Team BKool CycleChat

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

bobinski

Legendary Member
Location
Tulse Hill
 

Daddy Pig

Veteran
DP. I saw your time and considered for a moment, just a moment, whether to chase you down, but I decided against it and will wait until the mountains... :giggle:

Are you going to re-run it to make top spot rightfully yours? Fantastic ride... :notworthy:
The short answer is probably! I got the email about 2 hours after I rode my recce(!) so I'm guessing he just sat behind me and saved energy, the bar tender he is. I may just wait until I have lost some weight in January. Good run from you, that was pretty quick, and yes, you'll claw a huge amount of time back in the hills!
 

bridgy

Legendary Member
Location
Cheddar
The short answer is probably! I got the email about 2 hours after I rode my recce(!) so I'm guessing he just sat behind me and saved energy, the bar tender he is. I may just wait until I have lost some weight in January. Good run from you, that was pretty quick, and yes, you'll claw a huge amount of time back in the hills!
Well you have my ghost to chase now too - sorry if you got"the email" but I thought you wouldn't mind me including your ghost as we're all "Team Cyclechat"!

I can honestly say I didn't draft you (not that I think it's a problem!) because a) it wasn't a 3d ride and b) surprisingly I was ahead of you all the way. To be honest I'd assumed I would be hanging on to your draft and then lose you at the end again but it didn't work out that way - probably because you haven't quite given it your all yet!

Has anyone else been unable to ride it in the 3d view by the way?
 

Monte

Über Member
Location
Somerset
Well you have my ghost to chase now too - sorry if you got"the email" but I thought you wouldn't mind me including your ghost as we're all "Team Cyclechat"!

I can honestly say I didn't draft you (not that I think it's a problem!) because a) it wasn't a 3d ride and b) surprisingly I was ahead of you all the way. To be honest I'd assumed I would be hanging on to your draft and then lose you at the end again but it didn't work out that way - probably because you haven't quite given it your all yet!

Has anyone else been unable to ride it in the 3d view by the way?

That's strange as I watched you for a few minutes in 3d
 

Daddy Pig

Veteran
Well you have my ghost to chase now too - sorry if you got"the email" but I thought you wouldn't mind me including your ghost as we're all "Team Cyclechat"!

I can honestly say I didn't draft you (not that I think it's a problem!) because a) it wasn't a 3d ride and b) surprisingly I was ahead of you all the way. To be honest I'd assumed I would be hanging on to your draft and then lose you at the end again but it didn't work out that way - probably because you haven't quite given it your all yet!

Has anyone else been unable to ride it in the 3d view by the way?
Great rise. 24 seconds is quite some margin to beat. Go team!
cheerleader-emoticon-white-background-38782429.jpg
 

bridgy

Legendary Member
Location
Cheddar
My Bridgy that is huge watts:bravo: Is it just one of those special courses or where you working really hard?
Both! Obviously the watts are nonsense. I am starting to have a theory on these increasingly high watts - particularly on flat courses like this. I think if you're a powerful enough rider to overcome the resistance the trainer sets you get exponentially more "bkool watts". I don't know the physics well enough to explain exactly what I mean but I know in real life you're mostly fighting wind resistance, and the faster you go the harder it gets (someone else can hopefully explain this more technically!). But in bkool, the resistance is fixed, based on what the algorithm decides for your weight and the slope etc, and if you go faster and faster, it doesn't get harder and harder as it would in real life, it just keeps the same resistance. And I don't think the speed and watts algorithm takes account of this so just allows you to go faster and therefore show higher and higher watts. I think it's ok up to a certain amount of (real) power but falls apart a bit over a certain amount. That's my theory if it makes any sense....?
 

Daddy Pig

Veteran
Both! Obviously the watts are nonsense. I am starting to have a theory on these increasingly high watts - particularly on flat courses like this. I think if you're a powerful enough rider to overcome the resistance the trainer sets you get exponentially more "bkool watts". I don't know the physics well enough to explain exactly what I mean but I know in real life you're mostly fighting wind resistance, and the faster you go the harder it gets (someone else can hopefully explain this more technically!). But in bkool, the resistance is fixed, based on what the algorithm decides for your weight and the slope etc, and if you go faster and faster, it doesn't get harder and harder as it would in real life, it just keeps the same resistance. And I don't think the speed and watts algorithm takes account of this so just allows you to go faster and therefore show higher and higher watts. I think it's ok up to a certain amount of (real) power but falls apart a bit over a certain amount. That's my theory if it makes any sense....?

I was in the velodrome yesterday and was cruising around at abut 55kph, pushing around 480 watts or so. However I then started to push around 850 watts and the speed only went up to around 80 kph. Dropping back to 40kph I was using only 250 watts. So this is definitely not a linear progression in a power/speed graph. This would indicate that there is an increase in resistance (in this case wind resistance) the faster you go. Otherwise if I double the power, I would double my speed.
Don't forget that Power = Force x Velocity
Or, Velocity = Power/force
Now, force = mass x acceleration
So, velocity = power/(mass x acceleration)
If there were no adjustments to resistance, this would mean that the accelerative force would remain the same. The mass would also be the same (although some of us can sweat out a fair amount!). Therefore you would have a linear graph of increased power being directly proportional to the resultant velocity, which I do not think is the case.
It may be that the additional resistance added due to higher velocity is too little at the top end. The power/speed graph should be exponential and it is quite possible that this curve is too shallow, which I think is what @bridgy is implying. It may be that they need to adjust their algorithm slightly in this respect which would be more representative of the greater effect of wind resistance.

Make sense?
 

Bored Man

Upstanding Member
Location
Arrochar
I was in the velodrome yesterday and was cruising around at abut 55kph, pushing around 480 watts or so. However I then started to push around 850 watts and the speed only went up to around 80 kph. Dropping back to 40kph I was using only 250 watts. So this is definitely not a linear progression in a power/speed graph. This would indicate that there is an increase in resistance (in this case wind resistance) the faster you go. Otherwise if I double the power, I would double my speed.
Don't forget that Power = Force x Velocity
Or, Velocity = Power/force
Now, force = mass x acceleration
So, velocity = power/(mass x acceleration)
If there were no adjustments to resistance, this would mean that the accelerative force would remain the same. The mass would also be the same (although some of us can sweat out a fair amount!). Therefore you would have a linear graph of increased power being directly proportional to the resultant velocity, which I do not think is the case.
It may be that the additional resistance added due to higher velocity is too little at the top end. The power/speed graph should be exponential and it is quite possible that this curve is too shallow, which I think is what @bridgy is implying. It may be that they need to adjust their algorithm slightly in this respect which would be more representative of the greater effect of wind resistance.

Make sense?

WOOSH.... :wacko:
 
Top Bottom