You train your heart out but can't be sure until race-day. You hold back and start easy in a multi-stage race with good team support. The first day goes OK so you take a few of your teammates into an early break. It's a tough day and you work hard, but then you see a chance to win, so you go for it. Well it's really a personal fantasy of mine to be race-fit straight out of the box, yet it seems to be do-able if Cadel is any guide.
Last year's Tour de France runner-up, Cadel Evans, has taken an early season victory after winning the second stage of the 54th Vuelta a Andalucía. His win in just his second day of competition this year, proves the 31 year-old Australian's training during the off-season was not hampered by the many commitments he had with various charities and other functions. It also indicates that his preparation is right on schedule as for his assault on the 2008 Tour de France where he is a noted favourite after Astana's non selection, which leaves last year's first and third placed riders, Alberto Contador and Levi Leipheimer out of the coming edition.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
It's hard not to be impressed with SuperMario
AT 41 it's cool to come back. Heck, if he works on it a bit he could be World Champ on the right circuit..
Team-mate Paco Wrolich set up the sprint for Haussler, but he admitted to having been very impressed by another sprinter, Mario Cipollini. "His comeback is more than perfect. Despite stars like Bettini, Boonen, Leipheimer or Hincapie, he is the absolute hero of this Tour. I take my hat off to him for his performance, that he can still ride like this at age 41. Nobody would ever have believed it! He is a star, which cycling very much needs right now." It was that "star allure" which most impressed Austrian Bernhard Kohl. "The entrance of his Rock & Republic Racing Team was really very cool. The team arrived in Rolls Royces, and were accompanied by a lot of promotion girls. 'Super Mario' appeared at the start with four bodyguards, all in black."
Team-mate Paco Wrolich set up the sprint for Haussler, but he admitted to having been very impressed by another sprinter, Mario Cipollini. "His comeback is more than perfect. Despite stars like Bettini, Boonen, Leipheimer or Hincapie, he is the absolute hero of this Tour. I take my hat off to him for his performance, that he can still ride like this at age 41. Nobody would ever have believed it! He is a star, which cycling very much needs right now." It was that "star allure" which most impressed Austrian Bernhard Kohl. "The entrance of his Rock & Republic Racing Team was really very cool. The team arrived in Rolls Royces, and were accompanied by a lot of promotion girls. 'Super Mario' appeared at the start with four bodyguards, all in black."
Friday, February 15, 2008
London invests in cycling
Go London. Frankly, whilst I love cars I'm realistic enough to realise that they take up too much space and are out of step and scale with both the people they are meant to serve and the environment we live in. There should be a better balance struck between the use of private cars and the alternatives, like public transport, walking and cycling. For our health and well being if not for the planet's survival we have to act soon to reclaim the streets for people, not over-subsidised, over-weight machines. (And yes, we subsidise car production, distribution and use to an enormous extent, far more so than for any other manufactured good. If you think that's not so, try reducing the subsidies and protections for car manufacturing, petrol refining or road building and see who squeals - you'll find a lot of people are addicted to the free cash we dole out to the car industry in the name of "freedom to move". So 'Go London!'
The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: “The aim of this programme is nothing short of a cycling and walking transformation in London. We will spend something like £500 million over the next decade on cycling - the biggest investment in cycling in London’s history, which will mean that thousands more Londoners can cycle in confidence, on routes that take them quickly and safely to where they want to go. “The cycle hire scheme in Paris has proved a huge success, and I have now instructed Transport for London to work with the London boroughs and interested parties to develop and implement a bike hire scheme in central London, accessible to all Londoners. By ensuring that Londoners have easy access to bikes in the centre of the capital, as well as making our city a safer and more enjoyable place to cycle, we will build upon London’s leading position as the only major world city to have achieved a switch from private car use to public transport, cycling and walking.
The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: “The aim of this programme is nothing short of a cycling and walking transformation in London. We will spend something like £500 million over the next decade on cycling - the biggest investment in cycling in London’s history, which will mean that thousands more Londoners can cycle in confidence, on routes that take them quickly and safely to where they want to go. “The cycle hire scheme in Paris has proved a huge success, and I have now instructed Transport for London to work with the London boroughs and interested parties to develop and implement a bike hire scheme in central London, accessible to all Londoners. By ensuring that Londoners have easy access to bikes in the centre of the capital, as well as making our city a safer and more enjoyable place to cycle, we will build upon London’s leading position as the only major world city to have achieved a switch from private car use to public transport, cycling and walking.
Monday, February 11, 2008
I don't know why, it just is...
I don't know why, but I didn't get interested in the Tour Down Under 2008. OK, I watched the last stage live and enjoyed it, but somehow - and promising sprinter Andre Greipel won it overall BTW - it just didn't get me in, not in that stage-by-stage build-of-tension kind of way. Lack of decent race-splitting hills, perhaps? Same guy winning - seemingly - every day? I may have well been watching Big Tom clean up, as always, in a small, rich desert nation somewhere.
But the lesser-ranked Tour de Langkawi in Malaysis is a different kettle of fish. The sprinters are under the hammer already. Stage 1 - a 19-man break succeeds, only to see Sprick step away 3km from the line to grab the stage and the overall. Stage 2 saw a 2-man break, a pursuit, a likely catch foiled and another split winning the day with Jeremy Hunt taking the win. Well it seems pretty lively to me.
But the lesser-ranked Tour de Langkawi in Malaysis is a different kettle of fish. The sprinters are under the hammer already. Stage 1 - a 19-man break succeeds, only to see Sprick step away 3km from the line to grab the stage and the overall. Stage 2 saw a 2-man break, a pursuit, a likely catch foiled and another split winning the day with Jeremy Hunt taking the win. Well it seems pretty lively to me.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Stretching, massage and other time wasters
OK, I'm being a bit difficult here but there's actually little to be said for stretching and massage, at least in the context of fit, well adjusted bodies playing sport. Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor of anything, medical or otherwise, but I ride and I have an opinion based on both practice and research. Let's start with stretching.
Unless you have a lack of flexibility, relative to the range of motion required, what are you trying to achieve by stretching? A warm-up? Why not just ride easily and gradually bring yourself up to speed? In this way you warm up exactly the muscles you need to engage in the activity. Why indeed would you stretch cold muscles and tendons, and thus risk injury? Or perhaps you want to cool down. It seems odd that an activity that is used to 'warm-up' is also used to cool down. In fact why not just ride slower and gradually bring yourself to a cooler state?
If you do have a lack of flexibility then sure, work on what the problem may be with targeted stretches. get advice from a physio on exactly what to do and help to avoid injury.
Which brings me to massage. OK, the pros do it so it must be good. Well maybe it is but where's the evidence? Go on, take a look at the literature. It certainly doesn't seem to hurt, but at best it simply feels good and may act to help convince you that it is good; and thus convinced you may ride better next time. So it's in the mind, not the body. And plenty of riders do swear that they feel better after a massage, so it works for them. But physiologically the effects are so minimal as to be... non-existent. Or not measurable. When you think about it, why would a trained athlete not have an efficient circulatory system? Why would toxins and other waste-products from exercise not be pumped away swiftly from major working muscles like those in the legs? Why would waste linger longer in an athlete, somehow pooling in key areas of great vascular development? Now a non-athlete with fluid retention or some other circulatory problem I could understand, but a highly-trained sports person? I'm open to the evidence, I just haven't seen any that convinces.
Unless you have a lack of flexibility, relative to the range of motion required, what are you trying to achieve by stretching? A warm-up? Why not just ride easily and gradually bring yourself up to speed? In this way you warm up exactly the muscles you need to engage in the activity. Why indeed would you stretch cold muscles and tendons, and thus risk injury? Or perhaps you want to cool down. It seems odd that an activity that is used to 'warm-up' is also used to cool down. In fact why not just ride slower and gradually bring yourself to a cooler state?
If you do have a lack of flexibility then sure, work on what the problem may be with targeted stretches. get advice from a physio on exactly what to do and help to avoid injury.
Which brings me to massage. OK, the pros do it so it must be good. Well maybe it is but where's the evidence? Go on, take a look at the literature. It certainly doesn't seem to hurt, but at best it simply feels good and may act to help convince you that it is good; and thus convinced you may ride better next time. So it's in the mind, not the body. And plenty of riders do swear that they feel better after a massage, so it works for them. But physiologically the effects are so minimal as to be... non-existent. Or not measurable. When you think about it, why would a trained athlete not have an efficient circulatory system? Why would toxins and other waste-products from exercise not be pumped away swiftly from major working muscles like those in the legs? Why would waste linger longer in an athlete, somehow pooling in key areas of great vascular development? Now a non-athlete with fluid retention or some other circulatory problem I could understand, but a highly-trained sports person? I'm open to the evidence, I just haven't seen any that convinces.
Friday, January 18, 2008
ibike crit overview - with pics
Yeah, ok, it's D-grade but every race is as hard as you make it, or as hard as that guy who should go up a grade makes it, anyway. So here are some pics to show you what the new ibike2 software is like... Straight below is an overview of the new data display. You get a detailed data summary on the top left, now including some aero values you can plug into other software for comparison, or to take away and tweak. 
You also get a useful tool for analysing the data, setting barometric pressure and adjusting your 'coast-down' values post-ride. So you can load old rides and update the ibike values, for example, if you have adjusted 'em. It gives you more control over the results. The blue area is the crit last week. The rest is pre-race warmup and post-race cool-down. Top-most graph is power in Watts. Next is speed, then elevation and last of all slope. You can see from elevation that there's a hill each lap... and you can move the cursor to any point and get power, speed and elevation data at that point.
And this is the power peak in close up. Along the bottom of the display you see the data on the cursor: 752W, 35.9kmh, 3.8% slope. If you run those numbers through your calculator (plus weight, temp, barometer, elevation, headwind, all available from the ibike) you'll verify that's pretty darn close. The only real problem is when you hit the 'go' button too hard on a climb and lift the front wheel. You can easily turn 3.8 degrees into 4.5, or more, and get a huge - and inaccurate - power reading. But you can fix that any number of ways, too. Especially if you ride the same hill a few times and know the slope doesn't exceed 4.5%, for example.
Last for today - this is a closeup on the velocity peak. Speed maxed out in the sprint at a lowly 49.1km/h, best so far being over 55kmh, but it was into a headwind this time, and I managed to pick the wrong wheel to follow, too. So I ended up in front too early. Still, you can see the power peak on the hill just prior to the downhill sprint - basically where the last attack went. We continued at good speed until the 90 degree left turn but power is down because I'm on a wheel and we are dropping elevation. Someone starts the sprint, I chase, catch and get marooned. Ooops. You can see the sprint power is 529W and the wind has increased markedly after the left-turn.
True, it doesn't tell you anything that you couldn't have worked out anyway, but it puts it right in your face -up in lights. 3 races documented so far and I know how critical that hill is - it's where most attacks start, especially on the last lap. I can see exactly what power I need to generate to match those attacks, and I can see how important it is to stay calm, hang onto a wheel and don't go too early in the sprint, especially if it's windy! And I can take this data away, find a similar hill and practice putting out 700W+ intervals. I could tailor a 'crit simulation' session around this data and see what works. I may find that those steep, medium-power intervals don't help me in crits and that I need to do more snappy, higher power efforts over shorter distances. And so on.
You can do it by feel, or you can buy a power meter and 'prove' your theories. It's up to you.
You also get a useful tool for analysing the data, setting barometric pressure and adjusting your 'coast-down' values post-ride. So you can load old rides and update the ibike values, for example, if you have adjusted 'em. It gives you more control over the results. The blue area is the crit last week. The rest is pre-race warmup and post-race cool-down. Top-most graph is power in Watts. Next is speed, then elevation and last of all slope. You can see from elevation that there's a hill each lap... and you can move the cursor to any point and get power, speed and elevation data at that point.And this is the power peak in close up. Along the bottom of the display you see the data on the cursor: 752W, 35.9kmh, 3.8% slope. If you run those numbers through your calculator (plus weight, temp, barometer, elevation, headwind, all available from the ibike) you'll verify that's pretty darn close. The only real problem is when you hit the 'go' button too hard on a climb and lift the front wheel. You can easily turn 3.8 degrees into 4.5, or more, and get a huge - and inaccurate - power reading. But you can fix that any number of ways, too. Especially if you ride the same hill a few times and know the slope doesn't exceed 4.5%, for example.Last for today - this is a closeup on the velocity peak. Speed maxed out in the sprint at a lowly 49.1km/h, best so far being over 55kmh, but it was into a headwind this time, and I managed to pick the wrong wheel to follow, too. So I ended up in front too early. Still, you can see the power peak on the hill just prior to the downhill sprint - basically where the last attack went. We continued at good speed until the 90 degree left turn but power is down because I'm on a wheel and we are dropping elevation. Someone starts the sprint, I chase, catch and get marooned. Ooops. You can see the sprint power is 529W and the wind has increased markedly after the left-turn.True, it doesn't tell you anything that you couldn't have worked out anyway, but it puts it right in your face -up in lights. 3 races documented so far and I know how critical that hill is - it's where most attacks start, especially on the last lap. I can see exactly what power I need to generate to match those attacks, and I can see how important it is to stay calm, hang onto a wheel and don't go too early in the sprint, especially if it's windy! And I can take this data away, find a similar hill and practice putting out 700W+ intervals. I could tailor a 'crit simulation' session around this data and see what works. I may find that those steep, medium-power intervals don't help me in crits and that I need to do more snappy, higher power efforts over shorter distances. And so on.
You can do it by feel, or you can buy a power meter and 'prove' your theories. It's up to you.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Worked hard for a tough 2nd place
Yeah, right. A tough D-grade crit. Riiiight. Well after 2x 1st places in a row I was hungry for a 2nd place this time and did a lot more work at the front. And this time I'll show you the pictures. If you are using Firefox this will work fine, but MS Internet Explorer usually goes haywire and wrecks my layout. Well I use Firefox and I don't care.
Firstly, my spreadsheet view of the race data. Basically I took the ibike data from the .csv file and poured it into my own spreadsheet. It gives me max power, average power, mean, average minus zeros, average in power bands, max watts/kilogram, VAM, average and max speed, average and max inclination... I think you get the picture. The normalisation is my own formula (changed once again - it's an evolving beast).
OK, yes, 31.1kmh is a slow average. There was headwind down the short straight and a 4.5% hill each 2km lap, though. It was the slowest of my 3 'comeback' races, but I did more work, too. Average was 155W but if you discount the zeroes (ie drafting, coasting) it was 170W. If you believe in my new normalisation formula it was 234, a dubious measure but the highest race figure so far (at least I can agree with that, it felt like the biggest effort).
The sprint was again in 2 parts: the attack up the hill was the Wattage peak, followed by a slowish downhill sprint into a headwind. I lacked punch and when I caught the breeze I stagnated... but held onto 2nd, anyway.
Firstly, my spreadsheet view of the race data. Basically I took the ibike data from the .csv file and poured it into my own spreadsheet. It gives me max power, average power, mean, average minus zeros, average in power bands, max watts/kilogram, VAM, average and max speed, average and max inclination... I think you get the picture. The normalisation is my own formula (changed once again - it's an evolving beast).OK, yes, 31.1kmh is a slow average. There was headwind down the short straight and a 4.5% hill each 2km lap, though. It was the slowest of my 3 'comeback' races, but I did more work, too. Average was 155W but if you discount the zeroes (ie drafting, coasting) it was 170W. If you believe in my new normalisation formula it was 234, a dubious measure but the highest race figure so far (at least I can agree with that, it felt like the biggest effort).
The sprint was again in 2 parts: the attack up the hill was the Wattage peak, followed by a slowish downhill sprint into a headwind. I lacked punch and when I caught the breeze I stagnated... but held onto 2nd, anyway.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Riders who also run
I'm not sure why, but plenty of riders are turning to running, especially after retirement from pro cycling. Is it a fear of incipient osteoporosis? The lure of a new challenge? Less time-consuming? Or is running just easier? (I doubt the latter.) Anyway, here are some more... starting with Rabo's Michael Boogerd:Meanwhile, he is still staying athletically involved. He plans to run the Rotterdam marathon on April 13, as preparation for the RopaRun, a three day event from Paris to Rotterdam which raises money for charity. "It is for a good cause, and now that I have stopped racing I still need do something to keep my condition on a good level," Boogerd said. "I now try to run an hour each day. It does me good. Later this year, I want to run the New York marathon." His training partner is Leontien Zijlaard-van Moorsel, who ran the New York marathon in 2007. "I asked him and Michael was enthusiastic," she said. "After my cycling career, I found running to be a new sport where I feel good. I think that running will also be good for Michael."
And Armstrong, of course: Lance Armstrong will continue his post-retirement marathon career by competing in the Boston Marathon on April 21, the race organisers announced Thursday. Armstrong qualified after finishing the New York City Marathon in 2007, bettering his previous year's effort with a finishing time of two hours 46 minutes and 43 seconds. The seven time Tour de France champion was well under the Boston Marathon's qualifying time for his 35-to-39 age group of three hours 15 minutes.
And Armstrong, of course: Lance Armstrong will continue his post-retirement marathon career by competing in the Boston Marathon on April 21, the race organisers announced Thursday. Armstrong qualified after finishing the New York City Marathon in 2007, bettering his previous year's effort with a finishing time of two hours 46 minutes and 43 seconds. The seven time Tour de France champion was well under the Boston Marathon's qualifying time for his 35-to-39 age group of three hours 15 minutes.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Yeah OK, another win
I managed to win the local crit again - yes folks, D-grade. Well I had to work at it! I had to avoid falling (one rider down as a faster grade caught us on a corner - nasty!) and I had to watch for breaks (just one semi-serious attempt, easily caught). And I had to patiently wait for the impetuous youngster to start the sprint.
More importantly it gave me more race data. So I can confirm that last week's 1400W burst was indeed an error on the ibike's part, as expected. I'll show you the data later but every lap we went over a small hill, and each lap the hill got steeper. Or so the ibike thought. When 'corrected' it's still a 900W effort (bridging a last-lap gap). This week's data is much more consistent and the peak power a more miserly 800W. I was careful not to expend too much energy in short bursts, rather I anticipated accelerations and smoothly bridged. Each lap the hill registered between 300 and 5ooW effort and 42% of the race was above 200W. If you trust the ibike, of course!
It's a slightly downhill sprint so although I briefly hit 55kmh the power was just on 600W.
I have upgraded to ibike firware v1.16. I always reset after a ride and do a re-tilt when changing bikes. I have a battery of coast-down data to tap into a well. It's not perfect, it certainly goes awry when the barometer is moving around, and if you lift the bars or otherwise drastically alter your weight distribution during a ride then it can generate some flaky figures... but it works well enough to be a great tool for the data junkie on a budget.
More importantly it gave me more race data. So I can confirm that last week's 1400W burst was indeed an error on the ibike's part, as expected. I'll show you the data later but every lap we went over a small hill, and each lap the hill got steeper. Or so the ibike thought. When 'corrected' it's still a 900W effort (bridging a last-lap gap). This week's data is much more consistent and the peak power a more miserly 800W. I was careful not to expend too much energy in short bursts, rather I anticipated accelerations and smoothly bridged. Each lap the hill registered between 300 and 5ooW effort and 42% of the race was above 200W. If you trust the ibike, of course!
It's a slightly downhill sprint so although I briefly hit 55kmh the power was just on 600W.
I have upgraded to ibike firware v1.16. I always reset after a ride and do a re-tilt when changing bikes. I have a battery of coast-down data to tap into a well. It's not perfect, it certainly goes awry when the barometer is moving around, and if you lift the bars or otherwise drastically alter your weight distribution during a ride then it can generate some flaky figures... but it works well enough to be a great tool for the data junkie on a budget.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
the race data, of course
A win is nothing without data, eh?
OK, D-grade crits at the CCCC are short - 30mins plus a lap (another 2km, so about 16-17km). We start with the "D1" kids and drop 'em off after 2 or 3 laps, so we start slow, slow but then speed up. It was 32 degrees Celsius off the tar at 6pm - hot. And the wind was 30kmh from the NE. I was on the Felt F-50.
I dump my ibike data into a spreadsheet, so it comes out like this:
Max power is peak power. With the ibike it's susceptible to lifting wheels, and the combination of pulling up on the bars on an 8% hill during a max effort bridge to the attacker probably distorted the real power... so let's say it was 1,000W anyway, if not 1,400.
The all-up average treats coasting as part of the race, hence Av (all) is just 104W but (Average (>0W) removes all zeroes... which is more 'real'. 151W still sounds low - but we did start slow!!
That's my own normalisation formula, by the way, and definitely a WIP. As a relative measure it gives me a way to judge between efforts. It emphasises the middle over the high-end of the power output range and tries to indicate real effort - all soft-pedalling or coasting is removed and we are looking at just the real "training" load, but I haven't yet perfected a way to recognise effort over time... so short rides are favoured over long ones. I'm working on it.
This breaks-down the power into steps. I can see that 43% of my race was coasting or drafting (0-100W). When training I seek to minimise this figure, to actively eliminate those slack periods, In a race I take full advantage of these "rests".
You can also see that there were only a few 600W+ efforts, and the 300 and 400W steps represent the once-per-lap climbs. Knowing all of this allows me to finetune my training to meet my race needs, although C-grade may well be more "attacking" and both the averages and the peaks will be higher (and more frequent in terms of peaks).
The VAM is useless - not enough hills! But the 50.53kmh peak velocity in the sprint in useful. The 25kmh average is misleading as it covers 20km - warm-up, race and cool-down. The race itself averaged 32kmh (slow, I know, don't rub it in).
OK, D-grade crits at the CCCC are short - 30mins plus a lap (another 2km, so about 16-17km). We start with the "D1" kids and drop 'em off after 2 or 3 laps, so we start slow, slow but then speed up. It was 32 degrees Celsius off the tar at 6pm - hot. And the wind was 30kmh from the NE. I was on the Felt F-50.
I dump my ibike data into a spreadsheet, so it comes out like this:
| MAX power | 1447W |
| MEDIAN | 68.5W |
| AV (all) | 104W |
| AVERAGE (>0W) | 151W |
| TRIMMEAN (10%) | 88W |
| Normalised | 296W |
The all-up average treats coasting as part of the race, hence Av (all) is just 104W but (Average (>0W) removes all zeroes... which is more 'real'. 151W still sounds low - but we did start slow!!
That's my own normalisation formula, by the way, and definitely a WIP. As a relative measure it gives me a way to judge between efforts. It emphasises the middle over the high-end of the power output range and tries to indicate real effort - all soft-pedalling or coasting is removed and we are looking at just the real "training" load, but I haven't yet perfected a way to recognise effort over time... so short rides are favoured over long ones. I'm working on it.
| 600-700W | 0.15% |
| 500-600W | 0.46% |
| 400-500W | 2.49% |
| 300-400W | 7.02% |
| 200-300W | 12.57% |
| 100-200W | 32.88% |
| 0-100W | 43.51% |
You can also see that there were only a few 600W+ efforts, and the 300 and 400W steps represent the once-per-lap climbs. Knowing all of this allows me to finetune my training to meet my race needs, although C-grade may well be more "attacking" and both the averages and the peaks will be higher (and more frequent in terms of peaks).
| 695 | VAM (max)/hr |
| 10.5 | Slope % (max) |
| -0.44 | Slope % (average) |
| 32 | ALTITUDE (max) |
| 50.53 | VELOCITY (max) |
| 25.0 | VELOCITY (average) |
The VAM is useless - not enough hills! But the 50.53kmh peak velocity in the sprint in useful. The 25kmh average is misleading as it covers 20km - warm-up, race and cool-down. The race itself averaged 32kmh (slow, I know, don't rub it in).
A win is a win is a win...
Yes folks, after 250,000km over about 35 years of riding, at 50 years of age and after suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune I actually chalked up another win. Trust me, a win in a D-grade crit is as good as A-grade when you are 50 and only manage 100km road kilometres in a good week!
It's also nice to explain how and why. Firstly, I haven't been well or consistent in my recent training so...
It's also nice to explain how and why. Firstly, I haven't been well or consistent in my recent training so...
- I took it easy
- I warmed up
- I made sure I gritted my teeth only when absolutely necessary
- When ready I had a few digs to see how my body would react (and see how the others were going)
- I found I could manage 350-400W up the short climb once every 2km lap and recover in time for the 36-40kmh slight 1km climb, even when leading the bunch
- However I was hitting 175-180bpm and feeling stretched (192pbm is my upper limit)
- So I took every breather I could
- But I let no-one get away
- I stayed up front (easy after the first third of the race as we were down to just 4 in the lead bunch)
- I was vigilant
- I anticipated attacks up the long straight and the final, crucial attack up the steepest part of the last hill
- I used 1400W (probably lifted the front wheel - let's say 1,000W) in one burst on the 8% hill to get on the right wheel
- I stayed on that wheel and they (thanks Arron) towed me over the top and down to the finish straight
- I waited and waited and then crept over my lead out just before the line (500W into a headwind but down a 4% hill)
- And threw the bike to pass him for the win - just.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Whitewashed at Cronulla
I must keep a tally of these fortunate riders who win their final pro races to end their careers on a fairytale high. It's very un-Australian to do it, though. Real Aussies make a duck in their last innings, like Bradman. Anyway, Whitey's done it and I missed it 'cause I had a commitment to my almost-9 year old daughter and her latest ballet performance. Such is life (another Aussie tradition, look it up.)
But my non-attendance won't stop me saying 'well done'. I've never knowingly raced or ridden with Matt White (maybe I was at the back of a training bunch once or twice) but he's been part of the local scenery for yonks. Whilst I'm impressed with Matt's career and his final win I do have to say it amuses me to see riders take out these heart-stopping finales. I always think of the tour-Tour crits and the shenanigans that go on to please the crowd (what, you mean they aren't for real?). And interestingly this was not just Matt's last win as a pro, he's also very much a local to the district. So it's a win all round. A good news story when cycling's got some much-needed but rare local commercial TV coverage. But whatever really went on during that final breakaway, the trick here is to look real. And to me, from what I did see, it was convincing.
From Cyclingnews.com: Australian Matt White (Discovery Channel) has ended his professional career on the highest of notes, taking victory at the Cronulla International Grand Prix an event staged in Sydney's Sutherland Shire, home to White and many other professional cyclists. The victory on his home's shores served to bookend White's career. The 33 year-old claimed his first major win at the Under 17 Road Team Time Trial component of the 1990 Australian Titles in Western Australia.
But my non-attendance won't stop me saying 'well done'. I've never knowingly raced or ridden with Matt White (maybe I was at the back of a training bunch once or twice) but he's been part of the local scenery for yonks. Whilst I'm impressed with Matt's career and his final win I do have to say it amuses me to see riders take out these heart-stopping finales. I always think of the tour-Tour crits and the shenanigans that go on to please the crowd (what, you mean they aren't for real?). And interestingly this was not just Matt's last win as a pro, he's also very much a local to the district. So it's a win all round. A good news story when cycling's got some much-needed but rare local commercial TV coverage. But whatever really went on during that final breakaway, the trick here is to look real. And to me, from what I did see, it was convincing.
From Cyclingnews.com: Australian Matt White (Discovery Channel) has ended his professional career on the highest of notes, taking victory at the Cronulla International Grand Prix an event staged in Sydney's Sutherland Shire, home to White and many other professional cyclists. The victory on his home's shores served to bookend White's career. The 33 year-old claimed his first major win at the Under 17 Road Team Time Trial component of the 1990 Australian Titles in Western Australia.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
ibike update worth it
OK, so I use an ibike and have whinged a bit about some niggles. Well Velocomp has seemingly fixed all of those issues - and brought the ibike up another level.
For completeness here's a long post that covers just about everything I've ever written about the ibike and briefly describes ibike 2.0. I'll say more about ibike 2.0 soon.
The ibike and me.
That's the good side of the ibike - real data that makes sense. You've got to set it up right and do the coast-down test properly, as per spec, and make sure the battery is delivering the goods. But once done it's great. Of course today I punctured and swapped front wheels, but because it's just a magnetic pickup there was no sweat. I could even swap bikes as I've got a spare mount and pickup already on bike number 2. So I think ibike is still looking like a pretty good thing.
Bad news? It goes a bit screwy if you watch the Wattage display too much (it seems to jump around constantly, especially on the flat, only settling down when efforts are made, in a sprint or in a climb) - but when you download to the PC the odd figures seem to have disappeared and clarity returns. And the peak figures on the LCD don't always match the data logged. The battery seems to play a part in this, as does road surface - bumps and corners definitely throw it off.
So on to the fun.. the screenshot on the left shows power in blue and bike speed in green. You can see steady state on the left, then I accelerate to catch a slow-moving Toyota 'Landbruiser' that pulled out in front of me. You see both power and speed rise as I chase, peaking at around 865W and 45kmh or so; then as I get into the draft speed stays up (for a while, I didn't stay on as there's a nasty climb around the corner and I'm not that fit!) whilst power falls off sharply. The ibike seems to handle 'sucking wheels' pretty well. You can see that power falls away rapidly to zero until I hit the climb and have to get pedalling again. Speed falls away too and you can see me approach 300W on the lower part of the 10% climb (the bump on the right).
The next sreenshot shows a zoom-in on that power peak. You can see the effort to accelerate, the speed rising and then the power clearly falls off as I get into the draft, despite speed continuing to rise. In fact the car eventually accelerated, having suddenly realised that the rider they pulled out in front off at that T-junction was still there... and I let him go, as you see the speed dropping again. Wow.
Even better, the power breakdown (the colored box centre-screen) shows what was happening at the point where the cursor sits... all of that green in the pie chart is acceleration. The cursor itself is the black vertical line right on the power peak. So it all makes sense. When I move the cursor into the 'draft zone' the proportions all change... as you'd hope.
Bottom line? It works! What about the software?
In the 1980s I found myself with electronic assistance in my data habit: a cycle 'computer', although all it really did was count wheel revs using a magnet and show elapsed time. It did allow me to see my current and average velocity, rather than doing the usual sums at home after the ride. And it was more accurate than some of the guesstimates I had to make. Now that sort of technology got a bit better over the last 25 years or so, but essentially remains as it was: a bunch of data based on wheel rotation over time, displayed on an LCD. (Although some of these new options are very sophisticated: check out BikeBrain for example)
Now this did make me ride for longer distances, and do more miles each week, as I could actually and accurately see when I had slacked off. And being data-obsessed I just wanted to push teh totals ever higher. Funnily enough I still had to chase down attacks, stick with the peleton over varying terrain and avoid being dropped, irrespective of what the displayed velocity was. But now I could also go 'ah, look at that average' after a hard crit.
The next leap forward in this history lesson was to the heart rate monitor. In my case it was the mid 90s and a Polar HRM. So now I could match perceived exertion against both time and distance, as well as estimate my caloric budget. It again made me ride, just to get data. Bizarre, I know. I wanted to exceed 200bpm on my local tough climb and set ever higher averages, so again I could go 'wow, that was a tough ride'.
Which brings me to my newest desire: power measurement. Up to now I've calculated it after the ride, inexactly, and longed to know how many Watts it really took to ride that hard crit. SRMs, offering measurement at the crank seemed a great option. But SRMs were (and remain) waaay too expensive, especially now I had kids to feed. The hub-based CycleOps option was still a bit rich (and what if I swapped wheels?) and Ergomo Pro was again a tad exxy and suffered (like the SRM) from being integrated into the bike. The Polar option was both expensive and tricky to set up. So I looked at the next-best options - the German HAC4 and other options from Germany and Italy, which calculated power from time, speed and altitude gain using accelerometers or barometric changes. Of course this only works on hills, but it was an option. Some of these options don't offer download, so it would be a 'write down later' sort of thing - like back to the 80s.
The HAC4 looks great options-wise but is a bit expensive compared with low-end 'real' power meters. I also looked at GPS units like Garmin's and wondered why no-one had integrated the coolest features into one unit. Maybe one day, I guess.
Anyway, I flipped a coin and went with the simplest, cheapest real-time data logging power meter I could find. The ibike. It back-calculates power by measuring the opposing forces - wind, friction and inclination - and comparing it to real speed (using a magnetic pickup). Easy to fit, easy to use. It looks the goods but does rely upon (a) your calibration accuracy and (b) unimpeded airflow. Which is to say that it misreads power if you aren't good at entering data (weight, aerodynamic and friction data, basically, although the latter is derived by the "coasting" test) or have impeded airflow (in a bunch, maybe, and certainly in a sharp corner).
I ummed and ahhed about this for weeks (whilst watching the Aussie to $US exchange rate fluctuate, too) and wondered if I really needed to spend $A580 on a gadget. I decided it was now or never and pressed the "buy" button in the ibike website. I'll tell you more later...
For completeness here's a long post that covers just about everything I've ever written about the ibike and briefly describes ibike 2.0. I'll say more about ibike 2.0 soon.
The ibike and me.
OK, I'm a bike rider and a data collector. I have documented every ride I've ever ridden, and the data keeps getting better as the gadgets improve. Hey, it works for obsessive old me. Simple bike computers are great and tell you a lot. But maybe you want to measure your power output as well? This post focuses on the ibike power meter - what it does, how to set it up and the problems you may encounter - but covers a bit of bike computer history as well.
But first, the latest update!
Just a quick note about the latest ibike upgrade. It's a significant change. Firstly ibike release 1.15 upgrades the ibike unit itself to accept new features, including wireless sensors and - a big one - the use of indoor trainers. Going wireless is not only neater and easier to install but the battery lasts longer as well. Currently I get a couple of weeks out of the CR2032 battery - up to 3 - riding 7-10 hours a week. You can stretch it to 4 but the readings get dodgy. Wireless looks like a good option if you have battery problems (colder climates especially seem to reduce battery life).
Secondly the ibike 2.0 software is a massive improvement. Now you can process multiple coast downs and calibrate against a 6km ride. You can adjust - tweak, if you like - the aero and friction values to your heart's content and apply these new settings - or a bunch of different profiles if you want - after the ride. So you can forget to change profiles when you change bikes and it doesn't matter. You simply apply another profile in the software and save it.
The calibration tools are much, much better. You can also adjust barometric pressure and temperature. All in all a great upgrade for the technically minded, although the casual user may be put off at first by the greater range of options.
Power overview
OK, so you want POWER? You want to train harder, or better? Or you just want to see how many Watts it takes to ride up that hill? The ibike may be just what you want - it was what I wanted, and here I will tell you all about the tips, trips and fun I've had measuring my Wattage as I ride!!
That's the good side of the ibike - real data that makes sense. You've got to set it up right and do the coast-down test properly, as per spec, and make sure the battery is delivering the goods. But once done it's great. Of course today I punctured and swapped front wheels, but because it's just a magnetic pickup there was no sweat. I could even swap bikes as I've got a spare mount and pickup already on bike number 2. So I think ibike is still looking like a pretty good thing.
Bad news? It goes a bit screwy if you watch the Wattage display too much (it seems to jump around constantly, especially on the flat, only settling down when efforts are made, in a sprint or in a climb) - but when you download to the PC the odd figures seem to have disappeared and clarity returns. And the peak figures on the LCD don't always match the data logged. The battery seems to play a part in this, as does road surface - bumps and corners definitely throw it off.
So on to the fun.. the screenshot on the left shows power in blue and bike speed in green. You can see steady state on the left, then I accelerate to catch a slow-moving Toyota 'Landbruiser' that pulled out in front of me. You see both power and speed rise as I chase, peaking at around 865W and 45kmh or so; then as I get into the draft speed stays up (for a while, I didn't stay on as there's a nasty climb around the corner and I'm not that fit!) whilst power falls off sharply. The ibike seems to handle 'sucking wheels' pretty well. You can see that power falls away rapidly to zero until I hit the climb and have to get pedalling again. Speed falls away too and you can see me approach 300W on the lower part of the 10% climb (the bump on the right).The next sreenshot shows a zoom-in on that power peak. You can see the effort to accelerate, the speed rising and then the power clearly falls off as I get into the draft, despite speed continuing to rise. In fact the car eventually accelerated, having suddenly realised that the rider they pulled out in front off at that T-junction was still there... and I let him go, as you see the speed dropping again. Wow.Even better, the power breakdown (the colored box centre-screen) shows what was happening at the point where the cursor sits... all of that green in the pie chart is acceleration. The cursor itself is the black vertical line right on the power peak. So it all makes sense. When I move the cursor into the 'draft zone' the proportions all change... as you'd hope.
Bottom line? It works! What about the software?
First up, read the update above - things have improved. For teh record, here's how I found ibike 1.0 - and ibike 2.0 has installed over the top faultlessly.
Well the v1.0 software looked good enough sitting on the CD-ROM, and it seemed to install on my PC OK - and I followed the instructions - but it failed to find the USB driver first up. I followed the instructions again, went through the whole install and once again it failed to find the driver. So I went manual in control panel and found the driver had indeed installed correctly on my hard drive, it's just that the "automatic, preferred" search doesn't look there... of course. Wonder if this happens to everyone? Anyway, it really does extract and copy it to your ibike program folder, so a bit of searching will find it. It's just a manual approach is needed when 'auto' fails. Once loaded it all worked.
The software is simple. Connect, download all or some files... ooops, it crashed. And the ibike itself froze. OK, this has only happened once, but again I followed instructions, restarted the software and took the battery out of the ibike. I popped the battery back in and it fired up again and has worked flawlessly since. In fact it works better now than before. The battery started life reading 2.80V and fell to 2.70V during the 2nd ride, before recovering to 2.78V. However after refitting (and perhaps putting the cover back on a bit tighter?) it reads 2.82V pre-ride and hasn't fallen below 2.77V. The instructions say to get a new battery if it falls below 2.75V before a ride. Perhaps my first-day glitches were battery related?
Anyway, back to the software. It's good enough. It loads up the whole ride as a .CSV file and you can 'play' with power, wind speed, elevation, slope and bike speed for starters. You basically can graph it as you like it, including looking at neat breakdowns of acceleration, hill and friction readings at any point in the ride. And you can probably read and modify it in any spreadsheet, too, given that it's saved as a .CSV (but I haven't tried - yet). It's simple, but does the job for a data junkie like me. It's strange though that the ibike itself displays slightly different maximum values than that logged in the data file. That aside, overall it's what I expected. Check this out...
The setup...
Right, so it's mounted and ready to go. We have total weight, it's leveled (so it can tell if it's climbing or descending) and it seems to be sensing wind speed OK. Now we need to calculate the aerodynamic drag and the friction between road and tyre. Now we can estimate this pretty well, but the "coast" test will actually time your deceleration run - ie measure the drag induced by you and your bike on the road. So out we went, ibike and I, on our Look KG76 for test number 1.
It's harder to find a flat, smooth quarter-mile of road than you'd think. Slightly uphill is good, downhill is bad, bad, bad as it distorts the results. So naturally I chose a road that looked flat-to-uphill but actually wasn't, so I got some fantastic results. Fantastic as in no way could it be real.
Look at this: 1459W, man! Beat that!
Oh well, back to the "coast" test. In fact I kept finding roads with dips, declines, potholes, corners and really smooth fast bits. Which raised a question or 2 in my mind. Like how accurate is it when road conditions vary? And how is it calculating wind speed, let alone direction? I guess it's a straight subtraction of total airflow "in" minus forward velocity, and angle isn't relevant, but the final figures look odd... anyway, wind aside, if I calibrate on a smooth fast road presumably I'll get errors unless I only ride on that exact same smooth fast road... so are the errors small enough that it won't matter? Or when I get to new territory should I re-calibrate?
So I chose to retest a few times (OK, about 5 times) and compare. Firstly the ibike captured the whole thing, despite my many, many retests - which is good - and secondly I never again got the sort of fantastic result I got with the first coast test. Instead of 1459W I was now in the region of 600-1000W tops (I was getting tired, too, after countless sprints!!). So which 'coastdown' is correct? Hmmm.
Now if you look at the screenshot on the left (of the ibike software) you will see a few strange things. Firstly it shows maximum Watts on this same ride as 1495, yet the LCD display showed a maximum of 1459! Oddly similar but dyslexically different. On the right of the pic you will see the figures for a precise moment in my ride. Using those figures (28kmh wind speed, 8.9% slope etc) you could indeed calculate that a 72 kg rider at 47.5kmh on that slope is indeed putting out about 2100W, not the 'fantastic' figure of 1459/95. But to me, fallible old me, I could have sworn the road was (a) almost flat and (b) that there was little if any wind.
If you take me at my word, that it was a flat road with nil wind then Kreuzotter calculates it as 715W. I'm happy with that. So - assuming a multiply-by-2 glitch occurred - there's an error of more than a percent or 2, isn't there? Hence my scepticism and need to rerun this "coastdown" test until it checks out against 'expectations'. Or am I too harsh? Did the mostly flat road dip and climb suddenly for an instant, or did I pull up on the bars, lifting the front wheel a tad (I was sprinting, after all)... and maybe the wind suddenly gusted? No, I reckon it was a glitch.
So, I think I've got the "coast" test figured out and I'll keep it "as is" for now until I see questionable figures. Certainly my max power figures have come back to earth. Some doubt remains over what happens if you ride very different terrain, but it's easy enough to re-do the coast setup if on super-smooth or super-rough road. Perhaps do the coast test just before a race on a new circuit? Certainly do it if you swap bikes, but that's a test I'm going to do later, just to see what the diffence may be... I suspect it'll be neglible, though, unless my race wheels really are that much better! Did you check this out...?
Mounting ibike on the bike
No real problems here. The ibike is just like many other bike computers and comes with a bayonet-style mount that sits on your handlebars. I chose the standard size but there is also the larger vesrion if needed. Follow the instructions though, as you need to keep the ibike absolutely 'rock-solid' on the bars. I tried using old tyre as padding at first, just to make removal easier, but settled on the double sided tape provided instead. It's easy to fit, just plan where the wire goes first. It has to get down to the forks, where the magnetic pickup gets strapped on. I kept my old speedo in place and mounted the new gear on the opposite side of the bars and forks.
Mounted it looks like this...
And the mounting itself looks like this....
All in all - dead easy. Lots of twist ties to play with but no harder than a regular 'wired' bike computer. The screws that affix the ibike mount to the bars are a bit fiddly, but it's easier on a stand, or turn the bike upside down.
Once connected I powered it up and went into setup mode. All the expected stuff: time, date, total bike and rider weight, plus the 'turn 180' exercise which levels the unit. Again, good clear instructions and I used them (for once in my life). I also zeroed out the wind (I was in a garage) and took a guess as to altitude (later riding down to sea level to make that accurate - hey I was only out by 10m!).
All up - simple and quick. Hmmm, this again...
The purchase experience
OK, so I chose to buy the ibike.
The first hassle was the ibike shop on the web. They revamped it a bit since but you can't login to the shop without first clicking on a product and pretending to buy it (then the 'log-in' option finally appears). And when you try to log-in the login ID box is unclickable without 14 'tabs' to get you there. I tried 3 different browsers and 2 PCs... they all had the same trouble. Not everytime, just 9 times out of 10. Anyway, the tab-tab-tab until you get to the correct input box works. (Must admit I just logged in fine, so who knows?)
Enough whinging. I bought it online and found that the 'tracking' option didn't work for International US Post. Not to worry, I guess. 10 working days later it turned up fine, but opened by Australian Quarantine Services. Must have looked suss with 'Velocomp' written on the box... hmmm. Go figure.
The box looks like this:
Which is fine, although for around $Aussie 600/ $US450 it's a trifle underwhelming. Still, it's the technology we are buying, isn't it?
And opening it up we find the device itself, which is tiny and very light (which is good, right?):
It's showing average Watts here in this pic but it will also show maximum values.
And then I mounted it on the bike... well 2 bikes, actually. I had bought an extra mount, so I could swap from bike to bike with ease, something I saw as a killer feature of the ibike over almost all its competition.
More soon!Don't forget to check this out...
Power to the people - power meters for serious cycling
When I started this riding gig I was 16 and it was 1973. The bike was an Aussie-made Alcon, circa late 1930s and well looked after, if hand-painted. 28inch tyres, 40spoke wheels, diamond outrigger with sliding adjustment for handlebar reach and just 2 cogs on the back. On one side of the wheel was a freewheel and the other a fixie. Cool way to get started, eh? Even cooler was the mechanical odometer that clicked over incrementally with every turn of the front wheel. Ahhh, data! I started writing it down. Curiously it made me ride a bit more, just to get a scrap more data.
In the 1980s I found myself with electronic assistance in my data habit: a cycle 'computer', although all it really did was count wheel revs using a magnet and show elapsed time. It did allow me to see my current and average velocity, rather than doing the usual sums at home after the ride. And it was more accurate than some of the guesstimates I had to make. Now that sort of technology got a bit better over the last 25 years or so, but essentially remains as it was: a bunch of data based on wheel rotation over time, displayed on an LCD. (Although some of these new options are very sophisticated: check out BikeBrain for example)
Now this did make me ride for longer distances, and do more miles each week, as I could actually and accurately see when I had slacked off. And being data-obsessed I just wanted to push teh totals ever higher. Funnily enough I still had to chase down attacks, stick with the peleton over varying terrain and avoid being dropped, irrespective of what the displayed velocity was. But now I could also go 'ah, look at that average' after a hard crit.
The next leap forward in this history lesson was to the heart rate monitor. In my case it was the mid 90s and a Polar HRM. So now I could match perceived exertion against both time and distance, as well as estimate my caloric budget. It again made me ride, just to get data. Bizarre, I know. I wanted to exceed 200bpm on my local tough climb and set ever higher averages, so again I could go 'wow, that was a tough ride'.
Which brings me to my newest desire: power measurement. Up to now I've calculated it after the ride, inexactly, and longed to know how many Watts it really took to ride that hard crit. SRMs, offering measurement at the crank seemed a great option. But SRMs were (and remain) waaay too expensive, especially now I had kids to feed. The hub-based CycleOps option was still a bit rich (and what if I swapped wheels?) and Ergomo Pro was again a tad exxy and suffered (like the SRM) from being integrated into the bike. The Polar option was both expensive and tricky to set up. So I looked at the next-best options - the German HAC4 and other options from Germany and Italy, which calculated power from time, speed and altitude gain using accelerometers or barometric changes. Of course this only works on hills, but it was an option. Some of these options don't offer download, so it would be a 'write down later' sort of thing - like back to the 80s.
The HAC4 looks great options-wise but is a bit expensive compared with low-end 'real' power meters. I also looked at GPS units like Garmin's and wondered why no-one had integrated the coolest features into one unit. Maybe one day, I guess.
Anyway, I flipped a coin and went with the simplest, cheapest real-time data logging power meter I could find. The ibike. It back-calculates power by measuring the opposing forces - wind, friction and inclination - and comparing it to real speed (using a magnetic pickup). Easy to fit, easy to use. It looks the goods but does rely upon (a) your calibration accuracy and (b) unimpeded airflow. Which is to say that it misreads power if you aren't good at entering data (weight, aerodynamic and friction data, basically, although the latter is derived by the "coasting" test) or have impeded airflow (in a bunch, maybe, and certainly in a sharp corner).
I ummed and ahhed about this for weeks (whilst watching the Aussie to $US exchange rate fluctuate, too) and wondered if I really needed to spend $A580 on a gadget. I decided it was now or never and pressed the "buy" button in the ibike website. I'll tell you more later...
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Cyclists make good runners? Maybe
Personally I have always enjoyed a little cross-training and liked the fact that all you needed was a pair of shoes... and some light running gear. And a safe pathway with good lighting. And even ground to avoid tripping. And somewhere to put your keys whilst you go for that long run. And plenty of accessible water stops. OK, I tend to complicate things, but Lance Armstrong probably had someone hold his keys for him as he ran the NY marathon, eh? He finished 698th among 39,085 runners taking part. His time topped that of former cyclist Laurent Jalabert; the Frenchman ran the 2005 event in a time of 2:55'39". However, other former cyclists have gone faster in other marathon events; German Rolf Aldag ran 2:42'57" in Hamburg this April and Spaniard Abraham Olano went 2:39' in the San Sebastián marathon last November.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Me ride 299km? What, in a week?
Even that's doubtful these days. In my heyday I rode Sydney (ie Surry Hills) to the Blue Mountains (ie Katoomba) and back (that's 200km) for fun and 200km races for the jolly experience of it all, but 299 in a day? No, not ever. So to finish - let alone win - the Melbourne to Warrnambool (the 'Warnie') is simply miraculous, and these guys pulled off exactly that miracle.
I do wonder about the physiology of it all. I found that doing 500-700km a week gave me great endurance but knocked my pace down a notch. Which is to say I suffered in crits something fierce. But 200-300km a week was just perfect for club A-grade crits and my sprint came back. Occasionally I'd do 500, but anything above 200km was a bonus.
And come the track season the big winter road miles (Aussies do their road racing in winter) had built my strength up, so it was a case of simply dropping the miles back and sharpening up.OTOH if I'd had a slack road season I needed 400km a week and maybe some weights to get up to speed.
Even when doing those almost-slack 200km weeks I could still jump on the bike and ride Sydney to the Central Coast and back in a day (200km) with my time each way almost exactly the same. I had 'endurance memory' locked into my legs, I guess. But I seem to have lost it in the last 7 years or so. Back then I was knocking over 100km in 3 hours or less on my own, now I'm cramping after 50 and crawling home. Could it be my age? Nahhh. I've just slacked off the miles, haven't I?
I do wonder about the physiology of it all. I found that doing 500-700km a week gave me great endurance but knocked my pace down a notch. Which is to say I suffered in crits something fierce. But 200-300km a week was just perfect for club A-grade crits and my sprint came back. Occasionally I'd do 500, but anything above 200km was a bonus.
And come the track season the big winter road miles (Aussies do their road racing in winter) had built my strength up, so it was a case of simply dropping the miles back and sharpening up.OTOH if I'd had a slack road season I needed 400km a week and maybe some weights to get up to speed.
Even when doing those almost-slack 200km weeks I could still jump on the bike and ride Sydney to the Central Coast and back in a day (200km) with my time each way almost exactly the same. I had 'endurance memory' locked into my legs, I guess. But I seem to have lost it in the last 7 years or so. Back then I was knocking over 100km in 3 hours or less on my own, now I'm cramping after 50 and crawling home. Could it be my age? Nahhh. I've just slacked off the miles, haven't I?
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Evans leads the CQ rankings
The what? The CQ rankings, for Cycling Quotient, a la IQ. Hmmm. Well it's designed to plug a gap that the UCI left when they opted for the ProTour, anyway. And now Aussie Cadel Evans leads both the ProTour and the CQ standings.
The CQ is comprehensive and gives us loads of stats on every pro race, all year long. Can't be bad, eh?
The CQ is comprehensive and gives us loads of stats on every pro race, all year long. Can't be bad, eh?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
ProTour winner Evans on his season
Cadel Evans seems the least-rated contender no matter where or when he is racing. He's generally acknowledged as one of several contenders but always with a qualification of some sort. Either someone else is stronger or has won more recently, or Evans is tired, or perhaps injured. It never seems as though the guy is really likely to win, like Armstrong, Ullrich or Basso were and Bettini, Contador and Di Luca are now. Yet he's so consistent, when he gets the chance. Perhaps it's his quiet demeanor. After such a great 2007 maybe 2008 will be different for Cadel.
Interesting overview of his season, here at Cyclingnews.com.: Cadel Evans won the ProTour classification on Saturday after a consistent stream of steady results over the past four months. Before the Giro di Lombardia, he talked about his performances in the Vuelta a España and world road race championships, the Tour Down Under's graduation to the ProTour calendar, his plans for the months ahead and his Olympic aspirations.
Interesting overview of his season, here at Cyclingnews.com.: Cadel Evans won the ProTour classification on Saturday after a consistent stream of steady results over the past four months. Before the Giro di Lombardia, he talked about his performances in the Vuelta a España and world road race championships, the Tour Down Under's graduation to the ProTour calendar, his plans for the months ahead and his Olympic aspirations.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Yes, that's quick
The 2007 Masters World Track champs are being held in Sydney right now, and I have to say (as a master myself) that's damned quick...1 David Le Grys (GBr) 0.34.14 (52.73 km/h)
I've done just one timed 500m run on Sydney's Tempe velodrome, a 40.09sec effort. I reckon I could get below 40 with some practice... but under 35secs?? Yikes!
I've done just one timed 500m run on Sydney's Tempe velodrome, a 40.09sec effort. I reckon I could get below 40 with some practice... but under 35secs?? Yikes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)