October off? Nope.

Once upon a time, about a month ago, I had decided that I'd take October completely off the bike again like I did last year. Now I've changed my tune. The Sprints experiment is going well and I don't want to lose too much form heading into winter, so I've modified my plans to keep my TSS from dropping below 65 or 70 (it's about 85 now).

I'll do three workouts per week in October: Each week I'll ride the Tuesday Worlds in Macon, I'll do sprint intervals on Thursdays, and do a 4-hour endurance ride on Saturday or Sunday. In November, when the time changes, I'll begin Computrainer workouts during the week and ride with the Peach Peloton on Saturdays.

It will look like this through December:

A little explanation of the rides listed on the calendar:TSS is the Total Stress Score I expect for each ride.

CT 90-90-90 is a Computrainer ERG workout that I've created. After warmup, ride 20min @ 90% FTP, then do 2 x 5min @ 90% 5min max power, then 3 x 30sec @ 90% 30sec max power and cool down. Takes about an hour - TSS 83.

The sweet spot is 90% of FTP (250w for me). I'll do three 15-minute intervals at 250w with 7 minutes rest between intervals, then finish with three 20-second sprint intervals and a cool down (TSS 97).

Sprints are working?

I think my September Sprints experiment is working.

It makes sense that your body can only do what you have trained it to do, but I didn't fully appreciate it until I saw the numbers. After only two or three weeks of very unstructured sprint workouts (in some cases that means just throwing in a few sprints on my endurance rides), I can already see a difference. Yesterday I was doing a just tool around town kind of recovery ride. I decided to give one big effort up Persons Street to open my legs. I went hard, but didn't feel like I was hell-bent. My 30-second power from that spur-of-the-moment effort was 575 watts, 30 watts higher then my previous 30-second best power. That info nugget along with the data from my Grant Park crit on Saturday (best 40-min normalized power ever by 20 watts @ 295w).

Based on this preliminary anecdotal success, I'll continue the experiment into October to see where it takes me. I'll never be a sprinter, but I think this type of workout could really help me race crits better next year.

End of Season Assessment

I've completed my last race for 2007, so it's a good time to look back and see how the season went. I'll take the next few posts and look at several variables and how they changed from 2006 to 2007 and throughout the 2007 season.

First, I'll compare overall fitness. Two charts pretty much tell the story when it comes to my 2006 fitness vs my 2007 fitness. The first is Mean Maximal Power 2006/2007, shown here:




My Cycling Peaks WKO+ software searches the data from all of my power meter downloads throughout the season to compile this chart. The x axis is the time interval on a logarithmic scale, and the y axis is my best 2007 average power for each time interval. It's worth noting that my time trial data is not included because I don't yet have an Ergomo bottom bracket for the Cervelo.

It's pretty obvious that I've made huge gains since the 2006 season. My peak sprinting power has increased from about 800 watts to about 1000 watts. My 1-minute power has increased from about 300w to 460w, and my 1-hour power (Functional Threshold Power) has increased from about 210w to about 280w. Some of that is not reflected directly on the chart, but most of it is there.

Here is the same data presented using Normalized Power, which is essentially equivalent constant power (it needs at least 5 minutes of data to work, so there is no 0-5min data here):



My power has increased across the board, but the increase from about 240 watts to 300 watts normalized power for the 30-minute interval has probably made the biggest difference. That improvement has allowed me to stay in all my competitive division crits this year. With last year's power, I think I'd have been dropped in all of them. I held a normalized power of about 290 watts for 40 minutes in the Grant Park crit last weekend and still only barely was able to hang onto the end of a very hard charging front group. Maybe next year I can get that number to 310 or 320 so that I can contest those races instead of just hanging in there.

I'd say my 2007 improvements were due to:
30% - Peach Peloton rides last winter providing me a much better early-season base
30% - Tuesday Worlds hard rides making the longer high-intensity rides easier to do
20% - A fairly regular racing schedule (about 25 races over 7 months)
10% - Computrainer ERG workouts to maintain some intensity in early-season training
10% - Targeted training and self-analysis made possible by Ergomo power data and Cycling Peaks WKO+ software

TT Position - Phase II

Aero is important for going faster - that's obvious. But cycling past age 40 would be nice, too, and I'm 39. My new aero position is undoubtedly more aero than my old position, and therefore it's faster; but it puts more strain on my lower back than my old TT position did (and much more than my road position does) because my legs-torso angle is more acute. The last thing in the world I need is a bad back - that'll shut you down fast and for a long time. So I'm going to change again to save my back.

The reason my torso angle is so acute is that I lowered the bars and slid my saddle back at the same time when I developed my new position. I lowered the bars to flatten my back and drop my frontal area - that's standard. But I figured my power output would be higher if I slid my saddle back to something similar to my road position. I think it works - my power seems good. And moving the saddle back gave me an important unexpected benefit: it increased my reach so that my upper arms are at about a 45 degree angle with vertical. That lowers my shoulders and upper body more.

So I need to increase my legs-torso angle without going back to the higher shoulders-torso position. The first obvious thing to try is to slide the saddle back forward - maybe not as far as it used to be, but several inches, at least. That'll raise my shoulders because my upper arm angle will get back close to vertical. To lower my shoulders back down, I guess I'll take spacers out and lower the bars again.

One thing that I have learned in messing with this stuff is how cool Levi and Floyd's positions are on their TT bikes. I mentioned that I changed my upper arm angle away from vertical and lowered my shoulders by stretching out more. They have taken the exact opposite approach and changed their upper arm angles by bringing their bars in closer to the saddle, giving them the 'mantis' look. I'd love to try that, but I'd need a smaller TT bike frame - probably not going to happen. Before I move my position again, I'll photograph it and compare it to my old one so I can see how the angles are changing.

September Sprints

My racing season is over, so I've planned an experiment for the last 6 weeks before my October break: sprint training.

I rarely do sprint intervals -- partly becasuse I can't sprint, so I figure why worry -- and partly becasue they can be rather painful. But in looking at my 2006 data, I've noticed that even without any anaerobic-specific training work (except for what I get accidentally on Tuesday nights and in races) my maximum 5-second wattage has climbed from about 810 watts in 2006 to about 1000 watts in 2007. Maybe more importantly for practical application in racing, my maximum 10-second wattage has jumped from the mid 800s to 930 watts in the past couple of months.

Although I'll never be considered a sprinter, I want to find out how 6 weeks of sprint-specific training will affect my 5-second, 10-second, and 15-second maximal wattages. If I see a significant improvement by the end of September, I'll make sure to include sprint intervals in my training next spring. If my numbers don't move much, I'll leave out the sprint intervals next year and spend that time on hill repeats and TT threshold intervals.

Augusta Georgia Cup

MAX had another solid Georgia Cup weekend. A short summary:

Prologue
TT was a 4K relatively flat loop around a pond in a park. The first 150m were uphill, then most of the remainder was pretty flat with a few technical turns. Only Drew and I raced from Macon. I took 23rd with a 5:18 and Drew took 27th with 5:23. Drew lost a few seconds avoiding a car, but it was otherwise uneventful.

Crit
After inspecting the 1K crit course with a chicane at one end and pronouncing it 'wrecky,' Drew kept the rubber side down. (Drew, Trey, Jeff, and I all rode in the competitive crit). About half way through, the guy in front of me went down in turn 4. I had no where to go but over the top of him. Luckily, he and his bike padded my crash pretty well and the only major damage was a chainring tatoo on my hip and a little upper arm road rash. I replaced my chain and took to the pit for a free lap. I got back in an held on to the back of the main group for a 27th place finish and no lost time on GC. Jeff took 5th and picked up a $50 prime, and Drew placed 13th with a strong finishing sprint. Trey got caught behind the crash and delayed, but he didn't get a free lap because he didn't go down, so he was forced to battle for the remainder of the day.

Road Race
Jeff raced in the elite division in the morning and took 2nd in a 3-man breakaway! Congratulations, Jeff. It was very hot at 1:30 when Trey, Drew, and I got started, so they reduced our race from 4 laps to 3 (about 44 miles). The 14.6-mile loop course has a couple of significant hills early, rollers in the middle, and a little climb to the finish. Other than one long solo breakaway that got about a minute on the field in the middle of the race, it was pretty uneventful. We finished in an uphill sprint. Drew took 9th, I took 12th, and Trey was a few spots behind us. Only Drew and I from MAX entered all three races. I snagged 5th in the GC and Drew took 8th GC to finish off the season with a positive note.

Happy Talk meets the TT course

Ok, my last post was a bunch of happy talk about how I was so much more aero since I'd improved my position, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Numbers are interesting, but the subtitle of this blog is 'Notes on my attempt to ride a bike faster,' not 'Notes on my attempt to prove mathematically that I have a better aero factor.'

So -- today I did a time trial.

A little background:
I started training for races in April '06. For the first 6 months, I didn't own a power meter, but I wanted to track my training progress. So I established a little 6-mile out-and-back hilly time trial and ran it hard every few weeks. In early '06 my times were in the 17:30 range. I made a May goal to do the TT course in 16 minutes by the end of the season (September 2006). I worked hard, but the best time I could muster in '06 was 16:29 (21.4 mph). I was sort of ill with myself for setting an unrealistic goal - in retrospect, I thought, 60 seconds improvement on a 6-mile course was not realistic.

This year I have a power meter, so I didn't need the TT course to monitor my form. Also, my favorite races, Rome, Dahlonega, and Augusta would have a TTT, an uphill TT, and a 2-mile prologue, so I didn't work on my time trialing much this year. In May, when I thought my form was good and I'd go out and crush my pitiful '06 TT efforts, I ran my TT course and turned in a 16:45. Damn - 15 seconds off last year's best. I pretty much stopped using the course after that.

I tried the course again today. I knew I was more aero, but I was skeptical that I could maintain adequate power in my new TT position to go very much faster, particularly on a short, hilly track like my test course.

Well it turns out that I'm faster -- a LOT faster. I did the course in 15:29 (22.9 mph) in a slight breeze. That's a minute over last year's best, which was run when I was fresh - I'm not even fresh this week. That gives me real world proof that all my efforts are paying off and I'm getting faster.

Am I faster because I'm more powerful or am I faster because I'm more aero - probably both, but who cares - I'm faster, that's all that matters.

I'm now eager to work hard this winter in my new TT position and kill my personal best time in the Tundra Time Trial on the Silver Comet in February.

New TT position

I have worked very hard over the last 5 weeks to improve my time trial position to lower my CdA (drag coefficient x frontal area). On July 4th I performed aero testing showing my CdA to be 0.297 with my skinsuit, TT helmet, shoe covers, and the body position that I've been using for the last 6 years. That body position was set in a bike fit when I purchased the bike at All3Sports about 6 years ago.

I have made three significant changes gradually over the past 5 weeks, one at a time between rides. The first was a lowering of my bars by moving spacers from beneath the stem to above the stem. I've only lowered the bars about 2 cm so far and could probably go at least one more cm over the next month or so, but I only drop 1/2 cm at a time for acclimation purposes.

The second change has been a narrowing of my elbows by bringing the elbow pads on my bars closer together by about 2 cm.

The third change (the one that's made the most difference) has been seat position. I knew that my triathlon seat position was set a lot more forward than my road bike position. Triathletes need to save their hamstrings for the run, and the forward position also opens the waist angle to allow better breathing. I found that my road bike saddle was about 12 cm further back from the bottom bracket than my tri bike. That's a lot more than I expected. I flipped the seat mount around backwards on my Cervelo and also pushed the saddle back on the rails to move my saddle back about 8-10 cm from it's original position.

The original reason I did that was to get a similar saddle-to-pedal relationship to my road bike so that I'd use those muscles similarly and not have to train additional muscles for the TT bike. That's still a good reason, but I've discovered an even bigger benefit: by shifting my hips back 8-10cm, the angle of my upper arms relative to horizontal has moved from about 90 degrees (which maximizes my shoulder height above the bars) to an angle that might be about 65 or 70 degrees to the horizontal. That has had the effect of lowering my shoulders even further relative to my hips.

It does reduce the angle of my torso to my legs, but so far it seems manageable - I'll know more after riding that way for a while and doing some power testing on the computrainer.

The end result is a reduction of my CdA from 0.297 on July 4 to 0.270 on August 13th). At first those are just numbers on the page, but when I calculated the effect of that improvement on TT times for various distances, I was quite surprised.

IF I can hold a similar power in the new TT position as I held in the old one (a big if), I can expect to save about 45 seconds on a 10-mile TT like Perry-Roubaix (and most GA Cup races) and I can expect to save over 12 minutes on the Rock-n-Rollman half-iron 56-mile course. It seems almost ridiculous, but that's what the math shows. No wonder Levi gets himself into that crazy position for TTs - there are huge benefits to being so aero.

In the best-case scenario, I can get the aero improvement and generate more power due to the more road-bike similar position. I'm going to stop moving my position now and work for a few months on getting powerful and comfortable with the new setup.

My next task is to address rolling resistance. Based on published data, I can save chunks of time by ditching the tubular Tufos on aero wheels I'm now using (maybe Crr=.006) and replacing them with good aero clincher tires (maybe Zipp 404s) using latex tubes (maybe Crr = .0045). So next I'm onto the flat road coast-down tests for Crr calculation.

Dahlonega GA Cup Race Report

Here's my biased, mostly accurate, but certainly incomplete account of the Dahlonega Georgia Cup race for MAX Cycling Team:

Neels Gap TT
The course was about 5.1 miles up Neels Gap at 5.6%. The first bit was downhill, followed by a 1/2 mile of false flat, then a steady climb to the top. This was my first time trial using a power meter because I used my road bike -- having it to aid me in pacing was a big help. I stayed steady a little above my threshold power and had a good ride for me - 21:43. That put me 24th for the competitive division. Doug turned in a great ride at 19:55 or something like that to grab 2nd in competitive - 30 sec off the leader. Jeff 'Stoney' Clayton was 3 seconds off my time and Jake and Drew were not too far behind us. Christian rode 17:55 in Pro-1-2 to take 8th.

Black Mountain Road Race
It was a hot 19-mile loop with a short, steep climb up to Stonepile Gap early in the loop and lots of small hills to follow. Doug and Jeff both tried to go off the front, but both efforts failed. I think those were the only real attacks in the race. I started at the back of the 75-rider pack and spent most of the 45-minutes trying to fight my way forward around a couple of small crashes, flats, and chain drops, finishing maybe 30th (I was the last rider to get the same time as the winner). Jeff took 5th in a tough uphill sprint finish. Doug and Drew were somewhere ahead of me in the sprint, and Jake fought his way back to finish just behind me after getting caught in the yo-yo back part of the peleton.

I have to learn to either start closer to the front and stay there or I need to get better at moving up - but it's very difficult in a short, intense race with narrow roads. I burned a lot of unneccesary energy yo-yoing at the back. I need to be more aggressive on shooting through gaps in the peloton whenever possible.

Doug remained in 2nd for the GC race.

3-Gap Road Race
We rode a few miles, then Jake went off the front and gapped the peloton over the steep Stonepile hill. He was caught at the base of Woody's by a group of about 25 or 30 that started up Woody's together. I dropped off the front group to stay in my zone. A little later, I passed Jake, who was still recovering from his hard early breakaway effort. Then I apprached Drew in a group of about 6 half way up the climb. I accelerated and passed them, hoping he would jump on, but he stayed with the group. After I had a good gap on that group (30 sec?), I settled back into my rythem. A few minutes later, it was great to see that Drew had put in a huge effort to drop his group and bridge up to me. The two of us worked together and topped Woody's alone, then made a hard descent int Suches, where we caught a few others and rode to Wolfpen in a group of about 6 that included Tres Cordin, the big guy in the green Kenda kit (same guys I was with in the chase at Rome), and the red-haird guy from Harbin.

I accelerated on Wolfpen and had a gap of maybe 25 or 35 seconds on the group when we topped Wolfpen Gap. I tried to kill the very technical descent and felt I had done pretty well. At the bottom, I was amazed again to see that Drew alone had out-descended his group and caught me - Mr. D has found that going down hill quickly is a strong point of his to say the least!

Drew and I worked together up Neels, catching a few folks until he told me to go ahead about half way up as he jumped into a group of about 4 or 5 riders. I think I had about 30 or 45 seconds on his group at the top of Neels. I descended as fast as I possibly could down Neels, hoping to find another group to ride in from Neels to Stonepile, but I'm light and not very fast going downhill. Drew's group caught me at the false flat on Neels where the time trial started.

Then I made a huge tactical mistake: At the TT I had stashed a water bottle in the grass on a false flat going down Neels. I was completely out of water with an hour left to ride, so I made a decision to sprint a little ahead of the group, thinking that I could easily pick up the bottle and rejoin for the remainder of the descent. It only took me about 10 seconds to grab the bottle, but all my efforts could not get me back on the group. I almost caught them at the bottom of the climb, but by the time we reached Turners Corner, they had about 20 seconds on me. I chased hard for another 5 minutes, but was loosing ground on them. I had spent lots of energy for nothing and lost the group. Utter stupidity on my part. They probably gained 2 or 3 minutes on me between Turners Corner and Stonepile Gap, and I was very tired from the chase.

I didn't know it, but Jake had been chasing just behind Drew and I for most of the day. Jake caught up with me on the 2nd Woody's climb and we worked together for a while. About half way up, Jake told me to go and I went as hard as I could to the finish. Jake outsprinted a couple of chasers at the top when he arrived.

Doug and Jeff spent most of their day at the front and Doug picked up some KOM points and time bonuses, which may break an almost exact time tie and put him in 1st place in GC. Jeff's strong finish will probably put him in the top 10 GC. Drew's very strong descending, steady effort, and smart tactics might have moved him up into the top 25 in GC. Jake and I both felt good about our rides, but likely did not get any top 25 GC points.

If Doug wins GC, that's 2 races in Georgia Cup yellow in a row for him and for MAX - a very strong showing.

Strange Days Indeed

Most Peculiar.

It's been almost 2 weeks since I returned from RAGBRAI and 500 hard miles in 7 days. I still have not recovered. The best word to describe the past 2 weeks might be 'strange'. For the first week or so, I could tell that my body was working hard to repair itself because I'd wake up in the middle of the night with a noticeably higher heartrate than normal, and I was always hot and sweaty - both during the day and when sleeping. I had the familiar deep muscle fatigue that I feel when I wake up the day after hard ride, but it never went away throughout the day.

As the first recovery week progressed, I continued to ride, but shorter and mostly easier than normal. I'd feel great on the road one minute and like I wanted to climb off the bike the next. Steady tempo efforts were sometimes very difficult, but then I'd try a short hard effort or do a hard climb and feel much better.

Then 7 days into recovery, I made the brilliant decision to ride a century in 98 degree heat. I felt ok, but I'm sure it set back my rebound by a week or two.

I have a hypothesis that the long steady Iowa rides heavily stressed my slow twitch muscle fibers and sub-threshold energy systems, but had little effect on my fast-twitch muscle fibers (yes, I do have a few) and superthreshold energy systems. That's why I'd feel fine powering up a hill on a group ride, then think I was about to die when we eased into a tempo paceline.

I went out today and did a few hill repeats on my normal training hill to loosen up my legs and I set a new time and wattage record without even going all out. I climbed my little training hill in 44 seconds and averaged about 510 watts -- about 16 seconds faster than in April. But my legs felt horrible the entire time - go figure.

I'm not sure what it all means for the Dahlonega race this weekend, but I'll know pretty soon.

CTL Increase

As I mentioned in my last post, I'll be very interested to see how 7 days of hard riding in a row will affect my performance over the next weeks and months. I was surprised at how much my training loads were affected by the week.

This graph reflects CTL, ATL, and TSB for the 2007 season:















This graph reflects my CTL since I started training for cycling in spring 2006:

RAGBRAI

This is mainly a training blog, so I won't bore with a lot of RAGBRAI stories, but it was a unique week and I'm sure Google will give you all the stories and photos you want. There is no way you can get 15,000 cyclists across 500 miles of corn fields without some great stories.

Betty Jean and I rode our tandem. Most riders were recreational riders and many drank LOTS of beer every night. I drank beer and had fun, but also enjoyed riding hard. Betty Jean is a strong stoker. That meant that we probably passed about 70,000 riders during our 7 days of riding. We didn't intentionally count, but we were probably passed by fewer than 20 riders throughout the 7 days of riding, and kept an average speed between 19-22 mph.

Many riders made a game of jumping from one paceline to another. We made a game of blowing up pacelines. Whenever we saw a paceline in front of us, we'd gain speed and blow by them to see if we could get by without picking up any passengers. Most times we could, other times we'd see how long it took us to drop the riders who jumped on our wheel.

The end result is that I rode pretty hard for 70 miles a day for seven days. I feel good, but look forward to seeing how that type of effort affects my performance over the next few weeks. My guess is that I'll be stale for a week or two, then see some benefit. I'll post my performance manager chart soon. My CTL jumped from a steady 84 over the past few weeks to about 104. If I see a big benefit from the long 'training' block, I'll start throwing in a block like that every couple of months during the season if possible.

MAX took Rome

A follow-up to my last Rome Georgia Cup report:

MAX Cycling had 5 riders in the top 20 GC and would have had 6 but for Drew Slocum's flat in the road race (our 7th, Todd Wilson did not compete in the GC). Also, Jeff would likely have taken 2nd, but got caught behind a crash with 2 to go in the crit. A very strong showing -- we're ready for Dahlonega next.

Doug Ott - 1st
Jeff Clayton - 3rd
Robert Jordan - 7th
Trey Gavin - 19th
Jake Andrews - 20th

Rome Georgia Cup Race Report

What a great race! The MAX Racing Team was born in Rome this weekend, and I hope we can keep it rolling. There is so much to report about Rome that it's impossible for me to give a complete report. This is not intended to reflect everything that happened -- I'm sure there's lots of stuff that I missed and it's probably unintentionally biased, but here's some of it from my perspective:

Racing for MAX in Rome:
Drew Slocum
Todd Wilson
Trey Gavin
Jake Andrews
Jeff Clayton
Doug Ott
Robert Jordan
(Chad Madan also raced for Pacesetter)

TTT - Great conditions, relatively flat 14-mile course with some rollers and false flats, four U-turns, and one 90d turn. We started well with 30-second pulls in a single paceline. After the first turn I still felt good. We shortened pulls to about 15 seconds and I was starting to struggle somewhat when pulling around Jake at the front. Jeff instructed us to move it 'up' to about 90% effort. The problem was that I was already way above that. At the 6 mile point I knew I was weakening and would not be able to hold out until the end, so I decided to do three more pulls as strong as I could, then get out of the way. I did that and peeled off at about mile 8 or 9 because I felt that I had started to slow the team down. I kept up a steady pace and eventually joined Trey and Todd, who did their work and peeled off later as well. Doug, Jeff, Drew, and Jake drove the train for the last few miles with Drew then Jeff peeling off nearer the finish. Jake and Doug drove the train into the station with Doug nipping Jake at the line. Average speed was around 26.1 mph. We later learned that we finished 3rd. We hoped for a win, but it was a strong first-time performance.

Crit - Downtown Rome, long, rectangular crit course with a significant little bump after turn 2. The field included about 70 riders. The race started very fast, as usual. Four of our 7 riders had never raced a crit, which put them at a big disadvantage from the start. Todd and I ended up starting at the back of the pack because of our late team podium presentation, so that made it even tougher to get started. I struggled in the first few laps, but finally clawed my way up into a more comfortable spot in the peloton where the yo-yo action was a little less severe. I could see Doug and Jeff constantly at the front attacking and bridging to other attacks. The PA announcer was constantly talking about the MAX attacks and tactics. Jeff and Doug even tried once to bridge together, which the announcer called a 'very rare move' I think. Being new to crits and getting caught behind crashes (and in Drew's case, in a crash) eventually caused Todd, Jake, and Drew to lose contact with the peloton. Jake made a valiant solo chase to no avail. Trey and I did some blocking in front a couple of times as Doug and Jeff set off the fireworks at the front, but it was a pretty uneventful race for me. Jeff got caught up in a crash with two laps to go. He got back going, but lost 1 minute to the field. I finished last in the peloton sprint (26th) as Trey sprinted around me for 24nd place. I don't know Jeff's and Drew's finish places, but they didn't podium. Of the four of us, only Jeff lost any time in GC. That was my crit goal, so I was satisfied. Doug, Trey, me, and Jeff sat at 5th, 6th, 7th, and 11th in GC, respectively after the crit thanks to the strong TTT.

Road Race - The 70-rider field started rather calmly over 5-8 miles of rollers with a couple of breaks that went nowhere. All 6 MAX riders sat in the top 25 spots, but did little work except for Jeff doing some. After a 1K climb that got everyone's heart pumping, we started a long false flat, then a long (5 mi) very gradual downhill run to the base of Horne Mountain (a 3K 6% climb that took about 13 minutes). During the 10-mile run-in to the mountain, Drew and Jake did lots of hard work and drove the MAX train in the front and completely controlled the race, not allowing anyone to think about getting a break before the climb. Doug sat out of the wind in 3rd acting as gatekeeper so Jake and Drew could roll unimpeded. As we reached the climb, the pace was very strong and all 6 MAX riders were near the front. I was amazed at how hard some of the riders started the climb. Did they not realize that it would last 13 minutes? The peloton quickly ceased to exist. A long string of riders intermittently topped the mountain, with Doug and Jeff getting KOM points and time bonuses. I'd guess I went over in about 20th place. I worked very hard on the descent and eventually gelled with 8 other riders to form a chase group behind a lead group of 7, which contained Doug and Jeff. We passed the feed station with a 30-second deficit to the 7-man break. It took my chase partners a few minutes to figure out that I had two teammates in the break and was more than a little unmotivated to chase. I gummed up the works as best I could for 5 or 10 minutes as about 10 to 15 more riders bridged to us. After the 1K climb, I was pleased to hear that the lead group had expanded it's lead to 1:10. I sat on the back and had an easy next 8 miles. The next time check was 2:20 to the lead group, so I knew Jeff and Doug's group would not be caught. About that time, Jake pulled his group of about 8 (I think he did most of the work) into our chase group. He had been working very hard to rejoin. We hit the base of Horne Mt. for the final ascent with about 30 riders. I got in a groove and was doing well -- sitting about 4th in a long string of 30 from the chase peloton. About 200m from the finish I stood up to 'sprint.' I think fast-twitch muscles do not exist in my body anyway, and any that I had at the start of the day were dead. A couple of riders passed me within about 25 feet of the line and one guy went around me on the finish by half a wheel - I finished 14th. Doug finished 2nd and Jeff finished 3rd for the stage. Drew flatted on the 1st climb, but restarted and passed lots of folks before the finish. Jake and Trey finished well also on the tough climbs.

The GC finish order was not posted when we left due to a scoring problem, but I think Doug might have won the GC! Jeff was probably top 5, and I might have squeaked into a top 10 GC.

It was a super successful first-time team effort for MAX. And we probably had as much fun away from the races as in the races. I'll update with more info as I have it.

TT Frontal Area

In my methodical attempt to improve my time trialing, I plan to do coast-down aero testing to try changes in body position, etc. But before I start doing coast-downs over and over I need to nail down as many known variables as possible to make sure I'm not wasting my time and getting junk numbers (although the testing is a great way to get in good hill repeat sessions).

One of the variables is frontal area. Most folks just combine frontal area (A) with drag coefficient (Cd), call it CdA and are done with it. But if I have a good measurement of A, then I can isolate Cd pretty accurately. Then when I make positional changes on the bike, I can get a preliminary idea of how much it will help just by measureing A again.

To measure A, I took a digital photograph, imported it into AutoCAD, properly scaled it using the tape measure in the picture, traced my frontal area, and measured it directly. I found it to be 4.185 square feet, or 0.3888 square meters. I was pleased to know it was fairly close to the 0.35 square meter estimate I had been using. Based on the limited coast-down testing I did the other day, I think my current CdA is about 0.297. That's good news, becasue that's not a great number. For my size, I should realistically be able to lower it to something between 0.230 and 0.265 depending on whose research you read. Conservatively, that would be at least 89% of my current drag.

Power required to overcome drag is directly related to CdA, so a 89% improvement in CdA would mean I could go the same speed at 89% of the power output it used to take. That type of improvement would be well worth the effort. It might not show benefits at first, though, because a more aggressive position might limit my power output to 89% of my old position until I can train enough in a new position to get the power back up. Six months of once a week time trial training should do the trick, I hope.

Here's the photo with my frontal area hatched in AutoCAD:










Andrew Coggan believes the optimal position on a TT bike for aerodynamics and power output is having your shoulder 5cm above your hip. I don't know if I measured properly, but as you can see in this photo, my shoulder is at least 18cm above my hip in my current position:

Poor man's wind tunnel

I wanted to know what effect my TT bike, Aero helmet, and skinsuit had on my drag coefficients and TT finish times, but didn't want to pay $2500 for a couple of hours in a wind tunnel. So I found the longest fairly low-traffic hill near my house, a 0.6-mile climb with a 3.5% average grade. Starting at a constant 20mph at the top to eliminate momentum factors, I coasted down the hill lots of times with different aero setups to determine my drag coefficients. I know that my power was 0 watts, so I was able to eliminate power measurement from the list of uncertainties. My typical average speed was in the 23mph range, so I know my numbers will be valid for my average TT speeds.

The only factor pushing me down the hill was gravity, so weight was important. I carefully weighed myself in my kit/shoes/helmet and the bikes prior to testing.

I ran at least 3 'no-car' runs for each setup and averaged them. (I found that each car that passed me during the tests cut about 1 second from my finish time, so I threw out all the runs where cars passed me during the test). There was little or no breeze, it was 88 degrees, and I alternated test runs with various equipment in case the environmental conditions changed during the testing.

The spreadsheet I used required entry of a drag coefficient and/or a bike and rider frontal area and factored those with an air density number to get an 'A2' factor that it used in the calculation. I got everything to work well in the spreadsheet, but I still don't know exactly what my frontal area and drag coefficient are, but I'll work on that later. I used a rolling resistance of 0.004 (which I realize now might be too low for my tubular tires - it's probably nearer .0055).

Here are my averaged results for each setup:
Orbea Orca with standard team kit and helmet, riding in drops - 1:34.5
Cervelo P2K with standard team kit and standard helmet, in aerobars - 1:30.0
Cervelo P2K with standard team kit and TT helmet, in aerobars - 1:29.3
Cervelo P2K with skinsuit and TT helmet, in aerobars - 1:25.8

I was pleased to find that even my low-tech testing was able to accurately measure the effect of even changing helmets on a minute and a half section. The repeatability of the runs was very good, usually within 1 second.

The biggest surprise was the skinsuit. Changing from the team kit to the skinsuit has as much effect at going from the road bike to the tri bike! And the numbers are huge. For a 40K TT, the skinsuit would save 1 minute, 46 seconds. That's a lot of time. Based on my time in the recent half iron man, I saved 4 minutes and 18 seconds purely by wearing the skinsuit and TT helmet. For the short 10-12 mile TTs usually included in the Georgia Cup races, I'll save almost a minute by wearing the skinsuit -- that's amazing to me.

And these numbers are not wild guesses, they are real world measurements that can be easily and accurately extrapolated to racing.

Don't stop training hard -- the bike won't power itself. But for God's sake, buy a skin suit if you're going to ride TTs.

Next I plan to play around with my bar height, bar angle, etc. to see if I can get any measurable effect. And rolling resistance is also on the list of things to investigate.

Since originally posting this earlier in the year, I've fine tuned my analysis spreadsheet. You can view or download it at Badger 3 if you are interested.

Faster TT - Attack Hills or Kill Descents?

In discussing time trial strategies with other riders, I've found that everyone seems to have a different approach to dosing their power over a rolling TT course. There's the 'don't start too hard' rule, which I think is very valid -- I make that mistake often. Then there's the question of when to stand out of the bars, etc.

But the question that I was most uncertain about was whether to put more effort into climbing or descending (assuming that your average wattage for the entire ride is constant). A very good time trialist I know says he powers the descents and that gives him an advantage. I've always heard that I should put out more effort on the climbs and recover on the descents. One coach told me to stand on the last 25% of each roller to maintain momentum. So I've done the math.

I modeled the situation using a spreadsheet allowing input of temperature, elevation, power, frontal area, friction coefficient, rolling resistance, and weight for various course sections. I constructed a 1-mile TT course with a 1/2-mile, 6% climb followed by a 1/2-mile 6% descent. I used aero coefficients that represented climbing on the hoods and descending in the drops. The average power over the course is 250 watts for all three situations.

Constant effort:
If I generate a constant 250 watts over the course, I get the following times: climb (2:58)+ descent (0:45)=total (3:43).

Harder climbing:
If I generate 270w for the climb and 178w for the descent, I get: climb (2:48)+ descent (0:46)= total (3:34). That's 9 seconds faster than the constant power ride.

Harder descending:
If I generate 240w for the climb and 290w for the descent, I get: climb (3:05)+ descent (0:44)= total (3:48). That's 5 seconds slower than the constant power ride.

I tried the same thing for a 3% climb and got similar results. The end result is this: If you are going to ride with a non-constant power output, it's better to hit the hills hard and take it easier on the descents. Extra power output doesn't do you as much good when you are at higher speeds because it gets eaten up by wind friction at a 3rd power rate.

Why does my friend the good time trialist think it helps to kill the descents? Probably because he kills the descents but continues to kill the climbs too! So he ends up with a greater average power for the ride. The moral of the story is "If you have to recover somewhere on the ride, do it on the descents, not the climbs."

FTP Testing and Hammerhead Sharks

Accurate functional threshold power (FTP) testing can be a little tricky. It's rare that you'll get to measure the real number directly -- that can only happen when riding a 1-hour TT effort in competition on a bike with a power meter (my TT bike has none). But you need an accurate number because you use it to set up all of your interval training power ranges. Therefore, you have to use other methods to test for and calculate your FTP.
__________________________________________________________

Analysis paralysis warning: If you're not really, really interested in FTP, save yourself the pain, stop reading here, and just check out my birthday present from Betty Jean instead. I think I'll call him Clayton -- Jeff seems to enjoy hammering as much as anyone I know.










___________________________________________________________

Ok, back to the numbers. In converting other testing numbers into an accurate FTP value, you have to consider the racing vs. training factor and also, if using a trainer for testing, a factor for converting your max effort on a trainer to your potential effort on the road. And finally, it's hard to do 1 hour all-out tests. I do three a year. Between those tests, I keep track of FTP by doing 20-minute efforts and using factors as described below. So you have the 20m to 60m conversion factor too.

I ran a 20-minute test last night on the Computrainer to try and establish the wattage relationship between a 20-min computrainer (CT) test and a 20-min test on the road. I started out way, way, too hard, but leveled out eventually and ended up with average 20-min wattage of 268, which is exactly what my last hour-long road FTP test calculated as my FTP. It’s also exactly 95% of my peak 20-min wattage in the Edgar Soto TT a few weeks ago. Also, it’s interesting to note that the CT gave me the exact same average wattage as did my Ergomo, so they matched perfectly.

So there are a couple of things going on here. First, I’ve become very confident that the relationship between 20-minute average wattage and 60-min (FTP) wattage is 0.95. I have multiple tests showing that my maximum 20-minute power output in races is 95% of my calculated FTP. So I’m holding fast to that relationship. I’m also pretty confident in the training-to-racing 103% relationship (adrenaline/motivation in races allows you to generate about 3% higher wattage over 1hr than in training) is accurate. What I have now is a new relationship between CT testing and road testing in training.

So here are some conversions. First, my designations are:
road = training on the road
CT = training on the Computrainer
race = data from a race

FTP has always been defined as 1 hour race average power:
FTP = 1.00 x (60m – race)

In a 1hr training road test, we increase measured power by 3% to account for adrenaline, motivation, et cetera:
FTP = 1.03 x (60m – road)

A 20-minute race TT gives you 5% higher average power than your 60-min race power, so:
FTP = 0.95 x (20m – race)

For a 20-minute non-race test on the road, we have to throw in both the 95% conversion from 60m to 20m and the training/racing adrenaline factor:
FTP = 0.95 x 1.03 x (20m – road) = 0.98 (20m – road)

Ok, here is the new stuff that I've just figured out:
For whatever reason, I’ve found that power output on the Computrainer is about 2% less than non-racing testing on the road for an extended effort (probably due to heat, lack of breeze, inability to move around, mental factors). So we need to account for that extra 2% with a third factor of 1.02, so:
FTP = 0.95 x 1.03 x 1.02 (20m – CT) = 1.00 (20m CT)

So when all is said and done and you get rid of all the numbers, you end up with a very simple relationship for testing FTP:
FTP is your average 20m power on a CT. That's without a doubt the easiest, most consistent way to test.

Cycling Peaks graphs

After seeing the power graphs I posted the other day, someone asked how much and what type of data the Ergomo collected on each ride and how it can be viewed. The answers are: more data than you would ever want to view for each ride, and I store/view it in CyclingPeaks software. Once in a while the more detailed graphs are useful. Here are some examples of ways you can view the data. All of these charts reflect Tuesday 6-26-07. As usual, click to enlarge:

Raw power charts

A few folks have inquired about seeing some raw power data, so I've thrown in some charts from the past week.

This first one is from the Savannah Georgia Cup crit last Saturday. It's obvious that it's a crit because of the consistent power spikes required to accelerate out of each corner (there were only two corners on the half-moon shaped course). To prepare for a race like this, doing about forty 10-second intervals at 600-700 watts with 200-watt, 30-second recovery would be about right. I rode at the back a lot and the yo-yo effect makes the cornering 'intervals' even more distinct than they would have been up front.

These two power charts are from yesterday's Macon ride. Keith rolled off the front (he might have just planned a short jaunt) and I went up to join him and turn it into a 35-minute suicide mission. It was a futile effort, but great training. The first chart is with no data smoothing and the second is with smoothing (30-sec running average, I think). The horizontal line is my functional threshold power (FTP) of 268 watts. My normalized power for the effort was 289 watts, so I think it's time for me to test FTP again.

How to win the flats - Savannah

The Savannah Georgia Cup courses last weekend were flat - that was no surprise. The TTT course had a few rollers and some breeze, but the crit and the circuit were open, flat, and the wind effects were present but minimal. I assumed going in that I had virtually no chance to win or place high in races on flat stages where a sprint finish was very likely. I've been thinking about why I made that assumption beforehand and about why it was an accurate assumption.

Trey and I formed a 2-man team for the TTT. On a flat course with a couple of short, small grades (2-4%) and a light breeze, we averaged 24.3 mph over about 14 miles. That corresponds to something between 280 and 300 watts average power output over half and hour. That seems reasonable, because my FTP is about 270 and Trey's is probably somewhere in that range also. That means each of us was essentially doing 1-minute intervals at 280-300 watts with a one minute 'rest' at about 240 watts or so. Our TTT experience was virtually identical to what one would expect to face in a two-man break off the front of a circuit or crit (except for the less aero road bikes vs. TT bikes).

The average speeds for the competitive division (4/5) crit and circuit were just under 26 mph, and both races had fairly consistent speeds. That means that the riders at the front of the peloton at any given time were riding at about 325 watts on the flats with no wind. That number seems reasonable. In order for any rider or pair of riders to get off the front and sustain a gap, they would need maybe 30 seconds of 400 or 450 watts to get away, then a sustained 325-350 watts just to maintain the small gap. Unless I'm mistaken, there aren't many category 4 or 5 riders who can generate that kind of sustained power. I can sustain 385 watts for a couple of minutes or so, but would probably not be able to ride at a sustained 300 watts for any length of time afterward. That's why my assumption about not being competitive in Savannah held true. As a matter of fact, both the crit and the circuit ended in a bunch sprint. Evidently there were no riders in our races that had the kind of power I described above.

And it gets even tougher in the elite and pro, 1, 2 races, where I think the average speeds were at least 27 mph and 28 mph, respectively.

Thankfully for me, all that I have said above goes out the window on courses like Dahlonega, where pure wattage takes a back seat to watts/kg and top speed pretty much disappears from the equation. It doesn't mean I'll podium in Dahlonega, it just means I'm not almost mathematically eliminated before I start.

Savannah Georgia Cup

The GA Cup races this weekend in Savannah were very flat and very fast. Racing from Macon were Trey Gavin, Jeff Clayton, Chad Madan, myself, and Richard Cook.

The Saturday morning Team Time Trial was the toughest of the three stages for me. Trey and I formed a two-man team (the minimum for Competitive division). It was a flat 14-mi course with a few small inclines and a light breeze on half of the route. We started out too fast with too much adrenaline, I think, and had to struggle to keep up the pace at the finish. But all in all we had a good TTT, passing the groups that started 1 minute and 2 minutes ahead of us, both of which were 3-man teams. Our average speed was 24.3 mph. It would have been very beneficial to have had one or two additional teammates. The draft effect would have been larger and it would have provided a critical extra few seconds for catching our breath between pulls. But it was a fun ride. We finished 11th of 20 teams and beat all the 2-man, 3-man, and 4-man teams. A GA Cup screw-up on the web site caused Jeff to miss his TTT start. Richard was paired with another single and had a good ride. I think Chad's team took 4th.

The Saturday afternoon 'crit' was hot. They called it a crit, but really it was a short, half-moon shaped circuit race with two open, wide turns. Trey and I both stayed with the front group in a race that was very fast by cat 4/5 standards (25.8 mph). I moved up to the front a couple of times, but didn't have enough juice to try anything. Trey raced aggressively and stayed up front a lot. He took 2nd in a time bonus prime and finished top 20 in the sprint. I was probably at about 30th. I didn't realize until after the race that they didn't give the same time to everyone finishing together in the final group, so I lost a few seconds there. Jeff raced well but finished mid-pack in his race, and I think Chad finished mid-pack after doing quite a bit of up-front work for Pacesetter earlier in the race.

The Sunday circuit race was on a wide, fast mini-Indy car track with about 7 turns. It was another very fast race (25.7 mph) with wide open turns and some breeze. It finished similarly to the crit for Trey and I, but included much more carnage. At least four crashes occurred during the race, with one guy breaking his collar bone, I think. Lots of scraping aluminum and cracking carbon (road rash makes no sound). Jeff covered all the breaks in his race, but none of them stuck. He finished mid-pack in the sprint.

I guess you can see that the theme down there was fast, open, sprinter's races. The TTT pretty much set the finishing order in the GC, and we don't have many sprinters from Macon, so we didn't bring home any hardware, but it was a fun weekend. Dahlonega in two weeks will see an entirely different list of names on the leaderboard.

BBQ Bass

Lunch stop at the BBQ Bass ride. Click to enlarge.

Rock 'n Rollman

I had a good ride at the Rock 'n Rollman 1/2 IM on Sunday -- I bettered last year's time by about 21 minutes and finished in 2:33:45. I'm glad I rode well, and I want to identify what I did right so it won't be a one time show. I have several theories, and it's probably some combination of all of them:

1. More mileage - My mileage/training time since April hasn't been drastically different than what I've done in past years, but it's a little higher (150-200 miles/wk this year compared with 100-200 miles/wk last year). The real difference was during the winter months. I averaged about 150 miles per week instead of 75. And a big chunk of that riding was in the Peach Peloton in 60-135 mile rides. Those long winter rides probably helped me build a bigger aerobic base, which allowed me to keep my heart rate steady at 155 bpm (7 bpm below FT) throughout the ride instead of having it decay steadily from 155 to 130 like it did last year.
2. Weights - I hit the weights over the winter -- mostly squats and leg extensions. I'm not sure the lifting really helped me, but it is a difference from last year.
3. Psychology - I think this was the big one. I've never argued that the mental approach to sports performance is important, but I think this ride was the first time I took full advantage of it. There was a steady brisk breeze in our face from the start to the half way point in Roberta. Instead of bitching and moaning about the headwind (like I heard lots of my competitors doing), I was begging for it not to stop because I had convinced myself (accurately, I think), that I was more aerodynamic than most riders (small body size, TT helmet, skinsuit, tri-bike w/aero wheels, shoe covers, etc.) and that the harder the wind blew the more time I was gaining on them. Also, I didn't have to run after the bike because I was on a relay team. That allowed me to leave it all on the road, mentally and physically.
4. No swim - Because of the relay team I didn't swim before the ride. This obviously gave me some advantage, but I don't know how much.
5. Tandem riding - This one was unexpected. I've done some tandem riding with Betty Jean this spring. It's made me much more aware of the effect of momentum on riding rolling hills. On a tandem, momentum is a much, much bigger factor than it is on a single. I've learned that increasing the effort in the last 1/4 of a short climb can make a big difference on your speed down the back of the hill. So I jumped out of the saddle toward the end of most small climbs to maintain momentum for the decent. I'm convinced it made a difference in my downhill speed and had the added benefit of improving the blood flow to my leg muscles, which is an issue that I almost never hear mentioned but I think is important. "Attacking" the hills also was good for the mental game.
6. Aero equipment - I picked up a LG aero helmet on eBay for $60 and a Colnago skinsuit for $40. I know they made some real difference (as much as a few minutes), but they definitely make me feel faster, and that's probably more important than their actual effect (see number 3).

Cycling improvement is a combination of lots of small things. One at a time they may not make a noticeable difference, but together they do.

Jordan Engineering BBQ Bass Ride

BBQ Bass Ride details:

--

Start - 9am Saturday, June 9th at the Jordan Engineering, Inc. parking lot @ 144 N. Warren St., Monticello, GA (across the street from the courthouse). My cell # is 706-318-6786 in case you get lost in the big city.

--

Route - 75 miles on rural roads through Jasper, Morgan, and Putnam Counties with 58' per mile of climbing. Click on the map below or visit http://www.routeslip.com/routes/43759. The course will be marked.

--

Pace - I expect the bunch may separate into a couple of groups -- probably a 16-17 mph group and a little faster 18-19 mph pack, but we will try to regroup a couple of times during the ride for BBQ or a Bass.

--

Support - I'll have a couple of rolling rest stops driving the route with tools, food, drink, and Bass in case they're needed. If you want to hang out in truck for a few minutes then jump back into the group, feel free. We'll regroup a couple of times and will stop at Kinorhook BBQ for lunch at mile 46. BBQ and Beer are on the house.

--

Route Options - If you'd like to ride, but want a shorter route, let me know and I'll hook you up.

--

If you think you'll be riding, send me an e-mail at robert@jordan-eng.com. The folks at the little BBQ place need to know whether to expect 5 riders or 25 for lunch.

--

Click map to enlarge.

Edgar Soto - Nashville

This weekend at the Edgar Soto race in Nashville finally got me back in the groove with racing. I've raced a few times this year, but none of them had the same feel as last year's Georgia Cup races. Albany's road race was slow and boring; in Perry I think my TT time was mixed up and I know my dirt road skills were screwed up. Gainesville was a good circuit race, but a single race doesn't have the same feel as an omnium weekend.

Nashville:
The Edgar Soto TT course was fairly hilly (100' of climbing per mile) and just technical enough that leaving my TT bike at home might have been a good call, although I don't think I would have gone slower on the Cervelo. I finished the course in 10th place at 18:28.

The 3-lap, 11-mile circuit course was constantly rolling, but only had a couple of spots that might be called climbs. It was sort of like 11 miles of Pate Road with a little longer climbing sections. The 60-rider field pretty much stayed together for the first two laps. On the first climb of the third lap, I saw a couple of riders up front seem to get a little jittery, so I took advantage of an opening near the yellow line to move up from about 20th to about 5th position. Just as I moved up a little gap started to form a few spots behind me. As we surged a little to open the gap further, somebody in the middle of the group must have touched a wheel and gone down. I ended up with 9 other riders in the front group. We formed a good pace line and stayed away for the last 10 miles. I took 7th of 10 in a long downhill sprint finish. Our group picked up about a minute and a half on the field -- that would've been helpful if it were a stage race instead of an omnium.

The crit course was a 6-turn clockwise course with just enough gradual climb on one side to give me a little help against the bigger sprinters. It played out like most of my crits: I struggled hard to stay with the front group for a few laps, then gradually slipped off the back with other large chunks of riders (10 to 20). Over the final 20 minutes, I gradually bridged my way from group to group to get back into the front 20 riders, but never got back to the front group of 10 or so riders. I finished 16th.

Jeff Clayton finished the TT 53rd in 17:55, but had a great circuit race, finishing 13th and picking up a couple of minutes on most of the field. He finished 16th with the front group in the crit, moving him to 13th in GC. If he rides well in Monday's road race, he could grab a top 10 in a large (125) cat 4 field.

Ergomo Accuracy Check

Since I deal with wattage numbers a lot, I thought I'd use some numbers from a recent ride to check my Ergomo Pro's accuracy. I have no reason to doubt the numbers it's giving me, but a good real world check now and then makes sense.

The best way to calculate wattage is using data from a climb because air resistance becomes almost negligible at low speeds. Since air resistance is the most difficult to accurately measure (using friction factors and frontal area estimates), the smaller role that it plays, the more confidence I have in the calculation.

I used a wattage calculation spreadsheet to input bike weight, body weight, climb length, climb slope, air temperature, air friction factor, tire rolling resistance, drivetrain friction, rider frontal area, and power output (I entered the average power reading from the climb as measured by my Ergomo Pro).

I was amazed to find that the spreadsheet calculation for climb time matched my actual climb time (as recorded by my Ergomo) to the exact second -- 1 minute, 5 seconds. Later I performed the same calculation for one other climb on the same ride and it matched the calculation by 1 second. That satisfies me that my power meter is giving me good data.

Pedal force & muscle fatigue

Past testing has shown me that I achieve my highest power for a constant heart rate (150 bpm) at 65 rpm. My power is significantly higher at that cadence than at 55 rpm or 75 rpm. That's a lot lower (about 20 rpm lower) than my normal cadence. I've more or less ignored the heart rate/cadence data due to two assumptions that I've held:

1. The goal is not to achieve the lowest heart rate, it's to put out the maximum wattage.
2. The higher muscle force required to hold the lower cadence at a given wattage would result in power fade on longer rides more than would a higher cadence with lower muscle force.

This past week's experiments with higher pedal force (a low-cadence hill repeat session last week and last night's group ride) revealed an interesting new wrinkle: My perceived exertion is significantly less when climbing at high power and low cadence than it has been with higher cadence. I guess that's to be expected because the higher cadence climbing is putting a larger share of the physiological load on oxygen transfer (aerobic system). The higher force, lower cadence approach is much more anaerobic. My average pedal force for the 1-minute interstate hill climb on Pate was about 600 lb-in (that's equivalent to alternating 90-lb one-leg squats). That's a lot higher than my typical pedal force of around 450 lb-in.

So the question boils down to this: Can I reduce my cadence when climbing hard and still have the same amount of gas left at the end of a 2 to 4 hour ride. If so, I think I can climb faster with less pain -- and those are both good things.

Switching back to strength

So the cycling tripod is skills, VO2, and strength.

For me, skills work is the most difficult to improve because I don't enjoy doing cornering drills and one-leg intervals and because skills improvement is difficult to quantify, so I can't easily see improvement. Also, I think skills are determined for a large part by genetics. My brother-in-law was a much better athlete in high school than I was; but 20 years later, I can easily best him in any type of speed or endurance sport. However, I never have stood, still don't stand, and never will stand a chance against him in any skills test. He's better at golf, tennis, darts, horseshoes, skeet, bowling, Frisbee, basketball.... you get the picture. I think skills are inborn and you can only do so much to improve them.

Oxygen transfer can be greatly improved with training. Lots of that improvement comes from losing body fat and some of it comes from getting more efficient at processing oxygen. But after a decade of training, increasing oxygen transfer even a little bit gets very difficult. My oxygen transfer genetics are pretty good (VO2max=67 ml/kg/min - most people who like to ride bikes, swim, and run for fun have pretty good oxygen transfer, otherwise they'd be miserable and probably would spend more time golfing and writing). This is the leg that I lean on the most by far for my current cycling ability. If I had been born with a VO2max of 45, I likely wouldn't have become a cyclist.

Strength is the one leg of the tripod where I might have room for some significant gains. The next phase of my training will include lots of pedal force work such as low cadence intervals and more sprint work. I'll see if I can make improvements in FTP through muscle strength and increase maximum power output with neuromuscular training. The key is to add this additional training while still doing enough of the stuff I've already been doing so that my oxygen transfer doesn't suffer.

As a side note: There has been enough written on strength training (particularly on off-season weight training) for cycling to fill lots of books; but I tried weight training last winter and I'm not convinced that it was helpful for me - particularly if you consider that I could have spent that time doing low cadence work on the bike. I guess if I skip the squats this winter and suffer next spring I'll be changing my tune.

The cycling tripod

There's so much information available about how to best train your body to ride a bike faster, it can get overwhelming fast - even for someone who likes soaking up the numbers. To simplify the situation and look a the big picture, I often view training like a tripod having legs of 1. skills, 2. oxygen delivery, and 3. strength.

Skills
Skills includes the stuff you do with your brain and nervous system. Skills are the driver of the car. I use the term skills to describe a whole bunch of unrelated things like racing strategy, bike handling, bike fit, positive thinking, level of aggression, desire to win, pedaling efficiency, quick thinking, knowing when to grind in the saddle and when to stand, and knowing when to push a big gear and when to spin.

Oxygen delivery
Oxygen delivery is your carburetor. It's measured as how much oxygen (fuel) you can deliver to the motor (muscles). Your maximum oxygen delivery is measured by VO2max (which I've already covered in detail in a prior post), but other oxygen delivery benchmarks can more important than VO2max. Your aerobic threshold AeT (lower oxygen burning limit) and anaerobic threshold (AT), which is also known as lactate threshold (LT) or functional threshold (FT), your upper oxygen burning limit, together establish the effort range at which you can ride for a long time. The bigger the range between your AeT and AT, the better off you are.

Strength
After your brain has selected a cadence and riding position and has decided to attack or sit in, and your carburetor has supplied as much oxygen to your muscles as possible, it's all over but the crying. Your maximum performance then depends on how much force your legs are able to put into the pedals. Your cadence and pedal force together will dictate wattage output and speed.

Aerobic Threshold

Aerobic threshold AeT is the heart rate at which you start burning fat using oxygen as an exclusive energy source (no lactic acid is produced while burning just oxygen). The lower your AeT, the better, but it's not a crucial number when it comes to performance - AT is much more important. If your AeT rises above your endurance training heartrate, it could become a problem because you would not be burning oxygen exclusively during long easy rides. Tony, who performed my testing, told me that his goal is to have the spread between AeT and AT, expressed as %maxHR be at least 10%, which is what mine is now. My AeT is 70% of HRmax and my AT is 80% of HRmax.

My AeT has risen 11 bpm from 116 bpm to 127 bpm since December 2005. That's usually an indicator that I have cut back on base training. I was confused when I first saw this result because my mileage over the winter and into the spring has been a lot higher than in prior years. From November to February this year I did a long ride (50-130 miles) with the Peach Peloton almost every weekend and rode the trainer 3 to 5 nights a week, so I should have had plenty of base miles, right? The problem is that when riding the Peach Peloton rides, I counted it as winter base training; but considering what my FTP was at the time (probably 220 watts in November and around 245 watts by February) I was doing a lot of that riding in my mid to high tempo range (80-90% of FTP). So even though I was putting in lots of miles, they weren't purely endurance miles that would effectively target my AeT.

I don't think that doing lots of tempo riding in the winter was a big negative, though. It probably did a lot to help me increase my FTP. And if I can start next winter's training rides with a higher FTP of around 260 watts, then riding at the same NP as last year in the winter rides (200 watts) will be 75% of FTP, which will be more a appropriate base mile pace for me and will also make those rides a lot less taxing.

VO2max and body fat percentage

Yesterday I found a relationship between cycling performance, oxygen transfer, and body fat percentage that I have always missed.

We'll start with oxygen transfer. I think I have a solid understanding of VO2max: it's the maximum amount of oxygen your body can process expressed in milliliters per kilogram of body weight per minute. Below is a detailed description of VO2max. In a later post I'll describe how I plan to use my VO2max testing result (67 ml/kg/min) from yesterday to better structure my bike training.

Variables determining a person's VO2max include lots of body processes and physical characteristics. I'm not formally trained in any of this stuff, I'll probably leave some things out and my info might not be perfect, so take it with a grain of salt, but here are a few of the variables:

• Lung capacity - every time you breathe air into your lungs, air comes in contact with the interior surface of your lungs, which is flooded with 'used' oxygen-deficient blood that just came from working muscles. The concentration of oxygen is higher in the air than in the blood, so some oxygen diffuses into the blood, which is pumped back to the working muscles. So the area of contact between the air and the blood is important. The greater your lung capacity (volume of air you can inhale), the greater oxygen transfer you get with every breath. An average male can breath about 6 liters of air. Miguel Indurain's lungs can hold 8 liters.
• Health of lungs - lots of things can damage your lungs. The obvious ones are smoking or working in an asbestos factory, but others such as having pneumonia, getting lots of chest colds, living in a big city, or living downwind of a large coal-fired power plant can also have effects. Lung health deterioration is one of the primary reasons that VO2max is expected to decline by about 0.5 ml/kg/min per year after age 30.
• Blood volume - the volume of blood in your body doesn't change much with weight changes, but does increase somewhat with extended athletic training. The more blood you have the more oxygen you can move from the lungs to the muscles.
• Heart capacity - hearts come in different sizes and strengths. I think heart size is mostly genetic, but exercise can strengthen the heart's muscles and allow it to pump more blood. Indurain's heart could pump 50 liters per minute (13 gallons/minute) of blood. For comparison, flow from a typical residential shower head is 2 or 3 gallons per minute, so think of 20 shower heads flowing at once. That's a LOT of blood!
• Artery size - The bigger the 'pipes' carrying blood from your heart to your muscles, the more blood that can flow and the more oxygen that can catch a ride. I've seen pictures of artery cross sections for untrained average males compared to those of highly trained athletes. The difference is quite dramatic. Arteries in trained athletes can dilate to a much greater size (it seems like I remember that it was more than double) when higher blood flow is required.
• Capillary density - The more you exercise hard and deprive your muscles of oxygen when they need it, the more your body will respond by growing capillaries to distribute more oxygen in the right places within the muscles. This is one of the primary reasons why athletic training is so sport-specific. A world-class long distance runner might have great lung capacity, heart capacity, and arterial size; but if he hasn't developed high capillary denisty in his cycling muscles, he may be bettered by even moderately-trained cyclists due to their specific training.
• Cellular efficiency - The efficiency with which your cells convert the oxygen to sugars that your muscles can use to contract is important and can be improved through training. Changes in the number and efficiency of cell mitochondria and the efficiency with which you can buffer lactic acid are two examples.

That's what I knew about oxygen transfer before yesterday. But there is a significant factor related to body weight and body fat percentage that I have always missed or ignored. When analyzing cycling performance, I have always looked at body weight just the way I would look at the weight of the bike - just mass to be pulled up the hill in the gravity equation. I had always assumed that where accelerations and climbing were not a part of the equation (like a long, flat time trial), that body weight was not a real factor in performance except for the relatively small effect it has on body size and increased frontal area/wind friction. My friend Jeff, who won the Georgia state TT jersey for Cat5 last year, is powerful and he's not fat by any definition, but one look at him and you'd know he'd play tackle, not flanker. The fact that he won the TT jersey on a relatively flat course didn't surprise me a bit - it make perfect sense that he could excel in a discipline where I thought his power was important but his weight didn't matter much. But now I realize that there's more to look at in a flat TT than just power production.

What I know now is that blood volume is pretty constant for a given training level. So let's look at this scenario: In the spring I weigh 147 lbs and train 15 hours per week. My body fat percentage is 9.1 percent. I reach a certain fitness level by April and I can average 268 watts for a flat April TT, riding at maybe 23.5 mph. During the summer I maintain the same training regimen, but I add a pint of Chunky Monkey to my diet every other night. By September, I'm still well-trained and fit, and I have the same equipment, but I weigh 160 pounds and have a little excess fat (maybe 14% body fat). I ride the same TT course again, but this time I only produce 245 watts and my speed falls to 22.1 mph. Why did this happen?

It happened because in the fall I have to distribute my blood volume over more body tissue. I have 13 pounds of fat in my body in the fall that wasn't there in the spring (13 pounds is equivalent to 52 sticks of butter). Fat is blood dense, so there is a lot of my blood hanging out in that 13 pounds of fat that can't be used to carry oxygen to my cycling muscles, so I can't generate as much power and I go slower.

The end result is that body weight and body fat percentage has more of an effect on cycling performance than I had previously thought.

Metabolic Testing Results

Cycling is a great sport. It's healthy, it's social, and it can be extremely competitive. It gives me a free pass to eat good food and drink great wine. And if group rides are any indication, I can hope to maintain fitness and strength in cycling for several decades to come. But that's enough waxing poetic, now for the numbers.

A lot of the enjoyment I get from cycling is from being a lab rat in the science experiment of training. About 17 months ago, when I was first considering switching from triathlon to full-time cycling, I decided I'd get tested for some basic metabolic benchmarks. It was December 2005, I'd been training with some sort of structure for about 5 years, and the numbers looked something like this:

December 2005
Predicted max heartrate: 182 bpm
Lactate threshold (LT): 135 bpm (heartrate where sugar burning takes over as energy)
Aerobic threshold (AeT): 116 bpm (heartrate where I first start burning fat)
VO2max: 64 ml/kg/min (ability to uptake and use oxygen)
Body fat percentage: 10.4%

Yesterday I had the numbers run again to find out how they've changed after a year and a half of more intense cycling-specific training.

May 2007
Predicted max heartrate: 182 bpm
LT: 145 bpm
AeT: 127 bpm
VO2max: 67, but hit 70+ for short period in test
Body fat percentage: 9.1%

Over the next few posts, I'll take a look at each of the results and their implications to my training and racing (and eating). Also, I learned a few new things about exercise physiology from Tony Myers at ATS that I found interesting, so I'll elaborate on those as well.