queerpunk

I've known plenty of people who successfully and happily use a Rival stages on an Omnium crank on the track, despite what Stages CS says.

carleton

Some bike parts will be on all of your son's bikes as he grows and experiments.

Things that will change:

- Stems
- Frames (we all do it)
- Headset (with the frame)
- Drop Bars
- Aero Bars
- Wheels
- Tires
- Chains (infrequently)
- Chainrings/Cogs (every couple of years)
- Saddles
- Cleats

Things that can remain unchanged:

- Cranks
- Bottom Bracket
- Pedals

I raced with a guy that has been using the same Campy Pista cranks since the 70's (had the peanut butter wrench to boot). It's rare but possible. I know another guy who's been using the same SRM power meter on his many track bikes since 2010.

Track cranks can last a very, very long time as the standard has remained the same for decades...and they are stronger than we are For example, the reference standard track crank is the Dura Ace 7710 using the Octalink V2 BB. You know how old that is? The new SRM track cranks that you can buy tomorrow require that "old" Octalink BB. This is 1997 technology...and it's still the best out there.

If your son is into pursuiting, then measuring power real-time and analyzing files later may be important. I argue against power meters for sprinting but for them for pursuiting. So, they are an investment that will last many years. Also, SRM has a service center in Colorado Springs and they service all generations of their power meters. I've been there. They are awesome.

That being said, they do also hold their resale value pretty well.

satchmo72

Long time lurker, first time poster/question asker/newbie/first mass start night race guy.

Last race night of the season at Major Taylor is 9/7 (yes, tomorrow, today) and the races will probably be a 8-10 lap scratch race, an Elimination race and a points race.

Any thoughts, strategies or nuances you all could tell me about those type of races. Got into track racing late in season and this is first mass start. I am probably more of a sprinter as I have a hard time hammering a lap and it not taking two laps to catch my breath again (Read: My fitness needs work"

My ideas:

Scratch race-Try and stay with the other cat 5 guys/group until the last lap or go kamikaze from the start, get into groove and see if I cant time trial the win?
Elimination-Ride as hard as I can for as long as I can to stay out front without going SUPER deep into the red?
Points race- I just want to say I scored points. I will most likely be a heart rate mess by this race and possibly out of gas. Go for glory early or just stay with them. THe only other thing I have seen work is to not fight the early laps and then try and go solo for the last laps.

Thoughts? Track racing speed learning Round 1-GO!!!!!!!

carleton

- Hold your line. Look first (twice) then pass on the right.
- Don't freak out when people pass you at high speeds. Just hold your line.
- Understand the rules of the races.
- Don't try anything clever. Seriously. If you think it's unexpectedly clever your opponents will simply think it's unexpected. Unexpected is not good in beginner racing.
- Find one or two people who are more experienced than you and do what they do. When they accelerate, you accelerate. When they relax and sit up, you relax and sit up.
- Don't stop pedaling at the end of a race or sprint. Hold your line until you are on the back straight.
- Try to finish every race, preferably on the lead lap.

Notice that there aren't any strategy tips. The biggest thing to gain from beginner racing is experience and comfort riding while you are trying really hard and are very tired with other people close by. Showing comfort, control, and experience will get you upgraded out of CAT5 faster than wins. CAT5 is more of an experience grouping more so than a speed grouping.

satchmo72

So think of being safe, learn from others while I do the best as I can do within my limits? I'm good with that.

taras0000

Sounds like the perfect plan for a first time out racing.

JimiMimni

A road model PM from Stages will work perfectly fine on the track. What happens, however, is that when you apply "backwards" or "negative" energy to the crank, the road models read 0 watts. The track model will read the actual effort. That is the story from one of their engineers! We got in to this discussion because he saw my Rival/Omnium set up.

I haven't seen a power file from a proper track model, but I can't imagine they're giving you a more complete picture than the standard PM.

southernfox

Is there data on how much difference two disc wheels make in flying 200s?

ruudlaff

This.

(+ an example of the difference a TT helmet would make)

carleton

You can start here: Analytic Cycling, Interactive methods for estimating cycling performance.

Generally, teams that do these types of tests (Team GB, for example) won't publish their results. So, you'd have to wait for a college study of some sort (which will likely be lacking as they don't have the insight that we'd want), or for a wheel/helmet manufacturer to sponsor one (which we'd all take with a grain of salt).

It's probably best to look at what the faster teams/riders do. If they are using it chances are it's faster (or at least not slower). I've heard people say that the only reason you see Mavic Io/Comete so much at the world level over Zipp is simply because Mavic gives the wheels to sponsored teams and (last I heard) Zipp does not. Zipp offers pro deals to sponsored riders/teams where they buy at around 1/2 of MSRP (less than shop cost).

Front discs in a flying 200M are rare. Possibly because of what happens when you get pushed a little by the wind. If you look at the power file of a high speed effort and what happens when a crosswind nudges the front wheel, you'll see your power drop off for a few pedal strokes.

Front wheels I've ridden:

- Mavic Ellipse (owned it)
- Zipp 404 (owned it)
- Zipp 808 (owned it)
- Zipp 1080 (borrowed it)
- Mavice iO (owned it)

The 1080 was manageable but I had to wrestle it at times.

carleton

Using Analytic Cycling, you have to create a model using variables then compare to what would happen if the helmet decreased drag x amount and how that would affect your speed/time. It's low level, but more scientific than a pseudo-science blog post.

racersdad

Thanks JimiMimni. That explanation makes more complete sense than the one from the Stages CS rep

bitingduck

Roues Artisinales also has done some detailed studies on wheel performance (aerodynamics, stiffness). IIRC they don't do any track-only wheels, but they do have data on wheels that are used for both road and track. There are a couple different years of studies, so some wheels may show up in one or the other or both. They haven't done a big study for a while, and haven't been active at all for a couple years, so newer wheels won't show up in their dataset, either.

queerpunk

Everybody answered your actual question - how to generate those data - but I'll try to answer the question that I think you didn't ask: Is it worth it?

Though maybe this isn't actually your shadow question.

For a flying 200, a front disc is probably the last place to find gains - and it's possible that it wouldn't lead to gains.
It's the last place to find gains because once you have aero wheels, the difference among them gets pretty small. Yes, the difference is there and measurable, but like, a lot of flying 200m practice, a good bike fit, some decently aero wheels, and an aero helmet are what's going to make you fast - in order of magnitude.

It's possible that it wouldn't lead to gains because the flying 200 is a technical event in which small changes while you're at your max can affect your time. Without practice on a front disc, it could actually slow you down - even on an indoor track (I assume we're talking indoor-only here. A front disc outdoor is a tough ask). Even an unfamiliar 3, 4, or 5-spoke can cause surprising buffeting at sprint speeds, and that can lead to handling snafus if you're on a track with small-radius turns.

It's also such a short timed event that the room for improvement based on aero improvements is small. Throw a front disc on for a pursuit and you'll save yourself, I dunno, whole seconds or more over the course of 3 or 4 km. It's got less time to work its magic in a 200.

I'm sure others will have good thoughts on this, too.

carleton

Yeah, this is generally my opinion on the idea of a front disc for a flying 200. Basically, it's a gamble. You are gambling that you won't encounter turbulence or a gust that will throw you off your line or give you the willies. If it works, there is a minor gain. If it doesn't work, then the losses are relatively big for a flying 200.

While it may technically be faster, if you can't hold the line or keep the power down, then one will be slower.

There are scores of front discs sitting in closets and bike rooms around the world that are not used for the flying 200m.

Truth be told, I've seriously considered using a front disc for a flying 200, but passed on it for the reasons stated above.

southernfox

FWIW, I'm more interested in a rear disc and maybe a tri- or five-spoke front than front disc vs no front disc per se. (Right now don't have a rear disc, even.)

carleton

Of all of your aero components, the rear disc provides the least aero benefit and has one of the worst benefit/cost ratios of all equipment, along with the frame and ceramic bearings.

Think of the rear disc as part of the finishing touches of aero equipment. Buy this after you've bought other aero things.

The body positioning, skinsuit, helmet, and front wheel provide the best benefit/cost ratios.

queerpunk

A disc and 5-spoke is a pretty time-tested setup. the io/Comete combo has been at the top of the game for the past twenty-five years, which is crazy longevity for top-tier equipment in cycling.

but I know plenty of people who just ride 80mm combos in all sorts of national and international-level competition.

southernfox

carleton

I think that 80mm is just as good as a 5 spoke with all things being equal.

In my anecdotal experience having used both for years, there was no difference in my TT times between the two.

I do find it interesting that:

- Mavic makes 5 spokes and deep dish wheels.
- HED makes tri-spokes and deep dish wheels.
- but, Zipp only makes deep dish wheels.

Deep obviously works. Maybe bladed is the questionable thing.

I also find it odd that Mavic doesn't offer their 5 spoke for road TT use. I wonder why.

rustymongrel

I've been poking around looking for info on front wheel choice quite a lot lately. I have both a 1080 and a Hed 3 right now and have been contemplating a front disc. Found this thread with good info from a former zipp engineer along with an interesting tidbit from A. Coggan about tire pressure.

the FASTEST front wheel is a Mavic 5-spoke!!! (pics): Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums

To summarize:

Tri-spoke and 5 spoke wheels generally test better than deep wheels when they are tested alone with no bike. Once the wheel is spinning in a fork these types of wheels lose energy to pulses of air that hit the fork blades as they spin.

Zipp tested the 808 against the IO with top national track teams and found there to be no measurable difference between the two in terms of aero. Teams continued to use the IO since many riders preferred the feel and they already had them.

Tri/5 spoke wheels "feel" faster due to less vertical compliance and that's why pros often choose them for road TTs and track (respectively). This phenomenon was expanded upon by Josh Poertner and Jan Heine in a great podcast last fall (https://cyclingtips.com/2016/08/cycl...and-pressures/).

carleton

Jeebus. That slowtwitch thread has some heavy hitters in it. That should be the definitive last word on 5-spokes vs deep dish.

I'd quote the good bits, but the entire thread is good. OK... here are 2 quotes...

This sums it up:

Meaning, the Io is not the best and Mavic is either paying teams to use it or at least giving them for free.


Meaning, many use the Io because others use it and they have confidence in it and that confidence is worth a lot.



THANKS for finding that.

jsk

I think there are two reasons 5-spoke makes sense on the track but not on the road:

1) Wind. A 5-spoke is going to be less stable than a tri-spoke or deep-section wheel in cross-winds. This isn't an issue on indoor tracks, but it's one reason I would be hesistant to ride a 5-spoke outdoors (even on the track). Even tri-spokes handle worse in strong wind, which is why something like a 60mm rim might be favored for road TT's if it's windy enough.

2) Stiffness. AFAIK the only real reason to prefer a 5-spoke to a tri-spoke is for increased stiffness. There can't be much difference in aerodynamics, but for track sprinters the extra stiffness does make a difference.


As far as whether deep-section wheels are faster, I don't think you can state it with any absolute certainty. It's true that a tri-spoke that tests well standalone may lose some of that aero advantage when it's on a bike, but that depends quite a bit on the fork design. So some bikes won't work as well as others with a tri-spoke. But if they were slower across the board, you wouldn't have WorldTour teams like Sky and others using the tri-spoke just because it's in-style.

jsk

I can't help but wonder what you thought of the Coggan's story about determining that really high psi was detrimental to Crr...

carleton

Yeah, I saw that.

I'd like to know what his findings were. At what pressures did things go wrong? Also, I feel (literally) that higher pressures feel less sloppy during track maneuvers. 140 with clinchers and 160 with tubulars is the sweet spot for me (weighing in at well over 200 lbs). Even before the low pressure craze I didn't like 200 psi.