FixedGearFever

maximgold · Cat 4 Joined: Jan 13, 2010 Posts: 82

CQ •wrote• Asking the internet what to do will have you doing all kinds of stuff.

That's what I had done. I asked the internet and within one year and a half I became World Champion. You can get here really precious support. BTW the only tool I had to measure my training performance was a stop watch. I know that sprint is different but I would recommend to keep it simple.

alex · Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:00 am Post subject:

b •wrote• but isnt an aerodynamic position always going to be a compromise.
power is everything.

Well W/kg determines acceleration rate, W/m^2 determines speed you can reach and hold.

So we look for ways to maximise both of these ratios, as that will lead directly to reduced sprint times. It might only be 200m, but it is still a time trial.

Power is the numerator but ignoring the whole equation would be missing opportunities for improved performance.

Zdravo · Cat 2 Joined: Nov 16, 2010 Posts: 257

Aerodynamics doesn't necessarily have to be a compromise, at some point it may, but only when data supports speed will be a greater result.

There is no doubt aerodynamics plays a pivotal role in speed. However, with all today's gadgets it has taken the focus off pedal rates. What moves a bicycle is turning the pedals. I could get into a lengthy discussion of the term 'power'. It's use as a value, equation W/T, and how this fits physiologically in the pedal stroke. But I'm on my phone so that'll take too long. I like to keep it simple. The single common thread between elite sprinters is that they all can push a bike fast. They all are inherently quick with the ability to pedal quickly. The positions, equipment, power distribution, and aerodynamics are different. Yet they all perform the 200m within a usuable range. An AIS did a study that designated 140rpm avg. For an example. Using the OP 11.9 in a 49/14 that puts his peak cadence around 140rpm. In my training models I believe this needs to be faster. Now the question is gearing. To me it is obvious going to a 96 gear would be unwise until he developes the ability to pedal faster. Most certainly aerodynamics is critical. I just find the many masters with resources or a brain get this. It's instant with a proper fitter. However, if elite sprinters all pedal fast why should we believe a master rider (or anybody) can be successful at slower rates. In a proper, high level tournament, I have found that they will not. Even in track and field turn over rate is paramount. Michael Johnson was recorded at 160 hit per minute. That's running folks. To sprint you must push the pedals fast. This is the largest physical barrier I see in most athletes on the bike. Especially masters ranks. I got into a bit of coaching here which I don't care to do. In the end every athlete and coach has a training model they believe will lead to success. You must follow what you believe will give you success. If you don't believe in your system you'll never be successful. So goodluck in everybody's efforts. We are ALL just trying to help in our own way. Competitors, we are ALL friends, without one another we would never push ourselves or coaches to be at the highest level we can
achieve.

Joseph · Pro Joined: Aug 19, 2009 Posts: 1472

Zdravo •wrote• Yet they all perform the 200m within a usuable range. An AIS did a study that designated 140rpm avg. For an example. Using the OP 11.9 in a 49/14 that puts his peak cadence around 140rpm. In my training models I believe this needs to be faster. Now the question is gearing. To me it is obvious going to a 96 gear would be unwise until he developes the ability to pedal faster.

But with a max of 64.1 my peak was 145.3 rpm. And if it was actually an 11.7 the average would have been 139.5 rpm. The SRM tells me the avg was actually 140.3.

So bumping it up an inch might not be that crazy after all.

Zdravo · Cat 2 Joined: Nov 16, 2010 Posts: 257

I'm a stopwatch guy. I was going off the premise of 11.9. That's just me. Goodluck Joeseph.

Zdravo · Cat 2 Joined: Nov 16, 2010 Posts: 257

Marty Nothstein used a 96 for his 10.1 in Atlanta. His max cadence about 165. Your clutching onto that SRM data too hard a missing the greater picture. It's just one day. Use a stopwatch. SRM is great for many things. Time is what your measured by. You did a 11.9.

Joseph · Pro Joined: Aug 19, 2009 Posts: 1472

Zdravo •wrote• I was going off the premise of 11.9.

That's kind of the point of this whole thread. I was going off that premise too, until I looked at the SRM data. I have very little info to go by, and if it's wrong, it messes up my assessment of how to proceed.

I agree 100% that if my max rpm was only 140, the gear was most probably too big, and trying even bigger would be dumb.

I'm not going to chase 165, but in training I aim for 150+ before going to a bigger gear.

Zdravo · Cat 2 Joined: Nov 16, 2010 Posts: 257

I understand Joeseph. These are just my ideas. You have to follow your instincts. That's important.

I'm not telling you to target 165. Just thought I would point out the achievable.

SRM data is useful. As discussed at high speed over 200m it's hard to pull data defining 3rpm differences and .1 sec. That's why I like a watch. I find it easier to predict or determine what is going on from line to line. Which is where it really matters. Not down the banking etc. If you don't believe the time, as HB pointed out, get 2-3 and use the avg. Then the point is mute.

I think 150rpm. is a great target value.

GoreeMultiSports · Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:37 pm Post subject:

A very interesting number for those of us still "building an engine"... Smile

DG

AaronT · Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:12 pm Post subject:

I thought the purpose of a Flying 200 was to go as fast as possible? It's not a cadence competition, and the trend recently has drifted away from the small gears and mega cadence. That's not to say cadence work is for naught, but it's one of those cases where you might be losing sight of the forest for the trees. This whole thread is a lot of trees, not a lot of forest.

alex · Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:39 pm Post subject:

Zdravo •wrote• What moves a bicycle is turning the pedals. I could get into a lengthy discussion of the term 'power'. It's use as a value, equation W/T, and how this fits physiologically in the pedal stroke.

W/T ?

power (W) = energy (J) per unit time (sec)

What moves the bike forward is power applied to the pedals/cranks to overcome the resistance forces.

Cadence (pedal speed) is meaningless on its own, unless you are also considering the forces applied, IOW pedal speed and pedal forces, i.e. power

Zdravo •wrote• I like to keep it simple. The single common thread between elite sprinters is that they all can push a bike fast. They all are inherently quick with the ability to pedal quickly.

The single common thread between elite sprinters is phenomenal power to weight ratio over 5-30 seconds.

It's no surprise they can pedal quickly, as in order to produce such high neuromuscular power they require a very high proportion of fast twitch muscle fibre. You're born with that.

Peak power typically occurs in the 120-140rpm range.

acoggan · Pro Joined: May 20, 2005 Posts: 1182

HotBlack •wrote• my hypothesis stands because you have not shot a significant number of poor hand timers in order to disprove it.

I suggest that anyone interested in the actual precision of hand timing for athletic events read the published scientific studies on the topic.

Tallboy · Cat 1 Joined: Jun 04, 2009 Posts: 530

Back onto the original prediction question- for someone like Joseph who cant get to a track very often (and myself soon) I'm thinking the time you 'might' do at the track, and even time you did last time at the track is almost irrelevant for guiding training.

Much better solution than guessing would be find something you can measure reliably at home - whether this is a flat 200m road with little traffic, a 50m stretch for doing starts where you can chalk start/finish lines, a turbo with easily repeatable setting etc- and take your measurements/ track your progress on this.

Thus you assume if you are getting quicker at your flying sprints on the road in similar weather conditions, or hitting higher numbers at race cadence on the turbo, or beating your PB over the start- you will presumably be quicker at the track.

The only thing to do then is work out gearing when you get to the track- bearing in mind you probably race different events on different tracks etc.

I guess this is what other people do rather than aim to predict what might happen when you go to the track?

HotBlack · Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:08 am Post subject:

acoggan •wrote• I suggest that anyone interested in the actual precision of hand timing for athletic events read the published scientific studies on the topic.

I suggest we selectively breed individuals for better reaction time and timing ability.

Joseph · Pro Joined: Aug 19, 2009 Posts: 1472

That's sort of what I'm doing.

But to be able to get a better handle on the gear choice options, I need to be calibrated, and then it would be good to know if it was an 11.9 or an 11.7.

I have power data from my 200 on the track. It was an 11.9.

At home on my Kurt with the monster flywheel, I was able to very closely duplicate the power curve on my powermeter equipped road bike, but the gearing and speed is of course specific to the trainer. Now I do my training on it with track bike, and just look at max speed, higher being better.

But say in 2 months I try on the road-bike again, and the wattage curve is higher. So I'd go faster on the track probably, but I'd have no good idea about what gear to use because I wouldn't know speeds, etc. I only have this one 11.9 to work from. But what if it was an 11.7? That was why I wanted to know in the first place about the 200m length so I could figure that.

But the short version is: I'm just going to use a 49x14 until I can go 11.5.