A
Andrew Price
Guest
In my club we usually rollout say 4 groups on an average weekend ride -
divided into the quicks, 2 middle bunches and an easy/recovery group. No
dissension in the top and bottom groups, everyone knows what they signed on
for and they pretty much all roll back for coffee together, in peace and
some sort of harmony. They also tend to be small groups, which helps.
Not so the 2 "B" or middle bunches, where a wide range of fitness, abilites
and degrees of enthusiasm prevail - the theory is that they are "medium
paced rides" say with an average speed of say 30 or 35kph [19 to 22 mph] -
within that large group there is very wide range of exertion levels which
tend to be set or be varied depending on who gets on the front. I guess
there is no common view of what "medium paced" means - an average speed over
a 2 or 3 hour ride is not necessarily a good indication of how hard the
component bits were for riders of different abilities and fitness. I suppose
average speed is adopted as a means of describing how hard a ride is as most
riders have a cyclecomputer that measures current and average speeds - and
that is the only objective measure commonly available to give some idea of
how easy or hard a pace is being set.
In consequence it often happens that those middle bunches often break up and
folk get cross. How to avoid that problem? (wide levels of experience
prevail)
One of the guys with a powertap hub posted an email graph showing the power
spikes in one of those middle bunches when two of the worst offending half
wheelers were on the front (variations from 120 to nearly 600 watts) as
opposed to a pair that had power indicators and deliberately set the effort
at the front at a resonably constant 200w - whilst the speeds varied with
terrain, the level of exertion stayed the same and the bunch much more
easily stayed together, which I guess is perhaps the principal objective of
a bunch ride. Surprisingly, the average speed was 4kph better for the
controlled and constant 200w alternative over similar terrain than the
wildly spiking power bandits.
[Can forward the graphs to anyone who would like to see them].
I suspect this may not be an issue confined to one club or group and my
question is -
Would describing rides in terms of typically constant power levels be a
better indication of what bunch riders can expect and be more likely to keep
a large group of riders together?
I hold no brief for the cycling gadget industry (I rode for a long time with
no instruments of any kind, in protest at increasing clutter on the bars)
but I wonder if some accurate form of power measurement might improve the
quality and enjoyment of the bunch rides I describe.
Opinions sought - best, Andrew
(remove the .x1 to reply)
divided into the quicks, 2 middle bunches and an easy/recovery group. No
dissension in the top and bottom groups, everyone knows what they signed on
for and they pretty much all roll back for coffee together, in peace and
some sort of harmony. They also tend to be small groups, which helps.
Not so the 2 "B" or middle bunches, where a wide range of fitness, abilites
and degrees of enthusiasm prevail - the theory is that they are "medium
paced rides" say with an average speed of say 30 or 35kph [19 to 22 mph] -
within that large group there is very wide range of exertion levels which
tend to be set or be varied depending on who gets on the front. I guess
there is no common view of what "medium paced" means - an average speed over
a 2 or 3 hour ride is not necessarily a good indication of how hard the
component bits were for riders of different abilities and fitness. I suppose
average speed is adopted as a means of describing how hard a ride is as most
riders have a cyclecomputer that measures current and average speeds - and
that is the only objective measure commonly available to give some idea of
how easy or hard a pace is being set.
In consequence it often happens that those middle bunches often break up and
folk get cross. How to avoid that problem? (wide levels of experience
prevail)
One of the guys with a powertap hub posted an email graph showing the power
spikes in one of those middle bunches when two of the worst offending half
wheelers were on the front (variations from 120 to nearly 600 watts) as
opposed to a pair that had power indicators and deliberately set the effort
at the front at a resonably constant 200w - whilst the speeds varied with
terrain, the level of exertion stayed the same and the bunch much more
easily stayed together, which I guess is perhaps the principal objective of
a bunch ride. Surprisingly, the average speed was 4kph better for the
controlled and constant 200w alternative over similar terrain than the
wildly spiking power bandits.
[Can forward the graphs to anyone who would like to see them].
I suspect this may not be an issue confined to one club or group and my
question is -
Would describing rides in terms of typically constant power levels be a
better indication of what bunch riders can expect and be more likely to keep
a large group of riders together?
I hold no brief for the cycling gadget industry (I rode for a long time with
no instruments of any kind, in protest at increasing clutter on the bars)
but I wonder if some accurate form of power measurement might improve the
quality and enjoyment of the bunch rides I describe.
Opinions sought - best, Andrew
(remove the .x1 to reply)