Watts Per Kilogram

[old] Byron Drachman · Post by **[old] Byron Drachman** » October 26th, 2005, 7:22 pm

Hi Carla,<br /><br />Years ago when I was doing a little bike racing, we used to keep the rpm around 100 when doing an easy, long ride. During a race, we'd start at about 100 rpm and near the end when fatigue set in and we were becoming uncoordinated and inefficient, we'd drop the rpm. Sometimes I'd see skinny riders riding at higher rpms. I've seen cyclists with big legs who ride at lower rpms and that seems to work. For example, think of Jan Ulrich. OK, he's not Lance, but he is still a successful bike racer. <br /><br />Are the saddle height and other adjustments right for you? Do you know any local expert cyclists or coaches who could check it out for you? <br /><br />This is just personal opinion, but I always hated, and still hate, riding at 22 mph or faster. I can do it, but I think all it does is make you tired. I'd rather go 18mph or less or else do some intervals and go really fast. Have you tried doing some interval training, and going really slowly during the rest periods?<br /><br />It seems a little off topic, but I don't think it really is. After all, we do intervals on the ergs. <br /><br />Byron<br />

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » October 26th, 2005, 11:40 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Byron Drachman @ Oct 26 2005, 11:22 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi Carla,<br /><br />Years ago when I was doing a little bike racing, we used to keep the rpm around 100 when doing an easy, long ride. During a race, we'd start at about 100 rpm and near the end when fatigue set in and we were becoming uncoordinated and inefficient, we'd drop the rpm. Sometimes I'd see skinny riders riding at higher rpms. I've seen cyclists with big legs who ride at lower rpms and that seems to work. For example, think of Jan Ulrich. OK, he's not Lance, but he is still a successful bike racer. <br /><br />Are the saddle height and other adjustments right for you? Do you know any local expert cyclists or coaches who could check it out for you? <br /><br />This is just personal opinion, but I always hated, and still hate, riding at 22 mph or faster. I can do it, but I think all it does is make you tired. I'd rather go 18mph or less or else do some intervals and go really fast. Have you tried doing some interval training, and going really slowly during the rest periods?<br /><br />It seems a little off topic, but I don't think it really is. After all, we do intervals on the ergs. <br /><br />Byron <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Apologies for going off on a tangent here...<br />I had help from a local trainer/bike fitter who measured me up on the old bike and told me what I needed done on the new one to approximate the set up. He said my old way wasn't ideal, but the hope was to get the new one close to that and then make small changes. The handlebars needed to go up an inch and closer to the seat by 2 inches; the saddle had to go back 1/2 an inch. I had to get a new stem to even get close and it's not quite right. The drops are a tad too low still, so in the spring I plan to get bars with a shallower drop, and I'm backing off the seat, so I need to get one with longer rails, or a seat post that angles back. I don't feel anywhere near as powerful on this bike, either because it's so light it doesn't feel like a tank or because I'm not in the position I'm used to.<br /><br />As for riding 22 mph, I've never done a ride that averaged that high; highest average (on the iron maiden) was a 20 mile flat workout that averaged a bit above 17. I've done 3 x 25 hilly miles with each averaging in the 16s and want to do that on this new bike in the 19--20 range. I'm anxious to do rides that average around 20, that's why I made the switch to a lighter bike. I tend to ride relentlessly as fast as I can stand, rather than do intervals--but only because I've never had any group/team/whatever type riding. I don't care about how fast I go down hill and really love trying to go up hill as fast as I can, which used to be just stamping hard in high gears, but in the last few years I've been trying to learn to spin. But I think 145 is nuts, yes? <br /><br />It cracked me up to see that photo of Eric Heiden because the kids on my highschool track team used to tease me that I had his thighs. <br /><br />Weather is getting awful for biking here especially without the right gear, so I'll be resuming this in the spring. In the meanwhile, back to C2!

[old] ebolton · Post by **[old] ebolton** » October 27th, 2005, 6:52 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>As for riding 22 mph, I've never done a ride that averaged that high; highest average (on the iron maiden) was a 20 mile flat workout that averaged a bit above 17. I've done 3 x 25 hilly miles with each averaging in the 16s and want to do that on this new bike in the 19--20 range. I'm anxious to do rides that average around 20, that's why I made the switch to a lighter bike. I tend to ride relentlessly as fast as I can stand, rather than do intervals--but only because I've never had any group/team/whatever type riding. I don't care about how fast I go down hill and really love trying to go up hill as fast as I can, which used to be just stamping hard in high gears, but in the last few years I've been trying to learn to spin. But I think 145 is nuts, yes? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />From what you've said about both bikes, it should be impossible for you to go from 16 mph to 19 mph on a 75 mile ride due to the equipment change alone.<br /><br />But, you should go somewhat faster and you should feel less 'beat-up' afterwards on the newer bike, if it is set up right. If the new bike weighs 20 lb, old weighs 37 lb, and you weigh 140 lb, that's a 10% change for the whole package so you should notice a positive change accellerating and going up hills.<br /><br />Is your riding urban or rural? Rural riding has fewer stops-starts (works for speed) and usualy coarser pavement (works against speed). Also, what tires and pressures were you running on both bikes?<br /><br />145 cadence is not out-of-the-realm in certain situations. For extended stretches it is.<br /><br />Ed

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » October 27th, 2005, 11:05 pm

<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>From what you've said about both bikes, it should be impossible for you to go from 16 mph to 19 mph on a 75 mile ride due to the equipment change alone.<br /><br />But, you should go somewhat faster and you should feel less 'beat-up' afterwards on the newer bike, if it is set up right. If the new bike weighs 20 lb, old weighs 37 lb, and you weigh 140 lb, that's a 10% change for the whole package so you should notice a positive change accellerating and going up hills.<br /><br />Is your riding urban or rural? Rural riding has fewer stops-starts (works for speed) and usualy coarser pavement (works against speed). Also, what tires and pressures were you running on both bikes?<br /><br />145 cadence is not out-of-the-realm in certain situations. For extended stretches it is.<br /><br />Ed <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />HI Ed,<br />Well, I'm 5'11 and weigh 162. So it's not a 10% change, but it seems like it should make more of a difference than it's making. Most of my riding is rural. I have 120 psi tires on the new bike, it's got the aerodynamic flat spokes and only about half as many spokes as the old one, which, when I did the 3 x 25, had 75 lb knobby 1 1/4"? inch tires on it. <br />Maybe we should move this to another thread? I don't mean to be hi jacking this one.

[old] ebolton · Post by **[old] ebolton** » October 28th, 2005, 7:41 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(seat5 @ Oct 27 2005, 10:05 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />HI Ed,<br />Well, I'm 5'11 and weigh 162. So it's not a 10% change, but it seems like it should make more of a difference than it's making. Most of my riding is rural. I have 120 psi tires on the new bike, it's got the aerodynamic flat spokes and only about half as many spokes as the old one, which, when I did the 3 x 25, had 75 lb knobby 1 1/4"? inch tires on it. <br />Maybe we should move this to another thread? I don't mean to be hi jacking this one. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Probably should go to 'off topic', but we're here and I think we're almost done.<br /><br />I know you are a top-level erger, so I'm sure you can do anything on the bike you want to do. Here are my suggestions to help:<br /><br />*Follow Byron's advice and get the bike fit dialed in. The shop can start, but really the best way to tune it is to ride with the most experienced riders you can find, and ask their opinion. These folks can generally be found at the front of group rides. You should be there, too! Hint: when the bike fits realy well, it shouldn't sway at all in normal riding.<br /><br />*Lower the tire pressure. You and I are almost the same size, height and weight. I run 100 psi front and rear. You have to watch out for pinch flats when riding narrow tires at lower pressures, so if your new tires are really narrow (19C?) you might need to go to a wider tire. My favorite bike has wide, low-tech rims, so I run IRC Winner 28C tires on them. I love 'em- they may be heavy, but they corner great and they are inexpensive. They just barely fit in the back on my bike, tires that wide may not fit in yours. I saw a study a few years ago that experimentally determined the optimum tire pressure for a few types of pavement, and it was generally lower than bike CW indicates and it was lower for coarse surfaces. I'm not quite geeky enough to cite it, though. Here in NH, most of the rural roads are surfaced with spray tar and sand, which leaves a very course surface. I think the lower pressure helps to reduce rolling resistance and bike vibrations that work on you over a long time in the saddle. The rest of your wheel spec looks excellent.<br /><br />*Instrumentation. You might be going faster than you think you are, as measured in 'standard cycling' terms. I had a 7-year hiatus from the sport starting when my son was born in '91, and when I came back in '98 I discovered everybody had begun using the auto start/stop on their computers. This is, of course, very un-erg like as the clock does not run when you are stopped at intersections, in the bushes pee-ing, getting food/drink at convenience stores, etc . It actually improves your average to come to a dead stop rather than slowing down 3 mph. I remain opposed, but when in Rome... Now my logged average speeds are higher at 47 than when I was 25 (and just dividing distance by elapsed time).<br /><br />*Learn to ride. Ride with other people. There is much to learn about being efficient. Basic principals: nice smooth round pedal stroke, keep your speed (lay off the brakes, use terrain to gain speed), ride small (arms bent, don't splay the knees). I can elaborate more privately, or off-topic if you prefer.<br /><br />Finishing thought, to get at least a little bit back on-topic: The great thing about the erg is that it measures and trains performance of the athelete alone, and takes out variables of differing equipment, terrain and weather.<br /><br />Regards, late for work<br /><br />Ed

[old] jfisher · Post by **[old] jfisher** » October 28th, 2005, 8:40 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ebolton @ Oct 28 2005, 07:41 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />*Lower the tire pressure. You and I are almost the same size, height and weight. I run 100 psi front and rear. You have to watch out for pinch flats when riding narrow tires at lower pressures, so if your new tires are really narrow (19C?) you might need to go to a wider tire. My favorite bike has wide, low-tech rims, so I run IRC Winner 28C tires on them. I love 'em- they may be heavy, but they corner great and they are inexpensive. They just barely fit in the back on my bike, tires that wide may not fit in yours. I saw a study a few years ago that experimentally determined the optimum tire pressure for a few types of pavement, and it was generally lower than bike CW indicates and it was lower for coarse surfaces. I'm not quite geeky enough to cite it, though. Here in NH, most of the rural roads are surfaced with spray tar and sand, which leaves a very course surface. I think the lower pressure helps to reduce rolling resistance and bike vibrations that work on you over a long time in the saddle. The rest of your wheel spec looks excellent.<br /><br /><br />Ed <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Since this is already way off topic....<br /><br />Don't lower your tire pressure. 120 psi is normal for a good road tire. Lower tire pressures only increase rolling resistance, not decrease it. On my TT bike I ride 19C sewups that are run at 200psi. Yes, it feels like riding on a stone wheels, but it's fast, fast, fast. If you just have to have some comfort, then you can lower the pressure but you will fatigue faster and you do have to watch out for a rim pinch.<br /><br />I've raced on a lot of roads in NH and they seemed pretty good compared to the roads in ME. <br /><br />Jeff<br />semi retired USCF Cat 2 road racer.

[old] AtlCyclist · Post by **[old] AtlCyclist** » October 28th, 2005, 11:12 am

Since we've drifted off-topic, I'll put in my two cents regarding the very controversial subject of tire pressure. <br /><br />First, you cannot make blanket statements about what pressure to run. It depends on the the tire make and type, rider weight, road conditions and ride objective. A time trial on a silky smooth road is a good use of a very high-pressure (160psi or greater) tubular. On the other hand, high pressure tires do not perform as well on bumpy roads and, yes, there is scientific evidence of this. In short, when you run really high pressure on rough roads you tend to bounce from bump to bump (the tire cannot absorb it) - this slows you down. Lower pressure keeps your tires connected to the ground and it provides better grip in corners.<br /><br />For perspective, I weigh 165lbs and I run 105psi in the front and 110psi in the rear for standard training clinchers on the poor roads of Atlanta. Also, the PSI number of the sidewall of tires is the MAX not the recommended. In the final analyis, a slighter lower pressure than most people typically run (and lower than the max) will actually increase speed, comfort and grip. Only in rare applications are really high pressures necessary.<br /><br />Also a semi-retired Cat 2!

[old] Byron Drachman · Post by **[old] Byron Drachman** » October 28th, 2005, 4:44 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>You might be going faster than you think you are, as measured in 'standard cycling' terms. </td></tr></table> <br /><br />Ed makes a good point. The "average speed" registered by a computer can be deceiving. Slowing down for intersections, rolling slowly at the end of a ride to do a cool-down, etc., can make a big difference. Speaking of measuring your speed, I recently bought a Garmin Forerunner 201. If you shop around, you can get one for around $100. I took off the computers on my bikes and use the Garmin. What's nice is that it doesn't depend on measuring your rollout accurately, and you don't need to fuss recalibrating if you change to a different tire. You can also store locations and later download free satellite photos that carry coordinates with them, and mark where you've been. Great fun. <br /><br />Now let me connect this back to rowing. The Garmin is also great for rowing on water. You can try things and see if they help your speed, and know how far you went.<br /><br />Byron<br /><br />

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » October 29th, 2005, 1:03 am

Thanks everyone & again sorry for dragging this thread so far off its topic! It's great to hear from so many 'real' bikers (I'm not a Category anything, so I don't even have anything to consider myself retired from!) As for being a top erger, look at the difference in the competition betwen the women and that for the men--less than 100 women in every ranked distance in an age group. You can be high on the list without having to be the trained athlete that tops the men's lists. On the guy's list, there are usually multiple people with exactly the same time, or within .1 of the same time, and on the women's lists, you can be 20 seconds or some other silly amount slower than the #1 position and still land in #2.<br /><br />I'm riding Sunday--it's supposed to be 20 degrees warmer--and I think I will lower the pressure just a tiny bit. I'm not used to 120 and it's a little scary, actually. I have another saddle to try that will let me get further back and maybe that will help, too.<br /><br />What is a Garmin? and how can a speed measuring thing that works on a boat work on a bike?

[old] Godfried · Post by **[old] Godfried** » October 29th, 2005, 1:17 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(seat5 @ Oct 29 2005, 07:03 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What is a Garmin? and how can a speed measuring thing that works on a boat work on a bike? <br /> </td></tr></table><br />It is a <a href='http://www.garmin.com/products/forerunner201/' target='_blank'>"training assistant"</a> that uses GPS.

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » October 29th, 2005, 9:02 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Godfried @ Oct 29 2005, 05:17 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(seat5 @ Oct 29 2005, 07:03 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What is a Garmin? and how can a speed measuring thing that works on a boat work on a bike? <br /> </td></tr></table><br />It is a <a href='http://www.garmin.com/products/forerunner201/' target='_blank'>"training assistant"</a> that uses GPS. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Wow. That is totally cool. If I get one of those I might stop getting lost all the time!!

[old] jfisher · Post by **[old] jfisher** » October 29th, 2005, 2:06 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(seat5 @ Oct 29 2005, 09:02 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Godfried @ Oct 29 2005, 05:17 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(seat5 @ Oct 29 2005, 07:03 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What is a Garmin? and how can a speed measuring thing that works on a boat work on a bike? <br /> </td></tr></table><br />It is a <a href='http://www.garmin.com/products/forerunner201/' target='_blank'>"training assistant"</a> that uses GPS. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Wow. That is totally cool. If I get one of those I might stop getting lost all the time!! <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I have one and use it while running. It's great. I can also use it cycling and if I ever get a skull, then it would work for that too.<br /><br />I happened to have an REI account and was able to use my dividend to get it for about $50.00 US. <br /><br />Jeff

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » October 29th, 2005, 3:54 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Godfried @ Oct 28 2005, 10:17 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It is a <a href='http://www.garmin.com/products/forerunner201/' target='_blank'>"training assistant"</a> that uses GPS. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />How well does it work near high objects? I have a much older style Garmin that is just a straight GPS. The problem with it is that walking under trees and near buildings often leaves gaps in distances.<br /><br />Bob S.

[old] jfisher · Post by **[old] jfisher** » October 29th, 2005, 5:56 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rspenger @ Oct 29 2005, 03:54 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Godfried @ Oct 28 2005, 10:17 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It is a <a href='http://www.garmin.com/products/forerunner201/' target='_blank'>"training assistant"</a> that uses GPS. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />How well does it work near high objects? I have a much older style Garmin that is just a straight GPS. The problem with it is that walking under trees and near buildings often leaves gaps in distances.<br /><br />Bob S. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mine seems to work pretty well. I've run through some fairly wooded areas and havn't had too many problems. I think only twice have a lost a signal and that wasn't too long.<br /><br />I have the 201.<br /><br />Jeff

Concept2 Forum

Watts Per Kilogram

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training