New Power Training Blog/Journal by Andy Coggan and Hunter Allen



DancenMacabre

New Member
Jul 17, 2009
474
0
0
acoggan said:
"You ain't seen nothing yet." :D

Dr. Coggan: Oh but I have seen something already & it is helpful as well as insightful.

I'm referring to the excellent 3-part series you did on the individual pursuit. The data and metrics in said pieces are outstanding.

Apparently I'm taller yet thinner than the nominal world class female pursuiter. Worst still, a whole lot less powerful :eek:

Martin's mathematical model is detailed. Although I admit to not having all the parameters it requires handy, thus wondering if there is a simpler way to predict one's 2k-4k pursuit time given the more common details (Cda, weight, Crr, AP, 5s power, etc). I know analytic cycling can provide an estimate of speed given steady power, but I am suspecting that the big changes in kinetic energy (at the start) and the typical reduction in power (as one's AWC is used up), might make for an unreliable number.

Sorry if I'm hijacking the thread & turning it into a pursuit discussion...I'm doing my first soon, hence the curiosity.

Regardless, looking forward to more great content & thanks for what you've shared with us already. :cool:
 

acoggan

Member
Jul 4, 2003
3,047
18
0
DancenMacabre said:
Martin's mathematical model is detailed. Although I admit to not having all the parameters it requires handy, thus wondering if there is a simpler way to predict one's 2k-4k pursuit time given the more common details (Cda, weight, Crr, AP, 5s power, etc).

As a first approximation, take 10% off of the maximum power that you can maintain for the duration in question, and use that to predict your speed, and hence time, assuming steady-state conditions. That will get you in the ballpark...and unless you've got detailed data re. the track upon which you plan to compete, being in the ballpark is about all you can expect.

(Note that this approach assumes 1) that you are sufficiently fatigue-resistant to withstand the "hit" that initially getting up to speed will have, and 2) that you do a good job of pacing yourself.)
 

DancenMacabre

New Member
Jul 17, 2009
474
0
0
acoggan said:
As a first approximation, take 10% off of the maximum power that you can maintain for the duration in question, and use that to predict your speed, and hence time, assuming steady-state conditions. That will get you in the ballpark...and unless you've got detailed data re. the track upon which you plan to compete, being in the ballpark is about all you can expect.

(Note that this approach assumes 1) that you are sufficiently fatigue-resistant to withstand the "hit" that initially getting up to speed will have, and 2) that you do a good job of pacing yourself.)

Dr. Coggan: Always a pleasure to get your insight on a topic. Thanks for taking some time and responding.

I do have detailed knowledge of the track however as you allude to in the response, much will depend fatigue-resistance and of course, pacing. Someone with a bit of knowledge on the subject has a penchant for suggesting the key to pacing is:

1 -"don't start out too hard"
2 - see point 1
3 - reread point 2

I'll have to give some thought as to which distance (2, 3, or 4k) most suits my characteristics. No doubt having high anaerobic & aerobic power are keys to one's success. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to believe that 2k, given the higher expected contribution from anaerobic sources over the shorter time period, favors a profile w/high 1m power. Plus I'd bet pacing is more along the lines of all-out, sort of like a kilo. Whereas the 3 and 4k will put more emphasis on maximal cardiovascular fitness & aerobic ability and pacing is somewhat more even. Conjecture, but those are my guesses.

I need to spend some time reading Coach Alex Simmon's excellent blog with its many pursuit & track related entries.
 

Alex Simmons

Active Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,471
40
38
DancenMacabre said:
I'm inclined to believe that 2k, given the higher expected contribution from anaerobic sources over the shorter time period, favors a profile w/high 1m power. Plus I'd bet pacing is more along the lines of all-out, sort of like a kilo.
I bet it isn't. ;)

I really must find the time to write up that item about the chart comparing 2, 3 & 4km pursuit times to the power to aero drag ratio. I think I might be over thinking it - just get it out there Alex!!
 

acoggan

Member
Jul 4, 2003
3,047
18
0
DancenMacabre said:
I do have detailed knowledge of the track

Ah. Well in that case, I'd be happy to crunch some more numbers if you want to send me the details in an email.

DancenMacabre said:
I'll have to give some thought as to which distance (2, 3, or 4k) most suits my characteristics. No doubt having high anaerobic & aerobic power are keys to one's success. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to believe that 2k, given the higher expected contribution from anaerobic sources over the shorter time period, favors a profile w/high 1m power. Plus I'd bet pacing is more along the lines of all-out, sort of like a kilo. Whereas the 3 and 4k will put more emphasis on maximal cardiovascular fitness & aerobic ability and pacing is somewhat more even. Conjecture, but those are my guesses.

In general I'd say that those are good guesses, i.e., you've got the kilo (heavily favoring high neuromuscular power and anaerobic capacity) on one hand, the 4 km (heavily favoring aerobic power and anaerobic capacity) on the other, and the 2 km and 3 km in between. Based on what you have said about your relative strengths/weaknesses, it seems as if you'd be better at 2 km, but 3 km is what you'll have to race.
 

Alex Simmons

Active Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,471
40
38

fergie

Member
Apr 10, 2004
1,924
24
38
51
I get my riders to pace a 500m TT, Kilo, 2000m pursuit.

One rider went through the first lap of his 500m TT in 5th place and ended up 1st. In the 2000m pursuit he did start a tad slow going through the first Kilo in 8th place but a good 2nd Kilo put him top qualifier. In the final he started 2 sec faster in the first Kilo but only went .2 faster in overall time.

In the 3000m IP I had one rider aiming for 17 sec laps and sitting on 16.9s he was really working to hold that pace in the last Kilo. In the ride off for Bronze he aimed for 17s again but riding 16.8s laps meant he blew big time and his time from qualifying to finals was 3 sec slower.

A very fine line!
 

DancenMacabre

New Member
Jul 17, 2009
474
0
0
acoggan said:
Ah. Well in that case, I'd be happy to crunch some more numbers if you want to send me the details in an email.

Done!

Thanks for that. Now it will be practice, practice, practice..and 100 more watts ;)

Alex Simmons said:
I bet it isn't. ;)

I really must find the time to write up that item about the chart comparing 2, 3 & 4km pursuit times to the power to aero drag ratio. I think I might be over thinking it - just get it out there Alex!!

Alex, comparing the 2, 3, and 4km pursuits in terms of pacing, w/cda, and maybe even some power profile metrics would be a fine addition to an already excellent blog :):):)

Should add, 2:28? That is some incredible pursuit performance by your mate there. Remarkable enough as is but even more so that she went 2 seconds faster in the medal session than in qualifying!
 

acoggan

Member
Jul 4, 2003
3,047
18
0
DancenMacabre said:
comparing the 2, 3, and 4km pursuits in terms of pacing

FWIW, here are the power data from my wife's best 2 km and 3 km TTs in 2002 (done on an outdoor 333 m track). Unfortunately, her SRM didn't switch on right away during the 2 km, but I think you can still see how she kept "pouring on the coals" during the 2nd lap (i.e., from ~30 to ~60 s) compared to the 3 km, and how this came back to bite her in the end.

What is interesting is that she paced herself almost exactly the same way during her qualifying ride at national just a few weeks later...but still had 1 km to go! :eek: As Fergie said, it's a fine line...
 

Similar threads