Against the Wind

I would love to have someone do the math on the effect of the wind and the increase in drag and how that might relate to climbing. It would be good to know that I could simulate a certain climb by going out and hammering into the wind for an hour.

MichaelB said:

It wont be so linear as the increase in drag is quadratic. That means if 5mph is 1% then 10mph will be will probably be more than 2%. However it probably wont be as simple as 4% which you might expect. In fact I might do some maths on this later and then get back.

The thing for me about the wind is that I hate cross winds on a wet day. Some roads are worn smooth and have no grip and the front wheel gets blown about which is unnerving as there is nothing you can do (I'm only a little shorty so dont put much weight on the front). Lately I have upped my training and I am much better in the wind. In fact it doesn't bother me so much these days.

Rather than use a power meter or a cycle computer (I ditched that because keeping my average speed up was getting dangerous!) I really just check on my gears. Depending on what clothes I am wearing I know what gear I should be in in various places. If I feel good and I'm down a gear then I know I should be up one on the return because I have a head wind. In some ways its also a good motivator to think I should be trying to pull a higher gear at what feels like a good cadence.

ricktoon said:

I would love to have someone do the math on the effect of the wind and the increase in drag and how that might relate to climbing. It would be good to know that I could simulate a certain climb by going out and hammering into the wind for an hour.

Before you do the math from scratch, you might first want to check out the wind tools at Analytic Cycling analyticcycling.comanalyticcycling.comOpen ↗. Look under "Dynamic Forces on Rider."

The more you ride in the wind, the less it will bother you.
Just like anything else you get used to it.🙂

It's not that I mind the effort of working in the wind; it's that because I'm going slower, I feel like I'm not working hard enough, so I _really_ bust my butt into the wind, often blowing up. Like I said, it'll make me stronger in the long run, but I _feel_ like I'm being a weak pansy at the time!

Really the whole problem (for me) is that I've gotten hung up on my average speed over a ride - erroneously using velocity as a surrogate for power. So in my mind, slow=weak or lazy, and I don't make allowances for the wind (or really for hills) in that equation.

danch said:

It's not that I mind the effort of working in the wind; it's that because I'm going slower, I feel like I'm not working hard enough, so I _really_ bust my butt into the wind, often blowing up. Like I said, it'll make me stronger in the long run, but I _feel_ like I'm being a weak pansy at the time!

Really the whole problem (for me) is that I've gotten hung up on my average speed over a ride - erroneously using velocity as a surrogate for power. So in my mind, slow=weak or lazy, and I don't make allowances for the wind (or really for hills) in that equation.

My trick is to welcome the wind as your friend and as a time to really pedal and position yourself efficiently and spin in a lower gear. I noticed at first when I dreaded the wind that when the gusts came and/or the wind was a steady 15 to 20mph wind I would subconciously slow my cadence, now I increase my cadence and cut through the wind much better now and not blow up.

VaBiker said:

My trick is to welcome the wind as your friend and as a time to really pedal and position yourself efficiently and spin in a lower gear. I noticed at first when I dreaded the wind that when the gusts came and/or the wind was a steady 15 to 20mph wind I would subconciously slow my cadence, now I increase my cadence and cut through the wind much better now and not blow up.

That's pretty much my mindset. I used to get a little dark cloud over my head when the wind would come up, and now I think "Cool, unexpected climbing interval."

Now, I even purposely go to the front when we have a headwind in order to keep the pace high and make the other guys keep working hard. I know that if I let someone else work at the front that the pace of the whole group will slow a lot as a result. Clydesdales note this technique. This is your big chance to get some payback on those hill-climbing waifs (especially on a cross- or quartering-wind). 😄

RapDaddyo said:

Your HR also reflects the cadence at which you are riding.

frenchyge said:

I not sure how much I buy into that idea, although I'm not ready to dispute it yet.

Okay, how about doing a little test? The purpose of the test is to see if your HR is a function of your cadence at a constant power. The easiest way to do the test is on your trainer, to take out topography and environment variables. So, here's the test protocol. First, you'll need to do some tests to determine what cadence is required to produce a target power in different gears. Pick a power that will get your HR up to a high but sustainable level (e.g., 90%MHR). Let's say its 275w. Now, you need to choose a range of gears that will give you cadences ranging from 60rpm to 120rpm at this power. You don't want to have to change the resistance of your trainer, so you may need to do some experimenting. Now, do some testing to find out the exact cadence (within 1 rpm) that will produce the target power number. You may be a watt or two off because each rpm is 1/100th and if your target power is 275w then each rpm is 2.75w. But, this small degree of error won't bias the results. Once you have figured out the cadences for each gear, do a set of 3 min intervals with a 3 min recovery between each interval. Three minutes should be long enough for your HR to peak and stabilize at each cadence. The intervals should cover each gear you previously selected and should cover the range 60-120rpm with no larger than 6-8rpm steps. For my standard gearing, this would be basically the full range of my 10S cluster in the large chainring, with steps of ~5rpm. So as to not bias the results if you fatigue during the test, do the cadences somewhat randomly (120, 60, 90, 110, etc.). You'll need to dust off your HR strap for the test (if you can find it). Then, download the workout file and look at the average HR for the last 15 secs of each interval. Record the data and make a graph of HR vs. cadence. My prediction is that your HR will vary by as much as 10bpm and that the correlation is direct and positive (highest cadence = highest HR). The worst outcome is that you'll get a good 1 hr workout. The best outcome is that you'll learn how your HR is affected by cadence at the same power.

sansabar said:

One thing I have never gotten used to is riding against the wind. It is always a ride that I dread. I try telling myself that it's good training, better workout, etc. but I am never able to get over the psychology of it. I set goals and play mind games with hills and sprints but have yet to find a way to resolve my dread of a windy day. I'm not training for competition, just getting back into riding after several years off and forgetting just how much I loved the sport.
Anyone share my anxiety and found resolutions?

I am not sure where you train [ride], but here in NW Ohio it is very flat and very windy. The wind never stops and ther are no hills. Now it is my belief hills are better, at least you get a break; there is no break from the wind. No matter what you do, there is no getting used to wind and it never gets any easier.

Looking for some hills,

RapDaddyo said:

Okay, how about doing a little test?

I'm hoping to get a 9-speed chain for my trainer bike this week, which will let me ride my PT indoors. When that happens I'll experiment a bit. It would surprise me it my HR varied by 10bpm from 60-120 rpm, but as I said, I'm not ready to dispute it yet.

RapDaddyo said:

The worst outcome is that you'll get a good 1 hr workout. The best outcome is that you'll learn how your HR is affected by cadence at the same power.

Well, since I'm not sure I really care how my heart reacts to cadence, a good 1 hr workout is probably the *best* I can hope for. Actually, if you're wrong then I'll get a good workout AND get to rub it in, so I guess *that's* the best possible outcome. :p

Actually, I like my HR to stay high since I feel that it gives my leg muscles the best oxygen delivery and waste-product flushing performance. I'm not in the group that wants to limit their HR because they think it means they're riding better. If riding at a higher cadence helps keep my heart pumping, then all the better since my preferred cadence is ~95-100 anyway.

frenchyge said:

Actually, if you're wrong then I'll get a good workout AND get to rub it in, so I guess *that's* the best possible outcome. :p

So true, but don't hold your breath.

RapDaddyo said:

So true, but don't hold your breath.

Why, will that throw off the test results? 😕
😉

frenchyge said:

Why, will that throw off the test results? 😕
😉

Translation: don't get your hopes up (about being able to rub it in).

RapDaddyo said:

Okay, how about doing a little test? The purpose of the test is to see if your HR is a function of your cadence at a constant power.

Ok, I picked up that 9-speed chain, so I'm back in business with my trainer bike. Tonight I tried your little test and here are the results:

1) Warmup - 8.5 min at 140w, Cadence ~95rpm, HR steady at 105bpm
2) Bring power up to ~260W at about 100rpm and hold
3) interval #1 - 4 min, Min/Avg/Max Cadence - 93/98/106rpm, Min/Avg/Max Pwr - 243/260/279W, Starting/Final HR - 129/151
4) 1.5 min low-power recovery until HR drops back to ~120
5) interval #2 - 4:17 min, Min/Avg/Max Cadence - 62/66/87(spike)rpm, Min/Avg/Max Pwr - 224/257/286W, Starting/Final HR - 121/148
6) 1.5 min low-power recovery until HR drops back to ~120
7) 2 min try to establish a 120rpm cadence @ ~260w and discover that the PT virtual cadence freaks out when the cadence gets that high, but HR is rising during that period. Finally get a steady, high cadence and hold, but the cadence readout is spiking high and low.
8) interval #3 - 3:00 min, Min/Avg/Max Cadence - 71(spike)/109/141(spike)rpm, Min/Avg/Max Pwr - 243/262/288W, Starting/Final HR - 149/157
9) Recovery

So, if you accept that those 3 intervals were roughly the same except for cadence, then there does appear to be a positive correlation between cadence and HR. I think the intervals were long enough for my HR to stabilize, but I'm not making any claim that this was scientific in any way. I was watching cadence on the display and not HR, so I didn't even know the results until I completed the test.

Rapdaddyo, you are wise and most correct... 😄

frenchyge said:

Rapdaddyo, you are wise and most correct... 😄

I'm disappointed. That's only a 9bpm spread. I missed it by one. Shucks!🙁

RapDaddyo said:

I'm disappointed. That's only a 9bpm spread. I missed it by one. Shucks!🙁

I couldn't get down to 60rpm. In my tallest gear I had to pedal 65 to get the power to match the other intervals. :o

frenchyge said:

I couldn't get down to 60rpm. In my tallest gear I had to pedal 65 to get the power to match the other intervals. :o

Oh, now I get it. You changed the protocol on your own initiative. Well, if I had known you were going to freelance, I would have called a 9bpm spread. Just kidding. Thanks for doing the test. At least now I know that I'm not weird in how my body responds to cadence.😄

RapDaddyo said:

Oh, now I get it. You changed the protocol on your own initiative. Well, if I had known you were going to freelance, I would have called a 9bpm spread. Just kidding. Thanks for doing the test. At least now I know that I'm not weird in how my body responds to cadence.😄

I was hoping that the test would prove RapDaddyo wrong, simply because I cannot afford a Power Meter and this throws into question the validity of even trying to bother training with an HRM!!

I was looking to get a HAC4 computer, which I consider to be expensive enough as it is. I figured that a HRM instead of a power meter was at least a better option than nothing at all, but now I'm not so sure.

sergen said:

I was hoping that the test would prove RapDaddyo wrong, simply because I cannot afford a Power Meter and this throws into question the validity of even trying to bother training with an HRM!!

There are certainly a lot of questions there, but I'd bet that people tend to ride at a somewhat narrow range of cadences that are comfortable to them (except while climbing steep hills). The HR variance due to cadence during typical training rides will likely be less than what my experiment showed.

sergen said:

I was looking to get a HAC4 computer, which I consider to be expensive enough as it is. I figured that a HRM instead of a power meter was at least a better option than nothing at all, but now I'm not so sure.

I think there are still some benefits to having a HRM over nothing at all (ie, using perceived exertion as a guide) for fitness and club training. For one thing, it gives you a somewhat impartial (thought not entirely consistent) 3rd party perspective to keep your perceived exertion in check. In other words, when you're riding hard it will feel hard and it's easy to convince yourself that it's "hard enough" to satisfy your ride goal. Having an HRM will at least give you an impartial look at whether you're really riding hard enough, or not.

I trained with HR for 2 years before getting my power meter this year. At the time I thought it was the cat's meow, but I'd probably save my money towards a power meter if I had it to do again.

frenchyge said:

So, if you accept that those 3 intervals were roughly the same except for cadence, then there does appear to be a positive correlation between cadence and HR.

I'm curious about something else. You probably didn't make note of it and I didn't suggest that you make note of it, but while it's still relatively fresh in your mind, was there a distinct difference in your RPE and, if so, how would you rate each cadence on the usual RPE scale?

RapDaddyo said:

I'm curious about something else. You probably didn't make note of it and I didn't suggest that you make note of it, but while it's still relatively fresh in your mind, was there a distinct difference in your RPE and, if so, how would you rate each cadence on the usual RPE scale?

That was a little bit surprising to me also. I did notice a slightly higher RPE on the highest cadence interval than the other two, even though 260w for 4 minutes isn't a real strenuous effort. I don't remember much difference between the middle and lower cadence intervals, other than the lowest one obviously had a much higher muscle tension, like climbing. It didn't seem any harder to me, though, just needing a slow, deep breathing rhythm and a little more concentration to pedal smooth circles because of the high chain tension.

The high cadence interval seemed a little more vigorous right from the start, with a more rapid breathing rate and a little more effort to keep the pedal cadence from slowing.