For those who saw my thread asking how long it normally takes to be competitive in Cat 5... I rode a TT this weekend. I figure this is as good a measure of my fitness as anything could be.
The course was about as flat as it gets, only a very light breeze, good pavement, temps in the 80* range. 35K took me 58:07, which is 22.44 mph. This put me just a few slots above the bottom of the Cat 5 riders.
I held back just a little too much, so could've gone slightly better, and maybe gone up a couple spots. I rode in a conservative aero position since I hadn't ridden aero hardly at all before. No other aero gear, including a slightly loose and annoyingly flappy jersey and race number. :-)
Road bike with clip ons. It's a Cervelo Soloist, so I reverse the seatpost head which got me to about 76 degrees. My torso is about as low as a typical road racer when on the drops (i.e., definitely above level, with an angle about like a long course triathlete). I use 30mm deep rims, 20 spoke... nothing exciting. But it's a good fit, and as comfy as the aero position can be for only training that way for 3 hours total. Of course, I am paying for it now, from a nasty saddle sore.
I have found more agressive positions often tend to be slower for me than one in which I am at least a little more relaxed than I could be. Breathing is easier and other muscles aren't as tense.
Looks like you have a pretty aero bike set up though. The change in seat angle may have been a bit drastic for you. even if you trained a bit in that position it may not be as stable/powerful as one which you might use for road races. For a TT I never move the seat more than a centimetre forward of the road position (usually much less) becasue I train most in this position and am relatively succesful with it.
Originally posted by Aztec Anyway, the point here is that this is why I can't stick with even Cat5s in criteriums... I'm not very fit!!!
A criterium is going to make different physical demands compared to a time-trial. Explosive efforts when sprinting out of corners, periods when you have to ride above your threshold to close a gap or attack, not to mention tactics, all differentiate this type of racing from the high but steady exertion when competing against the watch.
Sure, of course that's true. But there's going to be a very high correlation between TT fitness and criterium fitness. At a minimum, they aren't mutually exclusive.
If you don't do a decent amount of training with a TT set-up, you will be slower going from your usual position to the TT posistion, not to mention REALLY sore the next day. You use a slightly different "set" of muscles when you TT than when you are normally riding.
I used to have a Colnago Master Crono TT specific bike, 700c rear, 26" front, sloped and angled top tube and seat tube, profile TT specific bar set-up, downtube shifters on the bars, Spinergies, the whole nine yards. I even had a Bell carbon TT helmet. But since I only rode it for a day or two the week before whatever TT I was doing, I was probably much slower than if I had just ridden one of my daily bikes in the drops.
Originally posted by Aztec By the way, this calc'd to about 190 watts according to analtyiccycling.,com, which is roughly what my HAC4 reported.
Anyway, the point here is that this is why I can't stick with even Cat5s in criteriums... I'm not very fit!!!
Would you please describe this HAC4 a little bit? I have an old heart rate monitor which is a chest wraparound setup. It doesn't have any altitude or mileage readings. It also has a wristwatchlike contraption which displays heart beat but no recording function to look back on the workout when you're done.
This HAC4 you mention caught my eye in that it displays wattage apparently directly. I wonder if it has some kind of feedback mechanism to the bicycle or to altidude changes to provide a second check on a wattage readout. For example, if you are fatigued and your heart rate goes out of kilter with the amount of wattage you usually generate, the wattage displayed might be pretty far off unless it feeds back to other readings. I suppose this would be meaningless if the crosschecks were done in the wind. I'm also wondering how expensive this contraption is. I see that it's what USPS is using.
If you think this ought to be the topic of another thread, feel free to direct me elsewhere. Or I will set up one if you don't want to.
Originally posted by Aztec Search this site for HAC4 info. It has come up a few times. It's flawed -- way flawed -- but seems to give reasonably accurate readings despite that.
Ok. Yeah, I see a lot of posts on this, riders complaining about not being able to get it to work properly. I think I'll pass. My old one, after I get new batteries, will be good enough. When they come up with something that's more plug and play, I'll get it, especially if it doesn't have a strap around the chest.
By the way, I wouldn't say you're out of shape compared to the average guy on the street. We have a tendency to compare ourselves to the best riders on the planet. That's one of the drawbacks to watching all these cycling races. But we have to remind ourselves that the elite cyclists really are in a league all their own. The rest of us can have fun at much lower speeds and still be way fitter than the untrained guy.
Yeah, I can't recommend the HAC4 for power readings. But it is very simple to set up and use. You might be thinking of the Polar power meter which is in my opinion, very suspect (there are those who differ) and more money/hassle than it's worth.
As a heart monitor and bike computer, the HAC4 really is darn good. But the chest strap is common to all of them. If you want power output, and don't care about the heart monitor part, then get a powertap for about $600, and skip wearing the belt.
Originally posted by Aztec Sure, of course that's true. But there's going to be a very high correlation between TT fitness and criterium fitness. At a minimum, they aren't mutually exclusive.
No, they aren't mutually exclusive - you're riding a bike in both for a start! And sure, a low level of fitness is going to affect any kind of cycling performance. But that aside, I don't think you can make any judgements about criteriums based upon time-trialling ability (good or bad). As I said, they are very different events making different demands on your body.
Well, now, if I were fit enough to TT at 25 mph for an hour, wouldn't you think I could pretty much dominate a crit that averages 24 to 25 mph for 40 mins? Heck, I could pretty much just ride off the front!
I get that have two different demands, though. Yesterday I rode like an idiot, just doing random intervals of different intensities. And I found that I could recover very quickly from steady pace intervals that were in the 165-180bpm range, but when doing an all out 15 second sprint, I was pretty much wasted for a long time even though my HR might never pass 170 bpm. A crit, with my bad technique, works out to a heck of a lot of 2-5 second sprints, which surely add up to the equivalent of those 15 second monsters. A few of those and I'm toast, even if the pace of the crit is modest.
Originally posted by Aztec Well, now, if I were fit enough to TT at 25 mph for an hour, wouldn't you think I could pretty much dominate a crit that averages 24 to 25 mph for 40 mins? Heck, I could pretty much just ride off the front!
I get that have two different demands, though. Yesterday I rode like an idiot, just doing random intervals of different intensities. And I found that I could recover very quickly from steady pace intervals that were in the 165-180bpm range, but when doing an all out 15 second sprint, I was pretty much wasted for a long time even though my HR might never pass 170 bpm. A crit, with my bad technique, works out to a heck of a lot of 2-5 second sprints, which surely add up to the equivalent of those 15 second monsters. A few of those and I'm toast, even if the pace of the crit is modest.
You make a good point though about time trialing vs. crit. If you are WAY better than the other guys in the TT, you can stay away from the pack and continue on. But if you have to ride the race along with the other guys, and vary the tempo continuously, yes, it is quite a different race. For example, if two people have the same time trial time, they may have very different results in the criterium race. But if one guy has a 5 mph advantage in the time trial v. everyone else (if not even that much), then he will also dominate the crit. So I suppose if you can improve that much in the time trial versus everyone else, you won't have to worry much about crit strategy or training. But if I knew how to do that, I probably would be riding pro, and I'm not.
Originally posted by gntlmn But if one guy has a 5 mph advantage in the time trial v. everyone else (if not even that much), then he will also dominate the crit.
I have to disagree. What about the drafting effect? That's how weaker, more tactically astute riders win races. And to reiterate, a good time-triallist does not automatically equate to a good crit/road rider.
Originally posted by GuyStevens I have to disagree. What about the drafting effect? That's how weaker, more tactically astute riders win races. And to reiterate, a good time-triallist does not automatically equate to a good crit/road rider.
Well, the argument gets stronger the greater the difference in horsepower. Maybe a 5 mph advantage in horsepower is not enough, but a 10 would be. If the other riders are wise to this, it will be tough to break away from the pack, but once it's done, the race is won. Once he laps the field, he can even do his own drafting.
But I get your drift. I'm just saying that it becomes blatantly obvious that a good crit guy who stays even in the time trial with another rider who is no good at crits will destroy him in the crit. It's not so obvious that he will destroy a time trialist who has a large advantage in sustained power, especially if the TT advantage rider manages to break away from the pack somehow.
