Team BKool CycleChat

[RickB]

Rick, you might be making more power than me these days, and even though you weigh more that may well work for you in the velodrome. I'll be happy if I can keep up. I peaked in April and have lost a lot of fitness since then. My plan is to get seriously back into the bkool in the autumn when its cooler and my hands have recovered. Hopefully both our leagues will be back up and running too

Thats true - my weight wont be an issue for once! (which is still coming down thankfully!)

It'll bodies all over the place at the start so it may be hard to spot each other in the midst of the throng - After a few laps it settles down though and we should be able to get a rhythm going.

 

[LBHIFI]

Great result Lars! I knew you wont let us down! Was there many in the event? Seemed like a good course but I really wanted to get out on the road yesterday evening as the sun was shining (and that doesnt happen too often here in NI).

Thanks

There were 19 participating. As usual, I was ½-1 minute behind from the start, but to be fair, it does seeme like this doesn't affect the total time.
I think I was experiencing the "time problem" mentioned in here. Riders would suddenly pop up in front of me, even though they just before were a minute away. I wonder if it could have anything to do with the delayed start. Like the algoritme can't decide if it should use the event start time or my displaced start time

Strange numbers from the top 3 riders. I have almost the same avg. power as the winner, but a better watt/ kg rate. Since he was leading the race he could not have had any draft. The ascend was longer than the descent, so I should have beat him.
The guy in 3. place should have won the race with both the highest avg. power and the highest Watt/kg rate.

https://www.facebook.com/BKOOL.engl...3851976648423/989698764397075/?type=1&theater

 

[RickB]

Thanks

There were 19 participating. As usual, I was ½-1 minute behind from the start, but to be fair, it does seeme like this doesn't affect the total time.
I think I was experiencing the "time problem" mentioned in here. Riders would suddenly pop up in front of me, even though they just before were a minute away. I wonder if it could have anything to do with the delayed start. Like the algoritme can't decide if it should use the event start time or my displaced start time

Strange numbers from the top 3 riders. I have almost the same avg. power as the winner, but a better watt/ kg rate. Since he was leading the race he could not have had any draft. The ascend was longer than the descent, so I should have beat him.
The guy in 3. place should have won the race with both the highest avg. power and the highest Watt/kg rate.

https://www.facebook.com/BKOOL.engl...3851976648423/989698764397075/?type=1&theater

You're right - the 3rd placed guy should have walked it looking just at those figures. I hate the fact that you cant judge how far behind/ahead you are of people. It used to work well so what have they done to it???

 

[gbrown]

how did I beat Michael Gisler if his average power is more than mine and he weighs (much) less! Or Pinilla and Craig for that matter!!

I posted some thoughts on this a few months ago, which boiled down to the fact that you can produce more average watts but go slower as resistance is not linear, i.e. not directly proportional to speed (more like the square of the speed).

For example, if on the flat you do 200 watts for an hour you will average 200 watts but go faster than if you do 100 watts for half an hour and 300 watts for half an hour, still averaging 200 watts. This is because you lose more to resistance when doing 300 watts than you gain when doing 100 watts (assuming both on the flat).

The most efficient power to speed, even on a virtual trainer, should be to maintain exactly your average speed the entire race and never vary, the more you vary above (and below) your average speed the more you expend watts overcoming exponentially increased resistance.

Only in a vacuum on a frictionless surface would higher average power always mean higher average speed.

So one strategy is to push more on the slow sections and if need be recover on the fast sections, to reduce the variation from the average speed.

But you also need to avoid over extending yourself, so balancing a need to not exceed your sustainable effort level for long periods of time with the benefits of reducing the variation of speeds should give you the best overall outcome.

In the end it is not the average power you produce that counts, just the average speed!

Geoff

 

[Monte]

Not sure if it's my paranoia, but the Bkool numbers seem very odd to me - I just trained really hard ended up in a right mess at the end of my session & because of the avg watts bkool is saying 64% effort. I can assure you it was over 100% effort - I was hanging...

 

[LBHIFI]

For example, if on the flat you do 200 watts for an hour you will average 200 watts but go faster than if you do 100 watts for half an hour and 300 watts for half an hour, still averaging 200 watts. This is because you lose more to resistance when doing 300 watts than you gain when doing 100 watts.
Geoff

That sounds reasonable.
But in this case I was struggling to keep up with the third placed guy on the ascends. I beat him by going faster on the straights and downhill. Of course he could have really given it everything in the first 5 km descent.

 

[Randyberlin]

Geoff,
Great explanation. I'm still surprised by a math question from 50 years ago. On a 1 mile track you do 30mph for the first lap how fast must you go to average 60mph for two laps.

 

[LBHIFI]

I would guess 90 mph. Is it a trick question?

 

[Randyberlin]

I would guess 90 mph. Is it a trick question?

It would take 2 minutes for the first lap and to average 60 mph you would have to do 2 laps in two minutes. So it is impossible.

The 3rd place guy must have had enough slower speed time that he couldn't bring his average up to yours. It looks like you were 1kph faster average.

 

[LBHIFI]

That's a good trick From the top of my head I figured that I could take a "short cut" and not begin with total distance/elapsed time calculation,

 

[gbrown]

It would take 2 minutes for the first lap and to average 60 mph you would have to do 2 laps in two minutes. So it is impossible.

Very good. I guess that is because one is tricked to calculate the average speed per distance (2 laps) by the way the question is phrased.

Speed is distance over time and must be averaged as such, i.e. Sum the products of distance and time and then divide by the total time to get the average distance over time.

Using the correct units is critical for Maths to work. If you phrased it as distance over time not speed over distance it would be more obvious...

On a 1 mile track you do 30mph for the first lap 1 mile in the first two minutes how fast must you go to average 60mph for two laps 2 miles in two minutes.

Answer is now clearly infinitely fast!

Geoff

 

[Randyberlin]

That's a good trick From the top of my head I figured that I could take a "short cut" and not begin with total distance/elapsed time calculation,

It's so counterintuitive that it still amazes me. It is the only reason I can't catch up to you faster riders.

 

[BILL S]

Not sure if it's my paranoia, but the Bkool numbers seem very odd to me - I just trained really hard ended up in a right mess at the end of my session & because of the avg watts bkool is saying 64% effort. I can assure you it was over 100% effort - I was hanging...

That's a strange one. I'd first check tyre pressure as that can drastically reduce your power figure.

 

[Randyberlin]

t
This said it was 74% for me, but I was cranking to beat your time. For me it always seems bkool underestimates the watts on the descents and level and over on the climbs. I assume it is because I'm heavy.

 

[BILL S]

Velodrome 1 hour challenge 6:30 tonight.

Anyone know if it can be found using filters?