simplicity, though WKO+ & TrainingPeaks.com are very good once you get around to figuring out how it works.

I like the fact the Quarq is a crankset application vs. wheel/hub application but until the reliability of it’s power numbers is better.  I gotta give the edge to the Cycleops. 

Question?  So is the powertap wheel/hub all the much heavier?  Why would I race it?  Well some would say first it’s not the overall wheel weight that matter most but the moment of inertia of the wheel,  (google or wikipedia it, if you want to know more).  Boils down more to rim weight & what’s rotating.  I’ve got some light Stan’s Crest rims & compared to stock Bontrager RXL’s so I didn’t feel on a course with more rolling hills than outright climbs it would matter that much.   Got the same place as last year… so couldn’t matter that much.  This year on a hard tail 29er (Gary Fisher Superfly), last year on a full suspension 29er (Gary Fisher Superfly 100).   Anyways I’m digressing.

More on the race later…. more on power meters & comparisons later… Gotta get out & enjoy the evening with family & friends, great to see so many of you racing today!!!