Re: Track Worlds - British Pursuit Coach

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 27 Mar 2005 13:20:17 -0800, wrote:

> And this was in qualifying where
>you aren't really pursuiting, you are time trialing. Where you are in
>reference to your opponent is mostly meaningless, it is your time that
>counts.

>Anybody have an idea what was going on?

He was probably showing the riders where they stood in relation to
their planned time.

JT



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Philip Holman]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I spent two days in L.A. watching track worlds. It was a good time.
>
> I was intrigued by watching the British pusuit coach though. He
> looked
> like he was "walking the track" to indicate where the rider stood.
> Where the coach stands in reference to the pursuit line indicates
> where
> you are in reference to your opponent. It's been a while, but if I
> remember correctly, if your coach is beyond the pursuit line you are
> ahead by that distance and vice versa if your coach is before the
> line.
>
> Anyway, this coach seemed to be doing that but why would he purposely
> turn his back to the rider each lap? And this was in qualifying where
> you aren't really pursuiting, you are time trialing. Where you are in
> reference to your opponent is mostly meaningless, it is your time that
> counts.

It's competitive in that only the four fastest get to ride off for the
final. It's therefore important to beat your opponent to improve your
chances of riding in a final and competing in the gold/silver rather
than the bronze final.

>
> Though I've never raced at that level (obviously) I have done a fair
> amount of pursuiting and I've had experienced people (Harvey Nitz and
> Eddie B.) give me splits and I've never heard of turning your back.
>
> Anybody have an idea what was going on?

Could be he was looking at the scoreboard timing to check his position
was correct.

>
> As a side note I was suprised at how slow the pursuit times were.
> 4:27
> for gold! Five riders didn't even break 4:40! On the other hand the
> sprint and kilo times seemed pretty fast, something like 10.1 and 1:01
> for Theo Bos in the 200m and kilo. Though I have to say that I heard
> that the track was somewhat slow because it hadn't cured enough yet
> (general rumor) and that the shape of the track was better for
> sprinting than pursuiting (Chris Boardman on cyclingnews.com)
>
Chris is the expert.

Phil H

[Hamish Ferguson]

>> As a side note I was suprised at how slow the pursuit times were.
>> 4:27

According to Terry Gyde the NZ coach the air conditioning was creating havoc
with the endurance events. He struggled to select gears for the riders as
the conditions were so unpredictable.

Hamish Ferguson

[[email protected]]

That crossed my mind, but why turn your back to the rider?

Kevin Metcalfe

Pleasant Hill, CA

[[email protected]]

That crossed my mind, but why turn your back to the rider? And I mean
completely. He didn't even glance over his shoulder.

Kevin Metcalfe

Pleasant Hill, CA

[[email protected]]

From: "Philip Holman" > - Find messages by this
author
> It's competitive in that only the four fastest get to ride off for
the
> final. It's therefore important to beat your opponent to improve your
> chances of riding in a final and competing in the gold/silver rather
> than the bronze final.

Beating your opponent only means that you aren't going to finish last.
The qualifiers are not a pursuit match. They are a time trial that
happens to also have another racer on the track at the same time. To
qualify for the gold/silver or bronze match means that you have to be
one of the four fastest (hopefully top two) of ALL the riders. To do
that you need to have a time goal. From that time goal, you develop a
schedule and then go and race (hopefully) to that schedule. The only
feed back from your coach that means anything is how you are doing with
regard to that goal.

Assuming that he was trying to communicate where the riders stood on
their schedule (1 second up, or down, etc.) it still seems like a weird
way of showing it. Imagine racing at worlds, way over your AT and
trying to figure out how many steps from the pursuit line your coach
is. "Is that one or two steps?"

Personally I always prefered lap splits. I knew what I need to do for
my goal so the lap splits gave me a very good idea where I stood.
Others like to hear how many seconds ahead or behind schedule they
were. "one up", "two down", etc.

> Could be he was looking at the scoreboard timing to check his
position
> was correct.

No. The scoreboard was between turns 3 and 4. The coach was looking
directly across track to the other pursuiters line. He also had a
stopwatch in his hand that he was refering to.


>> and that the shape of the track was better for
>> sprinting than pursuiting (Chris Boardman on cyclingnews.com)

> Chris is the expert.

This is very true.

Kevin Metcalfe

Pleasant Hill, CA

[Philip Holman]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: "Philip Holman" > - Find messages by this
> author
>> It's competitive in that only the four fastest get to ride off for
> the
>> final. It's therefore important to beat your opponent to improve your
>> chances of riding in a final and competing in the gold/silver rather
>> than the bronze final.
>
> Beating your opponent only means that you aren't going to finish last.
> The qualifiers are not a pursuit match. They are a time trial that
> happens to also have another racer on the track at the same time. To
> qualify for the gold/silver or bronze match means that you have to be
> one of the four fastest (hopefully top two) of ALL the riders. To do
> that you need to have a time goal. From that time goal, you develop a
> schedule and then go and race (hopefully) to that schedule. The only
> feed back from your coach that means anything is how you are doing
> with
> regard to that goal.

Not really, the riders are seeded after the qualifying round. Most
riders are motivated by competition. If you are a medal contender you
will want to beat your opponent who will be seeded near you and also the
previous best time. A time goal is OK if you are not in contention but
it may be too slow for the track conditions. Knowing whether you are
behind, level or in front of the other rider is highly desirable for a
medal contender.

>
> Assuming that he was trying to communicate where the riders stood on
> their schedule (1 second up, or down, etc.) it still seems like a
> weird
> way of showing it. Imagine racing at worlds, way over your AT and
> trying to figure out how many steps from the pursuit line your coach
> is. "Is that one or two steps?"
>
> Personally I always prefered lap splits. I knew what I need to do for
> my goal so the lap splits gave me a very good idea where I stood.
> Others like to hear how many seconds ahead or behind schedule they
> were. "one up", "two down", etc.

This is OK for a one off TT but not for championship pursuit where
1/100ths sec can separate medals.

>
>> Could be he was looking at the scoreboard timing to check his
> position
>> was correct.
>
> No. The scoreboard was between turns 3 and 4. The coach was looking
> directly across track to the other pursuiters line. He also had a
> stopwatch in his hand that he was refering to.

You probably answered your own question ..... his interest was in the
opposition.

Phil H

[[email protected]]

Hello! This was the qualifying round! There are only two rides in the
pursuit world championships now.

1. You do your qualifier.
2. If you were fast enough you race for either the gold or the bronze.

If you want to win, you need to qualify 1st or 2nd. Unless you are the
final qualifying heat and you are already on schedule to beat everybody
else that rode it doesn't matter whether or not you beat your opponent.
Sure, if you are ahead of your opponent it helps your cause, but in
the grand scheme it means nothing. It only matters whether you qualify
1st or 2nd. The fact that you are ahead of you opponent doesn't tell
you anything about whether or not you are going to qualify 1st or 2nd.

Now, do you see why I am wondering what he was doing?

Kevin Metcalfe

Pleasant Hill, CA

[Kurgan Gringioni]

Philip Holman wrote:
>
> Not really, the riders are seeded after the qualifying round. Most
> riders are motivated by competition.





Goddamm.

You've got your head up your ass.

[Philip Holman]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hello! This was the qualifying round! There are only two rides in
> the
> pursuit world championships now.
>
> 1. You do your qualifier.
> 2. If you were fast enough you race for either the gold or the
> bronze.
>
> If you want to win, you need to qualify 1st or 2nd. Unless you are
> the
> final qualifying heat and you are already on schedule to beat
> everybody
> else that rode it doesn't matter whether or not you beat your
> opponent.
> Sure, if you are ahead of your opponent it helps your cause, but in
> the grand scheme it means nothing. It only matters whether you
> qualify
> 1st or 2nd. The fact that you are ahead of you opponent doesn't tell
> you anything about whether or not you are going to qualify 1st or 2nd.
>
> Now, do you see why I am wondering what he was doing?

No.......so they dropped round one. I told you what the deal was.

Phil H

[Philip Holman]

"Kurgan Gringioni" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Philip Holman wrote:
>>
>> Not really, the riders are seeded after the qualifying round. Most
>> riders are motivated by competition.
>
>
>
>
>
> Goddamm.
>
> You've got your head up your ass.

So they dropped round 1. Now they are aligned with Fattie Masters

Phil H

[[email protected]]

I think my point is that I am wondering if you've got a clue about
pursuiting?

The first round is an individual time trial. You need to finish in the
top 2 if you want to challenge for the gold medal. Basing your pacing
strategy on the rider who happens to be sharing the track with you
during your qualifier is a good way to have a nice restful evening
while you watch the medal rounds from trackside.

Actually, using the term pursuiting at this stage is really a misnomer.
There were only six pursuits all week. The women's bronze medal
final, women's gold medal final, men's bronze medal final, men's gold
medal final, team pursuit bronze medal final and team pursuit gold
medal final. The vast majority of the "pursuit" or "team
pursuit" competitors did an individual (or team) time trial and then
watched the actual pursuit matches from trackside that evening.

Every other ride was an individual time trial. Really not much
different than the kilo, or your local district 40km ITT championship
except for the distance.

I can see walking the track ALONG with shouting lap splits or ("7.5",
to indicate a 17.5 second lap) or pace progress ("1 up" to indicate 1
second better than schedule).

So back to the question, why would he turn his back to the rider? Why
would he use "walking the track" as the ONLY method of communicating
progress to the rider?

Also regarding an earlier comment about "1 up" not giving enough
information, keep in mind that the rider is traveling at 30+ mph while
trying to keep a good line and process information from your coach.
Sure the pursuit may be decided by .001 seconds, but when you're on
the track that level of information is too hard to communicate and
process. Not to mention that your coach isn't going to get the exact
same splits as the electronic timing so a tenth of a second is about
all you can expect for accuracy.

[Philip Holman]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I think my point is that I am wondering if you've got a clue about
> pursuiting?

So I missed a change in the rule so now I'm an idiot......OK.

The first round is an attempt to place yourself in the best medal
position possible. Sure everyone time trials probably to the best of
their ability, but if I ended up being 3rd or 5th fastest time to an
opponent who came 2nd or 4th by .01 sec, I'd kick myself if I didn't
know how close it was........ wouldn't you.

I got 4th in the pursuit at World Masters in Manchester in 2000 (Prelim
and final) and a silver at US Masters Nats in 2001 (One off TT). I'm a
roadie who threw in a few track seasons for fun.

>
> The first round is an individual time trial. You need to finish in
> the
> top 2 if you want to challenge for the gold medal. Basing your pacing
> strategy on the rider who happens to be sharing the track with you
> during your qualifier is a good way to have a nice restful evening
> while you watch the medal rounds from trackside.

You ride the fastest you can for the distance and in a World
Championship you would probably be paired with a rider of similar
capability. Your relative position is additional information to your
pacing strategy.

>
> Actually, using the term pursuiting at this stage is really a
> misnomer.
> There were only six pursuits all week. The women's bronze medal
> final, women's gold medal final, men's bronze medal final, men's gold
> medal final, team pursuit bronze medal final and team pursuit gold
> medal final. The vast majority of the "pursuit" or "team
> pursuit" competitors did an individual (or team) time trial and then
> watched the actual pursuit matches from trackside that evening.
>
> Every other ride was an individual time trial. Really not much
> different than the kilo, or your local district 40km ITT championship
> except for the distance.
>
> I can see walking the track ALONG with shouting lap splits or ("7.5",
> to indicate a 17.5 second lap) or pace progress ("1 up" to indicate 1
> second better than schedule).
>
> So back to the question, why would he turn his back to the rider? Why
> would he use "walking the track" as the ONLY method of communicating
> progress to the rider?

Lots of riders use a computer and don't require splits. They hold a
constant speed but require additional input to know where their opponent
is.

>
> Also regarding an earlier comment about "1 up" not giving enough
> information, keep in mind that the rider is traveling at 30+ mph while
> trying to keep a good line and process information from your coach.
> Sure the pursuit may be decided by .001 seconds, but when you're on
> the track that level of information is too hard to communicate and
> process. Not to mention that your coach isn't going to get the exact
> same splits as the electronic timing so a tenth of a second is about
> all you can expect for accuracy.
>
Its not very accurate I agree but knowing whether you are behind or in
front is useful. Most riders will know the ability of the field which
usually starts off slowest first. When you get down to the last few
pairs it gets very competitive in beating the best time so far, and also
in beating your opponent.

Phil H

[Bob Schwartz]

wrote:
> Also regarding an earlier comment about "1 up" not giving enough
> information, keep in mind that the rider is traveling at 30+ mph while
> trying to keep a good line and process information from your coach.
> Sure the pursuit may be decided by .001 seconds, but when you're on
> the track that level of information is too hard to communicate and
> process. Not to mention that your coach isn't going to get the exact
> same splits as the electronic timing so a tenth of a second is about
> all you can expect for accuracy.

This is one case where I have always wondered why people didn't
carry radios. They're small enough that you should be able to
stick it someplace like the tail of a helmet or some other spot
with no aerodynamic penalty.

That way your coach could watch the scoreboard and pass along
exact information right into the rider's ear.

I don't think USCF rules allow this anymore but if I were still
doing team pursuits I think I would insist on it. I don't think
it is possible to pass along splits to four riders at speed and
have all four pick it up correctly. And then there's the issue
of doing a four rider exchange and discovering OH ****! there
are only three riders left and now you've got a gap to close.

Bob Schwartz

[Andy Coggan]

"Philip Holman" > wrote in message
...

> Lots of riders use a computer and don't require splits. They hold a
> constant speed but require additional input to know where their opponent
> is.

I watched every pursuit (men's, women's, individual, team, qualifying,
finals) at Worlds, and I didn't see a single rider using a computer. This
includes the French team pursuit squad, all of whom had SRM cranks and
sensor cables mounted, but not the PowerControl handlebar computer. The
reason is undoubtly as Kevin said, i.e., at those speeds/exercise
intensities it is practically impossible to process the information and make
any useful decisions, especially when your speed flucuates significantly
between the straights and the turns.

To revisit an old issue: if you look over the kilometer splits on
cyclingnews.com, you'll see that the men invariably gave up 5-6 s getting up
to speed (comparing 1st and 2nd kilo times). The women were less consistent
(undoubtly in part because they race 3k, not 4k), but the riders who went
out the fastest were practically always the ones who slowed down the most
(comparing 2nd and 3rd kilo times). This was most striking in watching the
ride off between Thurig and Tchalykh for the bronze, in which the
fast-starting Russian built nearly a 2 s lead, only to be mowed down in the
end by the Swiss rider's consistent laps.

Blasting off the line as hard as you can might work if you're a master
fattie doing a 2k, but clearly is a mistake for elite riders racing a longer
distance...

Andy Coggan

[Carl Sundquist]

"Bob Schwartz" > wrote in message

> This is one case where I have always wondered why people didn't
> carry radios. They're small enough that you should be able to
> stick it someplace like the tail of a helmet or some other spot
> with no aerodynamic penalty.
>
> That way your coach could watch the scoreboard and pass along
> exact information right into the rider's ear.
>

UCI 3.2.005 Riders may carry no object on them or on their bicycles that
could drop onto the track. They may not
bear or use on the track any radio communication system.

> I don't think USCF rules allow this anymore but if I were still
> doing team pursuits I think I would insist on it. I don't think
> it is possible to pass along splits to four riders at speed and
> have all four pick it up correctly. And then there's the issue
> of doing a four rider exchange and discovering OH ****! there
> are only three riders left and now you've got a gap to close.

Unless you're on a robotic mode and aren't thinking at all, it's pretty
normal to look over your left shoulder before you hit the peak of your
exchange arc. You can see if you should go up as high as you normally would,
or if you need to tighten it to come down sooner. Doing hundreds of TP
training exercises helps to ingrain the habit of looking over your shoulder
because probably less than 50% of the time all four riders complete a
training exercise.

[Hamish Ferguson]

"Andy Coggan" >

> Blasting off the line as hard as you can might work if you're a master
> fattie doing a 2k, but clearly is a mistake for elite riders racing a
> longer distance...

However Mactier won the final with a fast start and has taken the silver
medal in the last three World events. On the whole I prefer a more
conservative start.

In the Teams Pursuit the New Zealand team gave away up to four seconds in
the first km and were fastest over the next 3K. Their fast finish didn't
make up for time last at the start.

Hamish Ferguson

[Warren]

"Andy Coggan" > wrote in message
ink.net......

but the riders who went
> out the fastest were practically always the ones who slowed down the most
> (comparing 2nd and 3rd kilo times). This was most striking in watching the
> ride off between Thurig and Tchalykh for the bronze, in which the
> fast-starting Russian built nearly a 2 s lead, only to be mowed down in
the
> end by the Swiss rider's consistent laps.
>
> Blasting off the line as hard as you can might work if you're a master
> fattie doing a 2k, but clearly is a mistake for elite riders racing a
longer
> distance...
>

Imagine for one second that the riders and their coaches at that level
actually know more than you about what it takes for them (the individual
racer) to do as well as possible in that event.

There are several reasons they could start fast and then try to hang on.
One, they aren't able to sustain high power to the finish even if they
started slower. So they start fast to minimize their overall time. Second,
they start fast to demoralize their opponent. Third, some riders like to
start slow (slower than others) so they get the adrenalin rush of trying to
come back on their opponent. Fourth, the rider fades more than planned
because they are tired from previous rides or events. Fifth, they started
faster than planned and did what they could after that.

-Warren

[Andy Coggan]

"Hamish Ferguson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andy Coggan" >
>
>> Blasting off the line as hard as you can might work if you're a master
>> fattie doing a 2k, but clearly is a mistake for elite riders racing a
>> longer distance...
>
> However Mactier won the final with a fast start and has taken the silver
> medal in the last three World events.

At least in the final, Mactier's first 2 laps were quick, but after that she
settled down to very consistent lap times. I therefore wouldn't characterize
this as a very fast start *for her*, as clearly she didn't pay the usual
price.

> In the Teams Pursuit the New Zealand team gave away up to four seconds in
> the first km and were fastest over the next 3K. Their fast finish didn't
> make up for time last at the start.

Yeah, but that's four seconds on top of however many seconds that their
opponents "wasted" getting up to speed. IOW, starting too slow can obviously
cost you as well.

Andy Coggan

[Andy Coggan]

"Warren" > wrote in message
. com...

> Imagine for one second that the riders and their coaches at that level
> actually know more than you about what it takes for them (the individual
> racer) to do as well as possible in that event.

Given that many elite coaches don't understand the physiological demands of
the events that they coach (1) and that few elite athletes actually
experiment with different pacing strategies (2), I think that my
explanation - i.e., that people tend to keep making the same mistake* -
makes more sense.

1.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11547894
(Gastin cites a survey of elite track-and-field coaches showing 1) wide
differences in their estimate of the aerobic/anaerobic contribution during
an 800 m run, and 2) that the majority of them thought it was far more
anaerobic than it really is.)

2.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8171225
(FYI: Carl Foster works extensively with elite speed skaters, so ought to
know what he's talking about.)

*Recognizing, of course, that if you know it is going to take a 3:38 to win,
you have no choice but to attempt to ride that pace if you want to win.

Andy Coggan (whose hat is off to Jame Carney for laying it on the line in
the scratch race, even though his attack ultimately came to naught)

[Mark Fennell]

"Andy Coggan" wrote:
> "Warren" wrote:
>
> > Imagine for one second that the riders and their coaches at that level
> > actually know more than you <snip>
>
> Given that many elite coaches don't understand the physiological demands
of
> the events that they coach <snip>

Will you two *please* take your bickering to an appropriate forum, like back
to the wattage list! Can't you see that rbr is for civilized people
discussing bicycle racing.

[Mike Gladu]

In article om>,
wrote:

> That crossed my mind, but why turn your back to the rider? And I mean
> completely. He didn't even glance over his shoulder.
>
> Kevin Metcalfe
>
> Pleasant Hill, CA

You know how hard it is to hear in those helmets <grin>.

I was sitting right there on the apron behind the coaches and only the
Easterners shouted.

Watching Peter Keen in Manchester (Boardman ultimate hour) and the
current GBR coaches in LA, I believe the suggestion of 'position
relative to schedule' is most likely.

Turning the back should mean you are ahead of the other team, and facing
them means you are down.

I just wonder how he sees the time at the pursuit line and than has time
to turn around...

Mike G.
-

[Steve McGinty]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:09:28 GMT, Mike Gladu >
wrote:

>In article om>,
> wrote:
>
>> That crossed my mind, but why turn your back to the rider? And I mean
>> completely. He didn't even glance over his shoulder.
>>
>> Kevin Metcalfe
>>
>> Pleasant Hill, CA
>
>You know how hard it is to hear in those helmets <grin>.
>
>I was sitting right there on the apron behind the coaches and only the
>Easterners shouted.
>
>Watching Peter Keen in Manchester (Boardman ultimate hour) and the
>current GBR coaches in LA, I believe the suggestion of 'position
>relative to schedule' is most likely.
>
>Turning the back should mean you are ahead of the other team, and facing
>them means you are down.
>
>I just wonder how he sees the time at the pursuit line and than has time
>to turn around...
>
>Mike G.
>-

GB have "walked the line" for a number of years - ahead of the
start/finish is up on shedule - behind is down. They'll take the time
on the opposite station so it doesn't matter what way he's facing.

Regards!
Stephen

[Jenko]

Andy Coggan wrote:
>
> To revisit an old issue: if you look over the kilometer splits on
> cyclingnews.com, you'll see that the men invariably gave up 5-6 s getting up
> to speed (comparing 1st and 2nd kilo times). The women were less consistent
> (undoubtly in part because they race 3k, not 4k), but the riders who went
> out the fastest were practically always the ones who slowed down the most
> (comparing 2nd and 3rd kilo times).

That happened to Escobar as well in the men's pursuit. He went from 1'05" in the
2nd km to 1'08" in the 4rd, both in series and in the final. He was targeting
4'24" (1'09" + 3 * 1'05"), so the split made sense in series, even if it almost
cost him the final. Surprisingly to me, he started even faster in the final,
only to predictably fade even more in the last km. Had he not been so ambitious,
he could have put Bartko in trouble.

Jenko

[Sam]

As I understand it, the UCI is concerned about things flying off you or the
bike with or without a crash. That and the fact that the UCI is not the
most progressive thinking group in the world.


"Bob Schwartz" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Also regarding an earlier comment about "1 up" not giving enough
>> information, keep in mind that the rider is traveling at 30+ mph while
>> trying to keep a good line and process information from your coach.
>> Sure the pursuit may be decided by .001 seconds, but when you're on
>> the track that level of information is too hard to communicate and
>> process. Not to mention that your coach isn't going to get the exact
>> same splits as the electronic timing so a tenth of a second is about
>> all you can expect for accuracy.
>
> This is one case where I have always wondered why people didn't
> carry radios. They're small enough that you should be able to
> stick it someplace like the tail of a helmet or some other spot
> with no aerodynamic penalty.
>
> That way your coach could watch the scoreboard and pass along
> exact information right into the rider's ear.
>
> I don't think USCF rules allow this anymore but if I were still
> doing team pursuits I think I would insist on it. I don't think
> it is possible to pass along splits to four riders at speed and
> have all four pick it up correctly. And then there's the issue
> of doing a four rider exchange and discovering OH ****! there
> are only three riders left and now you've got a gap to close.
>
> Bob Schwartz
>

[Stewart Fleming]

wrote:


> Now, do you see why I am wondering what he was doing?

You always rehearse complex behaviour so that when you need to do it for
real, it is instinctive.

[Carl Sundquist]

"Sam" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> As I understand it, the UCI is concerned about things flying off you or
the
> bike with or without a crash. That and the fact that the UCI is not the
> most progressive thinking group in the world.
>

The logic behind the rule pertains primarily to mass start races and water
bottles.

[Donald Munro]

Andy Coggan wrote:
>> Blasting off the line as hard as you can might work if you're a master
>> fattie doing a 2k, but clearly is a mistake for elite riders racing a
> longer distance...

Warren wrote:
> Third, some riders like to start slow (slower than others) so they get
> the adrenalin rush of trying to come back on their opponent.

According to an eminent team of rbr researchers, it would be more
effective then to fall in order to increase the adrenalin secretion by a m
uch larger percentage. It has also been postulated that bashing your
testicle against the (non sloping) top tube may also help in this regard.

[Bob Schwartz]

Carl Sundquist > wrote:

> "Sam" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> As I understand it, the UCI is concerned about things flying off you or
> the
>> bike with or without a crash. That and the fact that the UCI is not the
>> most progressive thinking group in the world.
>>

> The logic behind the rule pertains primarily to mass start races and water
> bottles.

I guess I can see that. It's unfortunate though. Trying to pass splits
accurately to four riders is just not that easy.

So I can see the beauty of the method of standing with respect to a
point of reference. Easy to process and reliable communication.

And as for the British coach, if that is what you are doing it really
doesn't matter which way you are facing since you don't have anything
to say. Maybe he just wanted to watch the other team.

Bob Schwartz

[Andy Coggan]

"Jenko" > wrote in message
...
> Andy Coggan wrote:
>>
>> To revisit an old issue: if you look over the kilometer splits on
>> cyclingnews.com, you'll see that the men invariably gave up 5-6 s getting
>> up to speed (comparing 1st and 2nd kilo times). The women were less
>> consistent (undoubtly in part because they race 3k, not 4k), but the
>> riders who went out the fastest were practically always the ones who
>> slowed down the most (comparing 2nd and 3rd kilo times).
>
> That happened to Escobar as well in the men's pursuit. He went from 1'05"
> in the 2nd km to 1'08" in the 4rd, both in series and in the final. He was
> targeting 4'24" (1'09" + 3 * 1'05"), so the split made sense in series,
> even if it almost cost him the final. Surprisingly to me, he started even
> faster in the final, only to predictably fade even more in the last km.
> Had he not been so ambitious, he could have put Bartko in trouble.

Interesting! I was timing Bartko's splits in the final (I'm pretty sure it
was the final), and there was a point around lap 3 where he suddenly slowed
by almost 1 s/lap. It's as if he realized that he was setting an
unsustainable pace, and decided to dial it back right quick. If he hadn't
done that, and if Escobar had been a bit more conservative in his pacing,
the results could have indeed been much closer, as you say.

BTW, the pursuit power files posted here:

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/samplefiles.html

give a good indication of just how tightly the athlete must control their
effort. It isn't really obvious unless you extract the data from each of the
three rides and plot them on the same x-axis, but the difference in power
between the qualifying ride and the 2nd and 3rd rides is <10% during the
crucial 15 to 45 s period. Yet, that slight overshoot was still enough to
cost about 2 s overall, and could have cost the rider the championship.
Considering that pursuit riders really receive very little useful feedback
during the initial stages of a race (typically just a couple of lap splits,
one of which is inflated by the acceleration time), it's no wonder that so
many seem to go out too hard, and then die.

Andy Coggan

[Philip Holman]

"Andy Coggan" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "Jenko" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Andy Coggan wrote:
>>>
>>> To revisit an old issue: if you look over the kilometer splits on
>>> cyclingnews.com, you'll see that the men invariably gave up 5-6 s
>>> getting up to speed (comparing 1st and 2nd kilo times). The women
>>> were less consistent (undoubtly in part because they race 3k, not
>>> 4k), but the riders who went out the fastest were practically always
>>> the ones who slowed down the most (comparing 2nd and 3rd kilo
>>> times).
>>
>> That happened to Escobar as well in the men's pursuit. He went from
>> 1'05" in the 2nd km to 1'08" in the 4rd, both in series and in the
>> final. He was targeting 4'24" (1'09" + 3 * 1'05"), so the split made
>> sense in series, even if it almost cost him the final. Surprisingly
>> to me, he started even faster in the final, only to predictably fade
>> even more in the last km. Had he not been so ambitious, he could have
>> put Bartko in trouble.
>
> Interesting! I was timing Bartko's splits in the final (I'm pretty
> sure it was the final), and there was a point around lap 3 where he
> suddenly slowed by almost 1 s/lap. It's as if he realized that he was
> setting an unsustainable pace, and decided to dial it back right
> quick. If he hadn't done that, and if Escobar had been a bit more
> conservative in his pacing, the results could have indeed been much
> closer, as you say.

1 second a lap is almost 2 mph at their speed. It really surprises me
that none of these athletes uses a computer for feedback. One positioned
on the end of the aerobar is easy to read between your thumbs and its a
simple thing to hold a fairly constant pace. I found the difference in
speed in the turns is not noticeable outside of normal fluctuations. At
the same power output, I previously calculated it to be .25mph.

>
> BTW, the pursuit power files posted here:
>
> http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/samplefiles.html
>
> give a good indication of just how tightly the athlete must control
> their effort. It isn't really obvious unless you extract the data from
> each of the three rides and plot them on the same x-axis, but the
> difference in power between the qualifying ride and the 2nd and 3rd
> rides is <10% during the crucial 15 to 45 s period. Yet, that slight
> overshoot was still enough to cost about 2 s overall, and could have
> cost the rider the championship. Considering that pursuit riders
> really receive very little useful feedback during the initial stages
> of a race (typically just a couple of lap splits, one of which is
> inflated by the acceleration time), it's no wonder that so many seem
> to go out too hard, and then die.

In reply to your earlier comment about blasting off in a 2K pursuit, an
optimal start is still considered to be in the 5 to 6 second range.
Gearing choice also comes into it. Some sacrifice start time for a
bigger gear in the hope of maintaining a higher cruise speed. Although,
physics says it takes less energy to shave a second off your start time
than it does at top speed. This has its practical limits.

Phil H

[Steve McGinty]

On 27 Mar 2005 13:20:17 -0800, wrote:

>I spent two days in L.A. watching track worlds. It was a good time.
>
>I was intrigued by watching the British pusuit coach though. He looked
>like he was "walking the track" to indicate where the rider stood.
>Where the coach stands in reference to the pursuit line indicates where
>you are in reference to your opponent. It's been a while, but if I
>remember correctly, if your coach is beyond the pursuit line you are
>ahead by that distance and vice versa if your coach is before the line.
>
>Anyway, this coach seemed to be doing that but why would he purposely
>turn his back to the rider each lap? And this was in qualifying where
>you aren't really pursuiting, you are time trialing. Where you are in
>reference to your opponent is mostly meaningless, it is your time that
>counts.
>
>Though I've never raced at that level (obviously) I have done a fair
>amount of pursuiting and I've had experienced people (Harvey Nitz and
>Eddie B.) give me splits and I've never heard of turning your back.
>
>Anybody have an idea what was going on?
>
>As a side note I was suprised at how slow the pursuit times were. 4:27
>for gold! Five riders didn't even break 4:40! On the other hand the
>sprint and kilo times seemed pretty fast, something like 10.1 and 1:01
>for Theo Bos in the 200m and kilo. Though I have to say that I heard
>that the track was somewhat slow because it hadn't cured enough yet
>(general rumor) and that the shape of the track was better for
>sprinting than pursuiting (Chris Boardman on cyclingnews.com)

Just watched BBC's coverage of the worlds and it's obvious the GB
coach is basing his timing schedule on the opposite station.

Regards!
Stephen

[Ernst Noch]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Andy Coggan wrote:
>
>>>Blasting off the line as hard as you can might work if you're a master
>>>fattie doing a 2k, but clearly is a mistake for elite riders racing a
>>
>>longer distance...
>
>
> Warren wrote:
>
>>Third, some riders like to start slow (slower than others) so they get
>>the adrenalin rush of trying to come back on their opponent.
>
>
> According to an eminent team of rbr researchers, it would be more
> effective then to fall in order to increase the adrenalin secretion by a m
> uch larger percentage. It has also been postulated that bashing your
> testicle against the (non sloping) top tube may also help in this regard.

I'm a firm believer of that theory, but it seems that Grégory Bauge
showed that it doesn't hold for trackies. An interesting phenomenon
which calls for more research.