Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
FixedGearFever - :: View topic - anaerobic power booster killed off my speed?
Sireau rode his 9.572 WR in Moscow with 54/13 (sorry, I'm not familiar with inches), which equals average cadence of 144. I've been told this by people who were in the same competition that time. Yet it has to be said that Moscow isn't quite compareable to standard 250m velodromes.
I'm aware of that. Thanks smart ass. However, anybody in the sport in Australia should know Terry was part of the Kiwi Nat program. I was telling him politely he should listen more.
Zdravo •wrote• I'm aware of that. Thanks smart ass. However, anybody in the sport in Australia should know Terry was part of the Kiwi Nat program. I was telling him politely he should listen more.
Sorry to give you the impression I wasn't listening? At no point was I saying stuff like "I disagree" of "I'm still going to do it MY way"
Zdravo •wrote• I'm aware of that. Thanks smart ass. However, anybody in the sport in Australia should know Terry was part of the Kiwi Nat program. I was telling him politely he should listen more.
I wasn't trying to be a smart arse, I'm sorry if you took it that way.
Another thing to consider is that for optimal 200m time, the entrance and exit speed should be the same. There will be a higher peak someplace in the actual 200, and where it is will be different depending on what sort of speed-profile the rider has.
It's all about maximizing the area under the distance-time plot. So if the entrance and exit speed are not the same, this means you "wasted" some speed either at the front end before the timing started, of after the timing stops.
Another thing to consider is that for optimal 200m time, the entrance and exit speed should be the same. There will be a higher peak someplace in the actual 200, and where it is will be different depending on what sort of speed-profile the rider has.
It's all about maximizing the area under the distance-time plot. So if the entrance and exit speed are not the same, this means you "wasted" some speed either at the front end before the timing started, of after the timing stops.
Thanks!
I didn't do much work outside of stumbling upon the article, but I'll take the compliment
On a standard 250M track, a typical rider using a typical approach will hit max speed/cadence at the start of the clock (turns 1-2) and in turns 3-4. There may be a 1 RPM off between the two, but with gears this big (104+ inches) it's a pretty steady effort for the 24 pedal strokes of the 200 meters. The speed curve will be pretty flat during the effort.
With smaller gears there are more pedal strokes (27 for those who use a 49x14 for example) and it stands to reason that the effort will be open to more variation of speed during the 200M.
It's hard to compensate for the whip effect of the turns in determining the actual straight line pace. Maybe we should note the speed that we have on the straights (after the whip effect) in our analysis? This would be the trough of the speed wave in the graphs. Maybe that will help in comparing efforts from tracks of different dimensions. That along with speed a the finish line which is always on a straight.
No matter how shallow or bumpy the speed-curve, you still want the entrance and exit speed to be the same. This will affect where you should accelerate. It is complicated by as you say the whip effect in the turns. So just starting to accelerate 5 meters earlier or later won't necessarily move the whole speed-curve forward or backward, as the shape may (will?) change as a result of you being at a different speed at different portions of the track.
If you think about the 200m being divided up into 1 second long chunks, each with an average speed, cherry-picking where the start and finish is would mean you would find the section that had the same entrance and exit speed. Because if you moved the start, you would be in effect trading a faster first second for a slower last second, or a slower first second for a faster last second if you moved it the other way. In either case, you have a net loss.
But how do you determine exactly what speed you have at entry and exit? I suppose video is the way to go and measure frame-by-frame to see if you are faster at entrance than exit. If so, accelerate later and test again.
Joseph •wrote• Indeed. The turns make it very hard!
No matter how shallow or bumpy the speed-curve, you still want the entrance and exit speed to be the same. This will affect where you should accelerate. It is complicated by as you say the whip effect in the turns. So just starting to accelerate 5 meters earlier or later won't necessarily move the whole speed-curve forward or backward, as the shape may (will?) change as a result of you being at a different speed at different portions of the track.
If you think about the 200m being divided up into 1 second long chunks, each with an average speed, cherry-picking where the start and finish is would mean you would find the section that had the same entrance and exit speed. Because if you moved the start, you would be in effect trading a faster first second for a slower last second, or a slower first second for a faster last second if you moved it the other way. In either case, you have a net loss.
But how do you determine exactly what speed you have at entry and exit? I suppose video is the way to go and measure frame-by-frame to see if you are faster at entrance than exit. If so, accelerate later and test again.
It's easier than you think. A power meter or even just a speedo that stores data for later upload and a video, and dashware to overlay the data on the video. It's so cheap it's almost free, but time consuming to do. It's not 100% accurate, but it's accurate enough to do the overlay lineup by "hand".
We've done a bit of this (obvious, basic stuff) over the years. It's revealing.
What I do on the graphs is trace back 12" from the time that I stop applying power/torque to the pedals and make that an interval. Then I'll see my average speed for that interval and can also see my start and finish speed easily.
I use 12" (24 samples) because I can use it to compare all of my efforts using the same number of samples.
Probably a more accurate way is to trace the mark just past 200M back from the time you stop applying force to the pedals. But, that may yield 23 samples sometimes.
This is easy to do using the SRM software where you can nudge the intervals. It's tougher to do in other software like PowerAgent or Golden Cheetah. Not sure about Training Peaks.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in
Private Messages
Album
US Masters National Champion
Cat 3
Cat 2
