

Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#71




Pacing, wind, and climbs (was: How flat are The Netherlands?)
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 6:37:32 AM UTC7, Axel Reichert wrote:
jbeattie writes: On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 2:54:50 PM UTC7, wrote: This combination makes out and back TT's in the wind, better to expend as much energy as possible into the wind and then as much as you have left downwind. It's a math problem and actually works. Slaughter yourself on the climbs and recover on the descents. You can do it with headwinds, too, assuming you don't overspend on the way out. I think we have to clearly separate two things he 1. External (wind and climbs are the prime examples, but different surface, e.g., sand versus ultrasmooth asphalt, would also be possible) 2. Internal (the effort you are spending at a particular point of the trip, also known as pacing). Now with regards to 1, if you use http://kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm go to the "drops" position, enter 400 W, 0 wind, 0 slope and 20 km (default data elsewhere), you will get 27 min 39 sec for the time. Do it again with 400 W, 30 km/h wind, 0 slope and 10 km, you will get 22 min 18 sec for the outbound time. Do it again with 400 W, 30 km/h wind, 0 slope and 10 km, you will get 9 min 22 sec for the inbound time. In total this 31 min 40 sec for the round trip, so considerably longer than without wind. The same effect happens if you use +5 and 5 for slope out/inbound, respectively. This is left as an exercise to the reader. This is the point I was trying to make. External, additional forces WILL slow you down. Now with regards to 2, let us assume that you can sustain 400 W only for 10 min, and after that you bonk and have to limp home running on the emergency power system with 50 W. First approach is to spend your energy against the wind. With 400 W, 30 km/h wind, 0 slope and 4.483 km your "strong" 10 min are spent. With 50 W, 30 km/h wind, 0 slope and 5.517 km still to go, you will need 45 min 21 sec for the remaining outbound distance. Then it is 50 W, 30 km/h wind, 0 slope and 10 km go inbound, which need 15 min, 47 sec. In total that is 71 min 8 sec. Second approach is to spend your energy with the wind. We know from above that the inbound leg takes only 9 min 22 sec with 400 W. So you have 38 sec of 400 W left on the outbound leg, which bring a mere 0.284 km. So 9.716 km to go with 50 W, 30 km/h wind, 0 slope, needing a whopping 79 min 52 sec. In total that is 89 min 52 sec. This is the point you were trying to make. Spend your energy there where you need it most (against the wind or uphill). In the hilly/windy time trials that were mentioned, these two effects superimpose. Hills and wind will slow you down, but smart pacing will give you an advantage over the less smart competition. If, however, you record the power as a function of time and apply this to a course without hills or without wind, you will always see that you are able to achieve a higher average speed: For the above power profile (400 W for 10 min, then 50 W) with 0 km/h wind and 0 slope your "strong" 10 min last for 7.233 km. 12.767 km to go with 50 W, which take 39 min 5 sec, for a total of 49 min 5 sec. Much faster than both bad and good pacing. So in summary, we were both right, but things were a little bit muddled. I hope this clarifies things. Axel I wasn't really advocating any position, but that is an interesting explanation. I train based on FT threshold. I was climbing with a friend on my lunchtime ride through the west hills yesterday, and he sprints to the top of a maybe two mile climb. I'm just grinding along but decide to give it a big effort, knowing that when we hit the top, we'll go right or left on a rolling ridge road. So, I empty the tank, hit the top  and he goes straight ahead on a route we never take up a little 20% goat road and on to a dirt trail. The guy just wants to punish me this year. I yell "f*** that!" That's my FT threshold. If I exceed my FT threshold, all models fail, my output reduces to near zero, and swearing ensues. They need to factor FT threshold into those online calculators.  Jay Beattie. 
Ads 
#72




Pacing, wind, and climbs (was: How flat are The Netherlands?)
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 6:37:32 AM UTC7, Axel Reichert wrote:
jbeattie writes: On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 2:54:50 PM UTC7, wrote: This combination makes out and back TT's in the wind, better to expend as much energy as possible into the wind and then as much as you have left downwind. It's a math problem and actually works. Slaughter yourself on the climbs and recover on the descents. You can do it with headwinds, too, assuming you don't overspend on the way out. I think we have to clearly separate two things he 1. External (wind and climbs are the prime examples, but different surface, e.g., sand versus ultrasmooth asphalt, would also be possible) 2. Internal (the effort you are spending at a particular point of the trip, also known as pacing). Now with regards to 1, if you use http://kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm go to the "drops" position, enter 400 W, 0 wind, 0 slope and 20 km (default data elsewhere), you will get 27 min 39 sec for the time. Do it again with 400 W, 30 km/h wind, 0 slope and 10 km, you will get 22 min 18 sec for the outbound time. Do it again with 400 W, 30 km/h wind, 0 slope and 10 km, you will get 9 min 22 sec for the inbound time. In total this 31 min 40 sec for the round trip, so considerably longer than without wind. The same effect happens if you use +5 and 5 for slope out/inbound, respectively. This is left as an exercise to the reader. This is the point I was trying to make. External, additional forces WILL slow you down. Now with regards to 2, let us assume that you can sustain 400 W only for 10 min, and after that you bonk and have to limp home running on the emergency power system with 50 W. First approach is to spend your energy against the wind. With 400 W, 30 km/h wind, 0 slope and 4.483 km your "strong" 10 min are spent. With 50 W, 30 km/h wind, 0 slope and 5.517 km still to go, you will need 45 min 21 sec for the remaining outbound distance. Then it is 50 W, 30 km/h wind, 0 slope and 10 km go inbound, which need 15 min, 47 sec. In total that is 71 min 8 sec. Second approach is to spend your energy with the wind. We know from above that the inbound leg takes only 9 min 22 sec with 400 W. So you have 38 sec of 400 W left on the outbound leg, which bring a mere 0.284 km. So 9.716 km to go with 50 W, 30 km/h wind, 0 slope, needing a whopping 79 min 52 sec. In total that is 89 min 52 sec. This is the point you were trying to make. Spend your energy there where you need it most (against the wind or uphill). In the hilly/windy time trials that were mentioned, these two effects superimpose. Hills and wind will slow you down, but smart pacing will give you an advantage over the less smart competition. If, however, you record the power as a function of time and apply this to a course without hills or without wind, you will always see that you are able to achieve a higher average speed: For the above power profile (400 W for 10 min, then 50 W) with 0 km/h wind and 0 slope your "strong" 10 min last for 7.233 km. 12.767 km to go with 50 W, which take 39 min 5 sec, for a total of 49 min 5 sec. Much faster than both bad and good pacing. So in summary, we were both right, but things were a little bit muddled. I hope this clarifies things. Axel That site yields much higher power numbers than I would expect for a 75 year old. Using the actual speed averages I have been getting, it would appear that I'm generating 250 watts. That sounds very suspicious to me. I know that I'm continually in pain for the early season (with the lockdown read the first half of the season) and then suddenly I am riding comfortably at a higher speed. It will be interesting to see what the Garmin has to say about that. 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Liability in the Netherlands  Frank Krygowski[_2_]  Techniques  14  November 20th 13 05:49 AM 
Obesity in the Netherlands  Greens  Techniques  56  October 15th 07 12:20 AM 
LIVEDRUNK goes to the Netherlands  Ryan Cousineau  Racing  9  July 31st 07 08:30 AM 
Flat Resistant or Flat Proof Tires  Jeff Grippe  Recumbent Biking  9  February 3rd 07 05:35 AM 
Training in The Netherlands  Mark  UK  5  July 5th 05 11:47 PM 