Pursuit Spaghetti: Elite Pacing

The 2015 UCI track cycling world championships in Saint-Quentin-En-Yvelines, France, have recently concluded and there's been some on-line chatter about the pacing of Silver medallist and former world champion and world record holder Jack Bobridge during the final of the 4000 metre individual pursuit. Seen through the lens of his recent unsuccessful attempt at setting a world hour record, some are wondering "what was Jack was doing going out so fast?".

While he does start too hard and probably needs to reel that tendency in, I don't think it's quite the same as for his hour attempt. While many of the challenges are similar, pursuits are a different beast.

Some seemed to think he set out to catch his opponent in the final, and if you look at how he rapidly gained on his opponent in the early stages you'd think that might just be the case. Except I can't believe that would have been the strategy for various reasons (mainly since it would have required elite level kilo TT pacing to achieve it and so just wouldn't have happened). It also doesn't bear out in the data.

To explain this I thought I'd look at pursuit pacing at the elite level in general, as well as show what actually happened during the final between Bobridge and Gold medallist and winner Stefan Kueng of Switzerland.

Congratulations to Kueng by the way. He was Bronze medallist in 2013, Silver medallist in 2014 and is now the 2015 World Champion. That's a nice progression.

So here are some charts for you viewing pleasure.

The first shows the half lap (125 metre) times for each rider during their qualifying ride. it's a bit of a spaghetti junction, so I'll also show just the finalist's qualifying rides as well. Click the image to view a larger version.

2015 UCI World Championship 4000m individual pursuit qualifying

So what are we to make of this lot?

Well firstly I have highlighted the two lines for eventual winner Kueng (yellow) and Bobridge (red). This was their qualifying ride compared with everyone else (except for the Hong Kong rider whose times were a bit slow for this plot).

Also shown is a straight white line marking a slope representing a fade in pace of one second per kilometre. I use this as a guideline to assess whether a rider's pacing was good or poor. If you faded more quickly, then you started too hard, and the method of energy distribution wasn't optimal for attaining the least time possible.

It's pretty evident that many of those pacing lines are fading much more quickly than one second per kilometre. These are not novice riders but the best from their respective nations and some of the best in the world. This is a world championships and yet this most basic pacing mistake is still made.

That doesn't mean that pacing with more of a "flat line" is ideal either, although it's somewhat less of a sin than starting too hard and fading rapidly.

Pursuit pacing is a complex pacing optimisation problem. Dr Andy Coggan discusses this a little in the 3rd part of his excellent three part series: The Demands of the Individual Pursuit, so head there if you'd like to learn some more.

If you were able to speed up through the event, well it's also likely you've left some speed out there. Nailing this event takes practice and some years.

Let's clear away some of the noodles and look at the finalist's qualifying rides:

It's pretty clear that Bobridge starts hard and fades rapidly. Too hard and as a result, too rapidly. Kueng's pacing shows a negative split/getting faster in the second half, which suggests he left some pace out there.

Kueng had a qualifying advantage over Bobridge (and most of the field) in that Kueng rode in the final heat, while Bobridge rode the second heat. Kueng had earned his final heat advantage due to his Silver medal the previous year. This meant he knew his task to make the gold medal ride off was not to match Bobridge's time, which at that point was still the fastest qualifying time, but rather to beat his heat opponent and to beat the second best time up to that point, which was several seconds slower than Bobridge had ridden.

That meant Kueng's schedule could be more conservative than Bobridge's. This saves precious energy for the final, while Bobridge had to put all he had out there. As it turns out, Kueng's qualifying opponent (Alex Edmondson) faded in the final kilometre, which saw Kueng gaining but not quite catching him. That's pretty much the perfect scenario for a rider as you gain an increasing draft advantage in the final laps just when you need it, but don't waste precious energy passing your opponent. Bobridge caught and passed his opponent with 3 laps remaining, and it shows in his qualifying ride data.

The other two finalists show pretty reasonable pacing, however in the final laps their times blow out and rise rapidly. This is most likely because, like Bobridge, they caught their qualifying ride opponent and had to make a pass. As they approached the other rider they receive the benefit of some draft and that benefit increases the closer they approach, but then they have to make a pass and the acceleration to do that costs energy as well as track position. That's why you see that dip in track time followed by the rise. Once past their opponent, they are back out in the front with no more draft benefit and on fatiguing legs after having upped the power to make a pass - hence their lap times increase rapidly.

Here are the pacing plots for Kueng and Bobridge comparing their ride in qualifying (dashed lines) and in the gold medal final (solid lines):

Kueng and Bobridge pursuits: Qualifier and Final

We can see that Bobridge started his final almost exactly as he had done in the qualifying ride. Too fast again. This time his fade in pacing was even sharper. Kueng started a little harder than in his qualifier but still more conservatively than Bobridge. Kueng also started to fade at the halfway mark, just not as rapidly as Bobridge was dropping pace. It made for a fascinating race. Kueng only took the lead from Bobridge in the final half lap. Exciting stuff.

So thinking back to that first chart  - is this a common theme - that of elite riders starting too hard and riding a slower time than they might have done?

Well here are some more plots for the 2014 and 2013 world championships.

First the 2014 championships which were held in Cali, Colombia. This 250m wooden track, while covered, is exposed to the wind and so we can see the more variable pacing in the half laps times as riders battled slight head and tailwinds as they circulated the track. This undoubtedly makes pacing an even trickier challenge.

The two gold medal finalists are highlighted with the thicker yellow and red lines, yellow for the eventual winner. I'm guessing by looking at these lines that Kueng rides a bit more by feel than by pace and permitted his speed to vary more with the breeze. By and large most riders were fading by around 1 second per km or slightly more, so still some room for improvement.

2014 UCI World Championship 4000m individual pursuit qualifying

Here are the qualifying rides by the four finalists:

In 2013, the World Championships were held in Minsk, Belarus. Again the gold medal finalists are shown with yellow and red lines, but some of the pacing is just bizarre for world level.

2013 UCI World Championship 4000m individual pursuit qualifying

As with before, here are the qualifying rides for the four finalists:

So there you have it, three years of world championship pursuit spaghetti. Delicious.

Read More......

Some kilometres are longer than others

With the spate of attempts at the UCI world hour record over late-2014 and into 2015 due to the revised UCI rules making the record within reach of more riders, it has naturally sparked interest in discussing what matters for best performance in the event.

Jens Voigt started the latest round of hour record attempts at the UCI's Aigle track

I recently saw some chat on a triathlon forum speculating about who could do what distance and so on. All in good fun, but none of them actually go to a track to find out. If they did, they'd realise it's not quite as simple (or as hard) as they might make out.

It pretty much comes down to optimising four main elements:

• maximising sustainable power output for an hour
• minimising the physical resistance factors of riding on the track
• technical execution / skill
• logistics & resources

Some might add psychological factors to that list, but ultimately I consider these to be expressed within the outcomes of each of the above.

Regarding logistics, there are of course UCI requirements to be permitted an official attempt an hour record, e.g.: minimum time in anti-doping bio-passport program is mandatory at elite level or dope testing at age group level, application submitted in advance for approval to relevant levels of cycling administrations, all the technical requirements including international level commissaires to supervise, a UCI approved track, use of timing equipment, start gates, specified date and time of attempt, etc. You can't just rock up and ride whenever you like. Well you could but it would never be a sanctioned attempt.

Then of course you need to factor in enough solo rider time on track for preparation, and that costs money and time as well. Quality indoor tracks are not always local, and even if they are, getting solo time on the track is not always so easy, let alone cheap. For an elite professional rider whose job is to race on the road, it may be difficult to devote sufficient time to the task of preparing properly for a track event.

Of course assuming the paperwork is all in order and you can do your training, then sustainable aerobic power and aerodynamics are king and the rider's ratio of power to aerodynamic drag area is the single most important factor for how far they will go in the hour. But W/m^2 is not the only factor.

There are other physical resistance force factors, like the influence of air density which is a function of altitude, temperature and barometric pressure (and to a much lesser extent, humidity) and the rolling resistance of the track and tyres chosen. I discuss some of these in the following items:
Altitude and the Hour record Part I
Altitude and the Hour record Part II

Which leaves us with technical execution and skill factors, of which there are a couple of key items, namely:

• pacing, which I covered in this case study of the masters hour record by Jayson Austin, and 
• riding a good lines around the track.

Riding good lines

Riding a good line involves a couple of components, one is pretty obvious and involves not riding further than you need to around the bends. Ride wide and you ride further. Pretty simple given the track is all but two semi-circles joined together with two straight sections. OK, the actual shape of tracks are more subtlety curved but that's close enough to describe why riding wide adds distance to your travels around a lap.

Design of the Glasgow Velodrome

If you ride 10cm wider in the turns, you add 10cm x 2 x PI = 62.8cm per lap.

If the extra width is measured on the track's surface, well the actual addition to the distance the wheel travels is reduced by the cosine of the banking angle. e.g. say the track's turns are, on average, banked at 40 degrees, and you ride 10cm above the black line. Then the actual additional track radius ridden is cosine (40 degrees) x 10cm = 7.7cm, and the additional distance per lap = 7.7cm x 2 x PI = 48.1cm. Nearly half a metre.

Do that over 200 laps or so for an elite hour record and you'll ride ~100 metres more than you need to. And that's for riding only a hand's width above the black line.

London Velodrome used for the 2012 Olympics

Another more subtle ride line factor involves the shape and design of the banking and in particular the transitions from the straights to the turns and back again, and whether it's advantageous to ride a slightly wider line in the straights to aid the transitions. On the straights you don't suffer the same severe distance penalty of riding a wider "radius" as you do when riding wide in the turns, so you can explore marginal gains in this manner.

However there is no simple or single answer to this, it depends on the rider and the track geometry - all of which have subtle differences. This is a somewhat more complex optimisation problem and I'm not going to delve into it here.

So putting aside these subtleties, the shortest distance around the turns is to ride the track's black measurement line* - ride any further out from the black line and you ride more distance each lap than is necessary. For the hour record you only get credit for the official lap distance each lap, which is typically 250 metres per lap on most modern standard indoor velodromes although some tracks are shorter and some are longer.

* it is possible to ride inside the black line, however in such timed track events like the hour there are foam blocks placed around the inside line of the track to ensure the riders don't. Very skilled riders can however ride fractionally under the black line on some tracks but it is risky as hitting the foam blocks can disrupt your effort and wash off some speed. The shape of the track in that small space between the black line and the wide blue section varies from track to track and it can be good or not so good to ride in.

Foam blocks discourage riders from riding inside the black measurement line.

Now why are some kilometres longer than others?

Office distance for the hour record =
(Official lap distance)  x  (Number of full laps completed within the hour)
+ a pro-rata distance calculated for the final incomplete lap

I won't go into the formula used by the UCI to calculate the pro-rata distance of the final lap (that's actually deserving of a blog post on its own as the regulations are remarkably confusing).

It matters not how far you actually ride, you'll only be credited with the official minimum lap distance per lap. This is why track riders and coaches are focussed on lap times and not with bike speed, since lap times are the integral of all performance elements. Power meter and other data loggers are of course valuable in parsing out the individual elements of performance that go into attaining lap times, and helping to prioritise development opportunities.

How good are riders at riding the minimum distance necessary?

It varies. Quite a lot. Skilled track riders are typically much better, which is what you'd expect. But what sort of penalty would an unskilled rider face if they started out on a track effort?

Of course we can do lots of maths to figure out how much extra distance on average a rider might cover if they ride wide by so much, but in reality riders move up and down the track, sometimes riding a good line, other times not so good. Some riders are just better at it than others and some adapt to the track more quickly than others.

It'd be so much better if we could simply measure what people actually do rather than speculate.

Which had me thinking. I have some data like that already...

Not so long ago I was doing some performance testing involving half a dozen pro-continental road racers at an indoor 250m velodrome. One of the features of the data logging system used for the tests is an ability to calculate the distance ridden per lap using the wheel's speed sensor data combined with track timing tapes to know precisely when they pass a specific points on the track. With some clever maths this is enough to nail the actual distance ridden each lap to high precision.

In amongst the test data were some solo efforts of at least 10% of the distance of an elite hour record attempt (i.e. 20+ laps of consistent effort) and several such runs by each of the six riders. I figured the runs needed to be long enough to reasonably approximate what a rider might be expected to do over a longer distance/duration.

Of course absolute accuracy of the distance the wheels travel depends on having an accurate wheel circumference value and that value not changing a lot while riding. So I'm not going to assume that the absolute accuracy was perfect, even though the absolute error might typically be somewhat less than 1%. More than that would require an error in tyre circumference assumption of 20mm, which is a lot for those used to measuring such things. However in our favour is that even if such an error existed, it would be a consistent bias error.

So rather than concern myself with absolute accuracy, I thought I'd compare the measured average lap distance for each run with the shortest recorded legitimate lap. In this way if there is any bias error, it's impact on this analysis is minimised (i.e. both measurements would be out by the same proportional amount). By legitimate lap, I mean a full lap not ridden below the black line.

Here's a table summarising data collected from the six riders (in no particular order). Each rider has multiple runs although I haven't identified the riders in the table. What the first column shows is the average lap distance per run less the minimum legitimate lap distance for that same run. The distances are of course distance travelled by the wheel.

Now the riders possibly could ride a tighter line than they actually did for their shortest legitimate lap, meaning that these distances likely underestimate the extra distance ridden when compared with riding very tight to the black line.

For the moment though let's assume the shortest lap they rode during each run was the best they are capable of doing. Since they actually did it, I think that's a reasonable assumption.

The average extra distance ridden per lap varies from one rider to another. One rider consistently rode only 0.3-0.4 metres more per lap than their shortest distance lap, while another was consistently riding more than 2 metres extra per lap on average compared with their shortest legitimate lap. The rider with smallest extra distance per lap had a track racing background.

The second column shows what that average extra lap distance would mean if extrapolated to riding 200 laps of a 250m track (an official distance of 50.000km). For one rider they would be riding nearly half a kilometre further than their track skilled team mate. Yet if both completed exactly 200 laps in the hour, each would be credited with riding precisely 50km, even though one rider's wheels had travelled nearly 500m further than the other's.

In this case, 50.5km = 50.0km. Some kilometres are longer than others.

So what's that extra 500m cost in power terms?

Well for a rider with a CdA of ~0.23m^2, that extra 500 metres travelled requires they output ~11-12 watts more than if they were able to ride a a better line.

Or they'd need to find a 3% reduction in CdA to make up for their skill deficiency.

Remember these were well skilled, well trained and experienced pro-continential road racers and finding an extra 10W or losing another 3% of aero drag coefficient isn't such an easy thing to do.

So no matter your current skill level and experience, if you're expecting to ride such an event yet you have never trained to become proficient riding on the track, well you might want to chop half a kilometre or so from your estimated distance covered based on your power and aero data alone.

Better still, just get to a track a find out what you can actually do.

Likewise, when estimating power, or W/m^2 from the official hour record distances, you might need to add some watts for the technical proficiency of the rider. The less proficient, the more power is required to attain the same official distance.

Read More......

An hour at a time

A short and sweet entry today. I'm just back from the Dunc Gray Velodrome, having coached rider Jayson Austin to a new world masters hour record for M40-44 category.

48.411km

which adds 1.284km to the previous record of 47.127km held by Dave Stevens (December 2011).

Great work Jayson, it was a bit of a fight with some challenges during the ride.

Coach is pretty darn pleased with his chargers - Jayson having previously set the record for M35-39 back in 2009 (you can read about that here) and just recently Charles McCulloch of the UK set the M50-54 record a few months back at the Manchester velodrome.

Charles' record for M50-54 is 47.96km. 

Across town and across the world. Good work fellas.

For those interested, here's Jayson's speed and cadence plot. I'm leaving the power data out for now, for reasons I won't go into here.

Photos later.

Post script: For reference, Jayson's ride is the second fastest hour ride ever by an Australian. Brad McGee holds that record at 50.052km, set in 1997 aged 21. Different and slightly more relaxed aero equipment rules back then.

Read More......

Individual Pursuit - What Makes us Faster?

A long time ago, in a galaxy far away, a Jedi Knight called Andy Coggan developed an insightful (but often misunderstood) table of numbers known as Power Profiling. Power junkie cyclists have been (mis)using the table to psych out their mates for years now.

The Power Profiling table lists power to body mass ratios for four key durations: 1-hour, 5-minutes, 1-minute and 5-seconds, chosen to reasonably represent the energy systems/physiology that predominantly underpin performance over these duration, i.e. (respectively): lactate threshold, maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), anaerobic work capacity & neuromuscular power.

Power to body mass ratio is an excellent overall predictor of performance potential. It is especially good for determining performance when climbing hills.

However, performance in flatter time trials and individual pursuits is much more a function of power and aerodynamics than it is of power and body mass. Body mass of course impacts aerodynamics, however the relationship between them is variable, with overall morphology and position on a bike far more influential than body mass per se.

So, when choosing the one performance factor most important for flatter time trials and pursuits, one needs to focus on improving a different ratio – the Power to Aerodynamic Drag* ratio (power to CdA ratio - W/m^2).

The higher the W/m^2, the faster we go. Pretty simple really.

In 2009 Jedi Knight Coggan, being somewhat prescient, developed a draft version of his power profiling table, this time expressing performance in terms of the ratio of 1-hour power to CdA . I’d love to share a link to it, but I’m not sure I have a public location I can point you to (it was originally posted on a discussion forum about two years ago which has suckerific search function). I’m sure either Andy will provide a link, or post up a new blog item about it at some stage.

In any case, I thought at the time it might also be of interest to develop a similar table for the Individual Pursuit, so Andy whipped up one for me, and I then took that data and created a chart and table. Now that was nearly two years ago and I've been meaning to do a blog post about it ever since! Okay, so it's a little late but here it is.

The table show times for 2km, 3km and 4km individual pursuits and the corresponding W/m^2 required to attain that performance (click / right click to show full sized version):


So, for example, if you want to ride a 3km pursuit in 3:35, you will need a power to aero drag ratio of about 1900 W/m^2.

Alternatively, if you know your power and pursuit time (on a fast track), then you can back calculate an estimate of your CdA. e.g. a rider who completes a 4km pursuit in 4:30 requires a power to aero drag ratio of ~ 2200W/m^2.

If we know their power output we can then estimate their CdA. Let’s say they averaged 480W.
CdA = (480W) / (2200W/m^2) = ~ 0.218 m^2

It’s not perfect of course, just a guide and there are many factors to consider. Besides, if you have a power meter on your track bike, there are better ways to determine your CdA.

The chart below plots the same data, as well as show where on the chart the current world record holders appear for the following categories:

Elite Men & Women
Junior Men & Women
Masters Women

Hence, these world records represent the current upper limit of W/m^2 for each category:


The records are from the UCI website here: Track World Records

With the exception of Sarah Hammer’s WR in Aguascalientes, all of the others were set at sea level and in indoor velodromes (and so the assumptions used for the table data will be closer to the mark).

In the case of Sarah Hammer, due to the significantly reduced air density at altitude, it is probable her W/m^2 is overstated and is a little less than previous world record holder Sarah Ulmer whose record was set at sea level. The Power/CdA estimate for Ulmer’s 3:24.537 ride is 2200 W/m^2.

One thing the chart emphasises is just how much one needs to improve W/m^2 in order just to go even just a few seconds faster. When you are near your physiological performance (power) limit, we can see how important aerodynamics are to overall performance.

And just how freakin good those world record rides are.


Now of course there are some assumptions used to make up the data for the tables (assumption are shown on the table and chart). For example, it does assume a pretty fast track/tyres at a typical sea level air density, but really it’s just a guide, and serves to emphasise the importance of aerodynamics and thinking in terms of W/m^2 when working out what to focus on to improve your pursuit and time trial performance.

If your track and/or tyres are slower than the best, then it’s likely the performance suggested as attainable from a given power to aero drag ratio is overstated (or the W/m^2 required for a given performance is understated). Also, the rate of change in kinetic energy and associated variable power demands will also have some impact on these estimates. These data have used typical assumptions for that, but of course everyone’s initial acceleration, mass and fade in speed during their pursuit rides are different.

I’ll look into doing a similar chart for the hour record at some stage.

Where do you fall on the table?


For those interested in more discussion on factors impacting pursuit performance, then these items by Andy Coggan are a great place to start:

Demands of the individual pursuit, part 1
Demands of the individual pursuit, part 2



* Aerodynamic Drag is expressed as the combination of our two factors:

- Coefficient of Drag (Cd), a unit-less measure which is related to the shape of an object and how that affects air flow around it (e.g. think of a brick vs a bullet shape, the bullet shape has a lower Cd); and

- Effective Frontal Area (A), measured in square metres (m^2) which is how much area we present to the air (e.g . compare a van and a Mack truck – the truck has a larger frontal area and has to push more air).

These two factors are multiplied together to determine how "slippery" we are through the air.

Some example typical CdA values:
Commuter cyclist: 0.4 – 0.7 m^2
Road racing cyclist: 0.26 - 0.38 m^2
Time trial/pursuit rider: 0.2 – 0.3 m^2
Sports car: 0.5 - 0.6 m^2

Read More......

little things matter

This weekend I’m on Australia’s “Sunshine Coast” in Queensland where the national paracycling road championships are being held. Sunshine Coast? It’s pretty much been raining since I got here yesterday after 15 hours of driving from Sydney.

Today was the individual road time trial. The races were run over a flat 4km section of road that was closed for the event, making an 8km out ‘n’ back course, the number of laps depending on race category. All paracycling categories, including handcycles, were competing today. Those handcycle guys and gals are pretty amazing.

My race (Mens C4) was a 24km ITT which was three laps of the flat S-shaped course. That meant five U-turns. There was a decent southerly wind blowing today (20 km/h) making for cross winds mostly, but short sections of near block head and tailwind. Here’s the course map:


24C, 1024hPa and 85% relative humidity.

And below is the power, speed and cadence trace (click to see a larger image). As you can see by looking at the speed line, the wind really had an impact.


So how did I go? Well the power was OK and about right for my current form. I pretty much just tried to keep a 3 in the hundreds column on the power display and let the legs tell me if that was about right. As is typical legs felt way too good early, plus pushing into cross-head wind, resulting in a solid start.

Average for the 35 minutes or so was 304 watts. Normalised Power 305W.

At halfway I started to struggle and power dropped a bit for the next section. I was focusing on keeping a rhythm as much as I could and use the short tailwind section for a very slight recovery, knowing that I would probably be able to find something for the final leg.
I just needed to hang in there.

Hang in there I did, and I lifted for the finale (ouch – that was hard) but it was worth it.

I took Silver, 1:13 down on the winner (Ryan Hughes) which is what I expected given the gap between us in the Individual Pursuit earlier this year. I thought about a minute or so would be about right.

But I only took silver over bronze by 1/100th of a second! That’s the equivalent of the width of one’s hand over 24km. 0.00045%. Now that’s what I call a slim margin.

Sometimes the little things matter.

Go Turbo Studio.


Road race tomorrow.

Read More......

Another Hour of Power

48.317 km.

That’s how far Jayson Austin was calculated to have ridden on his second and successful attempt to set a new world record for Masters Men (35-39) distance ridden in one hour. It added a huge 2.676km (5.8%) to the previous record set in 2007 by Jason Sprouse of the USA.

Jayson on his way to a new World Record

It is also the second furthest ridden by an Australian, with Brad McGee holding the honour of the furthest distance (not sure exactly how far but it is something over 50km).


It’s also about the same length as this post, so be warned!

I wrote about Jayson’s previous unsuccessful attempt in this post: An Hour of Power, which has been one of the more popular reads on this blog.

So what went right this time? How did Jayson add a whopping 3.649km (8.2%) to his previous attempt where he managed to ride 44.668km?

More excellent photos on the ride taken by Trevor Mullins can be found here:
http://tregan.com.au/photography/Sport/Cycling/One_Hour_Record/

As I have mentioned before, there are three things that primarily contribute to a fast time trial (or in the case of the hour record, to maximise distance ridden):

• Power to the pedals
• Piercing the wind (plus fast tyres)
• Pacing the course

I’ve previously explained these Three Ps in this post: Old Skool.

OK, well let’s consider his first attempt at the record last year.

Power - Feb 2008
Average Power: 241 watts (4.0 W/kg)
Normalised Power: 259 watts (NP:AP = 1.07)

Jayson took quite ill in the weeks leading up to the event and he was clearly not in the form he would have normally expected come race day. In hindsight he probably should have postponed. However that is a difficult choice as the logistics to organise the event make that tricky. In addition, on the day the timing system failed and Jayson had to abandon the attempt after 5-minutes and do a restart. That certainly did not help his cause at all. Jayson also chose to use a gear far too large for his form on the day.

Average Power for his first attempt was 241 watts. Normalised Power was 259 watts, giving a ratio of NP to AP of 1.07. For an hour record attempt, that is a very high ratio and one would expect a very well paced effort on a velodrome would see that ratio being very close to 1.00.

Piercing the wind - Feb 2008
Using the data available from the SRM power meter on Jayson’s bike, I concluded his CdA (a measure of how slippery you are through the air) was in the vicinity of 0.190m^2. That is very slippery for a bike rider by any standard. So Jayson had a pretty slick set up and position. Riding 44.7km with an average power of only 241 watts certainly indicates he was piercing the wind just fine.

Combined with his power, the ratio that most determines the speed a time trial rider will travel at is their sustainable power to aerodynamic drag - FTP : CdA - ratio.

In Feb 2007 that ratio was 241 / 0.190 = 1268 W/m^2

Pacing - Feb 2008
In essence, in the context of his sub-standard form come race day, Jayson simply paced poorly, making the classic mistake of going out too hard and fading. Badly. Ignoring the pacing signals from his coach, this was well and truly demonstrated by the charts in the first linked post, showing how much he faded through the course of the attempt, finally hitting a brick wall at around the 45-min mark.

Breaking his average power down into 15-min sections shows the dramatic fade in power:
00-15 min: 302 watts
15-30 min: 272 watts
30-45 min: 242 watts
45-60 min: 151 watts

I suspect what Jayson did was to ride at a level he felt he would be able sustain but that turned out not to be the case. C'est la vie.

Using my pacing analysis models (something I haven’t written about in any detail here), I have rated Jayson’s pacing with a Pacing Score of 0.960, which is, in fact, the lower anchor point on my relative pacing performance charts (i.e. indicating very poor pacing). A best in class Pacing Score is 0.995 (with 1.000 being theoretically perfect pacing).

To put that into context, if Jayson had ridden with best in class pacing, even with the reduced power at his disposal on that day, he could have added another 1.5-1.6km to his ride distance. He missed the record that day by 974 metres.

These are tough mistakes to make and hard lessons learned. But we often learn more from having the courage to make mistakes. Certainly both Jayson and his coach would have felt a little burned by the attempt (what some may not know is that Jayson had, in training, already beaten the record, just not officially sanctioned with UCI supervision, electronic timing, doping control etc etc that is required for an official record to be set).

In the months following, Jayson’s riding, form and morale slipped somewhat and his coach (a friend of mine), who was moving onto other projects, suggested Jayson speak with me about taking him on and getting him back on track. So Jayson and I discussed where he was at and set ourselves the objective of having another crack at the hour (as well as other racing objectives along the way).

For me, what was going to be important was that Jayson demonstrated a willingness to learn from the mistakes made (both from the ride specifically but also in general). You can be sure that these lessons were not lost on coach, and I consider them to be a substantial contributor to Jayson’s excellent performance the other week.

The biggest failure this time round would not have been missing the record, but in repeating the same mistakes.

OK, so how did the successful ride compare?

Power - Apr 2009
Average Power: 302 watts (5.0 W/kg).
Normalised Power: 303 watts (NP:AP = 1.00)

That’s 61 watts (+25%) more than his previous attempt. Now that’s gotta help. How did he manage it?

This time round Jayson did not get ill before the event. Nevertheless he is still relatively prone to illness, niggles and for some reason, a little accident prone as well (he even had a crash a few weeks before the attempt which did disrupt preparations a little). Jayson also works a full time job, with a lot of manual labour required (he works in the commercial flooring industry). So the ramp up of his training loads were pretty carefully managed to avoid increased susceptibility to illness and at times recognise that his work was sometimes tough on his body and training needed to be cut back. Even so, there were times when Jayson would do more than coach liked, and guess what? – the niggles would appear soon afterwards and training would be compromised.

Over time Jayson really started to appreciate the sense behind carefully managing the training loads. It enabled consistency of training and from that follows a steady and sustainable improvement in form. Jayson told me his form “sort of snuck up on me”.

Of course I did not confine Jayson to just training. Racing was a reasonably regular part of the diet. Every rider needs that little extra motivation at times, and pinning a number on your back is an excellent way to do this. As well, in the final weeks before the attempt, we minimised his exposure to Sydney’s busy roads, with a majority of rides being either with me, a trusted mate, at Centennial Park, on the velodrome or on my purpose built ergobike, Thunderbird 7.

Clearly Jayson has an engine and can really dig out some excellent power at times. What he lacked when we began working together, some 40 weeks before his hour ride, was depth of fitness. Despite very low training loads, he is way too capable of putting the hurt on and suffering the consequences. For those that understand the numbers, his chronic training load (CTL) at the time we started was ~38 TSS/day.

At the time of his hour ride:
CTL: 86 TSS/day
TSB: +10 TSS/day (training stress balance)
CTL/ATL Time Constants: 42/7 days

I did not have Jayson doing huge volumes. What I did do was ensure Jayson was doing quality work. Good solid endurance. Plenty of sweet spot / tempo work. Threshold tolerance work. And during the specific race preparation period, high end aerobic power work and specific threshold work on the track bike and in aero position at the track. The limited taper involved cutting back volume while using short but relatively intense intervals at the higher end of his aerobic power level abilities.

Here is a comparison of his power last time and this time:



Piercing the wind - Apr 2009
OK, so I have already established that Jayson was pretty darn slick through the air. But was any further improvement possible? Well yes as a matter of fact. Some positional changes, a different set of aero bars (based on a British Cycling design) and use of double disk wheels resulted in Jayson’s CdA lowering to around 0.185m^2. That’s a 2.6% improvement. It doesn’t sound a lot but that is worth approximately another 420 metres to his ride.

The bike exactly as ridden.
Thoroughly checked to ensure full compliance with all UCI regulations.
Note placement of the SRM PCV under the saddle.

Of note was that on this attempt, Jayson rode with a standard "under ball of foot" cleat position. In Feb 2008, Jayson used a mid-foot/arch cleat position. The fact that improved aerodynamics was achieveable despite the higher saddle position required of the regular cleat position would not be lost on some astute readers. Jayson also received a lot of support from fit guru Steve Hogg, mainly addressing many of the regular niggles, minor adjustments, use of various stem options, different saddles etc.

During training at the track, where possible, changes in position or equipment were compared to assess the differences. An alternative aero helmet was tried for instance and found to be substantially less aerodynamic than the Uvex that Jayson used. This is one of the direct and practical benefits of using power meters. It removes much of the guess work and objective decisions can be made based on the data.

So now Jason's FTP:CdA ratio is 302 / 0.185 = 1632 W/m^2

Even so, I would say that further improvement with his aerodynamics is still possible. There are still several minor details which, with enough solo track time, I would like to have tried and tested but they will just have to wait for another day.

Pacing - Apr 2009
Well I’m glad to report that Jayson now has the unique honour of topping the pacing league table, with a Pacing Score of 0.998, the best score I have ever recorded, as well as being the low anchor point (0.960).

Let’s just say that of the things that were drummed into Jayson’s head, pacing was what I was most concerned with. I knew he had the power. I knew he was slick. But would he be able to execute?

To ensure that happened, we did a lot of work in the weeks leading up to the attempt focussed on pacing. I developed a means to clearly communicate pacing information to him and Jayson began to develop an excellent “feel” for how to augment his effort ever so slightly each lap to maintain a sustainable pacing level. His choice of gearing was part of that strategy.

One thing went against the “conventional wisdom” – Jayson’s average cadence was 112 rpm. Conventional wisdom says Hour Records are all but set with a cadence of ~100rpm give or take 1 or 2 rpm. Bollocks to conventional wisdom I say.

Pacing information, lap times etc were conveyed on a regular basis

We also knew that different environmental conditions would impact on the sustainable pace on the day and we trained on different days with subtly different conditions. On the day of the attempt I checked both the air temperature and air pressure and that would tell me what pacing would likely be sustainable (and what wouldn’t). Dunc Gray Velodrome is not climate controlled and the temperature can and does vary quite a lot.

For example, a 5C drop in temperature would reduce the distance ridden by ~ 280 metres and an increase in air pressure of 20hPa would mean another 315 metres lost. Fortunately it was not a cold (21C) nor a high pressure (1004hPa) day although it had been warmer in training. Also, we requested that all windows and louvres be closed so as to minimise any potential wind disrutption and to retain as much heat inside as possible (April is Autumn in Sydney).

Of course the athlete is the one that must make a call on how hard to go but I had developed a very good understanding of his body language and could tell when it was too hard. Jayson was never going to go too easy, that’s for sure. My main concern was keeping a lid on it in the opening minutes. Jayson was made well aware of the lap times and how that played out relative to the existing record. The pacing mistakes were made in training, and ironed out in training.

On race day, nerves and adrenaline took a hold (I expected it, heck coach was nervous too!) and Jayson’s pacing was a little up and down in the opening minutes. However he made rapid adjustments knowing full well what over cooking it would do. It took quite a while but once he settled into a rhythm, his pacing was metronomic. Average lap times around the 250 metre track were 18.59 seconds (not counting the opening lap).

We had planned for a couple of “rest” breaks, where he could sit up, stretch, relieve any pressure points for a lap or so but as it turns out he didn’t need that and remained firmly in position for the entire hour. At times he varied his pace a little, and sometimes pushed himself back in the saddle, which was quite deliberate and helped him to stay comfortable and keep his concentration going.

Here is a comparison of his speed last time and this time:

That's more like it!

Thank you to:
Apart from Jays actually having the gumption to have another crack and delivering, there were many others involved in helping him get there and all should rightly share the success, including his former coach (hi Peter) who introduced him to training with power in the first place and showed what was possible, sponsors, the officials who helped coordinate the venue/UCI/ASADA etc, our club chief Mike, Jayson's family/support crew, Steve Hogg who was very accommodating with equipment and constant positional adjustments, training and racing buddies who kindly lent special gear (wheels, bars) for the attempt and rode/raced with Jays during the build up. And then all those that showed up to cheer him on!

Footnote:
Just six days after his record breaking ride, Jayson was knocked from his bike by a car while on a ride by a “hit and run” driver. Knocked unconscious and very, very nearly run over by another oncoming car, who’s driver managed to stop with the bumper bar over Jayson’s head, he is lucky to be alive. Jayson was admitted to Manly hospital and fortunately suffered no broken bones. However he did suffer from a sizeable haematoma and severe swelling of the thigh which required emergency surgery to open the leg (a fasciotomy) so that excess fluids could be drained and the swelling would not prevent blood flow. That was successful but now he has a large open wound which will take some weeks to heal.

He has since been discharged and it will be at least eight weeks before he can work or ride. As you can imagine Jayson is pretty pissed off about the incident but otherwise is in good spirits.

So now it will be onto the next challenge, getting an injured soul back to good form. That's something I have some experience with.

Well done Jayson! A super ride.

Photos: David Lane, Action Snaps:
http://www.actionsnaps.com.au/

Read More......

New Skool

OK, a follow up to this earlier post ("Old Skool") about a local time trial (TT) I raced last month on my normal road bike.

On that ride I completed the not quite 25km undulating Calga TT course in 42:55.

I also referred to the importance of the 3 P's of riding fast TTs (well as fast as one can go):

1. Power to the pedals
2. Piercing the wind
3. Pacing the course

With power meter data, the environmental conditions known and some special mathematical wizardry, I am able to quantify each of those three Ps from my ride last month:

1. Power:
My power average was 264 watts (normalised power 268 watts).

2. Piercing the wind:
I estimated a Coefficient of Drag x Frontal Area (CdA) of 0.334 m^2. The lower the CdA, the faster you go for the same power output.

3. Pacing
My Pacing Optimisation Score was 0.990, which ranks between "excellent" and "best in class" and means that in order to attain "best in class" level of pacing, there was another ~ 13 seconds of time savings to be found on course. Those savings can be found by dosing your effort carefully on the course depending on the terrain.

Of these 3 P's, the biggest gains (in a month) were going to come from improving #2: Piercing the Wind.

My pacing is already pretty good (but always room for improvement).

As for power, well that was a bit of an unknown for a couple of reasons, one of which I'll get to in a moment. The other reason was I recently had a bad head cold and needed a full week off training. That's never a good thing when you are training well to improve your power. If you have a good amount of training behind you, it often doesn't hurt your power much, provided you allow yourself to recover properly and don't start riding hard too soon and end up prolonging the illness.

So what about piercing the wind?

After my Old Skool post, a generous offer was made by a former coaching client of mine to loan me a TT specific bike (for a while until I can sort out my own rig). That was an offer too good to refuse, so last week the bike arrived and yesterday was my first and only chance to work on getting the set up right. It even has a Powertap power meter so that was a big bonus :D.

So it was off to Centennial Park for some time riding and making adjustments to the saddle position, the bars, arm rests and so on until I felt I could ride the bike OK. Main challenge was being able to pedal without the prosthetic hitting my arm on the upstroke. It's really annoying. I got it to a stage where it was hitting slightly but not enough to ruin a ride. I will have a solution for that, which I'll write about in another post (some news coming about my new legs).

Sometimes when you go from a road bike position to a TT bike position you can lose some power as you are not used to the different joint angles and so on. Typically you are looking to maximise your aerodynamic gains without much sacrifice in ability to produce power (in the end it's maximising speed that matters). That can take quite some time to optimise as you need time to adapt to the new bike position. I didn't have that luxury as the TT was today.

Here's the loaner bike:


Bike has an aero bar set up and 38mm deep carbon rims, so not a complete aero set up (which would have a rear disk wheel and a deep section front wheel). Also, I am not as yet using an aero helmet - I used the same standard road helmet as last time as well as a skin suit.


So what happened this time?

Conditions today were very similar to last time: calm to very little wind with the same air density at 1.179 kg/m^3 (different temperature, barometric air pressure and humidity between each day but all the variations cancelled each other out to end up with air that was the same density). In other words, the two TTs can be readily compared.

My race time was 41:14, which is 1 minute 41 seconds faster than last month.

So how did the 3 P's compare to last time? Here are the numbers (with previous month's TT numbers in brackets). They allow us to assess how much each component of the Three Ps contributed to my extra speed.

1. Power:
Average: 263 watts (264 watts) - basically the same power
Normalised: 269 watts (268 watts)

2. Piercing the wind:
CdA: 0.286 m^2 (0.334 m^2) - a 14% improvement

3. Pacing the course:
Pacing Score 0.991 (0.990)
Time lost compared to Best in Class pacing: 8 seconds (13 seconds) - so a 5 second improvement through better pacing


So it's pretty clear that the vast bulk of speed improvement was due to my improved aerodynamics, all achieved simply because I was using a bike that enabled me to ride in a much more aerodynamic position. Now if you ever wondered why some riders obsess over aerodynamics - well there's your answer!

Just to put the aerodynamic changes into perspective,
that's over 4 seconds per kilometre faster for the same power.

The nice thing about this is that there are more aerodynamic improvements to be made, and one would hope that my fitness will improve and that I'll have more power available once I adapt to the TT position. As for pacing, well I seem to have that pretty well sorted.

One final comment on the day. Last time I experienced some problems with my leg fitting becoming loose and painful in the latter stages of the TT. I didn't experience the same problem today. I packed extra foam into my leg this time and conditions were a little cooler which more than likely meant less sweat build up inside the leg liner. It still works loose gradually over time but it was much better today and no significant pain.

My next TT will be at the end of April, when I tackle the challenging Mooball TT course in northern NSW. That is part of the 2009 National Paracycling Road Race Championships. Should be a hoot (although I wish it were a flatter course).

Read More......

Old Skool

Time trialling is a popular part of the sport of cycle racing. The "race of truth" is deceptively simple. Ride a set course by yourself and try to finish it in the shortest time possible. Fastest time wins. Easy.

As always with this sport, there are a number of elements that go into riding the fastest time you can. But in essence, they come down to the three P's:

1. Power to the pedals
2. Piercing the wind
3. Pacing the course

If you don't address all three "P's", you are riding sub-optimally from a "least time" perspective.

Power is all about the training you do to improve your fitness and your ability to ride harder. The power and training part of the equation is something I've written lots about on this blog.

Piercing the wind is all about the aerodynamics of your bike and especially your position on the bike. Given this is about the physical elements that resist our forward motion, I also include a few other items, like having the best tyres for the lowest rolling resistance and an efficient drivetrain so power is not "lost" between the cranks and the rear wheel.

Pacing is the skill part of the equation and is all about knowing how hard to push yourself at various times on the course. Pacing is something I've also written quite a bit about (but not here on my blog), and for which I have developed some mathematical modelling. I'll write a bit here about that one day.


Anyway, what's all this fancy pants maths got to do with "Old Skool"?

Well last weekend I rode a TT. It's our "local" TT run by the NSW branch of the Australian Time Trials Associations (ATTA) which is held on the first Sunday each month on the Calga course, about an hour's drive north of Sydney.

I decided to get back to doing some TTs for a few reasons. Firstly, since they are a race against the clock, once you have set a time then you have a benchmark for improvements. In essence you are racing only against yourself. They are an excellent fitness marker, especially when you are measuring your power output.

Secondly, I have also decided to race the paracycling national road championships (late April-early May), which includes a road TT (and a road race). So getting some similar length TTs under my belt seems like a good idea.

Finally, as I keep on with my return to the bike, I need to rediscover the type of competitive outlets that will better suit my new "body". So going back to riding many different types of events is one way to re-learn all about that.

Anyone who's ridden a TT, or even just watched one, will know that many riders use special bikes which are designed to improve the aerodynamics of the rider and bicycle. Much thought goes into this as it can result in big savings in time for the same physical effort.

However, some riders decide to ride TTs "Old Skool" style, meaning they use a standard road bike with standard wheels and helmet. No special effort is made to improve aerodynamics. That's what I did last week.

For some fun, below is the graphical summary of my ride and pacing analysis.



There's a bunch of stuff on there I won't go into today but in essence it shows the course elevation profile (it's an out and back course, with the first half mostly climbing) with elevation data obtained via two methods I won't describe here now, and two lines showing power - the yellow line is my actual power output (a 40-second rolling average) and the green line is a theoretical optimal power output for that segment of the course. By comparing the two lines you can see how well or otherwise I dosed out my effort along the way. So thats the Power and the Pacing elements.

There are also a range of other numbers shown, one of which is an estimate of my Coefficient of Aerodynamic Drag and Effective Frontal Area (CdA), which is a measure of how well (or not) I slice through the wind. Thats the "Piercing the wind" element.


OK, so how did I go?

Time: 42:55 @ 35km/h.
Average Power: 264 watts
Normalised Power: 268 watts

Not too bad given it was on standard road bike, helmet and wheels and the constantly up 'n' down Calga course. That placed me 25th out of 45 riders.

I was hoping for more like 270-280W (my first 20-min were at an average of 277W and holding myself in check) but I struggled with my prosthetic leg getting loose after about 15-20 minutes which saw 2nd half power fall somewhat and quite a bit of stump pain in the latter stages. My stump was very sore afterwards.

But that was exactly the point of the exercise - to find out the issues I face and need to fix when doing this sort of an effort. On a course like Calga, which is never flat and the power is somewhat more variable as a result, then the leg does tend to work loose a bit more quickly than say on a flatter road or on the ergobike where the effort is far steadier.

Main thing is to work on a solution for keeping my leg packed firmly in the socket during a longer hard effort. Otherwise it hurts and more importantly, you lose power. Maybe I needed to use more foam packing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). I probably didn't put enough in. Then there is the socket itself, which my rehab doc and prosthetics specialist says no longer fits properly (I have lost weight and my stump has changed its shape and volume again).

Of course I am also getting a special cycling leg made up, thanks to the generous donations and fund raising by the track cycling community here in Sydney. That is now being planned. I have the appointment to recast my stump on 2nd of April and from there we can begin the production of a new leg socket and a new general purpose leg. I can hardly wait!

So at the Calga TT next month I may be able to borrow a TT bike and see what difference it can make to my time. The analysis above shows a CdA of 0.33m^2 (square metres), which is very high for anyone doing a TT. Certainly riding on a TT bike I would expect that number to be much lower. Even at a modest 0.28m^2 (certainly readily attainable on a TT set up) I could expect to ride that same course in the same conditions (wind, temperature & air pressure) at the same power about 2-minutes faster.

We'll see.

Read More......

Testing Times #2

In November 2006 in this post I wrote about one method used for testing my current level of aerobic fitness - the time trial power test. It is a test to see how hard you can ride for a given distance. As a test for fitness, it's not the time taken for the course that matters so much as the average power you can sustain during the effort.

Time taken to complete the course isn't a great indicator of changes in fitness, since time can be readily affected by conditions on the day (wind conditions as an example). But power is power, provided you are conducting the test in a reasonably similar environment (altitude, terrain and it's not hideously hot or cold). It also helps to make sure you are not overly fatigued on the day of the test.

The length of the test is typically 10-miles or 16-kilometres. Doesn't need to be exact as it's power we are interested in, not the precise distance or time taken. Of course, if you ride 10-mile TTs regularly, then they are perfect opportunities to use as tests.

Today I was scheduled to do my first such test since returning to the bike.

So what happened?

Well of course today it decided to be a stormy rainy yukky sorta day, didn't it. And right now I don't need the hassle or riding in the rain.

So that left me with the other alternative - to get on the ergo bike and go for it. So that's what I did. Only trick is I have no speed/distance data on the indoor ergo bike, so I opted for a 25-minute long test.

Unsure of how hard to start with, I decided on starting at 220+ watts and then to go by feel from there. Here is the power chart from my effort (yellow = power, green = cadence):


Overall, for the 25 minutes I had an average power of 248 watts and a peak 20-minute average power of 252 watts.

So that's not too bad all things considered.

Testing continues later in week, with a Maximal Aerobic Power test.

Read More......

An Hour of Power

For a change, I thought I'd write about someone else. It's not all about me you know!

In this case it's about my club mate, Jayson Austin, who had the guts to take on a cycling challenge which is not for the faint hearted. You see Jayson wanted to break the world record distance for riding a bicycle around a velodrome in one-hour, for his age category (Mens Masters cat 2 - ages 35-39).

The current record is held by Jason Sprouse at 45.641km. Think about that - go out and ride your bike at 45 km/h. Now do it for an hour. By yourself.

Now these record attempts are done under strictly controlled conditions. They must be done on an officially certified track, so that the track distance is precise. In this case it was performed on Sydney's 250 metre Dunc Gray Velodrome, which hosted the track cycling events of the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000 and many world level events since then.

There must be World level International Cycling Union (UCI - the world governing body for the sport of cycling) officials present to officiate and sign off on the results. Electronic timing must be in place and the tape of the record showing every lap split is to be provided to the UCI for certification. Electronically controlled starting gates must be used. The bicycle must conform to UCI regulations and be checked and passed by relevant UCI official. In this case the bike is similar in set up to those used by riders who ride the Individual Pursuit.


Officals from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority have to be present to conduct drug/dope testing. The velodrome has to be hired. The local cycling administration has to provide its support and so on.

And that's before you even get on a bike and ride!

Jayson was preparing well for the event, had taken on a coach (my club mate and good riding buddy - Peter Montford of mypowercoach.com.au), was using an SRM power meter to guide training and had even done a practice trial at which he unofficially beat the target riding 46.41km.

I had designed a spreadsheet to manage the split timing data and provide his coach valuable feedback on Jay's pacing (relative to target) and with Jay's Mum calling the splits to me as we went - I entered the times in the laptop and could tell Peter what was going on.

Why bother with that? Don't you just go out there and ride it hard, and do what you can do? Well not quite. You see for aerobic endurance events like time trialling, good pacing is critical to attaining the best result (in this case the maximal distance in an hour).

So all was set. What happened?


He didn't make it, that's what. Missed it by 4 laps of the 250m velodrome. Arrgghh!


How come?

1. Well in fairness to Jay - he did get quite sick in the fortnight before the event. That's never good when you're about to lay it all on the line.

2. His gearing and pacing on the day were sub-optimal.

3. A fault in the timing system didn't help but was not, in my view, a primary consideration. His first attempt was aborted after 4 minutes as the electronic timing had not worked correctly. He had to stop and do a restart.


I'll talk through #2.

Here are some charts to show how it panned out. The first one shows his cumulative average speed through the hour. It also shows the distance covered at each 15 minute mark. Click on the chart to show a larger version.


It is pretty clear than Jay started too fast and faded as the hour progressed. His last 10 minutes were particularly painful.

How did that translate in power terms? Well here is a graphic showing his power output (yellow), speed (blue), cadence (green) and heart rate (red). Again,click on the chart to see a larger version.


This one tells the tale even more starkly. It's almost as if, without realling knowing it, Jay paced by Heart Rate (which is never a good guide to pacing a TT). His speed and power in the early stages were simply unsustainable and so began the long slow decay in his power output until it reached such a low level that his pace became very slow, so slow that it more than made up for Jay being over the target until the 53rd minute!

The other remarkable thing to note is Jay's average power for the hour. An amazingly low 242 watts. So despite comments from some that considered him to be less than aerodynamically positioned on the bike, Jay's Coefficient of Drag by Frontal Area (CdA - a measure of how "slippery" through the air you are) is estimated to be less than 0.21, probably close to 0.20. That is very slick for a time triallist and most testers out there would give their eye tooth for a CdA that low.

Could he have broken the record on the day? Absolutely. How? Well the data clearly shows that Jay really should have listened to his coach's pacing instructions. While I was on the laptop collecting the split data - I would yell through to Pete that he was going way too fast. Jay however, simply chose to ignore the sideline pacing instruction to ease back and instead went by feel. Remember it's not a distance Jay hasn't tried before. But I don't think Jay counted on the mental effect of race day and the extra adrenaline it produces.

He didn't want to break the record - he wanted to smash it.

However, since Jay was determined to go faster than he was capable of on the day, had he followed the pacing instructions, started more conservatively, I am pretty darn sure the record would be his.

Anyway - a few of us are having a beer this weekend to conduct the post mortem.

So that it's clear there's nothing in what I say that Jay doesn't already recognise, here is his own summary - in his own words:


“Just An Hour”-the Day

Oh so close but not to be. What happened-I blew up big time- more than anytime on the road when I had gone out as an attack rider for my team in races or when I bonked from hunger flats. This was harder than an ironman but I gave 110% & had nothing left. I experienced blurry vision and hit the pads in the last 10 mins of the event & fought hard to lift the pace when I knew it was over. I was determined I would finish but it sure was hard BIG time.

What went wrong -easy in hindsight? Being sick with a strep throat & asthma since 21 January & on antibiotics did not help especially the final track workouts which we would have used to determine the gearing. I have ridden when sick before but nothing of this intensity and relentlessness. I overruled Coach Peter on the gear-stuck with 59 x 16 believing that another gear may have been harder on my respiratory & overruled him again on the pace. I had been on target before the sickness to go, we thought in the 47kms + for the hour. & I wanted to really break the record by a big margin. Pace would be as per training I said. (On June 17, 2007 I had ridden 46.41 km in an hour with no problems or any predetermined pace.)

Saturday morning felt better than I had for a fortnight although I was already starting to feel nervous. Bike was ready and it was pouring rain but warm OK. Had an easy 20 mins on rollers & some coughing but not too badly. Started hydrating with First Endurance EFS & water & watched DVD of Chris Boardman .That got me choked up but I was feeling up to it.

At the Dunc Gray Velodrome all was ready-Kevin Young had worked hard to get me an area with access for a fan & away from some of the crowds. All was good. Warmed up well and took to the track & felt great. The new TWE chain ring was so smooth & the bike moved so nicely.

The gun goes & I felt good- cadence was a bit high 109 but would slow over the next couple of laps. Don’t look down-affect aero dynamics-helmet great-concentrate & focus-laps are coming up quickly –trying to slow as too fast –feeling very good. Coach Peter calling me to back off-found out later was hitting 51.5kph/111 cadence for over 3 mins but trying to slow was difficult, it was just rolling & the adrenaline was up.

At 4 mins Peter is waving me down & yelling to stop-what’s going on-Oh no the electronic timing didn’t start. Regroup-stay calm-heart is racing-breathing affected-asthma spray-go again –bit slower.

50 mins-Really hurting and I knew the record was gone- just had to finish-don’t fall off bike. It is over & I missed the record. Congratulation to Jason Sprouse who holds the current record it is yours for the time being. I will try again & be wiser the next time.

Went to the Handlebar Tavern for a beer and a talk with some of the team and then drove back to Terrey Hills. Had beers & pizza at Terrey Hills Tavern with my parents & then home.



Sunday- feel OK a bit upset but body, legs, back are very good. My neck is sore from holding the position. No saddle sores-the chamois in the Hot Design skin suit was fantastic-even has a saddle imprint in it.



Some Facts from the Race—restart

1 km 1.21.58___10 km 12.30.15___35 km 44.57.12

2 km 2.33.94___15 km 18.50.38___40 km 52.23.71

3 km 3.47.14___20 km 25.11.48___44.628 km 60.00.00

4 km 5.00.57___25 km 31.39.40

5 km 6.14.90___30 km 38.13.26



Hindsight

1 Should have cancelled attempt when I got sick-result definitely affected

2. Should have cancelled attempt after completing over 12 laps when electronic time keeping failed- result definitely affected

3. Should have not set the pace so high- result might have been different.

THANKS

I would like to thank my sponsors: Peter Montford-mypowercoach.com.au, Steve Hogg-cyclefitcentre.com, Austin’s Timber Flooring, First Endurance Aust/NZ and my club Bicisport Cycling. Other supporters whose help & encouragement has been invaluable were, Jim Tzakos-Proline Technology P/L, Lindsay Harvey, Warwick McAlpine, Vic Davidson from LactAway, Greg Ryan-Twe Wheels, Mike O’Reilly and training partner, Peter Verhoeven.

Cycling Australia, Cycling NSW, Bill Clinch, Kevin Young, Brian Crawford, Paul Craft, Cycle SportNews and the officials and people in attendance at the Dunc all encouraged me and I am truly grateful for your support.

UNTIL NEXT TIME!!

Read More......