This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Achieved level of training performance.

Artur
over 1 year ago

I decided to raise this topic on the forum although it is an "old topic". Practically from the beginning of my adventure with the Garmin it displayed information after the workout.
The basic unit is Edge1040S.
I've always been a little annoyed by the fact that after a workout in the summary, but before the activity is over, it displays the percentage completion of the workout goals.
The Edge1040S almost always presents a level .... 21-23% (!?) and describes it as low.
Well, the "interval.icu" platform presents me with a training completion compliance of ~99-100% :)

Several times I performed the test ... comparison :)
I recorded the workout on Edge1040S and Forerunner 955.
Exactly the same workout, same power/heart rate zones on both units.
The same heart rate monitor, power meter paired with these units.

And what is the effect of such comparisons?

Well, such that the Edge1040S after the workout displayed a performance level of ~21-23%, while the Forerunner 955 rated the same at .... 97-98% !!

Please note that this rating is displayed without synchronization with GC, because the activity with the workout is not yet uploaded to Garmin's servers and is not even completed.

I know the description from the GC website about such a summary of the workout, its three rating thresholds. But for the life of me, I don't understand why the E1040S rates an (otherwise 100% workout completion) at a measly 21% and the Forerunner955 at 98%.

Anyone have an idea what the problem with these ratings on the E1040S might be?

regards

Artur

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to Artur

    Great, so it worked!

    Note that your Forerunner has an advantage of reading the same power data that Xert is reading (and optimising by adjusting the resistance), so it's no surprise that it's usually spot on the target (minus control delays, gear ratio limits, etc.) and shows high execution score. Your Edge reading your Assioma pedals does not have this advantage, so it needs more margin to be considered in range, as shown by the experiment. Or you can still configure the intervals.icu target type to be the lap average power (rather than spot power or 3 second average power) and then the workout execution score should be even closer to what you are looking for.

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to Marcin

    Hi.
    I'll do the next workout of this type with "reverse" paired gauges and have a comparison for ratings ;)

    Regarding the fact that in "interval.icu" I can use the power from the block/interval instead of "3 seconds" I always had that - except that the required %TP was rigid (in the screenshots shown above - it was 67%TP by default).
    After your suggestions, I changed the required %TP to a range of 64-70%TP which resulted in an improvement in the workout performance rating.

    I will try to let you know back what the evaluation effect will be after changing the power source for E1040 and FR955 ;)

    best regards, have a successful although frosty Monday
    Artur

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to Artur

    Are you sure you can't have a range for the lap power? The target range should be independent of whether your target is lap target, instant power, 3s power, etc. See this screenshot for reference: https://forum.intervals.icu/t/workout-builder/1163/379

    I can imagine that ramps wouldn't work with lap power, but ranges totally should.

    Reversing the devices is a good idea to validate what we are discussing.

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to Marcin

    I can set %TP and averaging for the whole lap.
    It's just that in that case a narrow range of power will be displayed on the Garmin (E1040) - like in my first screenshots where you wrote that the margin is too narrow.