tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35788819.post8807162440837205362..comments2023-10-12T00:18:31.629+11:00Comments on Alex's Cycle Blog: W/m^2, Altitude and the Hour Record. Part IIAlex Simmonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00698332397074026424noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35788819.post-87849645050571116632014-12-19T09:11:58.199+11:002014-12-19T09:11:58.199+11:00I did a quick and dirty plot extension, and the Ba...I did a quick and dirty plot extension, and the Bassett et al acclimatised athlete based on sea level speed of 51km/h reaches a theoretical maximum speed of a bit under 54km/h at ~3,300 metres. <br /><br />I'm having a hard time believing anyone would really perform that well at such altitude. <br /><br />Anyone up for a trip to La Paz? :)Alex Simmonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00698332397074026424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35788819.post-64774854290760601752014-12-19T09:00:38.820+11:002014-12-19T09:00:38.820+11:00One of the other factors to consider is the altitu...One of the other factors to consider is the altitude domain of validity of the power reduction models used. e.g. the Bassett et al non altitude-acclimated model is a cubic equation, which at altitudes above 3,000m begins to curve back towards less negative gradients, while the Bassett et al altitude acclimated model is quadratic, and gradient continues to become more negative with increasing altitude. I'd be hesitant to suggest the models are valid at very high altitudes. <br /><br />The power reduction formula I created based on the Clark et al data is quadratic, and that data is derived from testing cycling power up to a simulated altitude of 3,200m, so we at least have some bounds for its validity, although the individual differences are sizeable.Alex Simmonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00698332397074026424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35788819.post-15726409350687233652014-12-19T08:23:01.905+11:002014-12-19T08:23:01.905+11:00Yeah, that's probably about right, at least th...Yeah, that's probably about right, at least theoretically. I haven't plotted the "mathematically optimal altitude", that's for another day perhaps, but since the marginal gains reduce and the risks increase with ever higher altitudes, and we can of course only choose the velodromes that are available, I figure it's somewhat moot. And who knows what anyone's individual power curve looks like, these are sample population averages.<br /><br />Just train smart and go to Mexico. :)Alex Simmonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00698332397074026424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35788819.post-40649122937926399542014-12-19T06:15:58.211+11:002014-12-19T06:15:58.211+11:00Nice work! But if I believe your formulas both ac...Nice work! But if I believe your formulas both acclimatized and nonacclimatized athletes are optimized at the same, close to 3000 meter altitude: that is where, for each, the physiological and wind drag curves become parallel, which marks the point at which the marginal losses equal the marginal gains.djconnelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01484858820878605035noreply@blogger.com