Thread: Flying 200s
View Single Post
Old 01-04-20, 03:05 PM
Super D
Senior Member
Super D's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 225

Bikes: C'dale Road, Giant TT, DF Track, DB MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked 11 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by carleton View Post
Testing is the key.

Experiment with different windups like the gradual acceleration or the "rolling standing start" that has not much windup, just a jump from low speed from high on the track.

I've found that the latter works better for me. I found out by analyzing my SRM speed and cadence data from Man1 efforts in Team Sprint. I found that my final 200M of a Man1 effort had the exact same split as a full-windup Flying 200 on the same day using the same gear. Basically, the F200 windup didn't really help me much at all.

This also helped me understand that I has hitting a terminal velocity based on my frontal area. This means that I needed to work on becoming more aero if I wanted to be faster. Getting a smaller position was more important than gaining more strength or power.
This is pretty fascinating. Aero is so important. Add optimized/maximized energy output in the given gearing from the start line which can be sustained to the finish, and that seems to me the whole equation for each individual.

I've started testing a seated, earlier long drive with higher speed starting from T4 versus a standing, later short drive starting from T1 with a slower roll into it, to see how aero would affect the outcome (of course, the energy used for standing VS seated is also a factor, and it was interesting to see in the seated example an HR of 137bpm at start line to 155 at finish, and for the standing option a 150bmp at start line and 158bmp at finish). The seated version has been marginally faster so far. Guessing, I would attribute this to aero. Both were well under my threshold HR of 170 (that's a TT HR for me, not a true sprint max HR which is more up in the 190-200bpm range from road racing).

Gearing choice is so important here. I'm not built like a sprinter, and not a high cadence spinner, so if I try to rely on power to bring the given gearing up to required cadence with a short ramp-up, I can't see how I wouldn't come up short. My initial approach is to build up the ability to endure a longer ramp-up with higher speed starting at T4 (seated, aero as possible).

I feel like my standing, shorter ramp up around T1 and T2 are not as smooth with tire path. Rocking the bike slightly introduces more rolling resistance, whereas seated, without rocking, the tires are following a more consistent path with most likely lower resistance. That was in my mind while testing, trying to keep the bike stable as can be while out of the saddle.

I've really just begun testing, and with little experience and only basic data, certainly no conclusions yet, just guesses. Tracking the testing results over time, to kick out variance for fitness level, health, recovery time between efforts, etc will also be helpful no doubt.

Originally Posted by Baby Puke View Post
Actually with the gears people run these days most people I see going fast start their jump in (or even before) T1 on a 333. And most stay at the rail all the way through 1 and 2 which means you jump and accelerate at the rail for something like 50-60m before you see any help from the banking. This is tricky to get right.
It really is tricky. I don't like sounding like I'm saying this over and over, but I'm really appreciating more and more how technical sprinting is. So much more than just power. Being a long-lanky guy, I'll have to find ways to make up for lack of brute strength, kind of like learning how to race a momentum car on track versus higher horsepower cars (which I've done, really fun).
Super D is offline