| |
Main
Date: 19 Jun 2007 11:28:32
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Harder into a headwind?
|
Hi All,
I just rode in our club 10km time trial, and while I'm pleased with my
results, I wonder if I might have not used my available power wisely.
I use a PE method to set my pace, and I try to put a little extra
effort into things when the road tilts upward, and ease off a tiny bit
when the road goes down. The idea being that marginal speed increases
at high speeds downhill come at relatively high cost due to the non
linear nature of wind resistance. This is why you also get the most
bang for the buck pouring on a few extra coals up hills due to the
relative absence of this non linear resistance.
But what about headwinds and tailwinds? Today we had a mild tailwind
on the outward leg, and then of course a mild headwind on the return
leg. I kind of over-did it on the way out so things didn't go as well
on the way back. Did this slow me down excessively, or did it not
really matter? With tailwinds and increased speeds, rolling resistance
goes up linearly, so a 6km/h tailwind doesn't give you 6km/h more
speed. But in a headwind, as the speed is lower, the rolling
resistance is a smaller percentage, so 6km/h headwind won't
necessarily slow you down 6km/h. So I suppose it makes more sense to
put more effort into a headwind than a tailwind. But in reality is it
too easy to overdo it and quickly get too much resistance into a
headwind and thus only a marginal speed improvement but at too great a
cost? Is toeing the line too hard to actually do right, so the best
thing to do is just hold back a wee bit? Or would I have had a better
time if I had saved a bit on the way out with the wind so I could have
stomped faster through the wind on the way back?
Joseph
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 11:42:30
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 22, 12:47 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> It's not clear that one has a fixed number of joules to
> burn in a TT, that is, maybe this isn't the best metric
> for effort.
If a rider doesn't achieve bonk, then there isn't (wasn't) a "fixed
number of joules" other than the maximum number over a time as
determined by a particular engine's capability.
There isn't ever a joule reservoir problem for low level amatuer
TT'ing. They are too short. Perhaps a little sugar intake might
help to top off blood sugar, but I'm skeptical that does much in an
amatuer (short) TT.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 01:03:21
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 22, 9:47 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
>
> It's not clear that one has a fixed number of joules to
> burn in a TT, that is, maybe this isn't the best metric
> for effort.
Right. That's why Coggan (and Connelly) have been playing with other
constraints.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 00:47:43
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 21, 11:37 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Exactly. Let's take me as a hypothetical example riding a time trial
> up and down Alpe d'Huez using an online calculator.
>
> 14km up at 8% followed by 14km down at 8%. Let's even forget about
> braking and turns and pretend it's a drag strip I can just pedal down
> the whole way.
>
> 100kg 350W up 8% equals about 13km/h or 1 hour 5 min up. If I keep the
> same effort on the descent I go a preposterous 78km/h and get down in
> 10 minutes 47 seconds. So my total time is 1:15:47.
>
> If I add 20W on the way up and drop 20W on the way down the up time is
> 1:01:45 and the down time is 10:50. A little more effort on the way up
> gained me 3 minutes and a little less on the way down lost me only 3
> seconds. Total 1:12:35
>
> If I drop 20W on the way up and add 20W on the way down the climb
> takes 1:08:51 and the descent takes 10:44 for a total of 1:19:35.
>
> Clearly adding extra effort on the way up is fastest.
However, this is not quite a fair comparison. Because the
climb is longer in time than the descent, if you add 20 W
on the way up and take off 20 W on the way down, you're
increasing the total energy (number of joules) expended.
It's not clear that one has a fixed number of joules to
burn in a TT, that is, maybe this isn't the best metric
for effort. Still, one could say "I know I can ride
at 300 W for an hour, or 320 W for 20 minutes and 280 W
for 40 minutes. What's the best pacing strategy for
a ~ 1 hour TT?"
If the TT is dead flat, constant power is better, but
if there are hills, increasing power on the hills is
better, strictly because speed is a shallow function of
power on the flat and a nearly linear function of power
on hills.
Headwinds are less clear cut. The issue is that you're
going slow into the headwind, so any increment in speed
helps cut down the time you spend going slow. However,
because the wind resistance term is so strong, you pay
dearly in power for any increase in speed. On the
tailwind section, wind resistance is less than normal
for a given speed, the rolling resistance term plays a
larger role, and the dependence of speed on power is
somewhat closer to linear than it would be without
the tailwind. For this reason, I think it's not as
efficient to hammer into the headwind section of an
out-and-back as it is to hammer up a hill.
Ben
|
| |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 06:37:32
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 21, 9:11 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote innews:YOURhoward-1B32CD.23133020062007@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
>
> > So what if the first train can only manage to do the first ten
> > miles at 10.1 mph
> > (in spite of being almost in the red the whole time) and all other
> > factors are the same? In that case, it makes sense to try to make up
> > some time by going downhill faster, no? In other words, if one can't
> > get up a hill 25% faster (via training or orange juice), then it does
> > seem like there's something to be said about making time up in other
> > parts of the course.
>
> The point is that nobody juices for descending because the big gains are
> to be made in going uphill faster. Therefore, if you are focusing on
> riding fast overall, you want to climb faster, going down is not going to
> help you that much. You can easily lose 15 minutes on a big climb.
> Reasonably, how much time can someone hope to recover on a descent that's
> only 20 minutes long for the slowest descenders? As an example, Davis
> Phinney tells the stirring story of how he barely made the time cut on
> the Alpe d'Huez stage one year by descending really fast, but the overall
> point is that he was way way behind the climbers so he was saving a few
> minutes out of 30 or so (I forget how far back he was but it was a lot,
> even with making up time in the descent). Maybe a better way to think
> about it is would you rather be able to climb like Pantani or descend
> like Savoldelli?
>
> --
> Bill Asher
Exactly. Let's take me as a hypothetical example riding a time trial
up and down Alpe d'Huez using an online calculator.
14km up at 8% followed by 14km down at 8%. Let's even forget about
braking and turns and pretend it's a drag strip I can just pedal down
the whole way.
100kg 350W up 8% equals about 13km/h or 1 hour 5 min up. If I keep the
same effort on the descent I go a preposterous 78km/h and get down in
10 minutes 47 seconds. So my total time is 1:15:47.
If I add 20W on the way up and drop 20W on the way down the up time is
1:01:45 and the down time is 10:50. A little more effort on the way up
gained me 3 minutes and a little less on the way down lost me only 3
seconds. Total 1:12:35
If I drop 20W on the way up and add 20W on the way down the climb
takes 1:08:51 and the descent takes 10:44 for a total of 1:19:35.
Clearly adding extra effort on the way up is fastest.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 00:30:37
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 21, 9:11 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote innews:YOURhoward-1B32CD.23133020062007@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
>
> > So what if the first train can only manage to do the first ten
> > miles at 10.1 mph
> > (in spite of being almost in the red the whole time) and all other
> > factors are the same? In that case, it makes sense to try to make up
> > some time by going downhill faster, no? In other words, if one can't
> > get up a hill 25% faster (via training or orange juice), then it does
> > seem like there's something to be said about making time up in other
> > parts of the course.
>
> The point is that nobody juices for descending because the big gains are
> to be made in going uphill faster. Therefore, if you are focusing on
> riding fast overall, you want to climb faster, going down is not going to
> help you that much. You can easily lose 15 minutes on a big climb.
> Reasonably, how much time can someone hope to recover on a descent that's
> only 20 minutes long for the slowest descenders? As an example, Davis
> Phinney tells the stirring story of how he barely made the time cut on
> the Alpe d'Huez stage one year by descending really fast, but the overall
> point is that he was way way behind the climbers so he was saving a few
> minutes out of 30 or so (I forget how far back he was but it was a lot,
> even with making up time in the descent). Maybe a better way to think
> about it is would you rather be able to climb like Pantani or descend
> like Savoldelli?
>
> --
> Bill Asher
Exactly. Let's take me as a hypothetical example riding a time trial
up and down Alpe d'Huez using an online calculator.
14km up at 8% followed by 14km down at 8%. Let's even forget about
braking and turns and pretend it's a drag strip I can just pedal down
the whole way.
100kg 350W up 8% equals about 13km/h or 1 hour 5 min up. If I keep the
same effort on the descent I go a preposterous 78km/h and get down in
10 minutes 47 seconds. So my total time is 1:15:47.
If I add 20W on the way up and drop 20W on the way down the up time is
1:01:45 and the down time is 10:50. A little more effort on the way up
gained me 3 minutes and a little less on the way down lost me only 3
seconds. Total 1:12:35
If I drop 20W on the way up and add 20W on the way down the climb
takes 1:08:51 and the descent takes 10:44 for a total of 1:19:35.
Clearly adding extra effort on the way up is fastest.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 23:00:38
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 21, 1:24 am, Henrik M=FCnster <hen...@muenster.dk > wrote:
> In article
> <1182375952.536276.309...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>"joseph.santanie
>
> l...@gmail.com" <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This newsgroup has a rather playful way of saying things. Nobody is
> > poking fingers at you. It's just that Anquetil (and many others) are
> > famous for many outrageously silly ideas (like the water bottle in
> > the pocket). And the contrast of how well he and others could ride
> > withthe sillieness of some of their ideas is funny.
>
> I find it funny and in a way quite charming too. I like the idea of
> putting the water bottle in your pocket to lighten the bike. Life
> shouldn't be too scientific or logical. At least not while we are
> riding our bicycles in our spare time. Perhaps I have forgotten about
> the way things are said in this group. I've been away for almost ten
> years due to lack of time. These rec.bicycle groups are quite busy and
> takes a lot of time to follow. In Denmark we have a small news group
> with only a few postings each day. I've only come back, since I'm
> trying a new news reader.
I find it quite charming too. Welcome back! Stick around, there is
some good stuff here sometimes.
Joseph
> > The main problem with the idea in the anecdote is that 25% more
> > effort does not always mean 25% more speed. And as Bill and Robert
> > have pointed out it is the relative differences between the speeds
> > acheived by different effort levels and the length of time spent at
> > this relative difference that matters, not just that 25% of 30 is
> > more than25% of 10.
>
> Of course you are right. I wasn't thinking straight.
>
> --
> Med venlig hilsen
> Henrik M=FCnster
> Esbjerg
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 22:34:32
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 21, 2:59 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Well, my point is sort of that Joe is a great deal more likely to have
> better judgement in this matter than Robert, you or I.
If TT performance reflected good judgement, Joseph should be following
Anquetil's suggestions.
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 14:45:52
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 20, 11:35 pm, Henrik M=FCnster <hen...@muenster.dk > wrote:
> In article <Xns995591B587AC1Fkldel...@130.133.1.4> William
>
>
>
> Asher<gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Henrik M=FCnster wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> Funny! Jacques Anquetil used to say, it is the other way around.
> >> If you put in 25% more effort uphill, you go from 10 to 12.5 mph. If
> >> you put in 25% more effort downhill, you go from 30 to 37.5 mph. So
> >> you gain more from putting in some extra effort downhill and
> >> relaxing a little uphill. Put that way, it sounds logic, but I can
> >> also see your point about wind resistance. Anyway, Jacques Anquetil
> >> won 5 TdF and a lot of time trials, so his theory worked for him.
>
> > The French have always sucked at story problems. =20
>
> > "A train leaves the station and then travels 10 miles at 12.5 mph
> > and then 10 miles at 30 mph. A second train traveling on a different
> > track leaves the same station and travels 10 miles at 10 mph and then
> > 10 miles at 37 mph. Which train arrives first?"
>
> I'm sorry, but are you all trying to tell me something? English is not
> my native language, and perhaps I don't always get the meaning. I told
> a small anecdote from 50 years ago, and now I feel, you are all poking
> fingers at me? Why is that? And is everybody sure, that Anquetil is
> wrong in this matter? I feel, there is some logic behind.
>
> --
> Med venlig hilsen
> Henrik M=FCnster
> Esbjerg
Hi Henrik,
This newsgroup has a rather playful way of saying things. Nobody is
poking fingers at you. It's just that Anquetil (and many others) are
famous for many outrageously silly ideas (like the water bottle in the
pocket). And the contrast of how well he and others could ride with
the sillieness of some of their ideas is funny.
The main problem with the idea in the anecdote is that 25% more effort
does not always mean 25% more speed. And as Bill and Robert have
pointed out it is the relative differences between the speeds acheived
by different effort levels and the length of time spent at this
relative difference that matters, not just that 25% of 30 is more than
25% of 10.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 23:24:50
From: Henrik =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=FCnster?=
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
In article
<1182375952.536276.309960@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >"joseph.santanie
llo@gmail.com" <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote:
> This newsgroup has a rather playful way of saying things. Nobody is
> poking fingers at you. It's just that Anquetil (and many others) are
> famous for many outrageously silly ideas (like the water bottle in
> the pocket). And the contrast of how well he and others could ride
> withthe sillieness of some of their ideas is funny.
I find it funny and in a way quite charming too. I like the idea of
putting the water bottle in your pocket to lighten the bike. Life
shouldn't be too scientific or logical. At least not while we are
riding our bicycles in our spare time. Perhaps I have forgotten about
the way things are said in this group. I've been away for almost ten
years due to lack of time. These rec.bicycle groups are quite busy and
takes a lot of time to follow. In Denmark we have a small news group
with only a few postings each day. I've only come back, since I'm
trying a new news reader.
> The main problem with the idea in the anecdote is that 25% more
> effort does not always mean 25% more speed. And as Bill and Robert
> have pointed out it is the relative differences between the speeds
> acheived by different effort levels and the length of time spent at
> this relative difference that matters, not just that 25% of 30 is
> more than25% of 10.
Of course you are right. I wasn't thinking straight.
--
Med venlig hilsen
Henrik Münster
Esbjerg
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 13:31:20
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 20, 9:51 pm, Henrik M=FCnster <hen...@muenster.dk > wrote:
> In article
> <1182277712.756690.211...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>"joseph.santanie
>
> l...@gmail.com" <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I use a PE method to set my pace, and I try to put a little extra
> > effort into things when the road tilts upward, and ease off a tiny
> > bit when the road goes down. The idea being that marginal speed
> > increases at high speeds downhill come at relatively high cost due to
> > the non linear nature of wind resistance. This is why you also get
> > the most bang for the buck pouring on a few extra coals up hills due
> > to the relative absence of this non linear resistance.
>
> Funny! Jacques Anquetil used to say, it is the other way around. If
> you put in 25% more effort uphill, you go from 10 to 12.5 mph. If you
> put in 25% more effort downhill, you go from 30 to 37.5 mph. So you
> gain more from putting in some extra effort downhill and relaxing a
> little uphill. Put that way, it sounds logic, but I can also see your
> point about wind resistance. Anyway, Jacques Anquetil won 5 TdF and a
> lot of time trials, so his theory worked for him.
>
> --
> Med venlig hilsen
> Henrik M=FCnster
> Esbjerg
I wonder if his theory about making his bike was lighter by putting
his bottle in his pocket on climbs worked for him too.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 13:11:30
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 20, 9:51 pm, Henrik M=FCnster <hen...@muenster.dk > wrote:
>=2E Anyway, Jacques Anquetil won 5 TdF and a
> lot of time trials, so his theory worked for him.
His theory about droit de seigneur worked for him, too.
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 19:51:22
From: Henrik =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=FCnster?=
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
In article
<1182277712.756690.211160@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com >"joseph.santanie
llo@gmail.com" <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote:
> I use a PE method to set my pace, and I try to put a little extra
> effort into things when the road tilts upward, and ease off a tiny
> bit when the road goes down. The idea being that marginal speed
> increases at high speeds downhill come at relatively high cost due to
> the non linear nature of wind resistance. This is why you also get
> the most bang for the buck pouring on a few extra coals up hills due
> to the relative absence of this non linear resistance.
Funny! Jacques Anquetil used to say, it is the other way around. If
you put in 25% more effort uphill, you go from 10 to 12.5 mph. If you
put in 25% more effort downhill, you go from 30 to 37.5 mph. So you
gain more from putting in some extra effort downhill and relaxing a
little uphill. Put that way, it sounds logic, but I can also see your
point about wind resistance. Anyway, Jacques Anquetil won 5 TdF and a
lot of time trials, so his theory worked for him.
--
Med venlig hilsen
Henrik Münster
Esbjerg
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 21:19:27
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
Henrik Münster wrote:
<snip >
>
> Funny! Jacques Anquetil used to say, it is the other way around. If
> you put in 25% more effort uphill, you go from 10 to 12.5 mph. If you
> put in 25% more effort downhill, you go from 30 to 37.5 mph. So you
> gain more from putting in some extra effort downhill and relaxing a
> little uphill. Put that way, it sounds logic, but I can also see your
> point about wind resistance. Anyway, Jacques Anquetil won 5 TdF and a
> lot of time trials, so his theory worked for him.
>
>
The French have always sucked at story problems.
"A train leaves the station and then travels 10 miles at 12.5 mph and then
10 miles at 30 mph. A second train traveling on a different track leaves
the same station and travels 10 miles at 10 mph and then 10 miles at 37
mph. Which train arrives first?"
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 23:13:30
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
In article <Xns995591B587AC1FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Henrik Münster wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Funny! Jacques Anquetil used to say, it is the other way around. If
> > you put in 25% more effort uphill, you go from 10 to 12.5 mph. If you
> > put in 25% more effort downhill, you go from 30 to 37.5 mph. So you
> > gain more from putting in some extra effort downhill and relaxing a
> > little uphill. Put that way, it sounds logic, but I can also see your
> > point about wind resistance. Anyway, Jacques Anquetil won 5 TdF and a
> > lot of time trials, so his theory worked for him.
> >
> >
>
> The French have always sucked at story problems.
>
> "A train leaves the station and then travels 10 miles at 12.5 mph and then
> 10 miles at 30 mph. A second train traveling on a different track leaves
> the same station and travels 10 miles at 10 mph and then 10 miles at 37
> mph. Which train arrives first?"
So what if the first train can only manage to do the first ten miles at 10.1 mph
(in spite of being almost in the red the whole time) and all other factors are the
same? In that case, it makes sense to try to make up some time by going downhill
faster, no? In other words, if one can't get up a hill 25% faster (via training or
orange juice), then it does seem like there's something to be said about making time
up in other parts of the course.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 07:11:04
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in
news:YOURhoward-1B32CD.23133020062007@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
> So what if the first train can only manage to do the first ten
> miles at 10.1 mph
> (in spite of being almost in the red the whole time) and all other
> factors are the same? In that case, it makes sense to try to make up
> some time by going downhill faster, no? In other words, if one can't
> get up a hill 25% faster (via training or orange juice), then it does
> seem like there's something to be said about making time up in other
> parts of the course.
>
The point is that nobody juices for descending because the big gains are
to be made in going uphill faster. Therefore, if you are focusing on
riding fast overall, you want to climb faster, going down is not going to
help you that much. You can easily lose 15 minutes on a big climb.
Reasonably, how much time can someone hope to recover on a descent that's
only 20 minutes long for the slowest descenders? As an example, Davis
Phinney tells the stirring story of how he barely made the time cut on
the Alpe d'Huez stage one year by descending really fast, but the overall
point is that he was way way behind the climbers so he was saving a few
minutes out of 30 or so (I forget how far back he was but it was a lot,
even with making up time in the descent). Maybe a better way to think
about it is would you rather be able to climb like Pantani or descend
like Savoldelli?
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 16:02:33
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
In article <Xns99561E08FE8FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in
> news:YOURhoward-1B32CD.23133020062007@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
>
> > So what if the first train can only manage to do the first ten
> > miles at 10.1 mph
> > (in spite of being almost in the red the whole time) and all other
> > factors are the same? In that case, it makes sense to try to make up
> > some time by going downhill faster, no? In other words, if one can't
> > get up a hill 25% faster (via training or orange juice), then it does
> > seem like there's something to be said about making time up in other
> > parts of the course.
> >
>
> The point is that nobody juices for descending because the big gains are
> to be made in going uphill faster. Therefore, if you are focusing on
> riding fast overall, you want to climb faster, going down is not going to
> help you that much. You can easily lose 15 minutes on a big climb.
> Reasonably, how much time can someone hope to recover on a descent that's
> only 20 minutes long for the slowest descenders? As an example, Davis
> Phinney tells the stirring story of how he barely made the time cut on
> the Alpe d'Huez stage one year by descending really fast, but the overall
> point is that he was way way behind the climbers so he was saving a few
> minutes out of 30 or so (I forget how far back he was but it was a lot,
> even with making up time in the descent). Maybe a better way to think
> about it is would you rather be able to climb like Pantani or descend
> like Savoldelli?
Oh, I completely agree that you gain much more going faster up the hill, but I
think you can also gain by working hard going downhill too. Besides, it rarely feels
like work when you put effort into going downhill (at least that's how it feels to
me).
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 23:36:22
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
<snip >
> Oh, I completely agree that you gain much more going faster up the
> hill, but I think you can also gain by working hard going downhill
> too. Besides, it rarely feels like work when you put effort into going
> downhill (at least that's how it feels to me).
>
I sure seem to be going downhill effortlessly.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 17:44:32
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
In article <Xns9956A8EA97EFFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Oh, I completely agree that you gain much more going faster up the
> > hill, but I think you can also gain by working hard going downhill
> > too. Besides, it rarely feels like work when you put effort into going
> > downhill (at least that's how it feels to me).
> >
>
> I sure seem to be going downhill effortlessly.
It's what we do best.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 21:35:39
From: Henrik =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=FCnster?=
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
In article <Xns995591B587AC1FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 > William
Asher<gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Henrik Münster wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Funny! Jacques Anquetil used to say, it is the other way around.
>> If you put in 25% more effort uphill, you go from 10 to 12.5 mph. If
>> you put in 25% more effort downhill, you go from 30 to 37.5 mph. So
>> you gain more from putting in some extra effort downhill and
>> relaxing a little uphill. Put that way, it sounds logic, but I can
>> also see your point about wind resistance. Anyway, Jacques Anquetil
>> won 5 TdF and a lot of time trials, so his theory worked for him.
>>
>>
> The French have always sucked at story problems.
>
> "A train leaves the station and then travels 10 miles at 12.5 mph
> and then 10 miles at 30 mph. A second train traveling on a different
> track leaves the same station and travels 10 miles at 10 mph and then
> 10 miles at 37 mph. Which train arrives first?"
I'm sorry, but are you all trying to tell me something? English is not
my native language, and perhaps I don't always get the meaning. I told
a small anecdote from 50 years ago, and now I feel, you are all poking
fingers at me? Why is that? And is everybody sure, that Anquetil is
wrong in this matter? I feel, there is some logic behind.
--
Med venlig hilsen
Henrik Münster
Esbjerg
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 22:47:26
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
Henrik Münster wrote:
> I'm sorry, but are you all trying to tell me something? English is not
> my native language, and perhaps I don't always get the meaning. I told
> a small anecdote from 50 years ago, and now I feel, you are all poking
> fingers at me? Why is that? And is everybody sure, that Anquetil is
> wrong in this matter? I feel, there is some logic behind.
I'm not trolling for you, I'm trolling for French, because they hate
America, freedom, liberty, brotherhood, equality, and I don't get to watch
George Bush try to give Segolene Royale a backrub and have her savate kick
his nuts up into his throat.
In computer terms, it boils down to trying to decrease overall run time by
focusing on increasing FLOPS. Since most programs spend most of their time
getting the operands and saving the result rather than doing the floating
point calculation, increasing FLOPS by large amounts results in nearly
negligible decreases in run time. The point is you that on a 10 mile
long climb you can double your descent velocity and still come out behind a
guy who increased his ascent velocity by only 25%. I think. I suck at
story problems too, probably because I hate freedom, liberty, brotherhood,
and equality. They'll probably identify the gene responsible for that as
being linked to a mild form of autism, or retardation, which would explain
a lot about the French, and me.
--
Bill Asher
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 09:05:42
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 20, 5:50 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> That's for sure. At any distance less than "real long" riding at AT
> will be slower than necessary. But just how much above is what is the
> hard part.
Oh, you're a big guy so for a 10k you could probably average at least
15-20 watts over your threshold power. I have no idea what that would
mean for heart rate.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 00:25:02
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
<rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1182355542.315856.141870@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 5:50 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's for sure. At any distance less than "real long" riding at AT
>> will be slower than necessary. But just how much above is what is the
>> hard part.
>
> Oh, you're a big guy so for a 10k you could probably average at least
> 15-20 watts over your threshold power. I have no idea what that would
> mean for heart rate.
HAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAA!
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 08:54:20
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 20, 4:24 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 19, 10:46 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 11:29 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 19, 11:06 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> > > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Was the course dead flat?
>
> > > > Not by my standards, but pretty close I guess. I needed my 12,13, and
> > > > 14 on the way out, and the 13,14,15 and maybe the 17 once on the way
> > > > back. Here's the return leg profile:
>
> > > >http://arbitrary.org/5km.JPG
>
> > > I'd consider that pretty flat. What was your time? 13+ minutes?
>
> > Road bike. 14:56.
>
> What is that - just a shade under 25 mph? That certainly isn't
> anything to be ashamed of in a windy TT.
I am far from ashamed. Were I English I suppose I would be chuffed at
sub 15 minutes. I have ridden an organized TT on this course 3 times.
Once 3 years ago when I just started riding again after many years,
last year, and yesterday. My time yesterday was a full 6 minutes
faster than 3 years ago.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 08:50:14
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 20, 5:43 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 20, 4:26 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Indeed Jenko. That's why the best bet is to simply do your entire TT
> > at as close to AT as possible.
>
> That's a losing bet.
That's for sure. At any distance less than "real long" riding at AT
will be slower than necessary. But just how much above is what is the
hard part.
Joseph.
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 08:43:35
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 20, 4:26 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Indeed Jenko. That's why the best bet is to simply do your entire TT
> at as close to AT as possible.
That's a losing bet.
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 07:27:51
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 20, 12:26 am, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:02 am, Jenko <sallyje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > As a general rule, the time-minimizing strategy given a constraint on
> > > the total number of joules is to adjust your pace so you go a bit
> > > harder [...] into a headwind, and go a bit easier [...]
> > > with a tailwind.
>
> > Is that true? I thought the power-speed curve was more linear with a
> > tailwind, so that an extra effort there leads to a bigger speed
> > increase than when into a headwind.
>
> > Jenko
>
> That's true, but in this case the issue is that there's another
> constraint: the course distance is fixed, too. That means that on an
> out-and-back you spend less time on the tailwind leg than on the
> upwind leg.
Tell me Robert, could you do a 40 kph 10K?
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 19:56:09
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
in message <1182349671.208514.268490@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
cyclintom@gmail.com (' cyclintom@gmail.com') wrote:
> On Jun 20, 12:26 am, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 9:02 am, Jenko <sallyje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > As a general rule, the time-minimizing strategy given a constraint
>> > > on the total number of joules is to adjust your pace so you go a bit
>> > > harder [...] into a headwind, and go a bit easier [...]
>> > > with a tailwind.
>>
>> > Is that true? I thought the power-speed curve was more linear with a
>> > tailwind, so that an extra effort there leads to a bigger speed
>> > increase than when into a headwind.
>>
>> That's true, but in this case the issue is that there's another
>> constraint: the course distance is fixed, too. That means that on an
>> out-and-back you spend less time on the tailwind leg than on the
>> upwind leg.
>
> Tell me Robert, could you do a 40 kph 10K?
With 60Km/h of wind behind me I could. Or if the start was one thousand
metres higher than the end. If it's an out-and-back, then no - at least,
not without some very peculiar weather.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
The trouble with Simon is that he only opens his mouth to change feet.
;; of me, by a 'friend'
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 00:59:59
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
"Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk > wrote in message
news:9r9ok4-r0k.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> in message <1182349671.208514.268490@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> cyclintom@gmail.com (' cyclintom@gmail.com') wrote:
>
>> On Jun 20, 12:26 am, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jun 20, 9:02 am, Jenko <sallyje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> > > As a general rule, the time-minimizing strategy given a constraint
>>> > > on the total number of joules is to adjust your pace so you go a bit
>>> > > harder [...] into a headwind, and go a bit easier [...]
>>> > > with a tailwind.
>>>
>>> > Is that true? I thought the power-speed curve was more linear with a
>>> > tailwind, so that an extra effort there leads to a bigger speed
>>> > increase than when into a headwind.
>>>
>>> That's true, but in this case the issue is that there's another
>>> constraint: the course distance is fixed, too. That means that on an
>>> out-and-back you spend less time on the tailwind leg than on the
>>> upwind leg.
>>
>> Tell me Robert, could you do a 40 kph 10K?
>
> With 60Km/h of wind behind me I could. Or if the start was one thousand
> metres higher than the end. If it's an out-and-back, then no - at least,
> not without some very peculiar weather.
Well, my point is sort of that Joe is a great deal more likely to have
better judgement in this matter than Robert, you or I.
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 07:26:40
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 20, 12:02 am, Jenko <sallyje...@gmail.com > wrote:
> rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > As a general rule, the time-minimizing strategy given a constraint on
> > the total number of joules is to adjust your pace so you go a bit
> > harder [...] into a headwind, and go a bit easier [...]
> > with a tailwind.
>
> Is that true? I thought the power-speed curve was more linear with a
> tailwind, so that an extra effort there leads to a bigger speed
> increase than when into a headwind.
Indeed Jenko. That's why the best bet is to simply do your entire TT
at as close to AT as possible.
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 07:24:53
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 19, 10:46 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 11:29 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 11:06 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Was the course dead flat?
>
> > > Not by my standards, but pretty close I guess. I needed my 12,13, and
> > > 14 on the way out, and the 13,14,15 and maybe the 17 once on the way
> > > back. Here's the return leg profile:
>
> > >http://arbitrary.org/5km.JPG
>
> > I'd consider that pretty flat. What was your time? 13+ minutes?
>
> Road bike. 14:56.
What is that - just a shade under 25 mph? That certainly isn't
anything to be ashamed of in a windy TT.
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 07:16:47
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 20, 1:23 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> Is there a bunch of rules of thumb for riding TTs that dumbasses like
> me could use. A TT effort cheat sheet?
Are you serious? I was waiting for you to jump in with the rules of
thumb.
I liked this, when I first read it, but it's really about flat TT's:
http://freespace.virgin.net/martin.shakeshaft/10tt.htm
Specific pacing for non-flat TTs in the presence of wind is hard to
do. Generalized rules of thumb are pretty much what I gave above but
specific recommendations depend on how you constrain power or joules
over the course. I think Tom Compton used to offer a course optimizer
that constrained average power; Coggan has been constraining NP rather
than AP; and I think Connelly has been working on a TT optimizer that
constrains a generalized NP. The issue, of course, is the asymmetric
response to going below or above threshold.
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 01:06:59
From: Jenko
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:02 am, Jenko <sallyje...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > As a general rule, the time-minimizing strategy given a constraint on
> > > the total number of joules is to adjust your pace so you go a bit
> > > harder [...] into a headwind, and go a bit easier [...]
> > > with a tailwind.
> >
> > Is that true? I thought the power-speed curve was more linear with a
> > tailwind, so that an extra effort there leads to a bigger speed
> > increase than when into a headwind.
> >
> > Jenko
>
> That's true, but in this case the issue is that there's another
> constraint: the course distance is fixed, too. That means that on an
> out-and-back you spend less time on the tailwind leg than on the
> upwind leg.
Right. My point is that if you are going to ride 10% harder half the
time (not half the distance), and 10% easier the other half, make sure
the hard half includes the tailwind section.
Jenko
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 00:34:00
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 20, 8:11 am, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 20, 7:46 am, Joseph wrote:
>
> > Road bike. 14:56.
>
> Clip-ons? Anyway, from your description of gearing and the course
> profile, I'd say that either the wind was blowing harder than "mild"
> or else you seriously over-cooked on the outbound and ran dry on the
> inbound. Or maybe both.
>
> In any event, now you have a target to shoot for. If it's close
> enough, make the route part of your training/testing route; if it's
> too far away, find a similar low-traffic route that's convenient. I'm
> not saying you want to do it at TT pace every day. What you're trying
> to do is learn how to pace. As you saw, for a 15 minute race HR is
> going to be pretty useless so you're going to have learn how to
> calibrate your PE.
No clip ons. The guys I am at the moment most interested in measuring
myself against have been using regular bikes. The best guys have full-
on TT get-ups, but they are in a different league. Some of those guys
are mid 12's. Not this time though, the best time was 13:06.
One problem with pacing is my weight exaggerates the effects of every
undulation of the road, making relatively large speed variations which
are hard to account for. I end up having to change gears a lot, and
the type of resistance (air vs hill) and the subsequent pedal feel are
so different that it is hard to keep the effort level constant. I'm
also used to having to go as hard as I can up hills to try to hang on,
so going at a controlled pace up is not something I have much
experience with. When I do ride a controlled pace up a hill, it is
usually alone at very low intensisty.
I think you are quite right about figuring out how to pace myself. It
seems there is a very narrow band to try to hold, and my PE sensor
isn't sensitive enough. On the way back I wasn't cooked, I just felt
that I couldn't get the effort up as high, until the last 1km where I
stepped it up quite a bit. I was breathing hard and my legs burned at
the finish, but that I think was mostly from the last km. I could have
maintained that pace much longer than 10km, but it felt that if I were
to try to go any faster my legs would have stopped working.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 20:00:07
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
in message <1182324840.272818.127890@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com ('joseph.santaniello@gmail.com') wrote:
> One problem with pacing is my weight exaggerates the effects of every
> undulation of the road, making relatively large speed variations which
> are hard to account for.
Say it, brother! Say it!
The centre of the earth is attracted to aerobellies.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Generally Not Used
;; Except by Middle Aged Computer Scientists
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 09:49:32
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> I think you are quite right about figuring out how to pace myself.
Knowing one's limits comes only with experience, by crossing old
limits. That involves having cautiously ambitious goals, being
realisticly confident. And a craving for endorphins.
--
E. Dronkert
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 00:26:53
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 20, 9:02 am, Jenko <sallyje...@gmail.com > wrote:
> rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > As a general rule, the time-minimizing strategy given a constraint on
> > the total number of joules is to adjust your pace so you go a bit
> > harder [...] into a headwind, and go a bit easier [...]
> > with a tailwind.
>
> Is that true? I thought the power-speed curve was more linear with a
> tailwind, so that an extra effort there leads to a bigger speed
> increase than when into a headwind.
>
> Jenko
That's true, but in this case the issue is that there's another
constraint: the course distance is fixed, too. That means that on an
out-and-back you spend less time on the tailwind leg than on the
upwind leg.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 07:23:42
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:26:53 -0700, rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
>On Jun 20, 9:02 am, Jenko <sallyje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > As a general rule, the time-minimizing strategy given a constraint on
>> > the total number of joules is to adjust your pace so you go a bit
>> > harder [...] into a headwind, and go a bit easier [...]
>> > with a tailwind.
>>
>> Is that true? I thought the power-speed curve was more linear with a
>> tailwind, so that an extra effort there leads to a bigger speed
>> increase than when into a headwind.
>
>That's true, but in this case the issue is that there's another
>constraint: the course distance is fixed, too. That means that on an
>out-and-back you spend less time on the tailwind leg than on the
>upwind leg.
Is there a bunch of rules of thumb for riding TTs that dumbasses like
me could use. A TT effort cheat sheet?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 13:32:32
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> Is there a bunch of rules of thumb for riding TTs that dumbasses like
> me could use. A TT effort cheat sheet?
Distance (km) Effort
x <= 1 full-on
1 < x <= 10 90%
10 < x <= 50 85%
50 < x <= 200 75%
x > 200 get one of those hold-yer-chin-up gizmos.
You're welcome.
--
E. Dronkert
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 00:02:57
From: Jenko
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> As a general rule, the time-minimizing strategy given a constraint on
> the total number of joules is to adjust your pace so you go a bit
> harder [...] into a headwind, and go a bit easier [...]
> with a tailwind.
Is that true? I thought the power-speed curve was more linear with a
tailwind, so that an extra effort there leads to a bigger speed
increase than when into a headwind.
Jenko
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 23:11:59
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 20, 7:46 am, Joseph wrote:
> Road bike. 14:56.
Clip-ons? Anyway, from your description of gearing and the course
profile, I'd say that either the wind was blowing harder than "mild"
or else you seriously over-cooked on the outbound and ran dry on the
inbound. Or maybe both.
In any event, now you have a target to shoot for. If it's close
enough, make the route part of your training/testing route; if it's
too far away, find a similar low-traffic route that's convenient. I'm
not saying you want to do it at TT pace every day. What you're trying
to do is learn how to pace. As you saw, for a 15 minute race HR is
going to be pretty useless so you're going to have learn how to
calibrate your PE.
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 22:46:18
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 19, 11:29 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 19, 11:06 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Was the course dead flat?
>
> > Not by my standards, but pretty close I guess. I needed my 12,13, and
> > 14 on the way out, and the 13,14,15 and maybe the 17 once on the way
> > back. Here's the return leg profile:
>
> >http://arbitrary.org/5km.JPG
>
> I'd consider that pretty flat. What was your time? 13+ minutes?
Road bike. 14:56.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 01:27:40
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1182277712.756690.211160@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> Hi All,
>
> I just rode in our club 10km time trial, and while I'm pleased with my
> results, I wonder if I might have not used my available power wisely.
>
> I use a PE method to set my pace, and I try to put a little extra
> effort into things when the road tilts upward, and ease off a tiny bit
> when the road goes down. The idea being that marginal speed increases
> at high speeds downhill come at relatively high cost due to the non
> linear nature of wind resistance. This is why you also get the most
> bang for the buck pouring on a few extra coals up hills due to the
> relative absence of this non linear resistance.
>
> But what about headwinds and tailwinds? Today we had a mild tailwind
> on the outward leg, and then of course a mild headwind on the return
> leg. I kind of over-did it on the way out so things didn't go as well
> on the way back. Did this slow me down excessively, or did it not
> really matter? With tailwinds and increased speeds, rolling resistance
> goes up linearly, so a 6km/h tailwind doesn't give you 6km/h more
> speed. But in a headwind, as the speed is lower, the rolling
> resistance is a smaller percentage, so 6km/h headwind won't
> necessarily slow you down 6km/h. So I suppose it makes more sense to
> put more effort into a headwind than a tailwind. But in reality is it
> too easy to overdo it and quickly get too much resistance into a
> headwind and thus only a marginal speed improvement but at too great a
> cost? Is toeing the line too hard to actually do right, so the best
> thing to do is just hold back a wee bit? Or would I have had a better
> time if I had saved a bit on the way out with the wind so I could have
> stomped faster through the wind on the way back?
Joe, you have a heart rate monitor and you ride as close to your anerobic
threshhold as possible. If you cross the finish line with anything left
you've gone too easy.
I knew a couple US TT champions in their class and a women's TT World
Champion and they all told me that for the championship race they all rode
slightly above their normal threshhold but were so motivated that they could
hold that increased level all the way to the line.
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 23:00:03
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
in message <1182277712.756690.211160@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com >,
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com ('joseph.santaniello@gmail.com') wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I just rode in our club 10km time trial, and while I'm pleased with my
> results, I wonder if I might have not used my available power wisely.
>
> I use a PE method to set my pace, and I try to put a little extra
> effort into things when the road tilts upward, and ease off a tiny bit
> when the road goes down. The idea being that marginal speed increases
> at high speeds downhill come at relatively high cost due to the non
> linear nature of wind resistance. This is why you also get the most
> bang for the buck pouring on a few extra coals up hills due to the
> relative absence of this non linear resistance.
>
> But what about headwinds and tailwinds? Today we had a mild tailwind
> on the outward leg, and then of course a mild headwind on the return
> leg. I kind of over-did it on the way out so things didn't go as well
> on the way back.
I have no answer, but as it happens my ten tonight was under exactly the
same conditions - brisk tailwind on the outward leg, brisk headwind coming
back. My tactics were to sit up, hands on the hoods, on the outward leg
partly to get a little push from the wind but mainly to stay good and
relaxed while still moving fast. Then, coming back, I got down onto the
tribars and buried myself. I'm not certain this was a good tactic - I
certainly didn't do a good time, even compared to people who are normally
around my time - but it's what I did.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit
;; patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a
;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that
;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 14:29:56
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 19, 11:06 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > Was the course dead flat?
>
> Not by my standards, but pretty close I guess. I needed my 12,13, and
> 14 on the way out, and the 13,14,15 and maybe the 17 once on the way
> back. Here's the return leg profile:
>
> http://arbitrary.org/5km.JPG
I'd consider that pretty flat. What was your time? 13+ minutes?
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 14:06:44
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 19, 10:24 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 19, 8:28 pm, joseph wrote:
>
> > But what about headwinds and tailwinds? Today we had a mild tailwind
> > on the outward leg, and then of course a mild headwind on the return
> > leg. I kind of over-did it on the way out so things didn't go as well
> > on the way back. Did this slow me down excessively, or did it not
> > really matter?
>
> Depends on both the "mildness" of the wind and how much you over-did
> it on the way out.
It's hard to say how strong the wind was. The trees were waving
around, and the weather services had forcasts for 5m/s. What the
actual was I don't know. I didn't really overdo it too much, just
enough to not be able to maintain the same intensisty on the way back.
>
> As a general rule, the time-minimizing strategy given a constraint on
> the total number of joules is to adjust your pace so you go a bit
> harder uphill and into a headwind, and go a bit easier downhill and
> with a tailwind. However:
>
> 1. unless the wind is strong, the headwind/tailwind pacing effect is
> pretty small and it's usually dominated by the uphill/downhill
> effect;
> 2. pacing is harder when the tailwind is on the outbound leg than on
> the inbound leg because you're trying to gauge how to keep something
> in reserve for the return;
> 3. modulating PE is hard to do for a novice; and
> 4. you probably aren't yet too aware of what your sustainable power
> for a 10k is in terms of PE anyway.
This last point is very important. Since I still haven't bought a
power meter, I try to ride by PE, with occasional glances at the HRM.
I have previoulsy thought my functional threshold was at about 90% of
max hr (about 165), but almost right away my HR was up to 175 (95%)
and I felt good, so I decided to ignore the HRM and just go with it.
Every few minutes I glanced at it and it was where I thought it would
be in the 174-177 range. On the way back it was more like 170-174
until the last 1km where I got it up higher. How much higher and how
quickly I don't know, but as I crossed the line it was at my known max
(184).
Every post brings me closer to buying that power meter...
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 14:06:06
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 19, 10:34 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> What were you time splits?
> Was the course dead flat?
On Jun 19, 10:34 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> What were you time splits?
There were some cars ignoring the flagman at the turn around point
when I got there, so in the chaos of trying to hammer all the way to
the cone, and to turn without getting killed by a driver too busy
wondering who the crazy guy standing in the middle of the road waving
a red flag was to notice the "Bike Race" sign and the people on bikes,
I forgot to look at my split. I don't have recording capability. I did
notice that I was generally at least 2 cogs away from what I was on
the outbound leg.
> Was the course dead flat?
Not by my standards, but pretty close I guess. I needed my 12,13, and
14 on the way out, and the 13,14,15 and maybe the 17 once on the way
back. Here's the return leg profile:
http://arbitrary.org/5km.JPG
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 21:00:09
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 19, 10:51 pm, Davey Crockett wrote:
> I always found
> the best philosophy to be "Get out to the Turn as Fast as you Can, get
> Back If you Can"
If you truly followed that philosophy, I'm guessing you didn't win a
lot of TT's.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 23:38:25
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 19, 10:51 pm, Davey Crockett wrote:
>> I always found
>> the best philosophy to be "Get out to the Turn as Fast as you Can, get
>> Back If you Can"
>
> If you truly followed that philosophy, I'm guessing you didn't win a
> lot of TT's.
>
Sho' didn't work for me. ;-)
Steve
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 22:51:20
From: Davey Crockett
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
"joseph.santaniello@gmail.com" <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > writes:
> Hi All,
>
> I just rode in our club 10km time trial, and while I'm pleased with my
> results, I wonder if I might have not used my available power wisely.
>
> I use a PE method to set my pace, and I try to put a little extra
> effort into things when the road tilts upward, and ease off a tiny bit
> when the road goes down. The idea being that marginal speed increases
> at high speeds downhill come at relatively high cost due to the non
> linear nature of wind resistance. This is why you also get the most
> bang for the buck pouring on a few extra coals up hills due to the
> relative absence of this non linear resistance.
>
> But what about headwinds and tailwinds? Today we had a mild tailwind
> on the outward leg, and then of course a mild headwind on the return
> leg. I kind of over-did it on the way out so things didn't go as well
> on the way back. Did this slow me down excessively, or did it not
> really matter? With tailwinds and increased speeds, rolling resistance
> goes up linearly, so a 6km/h tailwind doesn't give you 6km/h more
> speed. But in a headwind, as the speed is lower, the rolling
> resistance is a smaller percentage, so 6km/h headwind won't
> necessarily slow you down 6km/h. So I suppose it makes more sense to
> put more effort into a headwind than a tailwind. But in reality is it
> too easy to overdo it and quickly get too much resistance into a
> headwind and thus only a marginal speed improvement but at too great a
> cost? Is toeing the line too hard to actually do right, so the best
> thing to do is just hold back a wee bit? Or would I have had a better
> time if I had saved a bit on the way out with the wind so I could have
> stomped faster through the wind on the way back?
>
> Joseph
>
A short time trial is a Power Trip
Whilst admittedly 10k is getting a little long, particularly if the
course is somewhat undulating or wind is a factor, but I always found
the best philosophy to be "Get out to the Turn as Fast as you Can, get
Back If you Can"
--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 20:34:07
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
What were you time splits?
Was the course dead flat?
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 20:24:30
From:
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
On Jun 19, 8:28 pm, joseph wrote:
> But what about headwinds and tailwinds? Today we had a mild tailwind
> on the outward leg, and then of course a mild headwind on the return
> leg. I kind of over-did it on the way out so things didn't go as well
> on the way back. Did this slow me down excessively, or did it not
> really matter?
Depends on both the "mildness" of the wind and how much you over-did
it on the way out.
As a general rule, the time-minimizing strategy given a constraint on
the total number of joules is to adjust your pace so you go a bit
harder uphill and into a headwind, and go a bit easier downhill and
with a tailwind. However:
1. unless the wind is strong, the headwind/tailwind pacing effect is
pretty small and it's usually dominated by the uphill/downhill
effect;
2. pacing is harder when the tailwind is on the outbound leg than on
the inbound leg because you're trying to gauge how to keep something
in reserve for the return;
3. modulating PE is hard to do for a novice; and
4. you probably aren't yet too aware of what your sustainable power
for a 10k is in terms of PE anyway.
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 18:37:20
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Harder into a headwind?
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I just rode in our club 10km time trial, and while I'm pleased with my
> results, I wonder if I might have not used my available power wisely.
>
> I use a PE method to set my pace, and I try to put a little extra
> effort into things when the road tilts upward, and ease off a tiny bit
> when the road goes down. The idea being that marginal speed increases
> at high speeds downhill come at relatively high cost due to the non
> linear nature of wind resistance. This is why you also get the most
> bang for the buck pouring on a few extra coals up hills due to the
> relative absence of this non linear resistance.
>
> But what about headwinds and tailwinds? Today we had a mild tailwind
> on the outward leg, and then of course a mild headwind on the return
> leg. I kind of over-did it on the way out so things didn't go as well
> on the way back. Did this slow me down excessively, or did it not
> really matter? With tailwinds and increased speeds, rolling resistance
> goes up linearly, so a 6km/h tailwind doesn't give you 6km/h more
> speed. But in a headwind, as the speed is lower, the rolling
> resistance is a smaller percentage, so 6km/h headwind won't
> necessarily slow you down 6km/h. So I suppose it makes more sense to
> put more effort into a headwind than a tailwind. But in reality is it
> too easy to overdo it and quickly get too much resistance into a
> headwind and thus only a marginal speed improvement but at too great a
> cost? Is toeing the line too hard to actually do right, so the best
> thing to do is just hold back a wee bit? Or would I have had a better
> time if I had saved a bit on the way out with the wind so I could have
> stomped faster through the wind on the way back?
>
> Joseph
>
As someone who never did even a halfway decent TT, I'd say that you try
to stay as close to your anaerobic threshold for as much of the race as
you can. Some hills are jammable, and you'll go a bit anaerobic, and
can recover coming down. Real climbs you have to guage your effort. As
far as headwinds, you have to be as aerodynamic as you can be, while
putting in effort near your anaerobic threshold.
"Saving a bit" is tough to say. It seems to imply that you're going
under your anaerobic threshold. Your wind resistance I assume is
relative to your speed relative to the air you're moving through.
Obviously this means you'll be slowed less with a tailwind. I vote for
knowing the course and going as hard as you can without going anaerobic
(until the end).
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
|
