A good time for 10km TT?

Hell and High Water wrote:
In article ,
says...
Good time for a time trial :

d == distance
t == time
gender = 1 if female, 0 if male

t = [1 hr * (distance / 40 km) ^ 1.07] / 0.9 ^ gender


I got '42'

??

I got 15:07. Where do I insert this equation to get my missing 38
seconds?

Joseph

Dan Connelly wrote:
Good time for a time trial :

d == distance
t == time
gender = 1 if female, 0 if male

t = [1 hr * (distance / 40 km) ^ 1.07] / 0.9 ^ gender


Dan

There's an even simpler formula for a good time for a
time trial: if you're having a good time while riding a
time trial, you aren't riding hard enough.

wrote:
The thing is I am trying to determine some realistic goals, given the
self-imposed constraints I have. I have a feeling that most of the
fastest guys around here devote way more time than I do, either because
they are single, independently wealthy, neglect their families, are
retired, are on welfare, or who knows what. They also train
intelligently I'm sure, and know what they are doing. I have to figure
out what level a 36 year old with 8-10 hous per week available can
expect to achieve. Then I can set some goals. Right now I am trying to
figure out if my long term goals should be for improving a handfull of
seconds, or 2 minutes. If only super athletes can do sub 14 minutes,
I'll write that off, but if it is attainable by more normal people,
I'll go for it.

8-10hrs a week is plenty... some domestic pros do well on that amount.
To reach your potential you need to do intense training as often as you
can tolerate it. Every day is either a "race" or warm up- interval
session- cool down, or rest (no riding or very easy). Do a long ride
every couple of weeks just so you remember how.

Sub 14min for a 10k isn't that exceptional... plenty of pros and top
amatures could beat 12min... but that doesn't mean you'll be able to do
it. Genetics plays a big part in determining the size of our aerobic
engines... and if you don't have the size, then no amount of "tuning"
will make up for it. From your previous posts I get the impression that
you haven't done a lot of high intensity training, so maybe you have a
lot of room for improvement. If I was you I'd just always try to set a
PR, and not have some specific time goal in mind.

I would work on your training and not worry about equipment too much
until you have more experience. I *would* get a set of clip-on aero
bars though, and try to develop a good TT position.

BTW, Kunich is wrong about all that aero stuff not making a
difference... it isn't just for decoration.

"ronaldo_jeremiah" wrote in message
oups.com...

DO NOT use a TT bike since those guys are riding well below the speed
at which a TT bike would make any significant contribution. You'd be
able to get the same boost simply by riding with your hands next to the
stem and you head as far down as you can get it.

What is the speed at which a TT bike makes a significant contribution?
Enlighten us.

For you a jet engine wouldn't make a significant contribution.

wrote:
Hell and High Water wrote:
In article ,
says...
Good time for a time trial :

d == distance
t == time
gender = 1 if female, 0 if male

t = [1 hr * (distance / 40 km) ^ 1.07] / 0.9 ^ gender

I got '42'

??

I got 15:07. Where do I insert this equation to get my missing 38
seconds?

Joseph


I'm not sure. The model predicts a good time for 200 meters is 12.4 seconds,
while a good time for RAAM (4911.24 km) is 7.16 days. If one assumes 2.4
hours off-the-bike time per day, and assume the relation applies to the cycling
hours anyway, then one gets 7 days 23 hours, but this would apply to a flat version
of the race.

Dan

In article
,
Donald Munro wrote:

joseph.santaniello wrote:
I actually prefer the roughness of this group to the false veneer of
civility often found on other groups.

Note to rbr: We really need to work harder at becoming less civil (ised).
Is there any dope that we can take that will help us improve ?

Sorry, you need to come off dope to get that edgy, `Where
did that come from?', rabid weasel mien.

--
Michael Press

On 7 Jun 2006 18:20:58 -0700, "Ron Ruff" wrote:


8-10hrs a week is plenty... some domestic pros do well on that amount.

Who? And do they average 8-10 or are you including just the weeks
they are resting before/after a key event?

JT



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

Donald Munro wrote:
I'd be very surprised if there are any pros (apart from crit pro) only
doing 10 hours a week.

Yes... pros who don't do long road races or stage races. Most US races
are crits.

To reach your potential you need to do intense training as often as you
can tolerate it. Every day is either a "race" or warm up- interval
session- cool down, or rest (no riding or very easy).

Hogwash. If you do too much intensity your body won't recover enough and
you won't be able to go hard enough on those training (and racing) days
when you really should

I agree... "as often as you can tolerate it" means that you don't do it
too much... but I should have made that plain. My point is that high
intensity training (and recovering) is better than putting in the
miles... especially if you have limited time.

For a good time, perhaps you should call Jenny. I understand she can be
reached at 867-5309.

Ron Ruff wrote:
Donald Munro wrote:
I'd be very surprised if there are any pros (apart from crit pro) only
doing 10 hours a week.

Yes... pros who don't do long road races or stage races. Most US races
are crits.

Huh?? US pros usually focus on NRC races, most of which are *not* crits. The
stage races usually have a crit or two, but they also have long enough road
races that nobody gets by on 10 hours a week.