Are we there yet?

[Felt_Rider]

I was thinking along the lines Calico's post.
This year I was targeting long distance and rides on Saturday's because I was targeting that sort of events, but it was (is) difficult to manage. Because I found the guide below to be true for me. I tried to keep the intensity low enough, but with a 80 to 100 mile ride with a good portion of L3 I would end up with over 300 TSS. The event I did this past weekend 101 miles and 313 TSS with a 180 minutes of L3 and then by perception as I felt my legs had enough I jumped into a passing group with 20 miles to go and drafted which dropped me down into L2. I still had to do my turns pulling now and then, but here it is Tuesday I can still feel my legs buzzing a little almost 4 days later. I am good for training 2x20's tonight.

So it becomes tough to manage and it seems like one needs to look at all the facets of training load and intensity to set a path to the target. So for me I constantly looking at both IF and TSS to see if I am on track. I look at IF for the session, but mainly I am watching TSS for the week in the PMC to make sure I don't dig myself into a hole.

But you know me. I am very new to all of this and trying to learn about the same topic.
________________________________
This is from TrainingPeaks
The following scale can be used as an approximate guide:

• Less than 150 - low (recovery generally complete by following day)
• 150-300 - medium (some residual fatigue may be present the next day, but gone by 2nd day)
• 300-450 - high (some residual fatigue may be present even after 2 days)
• Greater than 450 - very high (residual fatigue lasting several days likely)

As well, the cumulative TSS per week or per month can be used help identify the maximum intensity and volume of training that still leads to improvements, rather than overtraining.

 

[CalicoCat]

Originally Posted by jsirabella .

cc->Good point, I did not give my goal. My goal is to get to and maybe surpass my pre-issue state which was a 260 watt ftp. Now my bread and butter has been 1.5-2 hour rides with 3 or 2 x 20 at SST. Only recently I am taking up the hours in the saddle as I feel that is a good indicator how will the sciatica can handle longer rides. I want to mix it up and to just keep doing 2 or 3 x 20 at SST can get a bit repetitive so I mix in the L4 day or the over/under day. These are all intended to build a complete engine including FTP. I know in CP I will need the other end of my engire to compete.

So maybe this gives a more complete picture.

-js

For your big overarching goal of increasing your FTP, both kinds of training, long rides, and shorter harder efforts are going to help you, so I wouldn't worry about it, or over think it. That being said, I think you'd do well considering not just your big goal, but also the goals of a particular training session, and thinking about how those training sessions fit into your training week. For example, if for a given week, you want to get in some back to back training days, I would advise higher IF lower TSS sessions so that you are more likely to be adequately recovered in time for your next session. However, if your goal for given week is to increase saddle time to determine how your sciatica is doing, then I would try to get those miles in, but just be realistic about what you can do the next day. Additionally, if, like felt, you are planning for some distance events in the future, you will want to train your body to utilize fuel efficiently, so getting in some long rides will help with that.

But listen to what your head is telling you in addition to what your body is telling you. Training is hard, and this kind of structured training where every ride/workout has a specific purpose is very hard. If you have 2x20s on the calender, but the thought of doing that makes you want to take your bike and drive over it with your car, then scrap the training plan and do the ride that you want to do instead. This might be a long meandering ride in the countryside, or a club ride, and that is more than fine as long as you aren't scrapping your plan every day!

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by CalicoCat .

THANKS!!! I am feeling great, and having so much fun, that I just signed up for a big memorial day weekend race series where I am probably going to have my **** handed to me! But if I am ever going to contest that series, now is the time

Congrats on the good results.

Sure, you might get your **** handed to you on a platter but just think, you'll know exactly what to expect and train for next year Doesn't matter how good you are now there's nearly always more improvements to be had.

 

[jsirabella]

cc/felt->Thanks for the advice. I think right now a balanced approach is best but I will lean towards a bit higher on the IF and a bit lower on the TSS. I think given the sciatica and my goals that is the fastest route back to my old ftp. But with that said I do think I need to spend atleast 1 day a week with atleast a TSS of close to 200. I do not want above that. I think that will be the traditional Sunday ride.

Pre-issue I spent hours in the saddle and was pretty much stuck at 260. So I want to try and give the other route a try. I mean given my issues I am amazed I have 250 in sight.

I have to admit though moving the new 53 right now in the highest gear feels much tougher than it used to be. I could move it down but want to keep pushing right now.

-js

 

[Felt_Rider]

js, it seems like you have been so successful in your game plan that it makes sense to stay on the same path unless for some reason you plateau, but it does not sound as if you have. You are so close to reaching that goal that staying with the same training principles seems like the right way to proceed. It almost seems like you are right there at the edge of achieving that goal.

______________________________

Now that I have done my two annual events and really do not have anything else in sight this year I am looking forward to getting back in the training structure I had during the winter months. I may back off the mileage for the Saturday rides a little because it did require more recovery time and interrupt the following consecutive training days.

But that is why I am glad that I do not compete in cycling. I get to do what I want and I really like being out on the bike on Saturday's.
I am on the "I want my cake and eat it too" program. I want to progress in cycling, but I want to have fun getting there. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif

Fortunately I think it is fun beating myself up in training. I have always been sick that way. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif
But there is the other side of me that just likes to get out on a Saturday and go for a very long ride in a group or solo. Just seems to be a nice place away from the stressful work week.

 

[jsirabella]

felt->I think we have that in common. I beat myself up way too hard during the training and it did affect my races in the past. I just like to train. There is a great feeling I get when I get off that bike and the sweat is just pouring in buckets off of me. Today was one of those days of buckets of sweat as I did a 2x30 @ >230. I am sure that a win would be much more satisfying, more cause I would get the respect of fellow riders than the actual win. Currently in CP I am sure I am seen as easy prey to the other riders. I think once you get a win or finish with the pack you will start to see change in their attitude. I will focus on that for next year or maybe wait till end of season races this year and see how I perform. I found those are some of the best races for new riders.

I really see the difference when I rest more or make sure the rides are within that 100-150 TSS mark and skipping the longer weekend ride. I think you will notice it also. Even with my shorter rides as long as I stay consistent I have been able to build up a decent amount of CTL. I am at like a ~92 right now. It is not huge but I believe that 92 is worth more than >100 I had in the past made up of too much L2/L3.

-js

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by jsirabella .

cc/felt->Thanks for the advice. I think right now a balanced approach is best but I will lean towards a bit higher on the IF and a bit lower on the TSS. I think given the sciatica and my goals that is the fastest route back to my old ftp. But with that said I do think I need to spend atleast 1 day a week with atleast a TSS of close to 200. I do not want above that. I think that will be the traditional Sunday ride.

Pre-issue I spent hours in the saddle and was pretty much stuck at 260. So I want to try and give the other route a try. I mean given my issues I am amazed I have 250 in sight.

I have to admit though moving the new 53 right now in the highest gear feels much tougher than it used to be. I could move it down but want to keep pushing right now.

-js

You were running a 46 chainring before, right? Of course getting a gear like 53x15 over is gonna feel tougher than getting 46x15 over - its a way bigger gear. Figure that 53x15 is right about the same gear development as 46x13 and you can see why it feels bigger.

The last thing your lower back needs is for you to be hammering monster gears - gears like 53x13 are the stuff of 26mph+ and even at 26mph that gear's a bit of a push. Be wary of that when you're trying to push the IF up and reduce TSS. Pedal relaxed - don't force.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

Originally Posted by swampy1970 .

...The last thing your lower back needs is for you to be hammering monster gears - gears like 53x13 are the stuff of 26mph+ and even at 26mph that gear's a bit of a push. ...

+1

There's nothing wrong with pushing bigger gears IF it doesn't cause trouble, but if it's aggravating a known back or joint issue then DOWNSHIFT. There's no prizes for slugging away in the biggest gear and no glory in ending up off the bike in rehab for trying to do so.

Pedal force and power are not the same things, you can sustain high power by shifting down and spinning faster or shifting up and grinding but if the latter is causing back problems then don't do it.

-Dave

 

[jsirabella]

swampy/dave->I was pushing the 46 and honestly it felt real good. I should have went to a 50 instead of a 53 and keep moving up in smaller steps and see how the back reacts. The store only had a 53 in stock. Yesterday I definitely did not get in that last 10 min interval cause of the gear selection. I am sure of it. Today I went for a lower gear and the 2 x 30 while tough was not bad when compared to yesterday. In fact I downshifted twice in the last 10 minutes to really push myself. It will be a matter of testing and working with it.

+1 on the not forcing the pedal stroke.

The one thing I have really tried hard to do is not tense the muscles up and use less force instead of more force. In the past I was too tense which was just wasted energy. I always find I can use less force and still turn the crank at the same watts usually. Making a big difference right now.

I know we covered this but if I do 245 watts in a 46 or a 53 does it make a difference in setting my ftp. I know there are different requirements to make it happen with either choice but does it make a difference in setting your FTP?

-js

Off note, got the forte adjustable stem and really having fun with it. Will move it lower over time and see how it works for me. Right now liking it. Thanks Dave.

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by jsirabella .

swampy/dave->I was pushing the 46 and honestly it felt real good. I should have went to a 50 instead of a 53 and keep moving up in smaller steps and see how the back reacts. The store only had a 53 in stock. Yesterday I definitely did not get in that last 10 min interval cause of the gear selection. I am sure of it. Today I went for a lower gear and the 2 x 30 while tough was not bad when compared to yesterday. In fact I downshifted twice in the last 10 minutes to really push myself. It will be a matter of testing and working with it.

+1 on the not forcing the pedal stroke.

The one thing I have really tried hard to do is not tense the muscles up and use less force instead of more force. In the past I was too tense which was just wasted energy. I always find I can use less force and still turn the crank at the same watts usually. Making a big difference right now.

I know we covered this but if I do 245 watts in a 46 or a 53 does it make a difference in setting my ftp. I know there are different requirements to make it happen with either choice but does it make a difference in setting your FTP?

-js

Off note, got the forte adjustable stem and really having fun with it. Will move it lower over time and see how it works for me. Right now liking it. Thanks Dave.

A gear is a gear. Nothing more, nothing less. It just enables you to achieve a certain speed for a given rpm. It has no bearing on power other than allowing you to be in a gear that's suited to your pedalling style for a given speed.

Your FTP is set by testing for your very best 1 hour power or by what you can just about attain for a few 20 minute efforts on a regular basis - which has no bearing on what gear you have on the bike. However, your test may suffer if your don't use the pedal cadence that you're most efficient at or most used too.

Take for example the following scenarios:

At ~90rpm the following gears will give you about 25mph

60x17
53x15
46x13
39x11

... or if you went from your 46x13 and kept the rpm's the same and used a 53 instead (power permitting of course) you'd go from around 25 to somewhere around 28.5 or 29mph.

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by Felt_Rider .

So it becomes tough to manage and it seems like one needs to look at all the facets of training load and intensity to set a path to the target. So for me I constantly looking at both IF and TSS to see if I am on track. I look at IF for the session, but mainly I am watching TSS for the week in the PMC to make sure I don't dig myself into a hole.

But you know me. I am very new to all of this and trying to learn about the same topic.

How do you know that you're digging yourself into a hole that you can't get out of until you start to dig and see at least once or twice? It's all well and good seeing TSB head off south into the depth of the graph into the -40s and beyond but are you really sure that your constants for ATL and CTL really set correctly such that you know for sure that 'x' amount of negative TSB is gonna nuke your training schedule?

At some point you just gotta play it by ear and see how it goes. If most people give as much thought to rest and recovery as they do their training and bike equipment they'd probably find they could handle some training loads that they may have previously thought of as fairly horrific and not end up a zombie with dead legs 6 weeks into the training block.

With that said, I'm off to sit in the car, put the windshield sun shade up, pull the ballcap over my eyes, set the timer on the iBone and catch a few z's for lunch

 

[daveryanwyoming]

Originally Posted by jsirabella .... I know we covered this but if I do 245 watts in a 46 or a 53 does it make a difference in setting my ftp. ..

No, and yes...

Think of it like a car engine. There's a certain 'power band' where the engine can do it's best job of delivering either low end torque or overall power (they're not in general the same). The job of the transmission is to match those engine characteristics to the road conditions. So you'll probably stall a manual transmission car if you try to start up a steep hill in fourth gear (or third or possibly second) so you work up through the gears until the car is at speed and has some momentum and choose gears appropriate for the terrain and your speed so the car's engine doesn't lug down and stall or wind out over redline.

Sure, we're not machines and our 'engines' have different characteristics but the idea is the same. If you pick too big or too small of a gear and either lug down below your personal 'power band' then you aren't likely to achieve your best possible sustained power in an FTP test. Same thing if you wind your legs out way past your comfort zone, you won't sustain your best potential power that way either.

So gearing is a means to an end. Choosing a bigger gear does not generate more power or more speed in and of itself. If the gear allows you to match the terrain and wind conditions at your current speed to your own 'power band' then it's a good choice and for the most part cyclists have a relatively wide power band in cadence terms (or should work to develop a wide range of useful cadences for different situations) so most folks don't need to pick exactly the right gear as long as it's close.

A lot of folks starting out get stuck on the idea that bigger gears are faster, that's only true if you can 'stay on top' of those bigger gears or IOW ride them within your personal power band and not end up bogging down in them or winding them out. So for instance you might be able to sustain your best long duration power by keeping your cadence between say 80 and 95 rpm (I'm just making these numbers up but that's a range that works pretty well for me in solo TT situations). Some situations may force you outside of that range like steep hills or really fast tailwind sections but in that case even though you may sustain decent power it probably won't be your best as you're not working in your best range of cadences.

There's nothing wrong with moving from a 46 to a 53, you just have to get over the idea that you somehow should stay in the same cogs you would have used before. If you were accustomed to riding the 14 tooth cog with your 46 then ride your 16 tooth cog with your 53. The gearing is virtually identical and you'll ride at the same cadence for the same speed and in the same conditions it will require the same torque and generate the same power.

So pick gears that feel smooth and fast or what the French describe as souplesse or as some say 'like pedaling in butter'. Sure sometimes you lay the hammer down and just stomp on the pedals but for long sustained efforts focus on getting on top of the gear and rolling it fast and hard not barely keeping up with it and grinding away on the edge of stalling out. Use whatever rear cogs you need to get and hold that feel in varying terrain and with a reasonable rear cassette (like a 12-23, 12-25, 11-25 or something like that) you should have no issue finding gears that feel like your old setup, they just won't be the exact same cogs for the same terrain and in general will be two teeth larger than what you used with your 46.

I pound big gears all the time in time trials and during solo L4 training but wind lighter gears in mass start events so that I can more easily respond to surges and attacks and accelerate more easily out of corners. There's nothing wrong with using a wide range of cadences but in your case where you're in rehab for herniated discs and you feel pain when pounding big gears it just doesn't make sense to keep beating up your body that way. Drop down a couple of cogs, work to widen your power band and try to feel the souplesse that comes from getting on top of an appropriate gear and rolling it with authority.

Good luck,
-Dave

[edit]As you've worded it above, no it makes absolutely no difference. If you held 245 watts for an hour using either gear then you held 245 watts for an hour. The only question in that case is whether you might have held more than 245 watts if you'd used a different gear and the only way to find out is to try in different gears.

 

[swampy1970]

Since jumping back on the powercranks again this year I have to say that I've done a whopping 6 minutes and 20 seconds of forcing a gear around - just to get numbers for the 5 minute, 1 minute and 20 second efforts and even then it wasn't the quad busting knee burning efforts of the past despite putting out my best 1 and 5 minute numbers (in w/kg) since I got the PT. The rest of the time it's been "go time ya blow" 2+ hour efforts at a fair ol' lick just relaxing and letting the hamstrings and glutes do their thing while I watch the flowers, the wind turbines blowing in the wind and the big C5 galaxies do approach/landing practise.

Fluently Trampling Pedals to raise Functional Threshold Power.

No force required at this point - backed up by looking at torque levels in in/lbs in WKO+

 

[Felt_Rider]

Originally Posted by swampy1970 .

How do you know that you're digging yourself into a hole that you can't get out of until you start to dig and see at least once or twice? It's all well and good seeing TSB head off south into the depth of the graph into the -40s and beyond but are you really sure that your constants for ATL and CTL really set correctly such that you know for sure that 'x' amount of negative TSB is gonna nuke your training schedule?

At some point you just gotta play it by ear and see how it goes. If most people give as much thought to rest and recovery as they do their training and bike equipment they'd probably find they could handle some training loads that they may have previously thought of as fairly horrific and not end up a zombie with dead legs 6 weeks into the training block.

With that said, I'm off to sit in the car, put the windshield sun shade up, pull the ballcap over my eyes, set the timer on the iBone and catch a few z's for lunch

I am not sure if you are making a general comment or directing those comments or questions at me personally. If you are directing at me personally than I can say I have been there a number of times to find out through experience that I find the guide as provide by Dr. Coggan to be true.

Once or Twice you ask.
I had 313 TSS on Saturday with a 101 mile ride and could not do my next scheduled training event to the level that I was supposed to train. My body reacted just as pointed out in the guide provided by Dr. Coggan just as it did when I did 330 TSS ride the weekend before, 247 TSS the weekend before that, 292 TSS the weekend before that and I could keep going for many weekends going back to February and years before this. Do you not think I would have enough experience by now to see how my body responds? As low as my FT compared to you guys and gals, it is in plain view on the web for anyone to see my data and to see if I have experience with one or two rides.

So why shouldn't I look at my PMC, weekly TSS, IF and predict how the next session will turn out if I find that my experience lines up with the guides provided, with the software and PM use and with the science? I think that any of us that are training progressively are to some degree following "At some point you just gotta play it by ear and see how it goes", but my preference is not just a winging it type of approach. To each their own if they want to play it by ear. Out of my group I am the only one using a PM so 99% of my group has been successful playing it by ear, but for me I would like to use the tools and guides that are available.

 

[jsirabella]

dave/swampy->Thanks both for the explanation and confirmation. The gearing is as you both put it, "a means to an end". I simply need to downshift enough gears to get the same from the 53 as I would with the 46. It all comes down to working within my power band. If I understand what you wrote Dave, your preferred cadence plays a big role in it. If you find you can stay longer in your power band at 90 than at 85 than you should pick the proper gear for that cadence to stay in your power band at 90. I never thought about what is my best cadence for longer rides.

Right now it reminds me of yesterday when I spoke with my friend after my ride and I showed him my power chart and explaining the gears. He restores cars and has a chevelle. He races sometimes and from his stories I feel like the honda in fast and furious and not the muscle car. I can probably get off the line faster but like the honda I have a smaller power band so the chevelle as long as flat track will eventually pass me. But maybe not on hills. He explained once those cars go pass their limit they flip as the air will just turn them over or burn out the engine.

After reading it a couple times it also make me think about speed and always trying to catch wheels in the park. I need to keep in my mind my power band and how often I can go out of it before blowing up.

Good stuff....

Today I did as suggest and Thursday is full on hour day and to my surprise I held a 230 for the hour. I was shooting for >210 but I hit a 230. I find it feels more like souplesse when I pick a gear combo that allows me to go >90 for my desired power. I can just spin and spin and as I get past 30 minutes I can usually even go to the higher end of my power band. When I am starting to get to 85 or lower that is when I feel the engine light start blinking (legs/back).

-js

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by Felt_Rider .




I am not sure if you are making a general comment or directing those comments or questions at me personally. If you are directing at me personally than I can say I have been there a number of times to find out through experience that I find the guide as provide by Dr. Coggan to be true.

Once or Twice you ask.
I had 313 TSS on Saturday with a 101 mile ride and could not do my next scheduled training event to the level that I was supposed to train. My body reacted just as pointed out in the guide provided by Dr. Coggan just as it did when I did 330 TSS ride the weekend before, 247 TSS the weekend before that, 292 TSS the weekend before that and I could keep going for many weekends going back to February and years before this. Do you not think I would have enough experience by now to see how my body responds? As low as my FT compared to you guys and gals, it is in plain view on the web for anyone to see my data and to see if I have experience with one or two rides.

So why shouldn't I look at my PMC, weekly TSS, IF and predict how the next session will turn out if I find that my experience lines up with the guides provided, with the software and PM use and with the science? I think that any of us that are training progressively are to some degree following "At some point you just gotta play it by ear and see how it goes", but my preference is not just a winging it type of approach. To each their own if they want to play it by ear. Out of my group I am the only one using a PM so 99% of my group has been successful playing it by ear, but for me I would like to use the tools and guides that are available.

Sure, what you said is correct - your legs reacted how you'd expect them too for a mere day or so after that ride - but I wasn't talking about that because sore legs the day after a hard ride does not a training hole make.

I was talking more about the effect of such rides on TSB (and obviously ATL and CTL too) and finding out whether the constants for CTL and ATL are correct for you or do they need to be tweaked such that a given negative value of TSB really does reflect how your legs, over a period of time, are feeling. Does a sustained TSB of -40 really mean that your legs are going to be fried after 5 weeks of that? Does that gaping yellow chasm on the screen really reflect what it should or does it just look bad on the screen and then start to mess with your head?

Or as I put it to a friend back in England recently "If you still had a coach, could you really look him straight in the eye and tell him you really couldn't train or would you dial 999 and ask for a whaaaambulance?" (999 is the Brit equivalent of 911)

Personally, I don't plan my training a day at a time and I rely more on what my TSB is doing, or is going to be doing, than what the effects of my immediate TSS is, or was, the day prior. If I have a period where there's some big rides written into a given training block then quite often I don't pen in free time after the ride because I know from past experience that banging my head on the stem and gritting my teeth and getting the training done the following day as well leads to improvement. That said, I don't have short interval work penned in for any Sunday rides for this exact reason because I'll always have a hard ride of some description on Saturday. Quite often I actually feel better for getting a good training session in the day after. I don't expect to be riding with the same zing and the first half hour is painful but far from the exquisite pain you get from being on form and absolutely gunning. The following day however will likely feel better than the "day after the rest day" legs.

My current block which will run through mid July is a "all shock and no awe" 3 months of go till you blow - each ride is a minimum of 2 hours (mostly evening rides constrained by daylight) and between 2.5 to 5 hours each day on the weekend. The first 4 weeks were grim. Racked up lots of KJ's - which was the plan. Big KJ's + watch what you eat = twig on legs Pt Deux... but if I didn't ride every day I'd racked up a fairly hefty TSS the day prior or had sore legs I'd be missing about a 1/4 of my training.

I said the first 4 weeks were grim, or at least it started to get grim after a couple of weeks and headed south from there for the following couple but as expected I adapted and despite feeling a bit tired the legs feel pretty darned good and getting better. I expected this to happen because I've been there and done it before. Those rides where you start with real cruddy legs and take about 30minutes to an hour to freshen up - never fun but that's just the way it is...

... and it's going to be time for testing again soon.

I probably sound like a bit of a meathead that just loves to pummel my brains into oblivion but after hearing the training schedule that my massage/bodywork therapist used to have when she was a world class swimmer, I'm never going to complain again about how hard my training is. Ever.

 

[swampy1970]

"Are we there yet?" I'm sure I'll be hearing that one in my head tommorrow during the last 50 miles of the ride on long straight flat roads that never seem to change...

Finally going upto see Clearlake. Been here over a decade and never made the trip up there and I'll probably not see too much of it as I ride on past during the Davis Double. Weather's looking pretty good. Might set off early cause I love night riding on road with no street lights. There peace and quiet and only the sound of the tires on the road and the rustle of the gentle breeze through the grass... until the 2 hour mark where that first carb drink will be well and truely processed and I fart. But the sun will be in full force then so it don't matter.

 

[swampy1970]

Fantastico.

Awesome day. 200 miles and change, 9000ft+ of climbing and plenty of wind. A fun 12 and a bit hours on the bike. Too much good food as well. The only downside was related to the directional markings for the dozens of turns - something that wasn't explained in the rider packets (numbers, info etc) that were handed out on Friday. I'm not sure who thought putting a small marking on the road about the same size as a PowerTap CPU was a good idea but it doesn't work to well when you're doing 40+ on a descent. Thankfully, I don't think I was the first to do that as the 'spare wheel' van came racing after our little group to tell us that we were going the wrong way.

It turns out that one of the "features" or the ride is to chase down fast moving tandems and draft - go figure that the only one that I saw all day was at just over 170 miles and it was flying. Pain didn't describe the chase but we got on. Doing between 260 and 300 watts for a few miles at that distance wasn't part of the plan but it did prove nicely that the changes to the crank length and position worked fantasically.

The climb up Cobb mountain was a surprise - didn't realise is was going to be that tough. Helped no doubt by the recent weight loss... something that the 6700KJ's would also help with.

Taking the 50 ring off the compact cranks and popping on a 52 and making a 12-28 (with the 15,16,17 combo in the middle) rather than the 11-28 (15,17,19) was fantasitic.

 

[jsirabella]

swampy->I really wish I had the choices you have. For me it is pretty much, 9W in NJ, 25/27 in LI or CP. I have not done LI in a while and was getting all ready to do it but it was that nasty type of cold, cloudy damp so I did not want to go all the way out there and get poured on. I did do some CT on Sunday and CP on Saturday. Normal stuff, nothing special to report. I just keep plugging away at the same routine.

There is something in your post that I keep seeing and wondering about. Length of cranks? Can you give me a bit more info on why change them and how to decide what is good for when?

I have never been so much into cadence till Dave mentioned souplease as I would never really switch gears all that often and just use more force. I find now switching gears is the way to go. Of course now I must fix that issue with campy/shimano.

-js

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by jsirabella .

swampy->I really wish I had the choices you have. For me it is pretty much, 9W in NJ, 25/27 in LI or CP. I have not done LI in a while and was getting all ready to do it but it was that nasty type of cold, cloudy damp so I did not want to go all the way out there and get poured on. I did do some CT on Sunday and CP on Saturday. Normal stuff, nothing special to report. I just keep plugging away at the same routine.

There is something in your post that I keep seeing and wondering about. Length of cranks? Can you give me a bit more info on why change them and how to decide what is good for when?

I have never been so much into cadence till Dave mentioned souplease as I would never really switch gears all that often and just use more force. I find now switching gears is the way to go. Of course now I must fix that issue with campy/shimano.

-js

Living where I do, there are alot of good training routes and rides such as the Davis Double that I did this past weekend. The only downsides are housing prices, allergies and wind... although the Delta Breeze does help cool off our part of town in those early summer and late fall evenings. Having worked in the middle of large cities I figured that I could never live there - I need open space almost to the point where if it takes 10 minutes to ride out of town to see country roads then it's not going to be the place for me.

Cranks... Oh boy.

The short answer to the current situation. Shorter cranks make my back hurt less and the PT seems to show that I'm not losing power. Needless to say a fresh back at the end of a ride means less drop in power due to fatigue.

The "I'm having trouble going to sleep and need something to read" cure for insomnia version:

I've always thought that there's an advantage to using longer cranks. When I raced back in the 80's and 90's I always had 175s or 180s on the race bike. In 95 I even got a set of 185 TA cranks for the TT bike. Testing outdoors without a power meter was basic stopwatch and heart rate stuff but I always seemed to go faster with longer cranks, however... none of my race bikes ever had that all day comfort that my first bike with 700c wheels and cotterless cranks did - my lil' old Peugeot Robert Millar with it's carbolite 103 "gas pipe" tubing, 170mm cranks and plastic Simplex rear mech.

Fast forward a decade and a bit and I started back on the bike with the monster 185s, this time on the road bike. Wasn't sure if it was the cranks, the fact that I was 80lbs fatter than I was when Iast rode or just old age but my back wasn't happy. Things changed when I got the adjustable PowerCranks. I just couldn't pedal with cranks set to 185mm. Not even 10 pedal revs. So I set them to 170mm and then 175mm and dealt with it but for fixed cranks I've been using 175mm as that's what came with the Cannondale SuperSix HiMod. I've messed around with putting the powercranks in lockout mode and adjusting the crank lengths and testing on the local silly steep hill and there is some merit to longer cranks, for me at least, when there's lots of out of the saddle stuff. The powertap says 'yay' but when I have to sit down and pedal for an extended time the back says 'nay'.

In the last month or so I decided just to change things up a little and take an alternate view. I'd had a couple of bike fittings in the past few years, one of which was a full on "Specialized BG super wizzo wallet emptying go faster fit" that identified that one leg was a bit (5mm) shorter than the other and they installed some shims under than shoe. I asked my massage therapist to check this (the leg length discrepancy - not shims under the shoe ) and she said it was a little more than that. The shims always felt a little weird a bit like the shimmed foot wasn't as stable so I took the shims out and adjusted the crank to compensate. 170mm left, 165 right. It worked well. Seemingly no drop in power but my right hip was never as tight. So being the ever curious guy that I am I figured I'd try a bit shorter on both and that worked out better. Changed the difference to 2.5mm and that was better still. Having them the same was worse. I even tried way short 155mm and 150 but that actually felt very weird. Imagine pedalling a hamster wheel.

So for right now the cranks are sub 170mm and I found that the easiest way to determine what works and what doesn't was to go ride really hard in PowerCrank mode and see what gave up the ghost first - me, through tiredness or my pedalling/back. The PC's will inform you in no uncertain terms when you're not getting the pedal over the top because you'll lose sync as theres a very jerky stumble.

The 203 miles that I did this past weekend had one 1600ft climb and lots of rollers for about 100 miles of the course but for the first time in as long as I can remember, my shoulders and back of my arms were actually a little more worse for wear than my back.

I do notice there seems to be a bit less kick when out of the saddle but then again track sprinters run short cranks and they manage to "make do" but overall I feel more comfortable on the bike. Maybe there was something to those shorter cranks on my ol' Peugeot. It would seem for me at least that the max usable crank length isn't related to leg length per-se but more related to how high I can lift my leg when in a "in the drops" tuck.

Disclaimer: No knees or furry animals were harmed during testing depsite a wide range of crank lengths being tried.