File Correction in Training Peaks - 11 hour epic ride ... or not!

For most of this ride, nothing happens. After the riding at the start, I am in the hospital, but the data logger, attached to the bike, is still recording ...

Wow.
Look at that workout.
11 hours!
465 Training Stress Score!
Best ride ever, surely.

Except it isn't.
What really happened is that I crashed.
Knocked out for about 20 minutes.
Look at the picture above for the point where the yellow and green line drop.
The red line continues for a bit (that's me laying on the ground!).
Then the red line drops.
Clearly I didn't die (else I wouldn't be writing this).
What happened was that my Garmin 310xt was attached to my bike, and as the ambulance drove away, my heart rate monitor (on a chest strap) went out of range.
Of course, the watch just kept recording until the battery went flat.
The elevation variation is just GPS variation, as is the green speed line.

Training Peaks has, of course, fully credited me with the entire ride. Some sort of assumption has been made by either Training Peaks or Garmin Connect that my last heart rate was valid (95 bpm) and that has been used for the next 10 hours!
This has resulted in me getting the huge training figure of 465 TSS for a ride of under 20km!

So, I thought, my training data mirrors to Strava. And that has a nice crop function, so I will just do that, then re-import the cropped file into Training Peaks. Sorted!

The duration is about right, but where is the HR data?

The HR data has not been trasferred from Strava, so no TSS have been awarded.
So how much training was it worth then?

Maybe Training Peaks has a way to do it?
Yep.
I found this on Training Peaks' support section

just go to the graph on the original "wrong file", highlight the "wrong" bit, and select "cut".

So how did it turn out?

That's more like it!
I should probably clip tighter, but this way the cadence and the hr data are properly recorded.
So there is a TSS number!
85.5 TSS is perhaps overly generous.
Truth is more like 75, methinks.
I'll edit it a bit tighter in due course.
But 85 is a LOT closer than 465!!

So there we have it.
Editing the "loose bits" off the end of Training Peaks files while still retaining ALL the relevant data!

Taking the Short Cranks Challenge

I had pair of old cranks lying about, so I thought I would give them a go.

All steel, with steel, riveted rings.
The "double" steel 152mm crank and cogs weighs a good bit more than my usual 175mm alloy "triple"!

here you can see my 175mm cranks, with the 152 held in front.

the steel 152 crank is slimmer than the 175 crank at the "pedal" end.

You can see the 152mm cranks are steel, because the cadence magnet sticks to the crank arm without ties!
(of course, I put a couple of cable ties on as well, to allow for rotational forces in use).

My 61cm XL bike frame makes the short cranks look even smaller.
The best description I can think of for using such short cranks is taht it feels a bit like running on the spot.

It's all about leg angles.
Leg angle at TDC
The saddle is still set up for 175mm cranks, and it could be argued that I hout move it up about an inch now I have shorter cranks.

Leg angle at BDC.
Angle of straightest leg, just before BDC is very similar.

Update 15 April 2019:
The 152mm cranks had fixed rings of 38t and 48t, and I found the 38t a tad too high for me.
So I got a 145mm pair of cranks with interchangeable rings (110 BCD size, so rimgs are pretty common, and available in grades from plain steel to fancy stuff with pins in them etc. etc.
I've been using them for quite a few months.
Iirc, i used the 145s with a 34/48 pair of rings for a while, then went back to the 175 cranks, then went back down to the 145 cranks again. Anyway, I've been using just the 145mm cranks for quite a few months now. Might be 6 months, might be a year. I haven't really been counting.

Stronglight "Impact" 145mm cranks

Yep, just 145mm long - that's a whole inch shorter than the "standard" crank length of 170mm

On a 60km ride with the 145mm cranks fitted.
(The pic is in the main street in Thame ,Oxfordshire)

Really short cranks tend to lead to a higher cadence (your foot travels less distance per rotation!), and standing on the pedals is less hard than longer cranks.
Each to their own, but short cranks seem to suit me!

Long Term Review: Tacx Blue Matic Trainer

Disclosures: nothing to disclose. No freebies, no hidden payment, no fancy marketing tricks.
Price paid: 129 Pounds Sterling (about 170 US Dollars, about 155 euros)
Model: Tacx Blue Matic Smart T2650
I bought the trainer (with my own money) on 19th September 2016, using "click and collect" from my local Halfords, at the "regular" retail price.

What's in the box?
I got the so-called "Smart" variant.
All that means is that the Tacx T2015 Speed and Cadence sensor comes bundled in the box.

Long Term Review: O-Synce Footpod

Disclosures: nothing to disclose. No freebies, no hidden payment, no fancy marketing tricks.
Price paid: 10 Pounds Sterling (about 13 US Dollars, about 12 euros) + 3 pounds 50 shipping
Model: O-Synce "maxrun" Footpod (Ant+)
Bought online from Planet X, on sale as a clearance item, about 6 months ago (I think!)
Normal retail price on footpods is 30 to 60 pounds (40 to 80 dollars,  35 to 70 euros), so, although I bought the footpod as a "regular" customer, I haven't seen this sort of offer anywhere since.

Footpod on my running shoes.
If you are not used to them, beware that these are size 11 (US size 12) Men's running shoes
so the footpod would look a bit bigger if you have small feet!