What Decisions are you making with the data?

What gear I should use for an event/effort.

As a (wannabe) sprinter, I simply train to be as strong as possible and as powerful as possible and to be able to hold it for as long as possible. So, pretty much everything is maximal.

Think of yourself as a drag racing car.

- You have a certain weight (Honda Civic vs 60s Chevy Camero SS)
- You have a certain engine (4 banger, V6, V8, Rotary)
- You have a certain drag strip length (1/8 mile, 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile)
- (hypothetically) You have a standing start OR a rolling start depending on the event.

Now let's hypothetically say that your race league says you can only use ONE gear :D No shifting!

If you were a driver competing in events like that, power would be important, but GEARING would be the most important decision. You are going to tell the mechanic, "Hey, I need as much power as you can legally produce with that engine." But, the million dollar question that wins and loses races for you will be gearing. You'll pay more attention to RPMs than anything else.


The most prominent number is on race car dash boards are RPMs:

F1
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_viCh1SFyGr...-1920x1440.jpg

NASCAR:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6031/5...19d8d5a6_z.jpg

Rally:
http://www.speedhunters.com/wp-conte...B-RX7-8632.jpg

Notice that you don't see anything about Horsepower on any of those (unless I missed it).

Why? Because the engine is gonna do what it can do and that's all it can do. Decisions about gearing will affect how fast you go.

I'm not totally poo-pooing power meters. They can be very useful in certain situations.

One example: At one time, my flying 200m times were just awful and no one could figure out why. I was doing a standard "come in hot" windup but my jump was always a dud.

Like, my final 200M splits of a standing lap were literally faster than my flying 200M on the same gear on the same day! I was 0.5" faster from a standing start! Something was obviously wrong.

Looking at my file, Rich Voss determined that I was actually going anaerobic and burning a good bit my turbo boost before my jump. So, I never had the full benefit of it in order to get to max speed at the right time. He suggested that I do my windup abnormally slow and keep my wattage (and HR) down below a certain level before my jump.

You know what? BOOOOOM! That analysis instantly took 0.5" off of my flying 200M.

That being said, that same analysis could have happened based on my HR alone.

My point in this discussion is not whether PMs are useful. It's whether they are worth the added expense. Think of it this way: A set of Mavic Io and Comete wheels are very useful. But, the gains you get from them (if any) may not be worth the added expense over much cheaper options.

Not to be semantic, but RPM is directly related to horsepower in a car. For example, we tune a car to have peak power at X for the fact it is in a usable range and we use the tachometer to know when we are in it (and not explode the engine). You are suggesting to not even know the horsepower before/during/after.

but anyway, I do get your point, and I do agree that in a race the power numbers are fairly pointless. This goes for road, cross, track, basically anything outside of individual efforts. Since I do not get to choose the speed/power required to keep up/win, what does it matter what it is. All I really have control over is how fast my feet are moving based on my gearing choice. A pursuit or to an extent a kilo is more valuable. Split times only tell the story so far.

BUT, that is why a PM is not a racing tool, rather a training tool. I can't even glance at my screen and try and comprehend what it is saying when Im on the gas, let alone racing 3 wide around a 140m track at 50kmh. Its an after the fact, did I really have no gas in the 3rd race or did it just FEEL that way. That last F200 was a personal best but was it due to power or line? There are lots of things a PM can teach you if you use the data. But it is not a gauge on the dashboard that gives you anything you need at the time.

Ill also add, PMs are about 1/3rd what they cost 5 years ago. I needed a new crank anyway, so the power2max add on ended up being around $800 including our socialist taxes and shipping. A 3k option is something to justify, ~$1000 is often what I spend by accident at the bike store.

gtrob, I don't mean to make it seem like I think you shouldn't have gotten the power meter. Look, I bought 2 SRMs, one used for over $2,000 and one new for $3,500. I've been there.

Regarding horsepower, to clarify:

Most athletes, cannot explode their engines. So, you have to assume that in my car example that the engine has some sort of natural limiter on it, too....a restrictor plate :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictor_plate

So, for a given race, let's add these facts:

- We have a certain amount of regular fuel (aerobic energy)
- We have a limited amount of Nitrous Oxide boost (gylcogen) that replenishes if allowed to.
- Depending on how hard you press the gas pedal, you may or may not engage the Nitrous Oxide.

Does Cav have a race radio? Or is that a warmup picture with him just rocking out?

It is unfortunate that this discussion is happening under the "interesting finds" thread..
its a good topic- and one that is misunderstood...

this is where i think you are over stating the value... you said above that you are shooting for a goal RPM of 140.. assuming that most of us are fairly consistent with our 200's, and improving them by a 10th or 2 is a big gain- it pretty much leaves us each using 1 gear... i don't see where the big value is in that.. and i can get that info with a stopwatch and a gear chart..

This is true. Which is why track cycling has had decades of great racers who never used power meters :D

There are days when 1 tooth either way can make or break you. Paying attention to cadence will help with that decision. How many times have you heard a racer say "I was under-geared. I was spinning out" or "I could never get on top of the gear. I was struggling to turn the pedals over."? We often do this based on feeling (racers are very perceptive). They are talking about cadence.

How many times have you agonized over which chainring you should use for the same event? We rarely agonize about how much power we should apply to the pedals :D

zero

Mr. Dick Lane:

Aight so you've probably seen the movie Breaking Away and you've probably heard of the Little 500, a bike race - sort of - held at Indiana University every spring. I knew of it but not much about it until I watched the video below of the 2014 Little 500.

Here's a brief rundown: 200 laps of a 1/4 mi cinder track. Teams of 4 who have to make (I think) 10 exchanges during the race. Each team has 2 bikes - 56cm Schwinns with coasterbrakes, flat pedals, geared at 46/18.

It was kind of crazy - obviously, it is the racing of bicycles but there's all this stuff that seems kind of unique to this race, and developed sort of in a vacuum, so my reaction to the whole thing is "it's both bike racing and not bike racing at the same time." Everybody looks a little bit silly on the bikes, everybody looks a little bit silly pushing on flat pedals, the exchanges are sort of nuts, and really inefficient - every time I think someone is attacking they're really just getting out in front of the group to make an exchange. Anyone with any cyclocross experience is going to shake their heads at the goofy remounts.

The announcers talk about tactics that don't seem to make a whole lot of sense (resting for a few laps? are you serious? wouldn't it be more worth it to just risk the time losses of making exchanges?). Also - it's ****ing carnage out there. You know how there are a few videos of j-keirins that are total chaos that get passed around the interwebs? this blows them all away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAIypjiw77w

That was a crazy finish. Hopefully it hurts less to crash on cinders...

Interesting concept, kind of like a Madison with standing start exchanges and extreme gear restrictions.

Yeah, the Little 500 is a weird thing.

Personally, I wouldn't call it "track racing". It's about as close to track racing as BMX is. It's more like short track, single-speed cyclecross...on bikes with coaster brakes.

http://www.indiana.edu/~lxa/BArmstrong.jpg

An old teammate of mine went to IU. He's told me stories and I've seen the special Little 500 bikes. They are special made for the event and each club/frat only gets one. It's a big deal if it gets stolen. It's a real "bro" environment.

What's worse is that you can't adjust the bike between handoffs. So the bike has to be setup for the smallest rider. Also, only platform pedals.

oh yeah def not track cycling. not cyclocross, either - cx is about mixed media.

It really seems like the strategy is "stay with the front group, make clean exchanges, and try not to crash." Looks like some teams keep a guy fresh for the finale.

it's just a weird one-off environment...

Seems from the video they get two, so they are able to adjust between riders. Also, since they are using platform pedals, saddle height doesn't have to be so precise.

Ah. Thanks for the correction.

I think it was this thread...but anyway I got back to the track for another PM test

As you can see its still funky (this is with the changes quinn suggested). This is the only effort that was off, the others were smooth and accurate, this is the only one that drops. For example we did '1min' intervals and they look fine. I can't figure out what is unique about it, but this would be a lap the field effort (this was a double on a short track). So a jump followed but pretty hard effort, ending with putting on the brakes to get on the back of the paceline. So the zero power at the END is accurate, but the cadence didnt drop off so it seems its NOT dependent on that.

http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps250059ea.jpg


Its almost like it drops when Im leaning hard in the corners, as those pulses are about that timing. It would have taking about 3-4 laps to do this effort, or 6-7 corners. hmmmm the g-force of our 138m track is throwing it off?

Damn, man. You could be right! If the cranks use inertia (or whatever the proper term is) to sense the cranks going around, whipping around on a tight track like yours could certainly upset that.

Looking at past race data, it never drops until I get to about 50kmh+, which is right into 'can't stand up anymore' territory. And it drops in the corners, 100% it pulses about every 5 seconds (10s laps at that speed)

For example my last man standing data, it settles down once the speed drops down:

http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps72f05752.jpg


Will be interesting to see how it looks at the new 250m track in 2 weeks. Still a lot of force into the corners, but our 138m is HARD when you go fast (like big guys break wheels).


EDIT

to add to that, I found some data where I was doing 48-52kmh and it didnt drop but it was on the blue line (bigger turning radius). So its possible its only a problem on our toilet bowl track. Until Im running 10s 200m that is :P

Even the greats have a hiccup in their training sometimes! See link: Instagram

I find it interesting that her coach has her box jumping so high.

It's been proven that, after a certain point, the key to higher box jumps is pulling the legs up higher. The key is to watch how high the upper body goes, not the feet!

So if you are training explosiveness, a 30 inch box may not do anything more that a 24 inch box jump will. But you'll save your shins on failure :D

I'll see if I can find proof.

Here's an example:

Notice how clearing the box is more about him pulling is feet up as opposed to him launching himself off of the ground. Notice that his hips only moved like 2 feet off the ground :D

http://nicktumminello.com/wp-content...ump-scaled.jpg


Don't get me wrong. I think plyo box jumps are a great exercise. I do them. Just don't get fooled by these tricks. It's like tearing a phone book in half by the spine to demonstrate strength :D

I used to get caught up in trying to get on top of the next highest jump box (I bought a set). Then I moved and gave them away. I joined a gym that didn't have them and I realized that all I had to do was give it my all on every jump (no matter how low the box was) and try to get as high as I could over it, I was getting the same training :) ...but without the impressive video :(

Yeah, I've also heard that. So, why not just vertical jumps?

I don't know why box jumping is necessary, instead of just jumping or just vertical jumps, unless it's for the measurement ability of box jumping. But given the leg-up fact, really seems like straight-up vert jumps would be better.

I don't think people use box jumps to measure leaping ability (or at least I hope not!).

I think the trend to do high box jumps is a bad merging of 2 things:

- People learning that box jumps are an effective body weight training tool.
- People assuming that if a box jump is good, a higher box jump must be better and doing the leg-up thing and fooling themselves (while impressing others).

I think box jumps can be a Poor Man's Power Clean. I also think that Depth Jumps (jumping down from boxes and using your legs in a hack squat formation as shocks) can train the same muscle group via "negative" eccentric contractions.

I think jumping onto something makes the landing a bit easier as you're saving yourself that 30 inches or whatever of free fall.

Maybe the box is to ensure you get to a certain height, whereas a plane vertical jump could get lower without you realising it?

My coach has us do 'frog jumps' at the end of most training sessions. Except instead of just crouching down and jumping up with straightened legs, you have to explode up and pull your knees up as well.
After 9 x500m or whatever, 2 sets of ten of those can be pretty hard to complete.

The theory is that it teaches your muscles to deliver explosive power, once they are already fatigued.

Yeah, I think a certain height (like 24 or 30 inches) is OK. But, pushing the limits based on how high you can hike your knees up is different. There is also a significant level of anxiety involved when you are trying to jump on to a high box. I really think it's unnecessary to achive a training effect.

If you concentrate on jumping as "hard" as possible or as quickly as possible (not as high as possible), you'll get the same effect without the anxiety or risk.

As you note, fatigue can and will set in. It's simply a matter of time till you fail a rep and bruise your shins or worse.

So, I jump on high boxes...not as high as possible :D

Remember, the objective is to train your glutes, hams, and quads to perform the power motion to get your body off of the ground. What allows folks to get on the high boxes is the knee hike and the arm swing, neither of which get any significant training or are even the focus of the exercise. That's a lot of risk for no extra reward.

Google "Box Jump Fail" and click videos and see for yourselves (most are funny and no one got hurt).

This isn't training. This is learning a trick:

And this is just being competitive (still not training):

I can definitely see how this would work. I've had a coach assign seated and standing starts as the last efforts of a long training day.

I agree on the box height thing, unless you are trying to train leg speed? I dont see why you want to to land on the top of whatever box you are jumping on completely squatting (ie jumping on a 3ft box but only jump 1.5feet in the air). I personally use a maybe 1ft ledge and do 1 foot jumps. I could go higher, but the ledge is only there to save my knees, not challenge my height. In my head Im trying to jump as high as I can and land on the ground, but the ledge cuts my drop in half.

That death drop looks like a fast way to DOMS. Nothing causes muscle tearing quite like the stretch/compress movements like going down stairs. I once 'ran' down a mountain (sun was setting fast), and couldn't walk for days.