Yesterday I posted about how to form a club. Well, not really, but it gives you an idea of what you'll need to think about if you want to form a club. It's really pretty straight forward. You fill out some registration fields in an online form at USA Cycling. You pay some money.
Voila, you're a club.
But the big thing is that if you want to renew your club next year, you need to hold an event.
Eh... what? Why is that?
Well. Gather 'round all y'all (that's plural for "y'all" according to a person that spoke that stuff... but he told me back in the mid 80s so if it's not right feel free to correct me) and let me explain.
Why Clubs Hold Races
You can register as a club or team and then not hold a race. The only catch? You cannot renew the club license the following year without proof that you held a race (permit#).
Nowadays, with USAC you have one year grace period to hold your race. Realistically it's very hard to hold a race. Not because it's very hard to hold a race, it's because the inertia you have to overcome to hold a race is really significant.
Let's put it this way. If it weren't so significant I'd be promoting more races.
Therefore most clubs "race" on race permits for races they do not actually hold - they either pay money or volunteer some help or sponsorship to the actual promoter. For example you could offer some help to a local promoter in exchange for being listed as a (co-)promoting club. USAC limits the number of clubs per permit to two for this reason - it used to be 5? I don't remember, but the two is recent. In the old days it wasn't unusual to see 6 or 8 clubs on one permit. I think one roller race that attracted only a half dozen riders had probably just as many clubs on its permit.
This "have to hold a race" mamby pamby is a real pain. It's just another way for the Feds (as the USCF used to be called by some of its members) to get you, right?
Wrong.
The whole reason for requiring clubs to hold a race is so that there are races for racers to enter.
That's important so let me repeat it, this time in bold.
The whole reason for requiring clubs to hold a race is so that there are races for racers to enter.
If everyone acted in a similar way (race but not promote) there would be very few races. Promoters tend to promote races because of the love of the sport, not because it makes money. I know a promoter that spends upwards of $15-25,000 a year to have racers yell at him, complain about his hard work, and ask for more prize money or lower entry fees.
I don't spend that kind of money to have the honor of holding a race - it's closer to $0 to $2000 a year for me to get yelled at. (I say that facetiously - people seem to understand and appreciate what I do so I rarely get yelled at and I really appreciate it. So thank you all.)
In Belgium (and perhaps other countries) the cycling federation helps subsidize races. Entry fees remain largely symbolic (a euro or three) and prize money seems to be equally high (a few euros for a place). A license, though, costs a lot of money - a few hundred dollars worth when I raced in Belgium.
(When I raced in Belgium I thought that would be the way to race - get a license in the US, about $30 at the time, then race in Belgium for free. I'd basically race for free. The worst scenario is a Belgian racer of that era coming over to the US. They'd be paying the subsidy for Belgian racing but gain none of that benefit in this country - they'd pay for their racing twice.)
We're not like Europe. Clubs have to promote the races.
Become a Promoter
So how do you become a promoter?
Usually by accident.
Seriously, most promoters I know got into it because they ended up the one doing the work when a group of people decided to "promote a race".
I promoted my first race because someone else did a lot of work to create it and I felt like I owed him the effort to keep his race going. He was also my first leadout man, my boss at the shop, and he taught me a lot about what I know about bikes and bike racing. When he moved away he asked me to hold the races. I've done so since that year (1993). Carpe Diem Racing has been in existence for a long time because I promoted races for a long time (that's the name of the club/promotion-group that promotes the race officially - I'm just a member of Carpe Diem Racing).
You don't have to promote a race, even as a club. That whole "race on someone else's permit" works just fine for many clubs around. Heck, if you want to be on the Bethel Spring Series permit, let me know. Just ante up some cash (I'll start at $1500 and negotiate from there, and that's PER RACE, not the Series) and I'll be glad to put you on one of the two very precious "promoting club" spots on the permit.
You'll help racing in Connecticut, that's for sure. The way I see it, there's nothing really wrong with that. Giving money to a race (and, if possible, a bunch of volunteers to help out as needed) is one of the best things you can give a promoter.
But it's not really the best way to approach racing as a whole.
I'm not saying that no one does it. I'm just saying that if you give a little to the sport (by helping an existing promoter, for example) you won't have to worry about the club "name changing game" thing.
And you'll get an appreciation for what it takes to hold a race.
If You Haven't Promoted A Race
If you don't hold a race or help hold a race, then one thing I'd suggest - if you have any complaints about a race, any at all, I'd keep them to yourself until you've promoted a race.
Most "problems" races have are due to compromises the promoter had to make to fit budget and demand into a workable box. This mainly refers to categories (i.e. which categories are racing) and prize money.
Day of race problems can often be traced to a lack of help (i.e. organization). If you realize when you're in the portapottie that there's no TP left, the promoter probably forgot because they had to focus on other things. If a promoter has 30 extra helpers (like, say, your club's members), one of them could easily keep an eye out on the TP situation, including buying more if, say, the coffee in the area is stronger than expected. Heh.
With no helpers it's a lot tougher. I know I send people to buy things I forgot or ran out of, and I've been doing this a while. When there's no help, or very little help, it gets really crazy really fast. That's when the complaints start pouring in.
A benefit to those that assist is that helpers usually get free entry and some level of "VIP" treatment. For helpers at my race that means parking in the reserved spots close to registration (the rest of the lot is off limits to racers due to other tenants in the space), a place to sit/hang-out, indoor bathroom, free food, stuff like that.
You want to use that beautiful, heated, well lit, comfortable bathroom (that we promoters diligently clean up at the end of the day)? Just help out for a few races and you're welcome to use it.
Co-Promoting a Race
Co-promotion of races is very, very standard. I think in 8 years the club I belonged to (1983-1991) promoted 1 unique event, a great road race that had an excellent course winding through a few towns in lower Fairfield County, Connecticut. But it left such a sour taste in our mouths (police chief commented he ought to ticket every single racer for not riding single file) that we just rode other permits until 1992. After that I've always promoted an event personally.
Clubs Need To Promote Races
On the other hand the philosophy of clubs promoting races is the essence of grassroots racing. It's an obligation at some level. A lot of racers complain of the "talent dilution" where teams split into multiple teams due to something. Then each team gets really small. It multiplies the work required to keep a given group of racers racing, but for some reason (usually self promotion) the racers want their "own" team. If the whole "club has to put on a race" thing really worked out, the teams would remain larger, have members whose passion is holding events, and they'd all hold events. When teams start splintering but fail to contribute to the scene (through holding races, especially in race-scarce areas), it hurts racing. The larger club, the one with the promoter, loses a lot of free help and ideas and motivation. The smaller clubs look to other promoters to get a yearly pass on doing an event. So no new events, more stress on existing events... it's not good.
In CT there are a LOT of races that are gone. A lot. It's kind of depressing but the costs and effort aren't worth it. I know a local road race (one day event) has a budget of over $100,000. And that's just a regular road race, not anything special. It takes many clubs to hold that one event, or, like last year, one large club with a lot of available help.
So I think new clubs are okay with "permit passes" for a few years but they really ought to put on an event at some point. Something to contribute to the sport.
Regarding help at races. Since volunteers are less reliable than paid people, I decided it was worth the stress reduction to pay for help at my races. I pay substantially less than $600/year which is the 1099 threshold so that no one has to claim stuff on their returns.
Only one helper races (and he races for free). Three don't have bikes. Four actually. They're mainly family of people who are involved in racing. I also allow volunteers to race for free and I get a LOT of help through that channel, especially on sweep day (we hand sweep the 0.9 mile course, and coming at the end of a Connecticut winter, there's a lot of sand and sometimes ice/snow).
I also grandfather in the folks that helped in the past - co-promoters and very involved helpers. So if you work the race for 5 or 10 years, every week, every race, with the passion befitting a promoter, then you race for free at my races for the rest of my/your/race's life.
There are only a few people who qualify for this perk. Like one person, at least for the last couple years.
I also try and let guys who've raced the whole series (meaning from 1992) race for less or free or get their second race gratis or something. I talked to one guy in summer 2010 who has raced every year at my Series since its inception. He actually apologized for not making the 3 hour one way drive more often when the weather was iffy and such (he lives up near Canada).
Promoting is a living, breathing co-existence with the venue folks (tenants in the area), racers, and officials. Things go both ways.
Promoters -> racers.
Racers -> promoters.
See you out there!
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Racing - What It Takes (Kind Of) To Form A Team
Around this time of year more than a few racers start thinking along the lines of, "You know, I could just do my own club instead of dealing with -fill-in-the-blank- that's happening at my current club."
It may be a new thought (instigated perhaps by the email going out that says what the club expects from its riders for this upcoming year) or it could be a festering one (instigated much earlier, perhaps at some race in June where the individual thought something the club did could have been handled differently).
Before I go any further I should clarify that the club is the organizing body of a group of people, sort of. It's the "corporate name" if you will. The team is the sponsored name. In the old days the club had to be amateur (no company names). So the 7-Eleven amateur cycling team was the team that belonged to... the name escapes me but I think it was the Southwind Velo Club or something like that.
Nowadays a large club may have many separate teams. In this area the New York City club CRCA (Century Road Club Association) has a gazillion "teams", usually listed as "CRCA/Team", i.e. CRCA/TeaNY or CRCA/Radical Media (where Columbia pro Evelyn Stevens got her start).
Anyways, that's the club and team thing. You have to have a club before you can have a team so I'll just refer to the "group" as a club going forward.
So...
Why would you want to form a club?
I can think of a few reasons:
- You and a few of your close friends who happen to race with you in your category and age group (if applicable) want to race together in a separate kit. Perhaps you all do rides together but have never raced. Perhaps you're used to running organizations so it's no biggie to start a new (small) one. Usually a driving idea is to identify to others that you all are associated in some way.
Look, there's something to be said for matching kits at a bike race. A lot of people (me included) like being in a group. You support the group, even if you don't really "belong" to it. If that wasn't the case then the Yankees wouldn't be able sell a single baseball cap. After all, just because you buy one doesn't make you anything more than a proud owner of a Yankee cap. I don't own a Yankees cap but I'm using them as an example because I think they're the best marketed baseball team in terms of money.
- You want to spend some of your business's marketing money and you think it'd be cool to put it on the kit you wear at races. Or your boss wants to help you out and give you money towards your club. Both of these applied to me in the past. And many teams have made it because of this. The big pro teams Phonak (what used to be Phonak) and currently BMC exist mainly because of Andy Rihs's passion for bike racing. Locally many clubs exist simply as a vehicle for one of the member's business. A good example? Bike shop clubs.
- You think the current club isn't doing things the way you think they ought to be done (you a politician? That's what all "challengers to incumbents" think). Whether you're right or wrong is besides the point. You just want to give it a shot, do it on your own. It could be as minor as buying different socks or as major as holding an event. It's very hard to find a large group of strong-headed and individualistic thinking racers that get along well. I run my own promotion club and it's always been mine, so I can say that about people who start and run clubs.
I can't think of any others at this point but feel free to pipe up if there's another couple few reasons for starting a club.
I think a central concept behind ALL clubs is that they want to have their own kit, their own uniform. The Yankees play in their uniform, even though it has no real advertising on it. The uniform itself is the commodity. In cycling the kits get covered with advertising, so your classic Festina jersey from 1998 still advertises Festina Watches every time you wear the jersey on a ride. A grey shirt with "Jeeter" on the back of it doesn't do much for some, will infuriate others, but won't advertise specifically for a particular company (like, say, Festina Watches).
Therefore the kit is key.
This is where USA Cycling gets you. They understand this kit obsession. Everyone does.
According to USAC rules, if you want to wear a kit it needs to belong to a club. You can't go out and race in your classic Festina Watches jersey, no more than I'm allowed to go out in my Mapei one.
Well, technically I'm not supposed to, although I raced much of a particular season wearing Mapei shorts. But that's a whole different story.
If you want to wear your kit it needs to be connected to a club. Some officials will make you wear a plain kit if you're officially unattached. I've seen a lot of racers that have raced with their jersey turned inside out because of this.
And, here's the kicker.
If you have a club it needs to hold a race.
If your club does not hold a race, it cannot renew its club registration the following year.
Of course there's a workaround to registering a team. You can register using a different person, different address, and different club name each year. Since many race rider lists whatever you put as the team, the club name can be just remotely related from one year to another.
For example I belonged to a team based in the Silvermine area of... Norwalk? New Canaan? Because we effed up for a few years we were Racing Team Silvermine one year, RTS another. Heck we might have been RT Silvermine another year. We would screw up a year, change names, then be okay for a year, then we'd have to change our name again, etc. One year we weren't a team at all - I raced in a plain blue jersey that year (1988 I think - that's when Carpe Diem Racing originally started, and it existed by helping out with races, promoting a 'cross race, a mountain bike race, and, finally, the Bethel Spring Series in 1992).
(To give credit where it's due, I did NOT organize those races. Mike H did, and he's half the people that thought of and made the Bethel Spring Series a reality. Rit G is the other half. I only helped out until the end of the 1992 Series.)
You can make the club a business (LLC or something). Heck you should do something just to cover your butt in terms of liability. But as far as money goes, if the sponsor needs to write a check to a club, you need to have a club legally, as in government-wise.
Don't worry as much about taxes. As long as the money going in and out is about the same you'll be even steven money-wise.
With an LLC you don't have to prove non-profit or even not-for-profit. The minimal taxes you pay will be painless, maybe the cost of a few tubular tires. The rest of the costs are costs and can be deducted. I think I paid about $400 to set up my LLC, and that was with my very risk-averse-self hiring a lawyer to write up some document for the state (it describes my LLC's business).
The other way you do it is you connect the club to a current business, like a bike shop. But then you get into some potential conflicts and stuff.
I haven't tried to get the business side to help my hobby side, but after running a few simple ideas past my wife (the accountant, and she's on the up and up) she says that there are ways I could conceivably write off some of my bike expenses as related to the promotion business. I'd have to do some extra work (promote stuff using my hobby) but it'd be pretty straightforward. Since I'm of the mindset that taxes aren't necessarily bad I haven't started to plan on this aspect of cycling.
Anyway my point is that setting up an LLC would be pretty easy and allow you to receive sponsor checks. If you use all the money, minus some seed money for the following year, you'll be good. You can even sponsor/seed your own LLC - it's where I personally put 3? pairs of HED wheels worth of money (and no I haven't seen it back yet).
With an LLC income is treated like personal income. You file a Schedule A for your expenses or something like that (ask a good accountant - I can give you a contact if you need one... just remember that accountants bill by the hour). Keep a good record and make sure your income>expenses (for the LLC) so that the IRS doesn't get on your back.
Remember, it's not a business if it loses money all the time.
So, yes, you can just register a club with USAC and race in your kit (with your club name on it somewhere). It'll cost just $150 a year to register your club, at least for 2011. You'll be listed as your club, not unlisted. If you don't hold an event you can just do some finagling to get a new club name next year.
But for now you'll be able to wear your kit in races. And since it's your club you probably should wear it when you train too.
Isn't that so cool? So pro?
Yeppers.
It may be a new thought (instigated perhaps by the email going out that says what the club expects from its riders for this upcoming year) or it could be a festering one (instigated much earlier, perhaps at some race in June where the individual thought something the club did could have been handled differently).
Before I go any further I should clarify that the club is the organizing body of a group of people, sort of. It's the "corporate name" if you will. The team is the sponsored name. In the old days the club had to be amateur (no company names). So the 7-Eleven amateur cycling team was the team that belonged to... the name escapes me but I think it was the Southwind Velo Club or something like that.
Nowadays a large club may have many separate teams. In this area the New York City club CRCA (Century Road Club Association) has a gazillion "teams", usually listed as "CRCA/Team", i.e. CRCA/TeaNY or CRCA/Radical Media (where Columbia pro Evelyn Stevens got her start).
Anyways, that's the club and team thing. You have to have a club before you can have a team so I'll just refer to the "group" as a club going forward.
So...
Why would you want to form a club?
I can think of a few reasons:
- You and a few of your close friends who happen to race with you in your category and age group (if applicable) want to race together in a separate kit. Perhaps you all do rides together but have never raced. Perhaps you're used to running organizations so it's no biggie to start a new (small) one. Usually a driving idea is to identify to others that you all are associated in some way.
Look, there's something to be said for matching kits at a bike race. A lot of people (me included) like being in a group. You support the group, even if you don't really "belong" to it. If that wasn't the case then the Yankees wouldn't be able sell a single baseball cap. After all, just because you buy one doesn't make you anything more than a proud owner of a Yankee cap. I don't own a Yankees cap but I'm using them as an example because I think they're the best marketed baseball team in terms of money.
- You want to spend some of your business's marketing money and you think it'd be cool to put it on the kit you wear at races. Or your boss wants to help you out and give you money towards your club. Both of these applied to me in the past. And many teams have made it because of this. The big pro teams Phonak (what used to be Phonak) and currently BMC exist mainly because of Andy Rihs's passion for bike racing. Locally many clubs exist simply as a vehicle for one of the member's business. A good example? Bike shop clubs.
- You think the current club isn't doing things the way you think they ought to be done (you a politician? That's what all "challengers to incumbents" think). Whether you're right or wrong is besides the point. You just want to give it a shot, do it on your own. It could be as minor as buying different socks or as major as holding an event. It's very hard to find a large group of strong-headed and individualistic thinking racers that get along well. I run my own promotion club and it's always been mine, so I can say that about people who start and run clubs.
I can't think of any others at this point but feel free to pipe up if there's another couple few reasons for starting a club.
I think a central concept behind ALL clubs is that they want to have their own kit, their own uniform. The Yankees play in their uniform, even though it has no real advertising on it. The uniform itself is the commodity. In cycling the kits get covered with advertising, so your classic Festina jersey from 1998 still advertises Festina Watches every time you wear the jersey on a ride. A grey shirt with "Jeeter" on the back of it doesn't do much for some, will infuriate others, but won't advertise specifically for a particular company (like, say, Festina Watches).
Therefore the kit is key.
This is where USA Cycling gets you. They understand this kit obsession. Everyone does.
According to USAC rules, if you want to wear a kit it needs to belong to a club. You can't go out and race in your classic Festina Watches jersey, no more than I'm allowed to go out in my Mapei one.
Well, technically I'm not supposed to, although I raced much of a particular season wearing Mapei shorts. But that's a whole different story.
If you want to wear your kit it needs to be connected to a club. Some officials will make you wear a plain kit if you're officially unattached. I've seen a lot of racers that have raced with their jersey turned inside out because of this.
And, here's the kicker.
If you have a club it needs to hold a race.
If your club does not hold a race, it cannot renew its club registration the following year.
Of course there's a workaround to registering a team. You can register using a different person, different address, and different club name each year. Since many race rider lists whatever you put as the team, the club name can be just remotely related from one year to another.
For example I belonged to a team based in the Silvermine area of... Norwalk? New Canaan? Because we effed up for a few years we were Racing Team Silvermine one year, RTS another. Heck we might have been RT Silvermine another year. We would screw up a year, change names, then be okay for a year, then we'd have to change our name again, etc. One year we weren't a team at all - I raced in a plain blue jersey that year (1988 I think - that's when Carpe Diem Racing originally started, and it existed by helping out with races, promoting a 'cross race, a mountain bike race, and, finally, the Bethel Spring Series in 1992).
(To give credit where it's due, I did NOT organize those races. Mike H did, and he's half the people that thought of and made the Bethel Spring Series a reality. Rit G is the other half. I only helped out until the end of the 1992 Series.)
You can make the club a business (LLC or something). Heck you should do something just to cover your butt in terms of liability. But as far as money goes, if the sponsor needs to write a check to a club, you need to have a club legally, as in government-wise.
Don't worry as much about taxes. As long as the money going in and out is about the same you'll be even steven money-wise.
With an LLC you don't have to prove non-profit or even not-for-profit. The minimal taxes you pay will be painless, maybe the cost of a few tubular tires. The rest of the costs are costs and can be deducted. I think I paid about $400 to set up my LLC, and that was with my very risk-averse-self hiring a lawyer to write up some document for the state (it describes my LLC's business).
The other way you do it is you connect the club to a current business, like a bike shop. But then you get into some potential conflicts and stuff.
I haven't tried to get the business side to help my hobby side, but after running a few simple ideas past my wife (the accountant, and she's on the up and up) she says that there are ways I could conceivably write off some of my bike expenses as related to the promotion business. I'd have to do some extra work (promote stuff using my hobby) but it'd be pretty straightforward. Since I'm of the mindset that taxes aren't necessarily bad I haven't started to plan on this aspect of cycling.
Anyway my point is that setting up an LLC would be pretty easy and allow you to receive sponsor checks. If you use all the money, minus some seed money for the following year, you'll be good. You can even sponsor/seed your own LLC - it's where I personally put 3? pairs of HED wheels worth of money (and no I haven't seen it back yet).
With an LLC income is treated like personal income. You file a Schedule A for your expenses or something like that (ask a good accountant - I can give you a contact if you need one... just remember that accountants bill by the hour). Keep a good record and make sure your income>expenses (for the LLC) so that the IRS doesn't get on your back.
Remember, it's not a business if it loses money all the time.
So, yes, you can just register a club with USAC and race in your kit (with your club name on it somewhere). It'll cost just $150 a year to register your club, at least for 2011. You'll be listed as your club, not unlisted. If you don't hold an event you can just do some finagling to get a new club name next year.
But for now you'll be able to wear your kit in races. And since it's your club you probably should wear it when you train too.
Isn't that so cool? So pro?
Yeppers.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Racing - 2011 License
Jeezum. Lookit the size of that sticker!It's really official, at least for now. I'm a Cat 2. It even says it on my license in print.
Depending on your view point this could be a bad thing or a good thing.
It's bad because it means the license holder will have to race Cat 2 races. For someone (me) not used to that I think it'll be hard.
It's good for someone that, about 20 years ago, said to everyone and anyone that I wanted to get my upgrade to Cat 2, "lose" the license, get a replacement, then frame the new license and hang it on the wall. Then promptly downgrade to Cat 3 again.
See, back then, I felt totally outclassed by the Cat 2s. Heck, I felt outclassed by the Cat 3s.
Then again, in that era the Cat 3s that outclassed me often wore National Champion jerseys. They regularly place top 3 in Cat 1-2-3 races, after winning the Cat 3 race as a warm up. Because of some of the inefficiencies of the then-called USCF, they never upgraded.
Racing against those guys meant it became incredibly difficult to break into the top 6 in a crit.
Another one of the prime reasons I struggled with earning a Cat 2 upgrade was that in those days you had to be a complete rider to upgrade. No specialty upgrades. None of this "I don't do road races" stuff. It was all or nothing.
Typically you'd hear some very good riders (who wanted to upgrade) lament the fact that they could only get 7th, 8th, 9th, or 10th in the road races, some of them being really, really hard ones, and because they never earned points in a road race, the local rep rejected their upgrade request.
So, for me, who never finished a single road race with the group (ever!), an upgrade seemed highly unlikely.
Nowadays it's a bit different. Points are points. Earn them in crits or road races, it's okay. Just remember where you earned them because if you earned your upgrade points in crits, chances are that you'll get totally spanked in the road races.
(Since it logically follows that you couldn't earn points in a road race, upgrading will make the now-harder road races impossible to conquer.)
What this has done is dilute the Cat 2 ranks.
What?!
I can say this because, frankly, I'm one of the solvents. A "diluter" if you will.
See, if you lined me up against a Cat 2 of yesteryear, I'd fall pretty short in many respects. Climbing, for sure, and time trialing, another "for sure". Steady state power. Power to weight ratio, at least for more than a minute.
But put me in a crit that's reasonably flat...
Yep.
I've held my own in 1-2-3 crits. I even infiltrated a 10 lap long break as a "strong" 3 (with two either current or former Cat 1s).
And, as a friend of mine likes to reminisce, I even bridged to a young (1992) George Hincapie in probably the fastest flying lap I've ever done (and ever will do) at the Naugatuck Crit.
Lil' ole me, bridging up to the star of the National team.
Imagine that.
(To be fair I dropped out. Hincapie, marked like no one else's business, managed to place but didn't win.)
Now, last year, when I earned all my upgrade points, I was riding about as strongly as I've ridden in my life. I'd say it was perhaps my third or fourth best year ever. I'd count my Belgium year as my best, with a couple others around there as being just below the Belgium year.
After that would come 2010, it was that good.
I don't know what will come of 2011 but it'll be interesting. I'm both intimidated and excited about the prospects of racing the 2s. I'm looking forward to entering a 50 mile crit, even a 40 mile one.
I want to experience a 40 mph attack again, or even a 42 mph attack as one Gene C launched at a New Britain in a forgotten time. It was so fast we both came close to flying off the course in the first turn at New Britain - yes, the turn that you can go through at any speed you want.
And we had to brake to stay out of the woods.
I want to experience a race where the tempo never eases, where I wonder who the eff is pulling so frickin' hard.
I want to feel like I've hit the aero wall... and I'm still sitting in the field.
Depending on your view point this could be a bad thing or a good thing.
It's bad because it means the license holder will have to race Cat 2 races. For someone (me) not used to that I think it'll be hard.
It's good for someone that, about 20 years ago, said to everyone and anyone that I wanted to get my upgrade to Cat 2, "lose" the license, get a replacement, then frame the new license and hang it on the wall. Then promptly downgrade to Cat 3 again.
See, back then, I felt totally outclassed by the Cat 2s. Heck, I felt outclassed by the Cat 3s.
Then again, in that era the Cat 3s that outclassed me often wore National Champion jerseys. They regularly place top 3 in Cat 1-2-3 races, after winning the Cat 3 race as a warm up. Because of some of the inefficiencies of the then-called USCF, they never upgraded.
Racing against those guys meant it became incredibly difficult to break into the top 6 in a crit.
Another one of the prime reasons I struggled with earning a Cat 2 upgrade was that in those days you had to be a complete rider to upgrade. No specialty upgrades. None of this "I don't do road races" stuff. It was all or nothing.
Typically you'd hear some very good riders (who wanted to upgrade) lament the fact that they could only get 7th, 8th, 9th, or 10th in the road races, some of them being really, really hard ones, and because they never earned points in a road race, the local rep rejected their upgrade request.
So, for me, who never finished a single road race with the group (ever!), an upgrade seemed highly unlikely.
Nowadays it's a bit different. Points are points. Earn them in crits or road races, it's okay. Just remember where you earned them because if you earned your upgrade points in crits, chances are that you'll get totally spanked in the road races.
(Since it logically follows that you couldn't earn points in a road race, upgrading will make the now-harder road races impossible to conquer.)
What this has done is dilute the Cat 2 ranks.
What?!
I can say this because, frankly, I'm one of the solvents. A "diluter" if you will.
See, if you lined me up against a Cat 2 of yesteryear, I'd fall pretty short in many respects. Climbing, for sure, and time trialing, another "for sure". Steady state power. Power to weight ratio, at least for more than a minute.
But put me in a crit that's reasonably flat...
Yep.
I've held my own in 1-2-3 crits. I even infiltrated a 10 lap long break as a "strong" 3 (with two either current or former Cat 1s).
And, as a friend of mine likes to reminisce, I even bridged to a young (1992) George Hincapie in probably the fastest flying lap I've ever done (and ever will do) at the Naugatuck Crit.
Lil' ole me, bridging up to the star of the National team.
Imagine that.
(To be fair I dropped out. Hincapie, marked like no one else's business, managed to place but didn't win.)
Now, last year, when I earned all my upgrade points, I was riding about as strongly as I've ridden in my life. I'd say it was perhaps my third or fourth best year ever. I'd count my Belgium year as my best, with a couple others around there as being just below the Belgium year.
After that would come 2010, it was that good.
I don't know what will come of 2011 but it'll be interesting. I'm both intimidated and excited about the prospects of racing the 2s. I'm looking forward to entering a 50 mile crit, even a 40 mile one.
I want to experience a 40 mph attack again, or even a 42 mph attack as one Gene C launched at a New Britain in a forgotten time. It was so fast we both came close to flying off the course in the first turn at New Britain - yes, the turn that you can go through at any speed you want.
And we had to brake to stay out of the woods.
I want to experience a race where the tempo never eases, where I wonder who the eff is pulling so frickin' hard.
I want to feel like I've hit the aero wall... and I'm still sitting in the field.
I want to look up and see a single file line of racers, all with good form, all doing what they have to do, all cooperating in a game of survival.
And then...
Well, I've only ever placed once in a Cat 2-3 or harder race, and it was a 6th.
I've forgotten what it's like to fight it out at the end of such a race.
I remember one year, at New Britain, with half a lap to go in the P123 race, someone unclipped their foot and started kicking another rider.
Kicking!
To do this in the middle of a crazy wound up field is insane.
Well, of course it is. The kicker I think crashed. Incredibly (or not) I'm pretty sure no one else went down.
But still, watching some of those P123 or P12 races roar down to the finish... I try and watch at the 200 or 300 meter to go mark. That's where the action finalizes, where the final jumps go.
And it's always crazy.
Everyone knows how to ride. Everyone figures the others know how to ride. Everyone pushes the limits, trusting one another to make it through.
I'd like to say that I've been in a bunch of races like that in 2010. Unfortunately I was in a few races where stuff happened in the finale. Cat 3 races aren't quite as homogeneous as a Cat 2 race, at least not so I notice.
So for 2011 I expect it to be a bit wild and wooly in the final laps. If I have the engine to drive through to the final sprint then it'll be a whole different ball game. Higher speed for the run in to the finish, harder jumps, and faster sprints.
And that, depending on how you look at it, could be a good or bad thing.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Tsunami - 2.0 Ultrasound
As you probably know I've put in my order for my second Tsunami frame from Tsunami Bikes. I've come to refer to the frame as "Tsunami 2.0" so that's what it is. Recently I had some developments on the frame so of course I have to let you all know about them.
First, although I hinted that I was thinking about this frameset long and hard, I wanted to give you an idea of what that means to me.
Sketches.
Rough sketches.
First, although I hinted that I was thinking about this frameset long and hard, I wanted to give you an idea of what that means to me.
Sketches.
Rough sketches.
Some really rough sketches. I was fiddling around with cable routing.This was during the summer of 2010. Note the bottom of the downtube.
More rough sketches, this on the way to Interbike (fall 2010).The notes include thinner seat stays ("aero" works), lighter top tube, aero downtube, attempt to use only a CamelBak in races, and a possible aero seat tube.
Brakes, they're pretty straightforward. I knew how to do the top tube so I felt set with the rear brake. The front brake, well, that's kind of set too because either I buy a new brake caliper or I route the cable the same way. Since I won't buy a new caliper just yet, it's just a regular set up.
That leaves the derailleur cables.
Hm.
I knew that I'd have some exit room at the bottom of the downtube (see sketches above). The opening at BB end of the downtube would be perfect for directing the bare cables into the under-BB cable guides.
The problem was how to get the cables in there.
After fruitless sketches (unaided by the fact that I couldn't just machine a part and mail it to Joseph to weld in), I gave up. I asked Joseph (Wells, the guy behind Tsunami Bikes) how to get bare cables inside the downtube. He replied he had a way.
I decided that "the way" would be "my way".
When I got over that hurdle, I placed the order for my frame.
The other day I checked my email and found one from Joseph. He'd attached a picture of the frame in progress. He did this for me before, and once again I got to see the frame before it was even welded up.
This is a really cool part of buying a Tsunami Bike - you get to see it as it gets built. It's your frame, not just any frame, and you get to see it from start to finish.
With the tubes cut and tacked together, the frame already looks like a frame. All my race bike philosophies become plain to see here, open to anyone and everyone to examine and then copy or reject it. It's not really like Formula One where the aerodynamic intricacies stay hidden from view. In F1 you can pick out the large pieces, the outside ones, but not the way a lot of the internal channels work; a lot of stuff remains a mystery.
In bike racing, at least with aluminum frames, what you see is what you get.
What I am getting, sort of.Obviously an aero road frame concept.
I'd said in an earlier post that I'm looking to make some changes to the bike. Along with the sketches I made (and that Joseph never saw or even heard of), you can see how this frame took shape.
The most obvious thing, to me anyway, is the aero seat tube. It's got to be aero because it's so long, and I certainly am not going to be sporting a 54.2 mm seat post. The cut out in front of the rear wheel area gives it away. You can see just how much the rear tire will intrude into the seat tube area. Note that the tire will clear the tube by only a little bit, perhaps half a centimeter.
Chainstay length?
390 mm.
Oh yeah!
The frame bears some Sharpie marks where Joseph will put some housing guides. You can see the downtube is "aero", although, to be honest, it doesn't look much more aero than my downtube right now. It's okay, I figure it will psych me up to look down while I'm riding and not see it.
Heh.
The seat stays look much longer too, another oval profile tube.
Now one thing that I denied planning, and my sketches back this up, is that I'd have an integrated seatpost (ISP), one of those seat tubes that extend upwards and replace much of the seat post. The problem with them is that you can't really adjust much once you've cut, and it's also much more difficult to pack a bike when the seat tube sticks up really far.
Therefore I decide not to get an ISP.
That was the plan.
Joseph asked how the frame looked because I could request changes at this point. I replied that I liked it. He then asked if I wanted him to cut down the seat tube or if I'd want to have it end so I'd have about, oh, perhaps an inch of my seatpost exposed.
Of course, now that I had the option of an ISP, I decided to think about it. I've been debating whether or not I should buy a super aero seat post and adjusting the frame to fit its aero height. That would involve precisely measuring where the round bit turns aero and exactly now much post I'd need. Since in all my travels I have yet to find a zero setback aero top 27.2 mm seat post, I decided against the aero post for now. If I find one then my next frame may have a regular seat tube height designed to have a particular post sitting so that its profile narrows as soon as it juts above the seat tube.
Anyway, with the thoughts of an ISP frame dancing around in my head, I went downstairs to measure my current Tsunami. Trusty tape measure in hand, I measured from the bottom bracket (center of the shell) to the point about an inch below the top of the usable bit of seat post.
580 mm.
(Okay, go ahead, laugh. Continue reading when you're done.)
I also measured my bike bag to see what 58 cm of seat tube would look like sticking up from the BB clamp thing built into the bike bag.
Not bad.
In fact, if you think about it (and I did, then measured to verify), a 700c wheel is a bit taller than 580 mm. The bead diameter is 622 mm, so it's maybe 80 mm taller overall when you include the tire. Figuring in the BB mount's height, the top of the tires should be about even with the top of the seat tube.
I ran upstairs and told Joseph to cut the seat tube at 580 mm.
Okay, I didn't do it that quickly. I thought about how I'd mount a blinkie light back there. I'm still not sure, but it'd involve using the very top of the post, the one inch exposed bit.
I thought about holding a little seat bag for a couple tubes, multi tool, levers, and some money. I decided that I need to "smallify" the bag I have now and do with just a little tighter packaging.
Finally I thought a potential camera mount back there for a potential rearward facing camera. I decided that I didn't have an idea on what to do. That means that for now I still need to think about how to mount a potential rear-facing cam.
I can deal with those problems when they come up.
But for now, it is what it is. I can't wait.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Racing - 2010 Stats, 2011 Outline
For whatever reason I have my SRM set so that a season starts on October 1. It would make sense that the season therefore ends September 30th. I'm not sure why I left it like that other than maybe I got the bike (with the SRM on it) at about that time.
Whatever, the fact that the 2010 season ended "officially" for me means I could check out what I did. It helps that my SRM is working again so it kind of motivated me to look at my past performances. For me that means looking at the big picture stuff. I'm less concerned about exactly what I did on a particular day. I'm more interested in the workload I did during different parts of the year. This is most important when looking at races where I felt particularly good or strong. In order to try and replicate those good days, I need to look at what I did in the prior two or three months, week by week, and see how that differs from other two or three month periods.
Okay, I really need to look at the prior two weeks (a "tactical" period) as well as the prior six or eight months (a "strategic" period). My overall fitness gets decided by my training for the past half year or more, but my freshness on a given day usually gets determined by the amount of rest, the type of diet, and the training I do in the prior week or so.
Remember that training breaks your body down. You don't get stronger by training, you get weaker. If you got stronger by training, you'd feel better the day after a 6 hour ride, and you'd feel great after a dozen consecutive 6 hour rides.
Unless you're a freak of nature, that's not the case.
If you're anything like me then you feel like a waste product the day after a 6 hour ride. If you did a dozen consecutive 6 hour rides, you'd barely be able to get out of bed. I couldn't tell you because I've never done anything like that.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that training isn't where you make your gains.
Resting is where you gain your strength. Resting rebuilds your body, refuels, refits, revitalizes, renews - all those Re-Re-Re things. It gives your body time to adapt to the stresses it's just seen, the 6 hour rides, the 10 intervals, even the jog from your car to the registration table. Rest is where you build your strength.
Therefore the resting prior to a good day is key ("resting" doesn't necessarily mean resting the day before, it just means the rest you get in general).
The goal for anyone seeking to peak on a given day is to carefully break down the body by training as hard as possible while still giving it enough time to recover in time for the Big Day. You have strategic plans, big picture type schedules, and you have tactical plans, the day by day small picture schedules.
For me it's pretty straightforward. For all Big Days, I need to take it easy the day before, do maybe an hour or so. If I've been riding a lot, 4 or 5 days a week or more, I need to do a similar ride two days prior, with a day off the bike three days prior. The easy ride helps loosen the legs, else I feel like I'm pedaling with Pinocchio legs.
If I don't have a lot of miles on my legs then I don't ride at all two and three days prior. I don't need a couple days to get back into it. The only exception is if I've taken more than a few days off, due to illness or real life things. For example I had to take over a week off just now due to illness. It took three rides before my legs felt anywhere near resilient - the first two days were horrible.
For the big picture it's also pretty straightforward. I have a couple season goals each year, and they don't change very much. In fact they haven't changed for 15 or more years. Those goals then determine my overall schedule.
1. Go hard January. Go hard part of February. End one big ("macro" as coined by Lemond and I think Paul Koechli) cycle. This is my big build phase where I get my base miles in. I try and do some long hours here, even in a short-hour year. I've done over 30 hours in a single week while averaging about 10 hours during most of the other weeks. I hope this year to hit that 30 hour mark one week, and I think that 10 hours in the other weeks is a bit much for me. We'll see how that affects the rest of my season.
2. Finalize promotional prep for Bethel Spring Series. Race March and first half April, focus on recovery and not getting sick. I typically train only 2-3 hours a week during Bethel so I basically build reserves the whole time. End second big cycle. Take second half of April easy.
3. May, June, part of July, go hard. Take a week or so easy before Nutmeg State games (CT Crit Champs). With group rides, Tuesdays at the Rent, I did consistent 2 hour daily rides in 2010, a lot for me. I hope to repeat this at some level in 2011. This ends my third big cycle.
4. July, August, September, go hard until the end of the season. I have no particular goals so I use whatever form I have to do whatever I can do. At the end of that I ease for the year, so it's my last big cycle of training. I'll do Pedal4Paws, a charity ride to benefit Forgotten Felines in Connecticut,
In 2010 I accomplished something along those lines. In some raw numbers I did the following:
- Rode 293 hours
- 4913 miles
- 30 races
The first number is high for me, especially considering that I lost a lot of days towards the end of the season due to logging things incorrectly (SRM wasn't charged, no magnet, couldn't find SRM, etc - all errors on the part of the nut that holds the handlebars, i.e. the rider). In prior "working" years where I had a job, 150 hours for the year seemed like a lot. 450 hours for the year I didn't work was a lot - I actually got tired of riding - and I raced worse than I did on shorter hour years.
The second number is kind of just interesting. Miles don't mean anything, really. I didn't know that when I "tried to be a pro" so I tried to pile on miles, even riding up and down my street to round out a ride's mileage. I managed to do 10,000 miles that year and finished one race. I believe I DNFed 44 races.
30 races - that's 30 entries, with dual entries on a few of the Bethels. I think I had 27 race days overall. Not bad, all considering. I thought I raced tons, and to me tons means 40 or 50 races. My record year was 55 races or so, and I was a racing lunatic. So 30 races is a lot, just not at a lunatic level.
The fact that the Missus was at virtually every race (once her work season ended) is pretty incredible.
I'm a bit worried for 2011. I probably need to train more, especially since I struggle once a race hits the 60 minute point.
Well, okay, the 35 minute point.
Doing a 25 mile crit is fine. Doing a 40 or 50 mile one... I haven't done that much crit racing in a single race ever. For me that's a 2 hour flat road race, not a crit.
When I thought about upgrading many years ago, a Cat 2 told me that I'd have to double my training miles. He'd had to go from doing 200-250 miles a week to 400-500 miles a week, and he told us so.
My then girlfriend laughed and asked if that meant I had to train 90 miles a week instead of 45. The puzzled Cat 2 had a look of concern on his face. She explained that I'd usually train about 45 miles in a week. Since the Cat 2 had just taken me across three lanes of pavement in the last 200 meters of the race to beat me, he must have figured I trained more than his easy day mileage.
(That day he technically beat me but was disqualified for his swerve from one edge of Limerock's main straight to another. I feel that even if he hadn't panicked and made his drastic move he'd still have won the sprint, but the officials didn't like his 30 foot wide swerve.)
Whatever, his reaction to my mileage was worth a chuckle.
(To give that same rider props, he attacked at New Britain in the 1-2-3 race, with me on his wheel. We both almost went off the road in Turn 1, a long, gentle sweeper. We had to ease hard and brake. Then we looked at each other to make sure the other guy had to do the same thing - we started laughing when we realized that we'd each done the same thing. We'd entered the turn at 42 mph after attacking out of the field, pedaling furiously, and couldn't lean hard enough to make the turn. I've never had to brake to stay on the road in that turn, before or since.)
I do have one thing going for me as far as miles go.
What my then-girlfriend didn't mention is that I did some mad hours (or miles) on the bike in the winter, building a base, breaking down my body. I still do this, albeit a bit more focused. I cram a winter of training into about four weeks, maybe five, doing long trainer sessions and my now-regular SoCal training camp.
Then, in the spring and summer, to allow my body to be as strong as possible, I'd do weekly micro-cycles, riding hard just on Monday or Tuesday. Then I'd rest ("double secret training") until Saturday, doing a short 20 or 30 minute spin to loosen the legs. I'd feel great on Sunday, race day.
After four or five weeks of this I'd be way behind in fitness because I'd only ridden 300 miles or so. This would force me into doing a hard week, maybe 250 miles, recover while doing another 150-200 miles the next week, and start my distorted macro-cycle again.
For 2011 this last bit won't work.
I'll need to be constantly building my form to remain even slightly competitive in the Cat 2s, and when I say "slightly competitive", I mean I just want to finish a race. I figure I'll be okay in the races that truly suit me, the ones that force those at the front to work extra hard compared to those sitting in. They include races like Bethel, New Britain, even Ninigret and Keith Berger. It's the races where it's harder to sit in where I'll be in dire straights - Red Trolley in San Diego, New London, maybe Fall River.
If I ride a full season as a 2, it'll be interesting what those stats read at the end of the 2011 season.
Whatever, the fact that the 2010 season ended "officially" for me means I could check out what I did. It helps that my SRM is working again so it kind of motivated me to look at my past performances. For me that means looking at the big picture stuff. I'm less concerned about exactly what I did on a particular day. I'm more interested in the workload I did during different parts of the year. This is most important when looking at races where I felt particularly good or strong. In order to try and replicate those good days, I need to look at what I did in the prior two or three months, week by week, and see how that differs from other two or three month periods.
Okay, I really need to look at the prior two weeks (a "tactical" period) as well as the prior six or eight months (a "strategic" period). My overall fitness gets decided by my training for the past half year or more, but my freshness on a given day usually gets determined by the amount of rest, the type of diet, and the training I do in the prior week or so.
Remember that training breaks your body down. You don't get stronger by training, you get weaker. If you got stronger by training, you'd feel better the day after a 6 hour ride, and you'd feel great after a dozen consecutive 6 hour rides.
Unless you're a freak of nature, that's not the case.
If you're anything like me then you feel like a waste product the day after a 6 hour ride. If you did a dozen consecutive 6 hour rides, you'd barely be able to get out of bed. I couldn't tell you because I've never done anything like that.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that training isn't where you make your gains.
Resting is where you gain your strength. Resting rebuilds your body, refuels, refits, revitalizes, renews - all those Re-Re-Re things. It gives your body time to adapt to the stresses it's just seen, the 6 hour rides, the 10 intervals, even the jog from your car to the registration table. Rest is where you build your strength.
Therefore the resting prior to a good day is key ("resting" doesn't necessarily mean resting the day before, it just means the rest you get in general).
The goal for anyone seeking to peak on a given day is to carefully break down the body by training as hard as possible while still giving it enough time to recover in time for the Big Day. You have strategic plans, big picture type schedules, and you have tactical plans, the day by day small picture schedules.
For me it's pretty straightforward. For all Big Days, I need to take it easy the day before, do maybe an hour or so. If I've been riding a lot, 4 or 5 days a week or more, I need to do a similar ride two days prior, with a day off the bike three days prior. The easy ride helps loosen the legs, else I feel like I'm pedaling with Pinocchio legs.
If I don't have a lot of miles on my legs then I don't ride at all two and three days prior. I don't need a couple days to get back into it. The only exception is if I've taken more than a few days off, due to illness or real life things. For example I had to take over a week off just now due to illness. It took three rides before my legs felt anywhere near resilient - the first two days were horrible.
For the big picture it's also pretty straightforward. I have a couple season goals each year, and they don't change very much. In fact they haven't changed for 15 or more years. Those goals then determine my overall schedule.
1. Go hard January. Go hard part of February. End one big ("macro" as coined by Lemond and I think Paul Koechli) cycle. This is my big build phase where I get my base miles in. I try and do some long hours here, even in a short-hour year. I've done over 30 hours in a single week while averaging about 10 hours during most of the other weeks. I hope this year to hit that 30 hour mark one week, and I think that 10 hours in the other weeks is a bit much for me. We'll see how that affects the rest of my season.
2. Finalize promotional prep for Bethel Spring Series. Race March and first half April, focus on recovery and not getting sick. I typically train only 2-3 hours a week during Bethel so I basically build reserves the whole time. End second big cycle. Take second half of April easy.
3. May, June, part of July, go hard. Take a week or so easy before Nutmeg State games (CT Crit Champs). With group rides, Tuesdays at the Rent, I did consistent 2 hour daily rides in 2010, a lot for me. I hope to repeat this at some level in 2011. This ends my third big cycle.
4. July, August, September, go hard until the end of the season. I have no particular goals so I use whatever form I have to do whatever I can do. At the end of that I ease for the year, so it's my last big cycle of training. I'll do Pedal4Paws, a charity ride to benefit Forgotten Felines in Connecticut,
In 2010 I accomplished something along those lines. In some raw numbers I did the following:
- Rode 293 hours
- 4913 miles
- 30 races
The first number is high for me, especially considering that I lost a lot of days towards the end of the season due to logging things incorrectly (SRM wasn't charged, no magnet, couldn't find SRM, etc - all errors on the part of the nut that holds the handlebars, i.e. the rider). In prior "working" years where I had a job, 150 hours for the year seemed like a lot. 450 hours for the year I didn't work was a lot - I actually got tired of riding - and I raced worse than I did on shorter hour years.
The second number is kind of just interesting. Miles don't mean anything, really. I didn't know that when I "tried to be a pro" so I tried to pile on miles, even riding up and down my street to round out a ride's mileage. I managed to do 10,000 miles that year and finished one race. I believe I DNFed 44 races.
30 races - that's 30 entries, with dual entries on a few of the Bethels. I think I had 27 race days overall. Not bad, all considering. I thought I raced tons, and to me tons means 40 or 50 races. My record year was 55 races or so, and I was a racing lunatic. So 30 races is a lot, just not at a lunatic level.
The fact that the Missus was at virtually every race (once her work season ended) is pretty incredible.
I'm a bit worried for 2011. I probably need to train more, especially since I struggle once a race hits the 60 minute point.
Well, okay, the 35 minute point.
Doing a 25 mile crit is fine. Doing a 40 or 50 mile one... I haven't done that much crit racing in a single race ever. For me that's a 2 hour flat road race, not a crit.
When I thought about upgrading many years ago, a Cat 2 told me that I'd have to double my training miles. He'd had to go from doing 200-250 miles a week to 400-500 miles a week, and he told us so.
My then girlfriend laughed and asked if that meant I had to train 90 miles a week instead of 45. The puzzled Cat 2 had a look of concern on his face. She explained that I'd usually train about 45 miles in a week. Since the Cat 2 had just taken me across three lanes of pavement in the last 200 meters of the race to beat me, he must have figured I trained more than his easy day mileage.
(That day he technically beat me but was disqualified for his swerve from one edge of Limerock's main straight to another. I feel that even if he hadn't panicked and made his drastic move he'd still have won the sprint, but the officials didn't like his 30 foot wide swerve.)
Whatever, his reaction to my mileage was worth a chuckle.
(To give that same rider props, he attacked at New Britain in the 1-2-3 race, with me on his wheel. We both almost went off the road in Turn 1, a long, gentle sweeper. We had to ease hard and brake. Then we looked at each other to make sure the other guy had to do the same thing - we started laughing when we realized that we'd each done the same thing. We'd entered the turn at 42 mph after attacking out of the field, pedaling furiously, and couldn't lean hard enough to make the turn. I've never had to brake to stay on the road in that turn, before or since.)
I do have one thing going for me as far as miles go.
What my then-girlfriend didn't mention is that I did some mad hours (or miles) on the bike in the winter, building a base, breaking down my body. I still do this, albeit a bit more focused. I cram a winter of training into about four weeks, maybe five, doing long trainer sessions and my now-regular SoCal training camp.
Then, in the spring and summer, to allow my body to be as strong as possible, I'd do weekly micro-cycles, riding hard just on Monday or Tuesday. Then I'd rest ("double secret training") until Saturday, doing a short 20 or 30 minute spin to loosen the legs. I'd feel great on Sunday, race day.
After four or five weeks of this I'd be way behind in fitness because I'd only ridden 300 miles or so. This would force me into doing a hard week, maybe 250 miles, recover while doing another 150-200 miles the next week, and start my distorted macro-cycle again.
For 2011 this last bit won't work.
I'll need to be constantly building my form to remain even slightly competitive in the Cat 2s, and when I say "slightly competitive", I mean I just want to finish a race. I figure I'll be okay in the races that truly suit me, the ones that force those at the front to work extra hard compared to those sitting in. They include races like Bethel, New Britain, even Ninigret and Keith Berger. It's the races where it's harder to sit in where I'll be in dire straights - Red Trolley in San Diego, New London, maybe Fall River.
If I ride a full season as a 2, it'll be interesting what those stats read at the end of the 2011 season.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Training - Back On The Bike
So... it's the middle of December again, and once again I'm finding myself thinking about next year. It seems like just the other month that I was suffering in the heat at Somerville or Harlem or one of the Renlentless Rents.
Like usual I've been musing equipment because, frankly, I do that whenever I ease back on the riding. As soon as my brain haze clears from race sufferage, I start thinking, "You know, if I had an aero gizmoid, I could probably save a heart beat or two at speed, and that would make it just a bit easier to hang in at the races. Hm."
I've taken the step of ordering my new aero-style frame. I'll be mounting the right size tire to optimize the aerodynamics of the Stinger6 wheels. I'll have some other things I want to try, all in the quest to reduce the power necessary to hang in at the higher speeds of a Cat 2 race.
I'm also in the process of refitting my current equipment, important since I'll hang a lot of those parts on the new frame. I read about "refitting" a lot in my military history books, where a division is sent back away from the frontlines in order to "rest and refit". The books mention stuff like half of the tanks in one of the biggest tank attacks in World War 1 were "casualtied" because they simply broke down.
Even in World War 2 there was a lot of attrition, basically from overworked engines and drivetrains failing from abuse. The infamous Tiger tanks, 60 ton behemoths that were semi-mobile bunkers, were powered by gasoline engines so tuned to the edge that when you got under way the exhaust pipes bellowed out three foot bursts of flame. Think drag racing or rally racers, with foot long flames shooting out of the exhaust. Now imagine that kind of tune in a Mack truck.
(In night movement that would light up a nice 50 meter radius area - making the whole "doesn't smoke like a diesel of the era and is therefore more discrete" reason for using gas engines a bit ludicrous.)
Those giant tanks would churn through engines, drive wheels, and tracks like you wouldn't believe. They required frequent air filter changes (every couple hundred miles), huge amounts of fuel (a hundred miles or so took something like 200 gallons - and you thought your SUV got bad mileage), and constant maintenance on a slew of batteries (I think there were 28 of them but I may be wrong). Engines had to be overhauled, filters and track and other expendables checked and replaced regularly, and guns sighted and cleaned and barrel exchanges kept up.
And that's before you even got shot at by the other guys.
Likewise, racers (and just regular riders) wear down bikes over the course of a season. That pristine bike in the early season, with its crisp shifting, the sticky and undefiled tires, the perfect paint, the beautiful tape...
The chainring teeth get a bit rounded, the chain rollers wear down, the cassette cogs get thin and shark-fin shaped. All this makes the shifting sloppy, gives the drivetrain room for a bit of play whenever you press on the pedals.
The tires develop a flat plane across the top of the back tire. If you rotate the tires then both tires start developing this flat plane in the tread. Any color in the tire loses its pureness, getting gray and black and dirty. Little nicks and cuts appear everywhere.
The paint, oh the paint. The chain slap will take care of even the most carefully armored chainstay paint, and heaven forbid you drop a chain off the cranks - the bottom bracket shell will never forgive you. Minor adjustments of the front derailleur, cable housing rub, even the constant rubbing of a muscular calf or thigh will damage the paint.
And of course, the tape. My tape is in shambles, the gel (but not adhesive) backed "carbon" tape a sad failure in my eyes. The stuff gets slippery when damp, it moves around under pressure (apparently I grip the bars hard when I sprint), and, well, let's say I wasn't impressed with it. Even good tape, like the Cinelli wrap, will compress over time, even if it doesn't move. If it's anything other than black then the tape will also get darker, grayer, the grease and grit and road stuff embedding itself deeper and deeper into the unwashable tape.
For me there's one more thing other than the standard stuff - the SRM cranks and head units. Batteries wear out, grit accumulates on the BB30 bearings, and everything gets dirty. The stuff needs to get worked over nicely, refreshed.
So this is my "refitment" period, my retreat from the front lines to refresh my equipment.
And that's what I did with the SRM crank over the course of a couple "sessions". My initial attempt at SRM battery replacement failed miserably, the power reading failing within a few days. I didn't think things through and got too nervous about stuff. I took the crank off, made sure nothing had melted or short circuited, and rode around with just the regular crank spider on. No power, no cadence, just speed.
When I went and fixed spider the first time I tried to keep the battery facing the same way as before. But it didn't make sense - the (+) and (-) wires crossed each other. This time I snipped off some unnecessary mounts from the battery body, flipped it upside down, and cleaned up the wire routes.
Presto, bingo, things were much smoother, much neater, and they worked.
Much neater than before.
(I looked for a "before" picture but it must have been bad - I didn't take one.)
I covered the positive joint (red wire to battery) with some liquid electrical tape, literally a small dab spread around with a cut off zip tie. I decided to leave the convoluted negative side alone but in the future I'll bend the battery terminal to fit under the screw. No soldering needed for that side if I do that, just the positive side. Well, I do have to heat up the solder to release the old battery, but I should be able to install the new battery's negative side with no heat involved.
I also used a volt meter to check the battery and the circuit board where the wires attached (since they both came unattached at some point). They matched pretty well, the 0.001 number flickering up and down just one digit.
About to seal it up.
After letting the liquid electrical tape dry for a few days, I checked the voltage again. The same readings. This was a good sign. I took the right crank off my bike (only a couple minutes work), removed the spider, installed the SRM spider, and put things back on.
It seems to work. And I feel much more confident about the soldering under the white plastic cover.
I didn't do a calibration but did a "gut test" by taking a short spin on the trainer. The numbers were depressingly low. It took a lot of effort to get them over the 200 watt threshold. It stabilized, pedaling kind of hard, at about 270 watts.
In other words it seemed normal.
Tonight, after letting the crank settle for a few minutes, I decided to do a 20 minute test. I had to have some number to think about, to focus on. I haven't prepared for a 20 minute test - no emphasis on carbs, no coffee before the ride, no mental buildup, nothing. I just got on the bike, pedaled for a bit, saw the power seemed right, and decided, look, I gotta do it.
Plus a low starting point is always good. It's hard to improve on the best day of your life. But a poor day... there's tons of potential.
I tried to use music to motivate but found my brain wandering after just 60 seconds. This is about 120 seconds less than normal. So I popped in a DVD I made of helmet cam clips, cranked the volume, and used music, visuals, and emotions to push myself.
20 minutes later, two clips into the DVD, I eased off, exhausted.
I started out thinking I was stronger than 2009, and in February (?) 2009 I did 268 watts (or something like that) for 20 minutes. Since I'm better now than I was then, I decided to try and hold 275 to 280 watts, let myself suffer down to 255 watts or so, then use my natural sprinter surge in the last minute or two to push back up to whatever I could push.
I thought 268 watts might be difficult but attainable.
I got into a rhythm and eased into the effort. My legs started loading up right away, the sign of a less-than-carb-rich diet. I haven't been starving myself but I have been focusing a bit more on protein and fiber. I'm not having pasta and rice regularly, in other words.
I got into the hurt mode, feeling the muscles work, feeling the different muscles fire at different spots in the pedal stroke. The big ring worked well but I eased a bit to try and keep some speed in my pedaling.
I checked after a few minutes.
220 watts.
What?!
I did a self-check. My legs were suffering. I was definitely sweating. My lungs weren't hurting but they rarely do. I was breathing awfully consistently, pretty hard. I had no heartrate belt so I didn't have that, but it felt like I was going pretty hard.
I pushed a bit, trying to get the power back into the mid-200s. It seemed so hard, the faster cadence just did not want to come to my legs. I eased the gear to spin up a bit, then geared up to get the wattage back up.
My legs protested.
I tried to think about the emotions and excitement of the races I had on the TV screen, of the immense reservoir of power I felt.
My legs still protested.
I drove hard, pushing, risking overcooking it, risking blowing up before the finish.
250 watts.
Ultimately I had a bit at the end, and, after riding an extra ten seconds (the longest ten seconds ever, every single time), I eased. I hate it when I do a 20 minute test and it's really 19:54 because I eased too early.
I cooled down, collected all the empty bottles, and headed up to the computer. The SRM downloaded fine. I checked the data. First off my extra 10 seconds of effort got me to 20:00. If I hadn't done it, I'd have lost 10 seconds of power.
With that in mind...
20 minute max average power: 218 watts.
That is terrible.
That's 105% of your FTP, give or take, which makes me a 207 watt kind of guy.
That is terrible.
I happen to know that I was at 73.2 kg this morning, not bad, not good, kind of where I've been for a while.
And that makes me a 2.9w/kg racer.
That puts me smack dab in the middle of the Cat 5 racers on the power chart, and at the very bottom of the Cat 4s.
That would be great if I was a Cat 5, but I'm not, unfortunately. This is crazy terrible.
Now, granted, I didn't do anything to prepare for this 20 minute test. I didn't eat properly - snacked on trail mix all day, ate a NOW bar for dinner while I warmed up, then rode the 20 minute thing. I didn't have a lot of consistent riding in - it's been late night riding, not very hard, and sporadic at best.
I've also just gotten over a big cold that flattened me for about five days. Even Sunday I was feeling really off. Today was okay but I felt exhausted at the end of the day.
But I did the 20. I got my number. It's a low one, yes. It's a good starting point. Anything will be an improvement. I'll see gains even in a short period of time.
My morale will go up.
Because... it has to.
I scheduled my SoCal training trip already. I hope to do three Palomar rides, Red Trolley (the crit), and get some quality time on the bike. I want to have some legs when I get there - to fly a few thousand miles to get shelled in a lap, that just wouldn't do.
Although I know I held on fine in the 3s, I can tell you that the fast guys there, the 2s and the Masters, absolutely haul.
This year I have to race with them.
Like usual I've been musing equipment because, frankly, I do that whenever I ease back on the riding. As soon as my brain haze clears from race sufferage, I start thinking, "You know, if I had an aero gizmoid, I could probably save a heart beat or two at speed, and that would make it just a bit easier to hang in at the races. Hm."
I've taken the step of ordering my new aero-style frame. I'll be mounting the right size tire to optimize the aerodynamics of the Stinger6 wheels. I'll have some other things I want to try, all in the quest to reduce the power necessary to hang in at the higher speeds of a Cat 2 race.
I'm also in the process of refitting my current equipment, important since I'll hang a lot of those parts on the new frame. I read about "refitting" a lot in my military history books, where a division is sent back away from the frontlines in order to "rest and refit". The books mention stuff like half of the tanks in one of the biggest tank attacks in World War 1 were "casualtied" because they simply broke down.
Even in World War 2 there was a lot of attrition, basically from overworked engines and drivetrains failing from abuse. The infamous Tiger tanks, 60 ton behemoths that were semi-mobile bunkers, were powered by gasoline engines so tuned to the edge that when you got under way the exhaust pipes bellowed out three foot bursts of flame. Think drag racing or rally racers, with foot long flames shooting out of the exhaust. Now imagine that kind of tune in a Mack truck.
(In night movement that would light up a nice 50 meter radius area - making the whole "doesn't smoke like a diesel of the era and is therefore more discrete" reason for using gas engines a bit ludicrous.)
Those giant tanks would churn through engines, drive wheels, and tracks like you wouldn't believe. They required frequent air filter changes (every couple hundred miles), huge amounts of fuel (a hundred miles or so took something like 200 gallons - and you thought your SUV got bad mileage), and constant maintenance on a slew of batteries (I think there were 28 of them but I may be wrong). Engines had to be overhauled, filters and track and other expendables checked and replaced regularly, and guns sighted and cleaned and barrel exchanges kept up.
And that's before you even got shot at by the other guys.
Likewise, racers (and just regular riders) wear down bikes over the course of a season. That pristine bike in the early season, with its crisp shifting, the sticky and undefiled tires, the perfect paint, the beautiful tape...
The chainring teeth get a bit rounded, the chain rollers wear down, the cassette cogs get thin and shark-fin shaped. All this makes the shifting sloppy, gives the drivetrain room for a bit of play whenever you press on the pedals.
The tires develop a flat plane across the top of the back tire. If you rotate the tires then both tires start developing this flat plane in the tread. Any color in the tire loses its pureness, getting gray and black and dirty. Little nicks and cuts appear everywhere.
The paint, oh the paint. The chain slap will take care of even the most carefully armored chainstay paint, and heaven forbid you drop a chain off the cranks - the bottom bracket shell will never forgive you. Minor adjustments of the front derailleur, cable housing rub, even the constant rubbing of a muscular calf or thigh will damage the paint.
And of course, the tape. My tape is in shambles, the gel (but not adhesive) backed "carbon" tape a sad failure in my eyes. The stuff gets slippery when damp, it moves around under pressure (apparently I grip the bars hard when I sprint), and, well, let's say I wasn't impressed with it. Even good tape, like the Cinelli wrap, will compress over time, even if it doesn't move. If it's anything other than black then the tape will also get darker, grayer, the grease and grit and road stuff embedding itself deeper and deeper into the unwashable tape.
For me there's one more thing other than the standard stuff - the SRM cranks and head units. Batteries wear out, grit accumulates on the BB30 bearings, and everything gets dirty. The stuff needs to get worked over nicely, refreshed.
So this is my "refitment" period, my retreat from the front lines to refresh my equipment.
And that's what I did with the SRM crank over the course of a couple "sessions". My initial attempt at SRM battery replacement failed miserably, the power reading failing within a few days. I didn't think things through and got too nervous about stuff. I took the crank off, made sure nothing had melted or short circuited, and rode around with just the regular crank spider on. No power, no cadence, just speed.
When I went and fixed spider the first time I tried to keep the battery facing the same way as before. But it didn't make sense - the (+) and (-) wires crossed each other. This time I snipped off some unnecessary mounts from the battery body, flipped it upside down, and cleaned up the wire routes.
Presto, bingo, things were much smoother, much neater, and they worked.
Much neater than before.(I looked for a "before" picture but it must have been bad - I didn't take one.)
I covered the positive joint (red wire to battery) with some liquid electrical tape, literally a small dab spread around with a cut off zip tie. I decided to leave the convoluted negative side alone but in the future I'll bend the battery terminal to fit under the screw. No soldering needed for that side if I do that, just the positive side. Well, I do have to heat up the solder to release the old battery, but I should be able to install the new battery's negative side with no heat involved.
I also used a volt meter to check the battery and the circuit board where the wires attached (since they both came unattached at some point). They matched pretty well, the 0.001 number flickering up and down just one digit.
About to seal it up.The black round thing in front is the lockring tool for the lockring that holds the arm to the spider. Red can in back is liquid electrical tape. Zip tie was used to spread said liquid electrical tape. All this "fine motor skill work" was inspired by my friend SOC's fine motor skill work. Incidentally, speaking of fine motor skills, I picked up a lot of my childhood plastic models and such, including some Tiger tanks, hence my current Tiger tank thought process. Not that I don't read my war books all the time. Anyway...
After letting the liquid electrical tape dry for a few days, I checked the voltage again. The same readings. This was a good sign. I took the right crank off my bike (only a couple minutes work), removed the spider, installed the SRM spider, and put things back on.
It seems to work. And I feel much more confident about the soldering under the white plastic cover.
I didn't do a calibration but did a "gut test" by taking a short spin on the trainer. The numbers were depressingly low. It took a lot of effort to get them over the 200 watt threshold. It stabilized, pedaling kind of hard, at about 270 watts.
In other words it seemed normal.
Tonight, after letting the crank settle for a few minutes, I decided to do a 20 minute test. I had to have some number to think about, to focus on. I haven't prepared for a 20 minute test - no emphasis on carbs, no coffee before the ride, no mental buildup, nothing. I just got on the bike, pedaled for a bit, saw the power seemed right, and decided, look, I gotta do it.
Plus a low starting point is always good. It's hard to improve on the best day of your life. But a poor day... there's tons of potential.
I tried to use music to motivate but found my brain wandering after just 60 seconds. This is about 120 seconds less than normal. So I popped in a DVD I made of helmet cam clips, cranked the volume, and used music, visuals, and emotions to push myself.
20 minutes later, two clips into the DVD, I eased off, exhausted.
I started out thinking I was stronger than 2009, and in February (?) 2009 I did 268 watts (or something like that) for 20 minutes. Since I'm better now than I was then, I decided to try and hold 275 to 280 watts, let myself suffer down to 255 watts or so, then use my natural sprinter surge in the last minute or two to push back up to whatever I could push.
I thought 268 watts might be difficult but attainable.
I got into a rhythm and eased into the effort. My legs started loading up right away, the sign of a less-than-carb-rich diet. I haven't been starving myself but I have been focusing a bit more on protein and fiber. I'm not having pasta and rice regularly, in other words.
I got into the hurt mode, feeling the muscles work, feeling the different muscles fire at different spots in the pedal stroke. The big ring worked well but I eased a bit to try and keep some speed in my pedaling.
I checked after a few minutes.
220 watts.
What?!
I did a self-check. My legs were suffering. I was definitely sweating. My lungs weren't hurting but they rarely do. I was breathing awfully consistently, pretty hard. I had no heartrate belt so I didn't have that, but it felt like I was going pretty hard.
I pushed a bit, trying to get the power back into the mid-200s. It seemed so hard, the faster cadence just did not want to come to my legs. I eased the gear to spin up a bit, then geared up to get the wattage back up.
My legs protested.
I tried to think about the emotions and excitement of the races I had on the TV screen, of the immense reservoir of power I felt.
My legs still protested.
I drove hard, pushing, risking overcooking it, risking blowing up before the finish.
250 watts.
Ultimately I had a bit at the end, and, after riding an extra ten seconds (the longest ten seconds ever, every single time), I eased. I hate it when I do a 20 minute test and it's really 19:54 because I eased too early.
I cooled down, collected all the empty bottles, and headed up to the computer. The SRM downloaded fine. I checked the data. First off my extra 10 seconds of effort got me to 20:00. If I hadn't done it, I'd have lost 10 seconds of power.
With that in mind...
20 minute max average power: 218 watts.
That is terrible.
That's 105% of your FTP, give or take, which makes me a 207 watt kind of guy.
That is terrible.
I happen to know that I was at 73.2 kg this morning, not bad, not good, kind of where I've been for a while.
And that makes me a 2.9w/kg racer.
That puts me smack dab in the middle of the Cat 5 racers on the power chart, and at the very bottom of the Cat 4s.
That would be great if I was a Cat 5, but I'm not, unfortunately. This is crazy terrible.
Now, granted, I didn't do anything to prepare for this 20 minute test. I didn't eat properly - snacked on trail mix all day, ate a NOW bar for dinner while I warmed up, then rode the 20 minute thing. I didn't have a lot of consistent riding in - it's been late night riding, not very hard, and sporadic at best.
I've also just gotten over a big cold that flattened me for about five days. Even Sunday I was feeling really off. Today was okay but I felt exhausted at the end of the day.
But I did the 20. I got my number. It's a low one, yes. It's a good starting point. Anything will be an improvement. I'll see gains even in a short period of time.
My morale will go up.
Because... it has to.
I scheduled my SoCal training trip already. I hope to do three Palomar rides, Red Trolley (the crit), and get some quality time on the bike. I want to have some legs when I get there - to fly a few thousand miles to get shelled in a lap, that just wouldn't do.
Although I know I held on fine in the 3s, I can tell you that the fast guys there, the 2s and the Masters, absolutely haul.
This year I have to race with them.
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Bethel Spring Series - 2011 Thoughts
We officially got word from the town that the race series is a go for 2011. For those keeping track, the official dates will be:
March 6, 13, 20, 27
April 3, 10
You'll note that there are no breaks in the schedule - it's every Sunday for six weeks. Easter, it seems falls much later than normal in 2011 - April 24th to be exact, two weeks after the last schedule Series race.
Just like any optimization process, the basic formula won't change. But some ideas have crossed my mind. So, for 2011, let me put some ideas out there. I'd like to get feedback (if you want to send it privately then email the address found at the bottom of this page - the link by my name).
Remember, these are ideas. They are not official.
Clinic?
First off, I'm trying to think of a way to do a clinic for the Cat 5s. I'd like to run the first race as a non-points race, with downloadable lessons (on the Carpe Diem Racing site). The riders would focus on certain tactical ideas each week, with perhaps four or five total lessons planned. I'm assuming that one week of racing will be called off due to ice, and I'd like to have one race be a real race. Sort of a final exam if you will.
The clinic would be open to anyone interested but the race itself would be open just to Cat 5s.
Cat 4-5?
This means that the second Cat 5 race would be the actual race. With a field limit of 50 it'll be tight. I was thinking of how to make it a Cat 4-5 race while severely discouraging the Cat 4s from registering - this would allow 75 riders on the course at the same time.
No Overall For Cat 5s?
Last year I watched some very good racers fight it out for the Cat 5s overall. I am convinced that they'd have been better served racing in the 4s or even the 3-4s. It's hard to request an upgrade though when you're in a strong position for an overall prize, i.e. the overall Series.
In order to both discourage Cat 4s from entering the possible 4-5 race as well as encourage the strong Cat 5s to upgrade to Cat 4, I'm seriously considering eliminating the overall aspect of the Cat 5 (or Cat 4-5) race. In other words each race would stand on its own, and there would be no overall Leader's Jersey, no overall trophy. This should give the strongest riders the excuse to upgrade while giving the truly new racers an opportunity to get a few sub-light speed races under their belt.
Longer P-1-2-3 races?
I know that there are a few Cat 2s and higher racers who don't do the Series because the races are, frankly, too short. In March and April the Cat 1s and 2s are looking to do 4 or 5 hours at a time, not dinky hour plus crits. Although we can't offer a 5 hour Bethel race (that would be epic, yes), we could extend the final race of the day. Instead of 31 miles I'm thinking of doing something long, at least for a Bethel - 45 laps or so, about 40 miles.
The problem is that there'd be more lapped racers, and we may have to pull some totally-out-of-contention racers. Lapped groups would sprint early to clear the roads for the lead group. And we'd all have to hang out a bit longer. But combined with a loop in the area, riders could get about 1.5 hours race time plus another couple hours doing a loop in the area. If that's enough to pull back a few riders, we'd do it.
No Juniors
With a pretty low showing of Juniors, it may be time to put the race on the shelf. The trophies, jerseys, and separate numbers end up almost wasted. We run the race with the Masters to save time, but frankly I don't see the value of the race. The Juniors typically end up better off in the categorized races.
Still Thinking About
One big change for 2011 has nothing to do with the race but everything to do with registering for it - USA Cycling will start doing online registration. This competes directly with a local organization that has served us extremely well, Bikereg.com.
USA Cycling's full integration appeals to me since I spend a lot of draggy time finalizing results so I can send USAC the right format file.
However, I feel the need to support BikeReg. Without them the race would not have become what it is now.
Another Thinking About
I'm trying to decide on the registration fees for 2011. The pre-reg will probably increase a bit and the prize structure may change. The race is existing in a deficit state so something needs to change. In the past it wasn't a big deal because my "real job" could absorb any losses. Now not so much.
I don't want to increase day of race; it's where I think it's comfortable and realistic. The pre-reg is a bit low, with a net of $8 (after the insurance surcharge is taken out) per rider in some cases.
Unfortunately at the same time I want more people to get prize money, which means that the winners would get less but the lower placing racers would then get something. The races tend to favor those that race well in this part of the season (like myself). Those riders have a good chance of winning something every week. I'd like to extend the prizes down a bit so that the riders just below the cusp can also partake.
I may make a change on the way we have sponsors. In the recent past (at least a few years) the race has taken essentially no cash in from any sponsor. For 2011 this may change.
No Changes For...
For other things we don't have any changes lined up. Masters will remain Masters 45+. Cat 5s will only be allowed in the first race of the day, not in Masters (and if we keep the Juniors, not in Juniors). The Women's race will continue on as a separate entity, and it will stay open to all categories, Cat 1-4.
Verge Sport has come up to the line once again to supply us with the Leader's Jerseys. They've been a great support over the years, even coming in person and supporting the race by sweeping, marshaling, and racing, all when I used other companies for jerseys. They're truly a racer's company - they love and support their sport. And they have great quality stuff - when my team couldn't get team knickers, I went and bought some generic black ones through Verge.
And of course we plan on having Navone Studios house our registration as well as serve up hot coffee, some eats, and various drinks and bars. Frank and his crew are all racers, all passionate about cycling. In case you didn't see the post from last year, their studio is a tribute to the cycling world.
Website
My temporary parking spot on blogspot is kind of gone. I have to figure out how to put up some pages for the races, including, I hope, a mobile version for those who are looking for info from their phone. As a new smartphone owner, I realized just how useful the mobile sites are, as compared to the normal ones.
Of course as things progress with the races I'll update everyone. Hopefully on a newly written, newly designed site!
March 6, 13, 20, 27
April 3, 10
You'll note that there are no breaks in the schedule - it's every Sunday for six weeks. Easter, it seems falls much later than normal in 2011 - April 24th to be exact, two weeks after the last schedule Series race.
Just like any optimization process, the basic formula won't change. But some ideas have crossed my mind. So, for 2011, let me put some ideas out there. I'd like to get feedback (if you want to send it privately then email the address found at the bottom of this page - the link by my name).
Remember, these are ideas. They are not official.
Clinic?
First off, I'm trying to think of a way to do a clinic for the Cat 5s. I'd like to run the first race as a non-points race, with downloadable lessons (on the Carpe Diem Racing site). The riders would focus on certain tactical ideas each week, with perhaps four or five total lessons planned. I'm assuming that one week of racing will be called off due to ice, and I'd like to have one race be a real race. Sort of a final exam if you will.
The clinic would be open to anyone interested but the race itself would be open just to Cat 5s.
Cat 4-5?
This means that the second Cat 5 race would be the actual race. With a field limit of 50 it'll be tight. I was thinking of how to make it a Cat 4-5 race while severely discouraging the Cat 4s from registering - this would allow 75 riders on the course at the same time.
No Overall For Cat 5s?
Last year I watched some very good racers fight it out for the Cat 5s overall. I am convinced that they'd have been better served racing in the 4s or even the 3-4s. It's hard to request an upgrade though when you're in a strong position for an overall prize, i.e. the overall Series.
In order to both discourage Cat 4s from entering the possible 4-5 race as well as encourage the strong Cat 5s to upgrade to Cat 4, I'm seriously considering eliminating the overall aspect of the Cat 5 (or Cat 4-5) race. In other words each race would stand on its own, and there would be no overall Leader's Jersey, no overall trophy. This should give the strongest riders the excuse to upgrade while giving the truly new racers an opportunity to get a few sub-light speed races under their belt.
Longer P-1-2-3 races?
I know that there are a few Cat 2s and higher racers who don't do the Series because the races are, frankly, too short. In March and April the Cat 1s and 2s are looking to do 4 or 5 hours at a time, not dinky hour plus crits. Although we can't offer a 5 hour Bethel race (that would be epic, yes), we could extend the final race of the day. Instead of 31 miles I'm thinking of doing something long, at least for a Bethel - 45 laps or so, about 40 miles.
The problem is that there'd be more lapped racers, and we may have to pull some totally-out-of-contention racers. Lapped groups would sprint early to clear the roads for the lead group. And we'd all have to hang out a bit longer. But combined with a loop in the area, riders could get about 1.5 hours race time plus another couple hours doing a loop in the area. If that's enough to pull back a few riders, we'd do it.
No Juniors
With a pretty low showing of Juniors, it may be time to put the race on the shelf. The trophies, jerseys, and separate numbers end up almost wasted. We run the race with the Masters to save time, but frankly I don't see the value of the race. The Juniors typically end up better off in the categorized races.
Still Thinking About
One big change for 2011 has nothing to do with the race but everything to do with registering for it - USA Cycling will start doing online registration. This competes directly with a local organization that has served us extremely well, Bikereg.com.
USA Cycling's full integration appeals to me since I spend a lot of draggy time finalizing results so I can send USAC the right format file.
However, I feel the need to support BikeReg. Without them the race would not have become what it is now.
Another Thinking About
I'm trying to decide on the registration fees for 2011. The pre-reg will probably increase a bit and the prize structure may change. The race is existing in a deficit state so something needs to change. In the past it wasn't a big deal because my "real job" could absorb any losses. Now not so much.
I don't want to increase day of race; it's where I think it's comfortable and realistic. The pre-reg is a bit low, with a net of $8 (after the insurance surcharge is taken out) per rider in some cases.
Unfortunately at the same time I want more people to get prize money, which means that the winners would get less but the lower placing racers would then get something. The races tend to favor those that race well in this part of the season (like myself). Those riders have a good chance of winning something every week. I'd like to extend the prizes down a bit so that the riders just below the cusp can also partake.
I may make a change on the way we have sponsors. In the recent past (at least a few years) the race has taken essentially no cash in from any sponsor. For 2011 this may change.
No Changes For...
For other things we don't have any changes lined up. Masters will remain Masters 45+. Cat 5s will only be allowed in the first race of the day, not in Masters (and if we keep the Juniors, not in Juniors). The Women's race will continue on as a separate entity, and it will stay open to all categories, Cat 1-4.
Verge Sport has come up to the line once again to supply us with the Leader's Jerseys. They've been a great support over the years, even coming in person and supporting the race by sweeping, marshaling, and racing, all when I used other companies for jerseys. They're truly a racer's company - they love and support their sport. And they have great quality stuff - when my team couldn't get team knickers, I went and bought some generic black ones through Verge.
And of course we plan on having Navone Studios house our registration as well as serve up hot coffee, some eats, and various drinks and bars. Frank and his crew are all racers, all passionate about cycling. In case you didn't see the post from last year, their studio is a tribute to the cycling world.
Website
My temporary parking spot on blogspot is kind of gone. I have to figure out how to put up some pages for the races, including, I hope, a mobile version for those who are looking for info from their phone. As a new smartphone owner, I realized just how useful the mobile sites are, as compared to the normal ones.
Of course as things progress with the races I'll update everyone. Hopefully on a newly written, newly designed site!
Friday, December 03, 2010
Tsunami - Preliminary 2.0 Thoughts & Ideas
As soon as I got my first Tsunami I threatened to get a second. The frame fit so well that I couldn't possibly go back to a 5 or 6 cm shorter setup. I always want to have a second bike in case something happens to the first. But life intruded and the whole season went by without a second Tsunami in the quiver.
Okay, to be frank, I bought 3 pairs of HED wheels - that's what intruded. My resources were stretched a bit with that.
Now, with things calming down a bit, I freed up some resources so I could go ahead and get that second frame.
When I ordered my first Tsunami, I knew that I'd want to make changes after I'd ridden it for a bit. I couldn't define the changes, nor could I define how much I'd ride the frame. Within a couple months I'd homed in on some tweaks I'd want to try on a second one.
The overall on the first Tsunami:
- Excellent length and saddle-bar drop.
- Excellent and predictable handling up front, as long as I kept the headset adjusted.
- Rear wheel seems unweighted in fast sweeping turns; requires a shorter stay.
- Rider incapable of exceeded 42 mph in a flat sprint; requires faster rider.
Reviewing the list above, it's apparent that I don't need to fix the fit. It's also apparent the front end is fine (head tube angle + fork rake).
It's also apparent that my forward weighted fit resulted in a little too little weight on the rear wheel. I made up for it by sitting further back on the saddle, but that then unweighted the front wheel. My natural tendency is to really dig in with the front wheel when diving into a turn. The rear wheel follows naturally.
The problem with my stretch limo top tube is that if I really bore down on the bars diving into a turn, the rear wheel was out in la-la land, unweighted, uncared-for, and totally unsupervised. It therefore took a life of it's own, skipping and dancing where ever it wanted.
Okay, it wasn't that bad, but I figured that I needed about 10mm less chainstay because I was sliding backwards on the saddle about 10mm from center. 10mm is about the most we could shorten the chainstay because I hadn't seen a stay less than 395mm long in forever (405mm is normal), and the last frame I saw that had a shorter stay was my own Basso. And that thing was short.
And while I was thinking that, I was secretly thinking about a radical solution that would allow me to get 385 or 390mm stays, perhaps by doing a double seat tube like the old radical crit bikes whose name escapes me once again. They had two seat stays going up from a stub seat tube (enough to hold the front derailleur I think) up to another stub seat tube (to hold the seat post). The twin stays allowed the rear wheel to scoot up a lot, resulting in ridiculously short chainstays to the tune of 370mm or 380mm. I sketched a bunch of these frames over the summer but ultimately decided against it, for reasons explained below.
The max speed of the bike... yeah, this really bothered me. I used to think 42 mph was a bad sprint for me, a ho-hum-haven't-warmed-up-yet sprint. But since the turn of the century (heh) I don't remember going faster than 41 mph in a sprint, and that was when I first got 175 cranks for the road bike.
Although kicking and fighting all the way, I've finally decided that my lack of speed is due to an overabundance of age.
Yeah, I got old.
So, to follow the theories I had as a kid ("old guys have real jobs and have nice bikes but ride slow; young guys have no job, no money, crappy bikes, but ride fast"), I decided to throw some money at the problem. Well, money and theory.
A little while ago I got into a somewhat heated discussion over aero road frames, meaning aero frames for mass start races. I vacillate between being a huge fan and a huge skeptic. I think all pros should be riding aero frames because at their level every bit counts.
At the same time I can see how that "bit" may not be enough to matter. Would it matter if McEwen road an aero road bike in the mountain stages of the Tour? Probably not. However, watching him lose over and over to Petacchi at the Giro (2007), should he have used aero wheels instead of box section ones? Probably.
So the one takeaway I had from the aero frame discussion was... okay, there were two. First, a very experienced wind tunnel engineer pointed out that an aero frame, at sprint speeds, is worth maybe 0.5 kph or about 0.3 mph. It could be as high as 1 kph (0.6 mph) but realistically that's about it.
As he put it, it would be more aero to toss your bottles than to worry about the frame.
The second takeaway was that an aero frame is ALWAYS an aero frame. I could train a lot or a little, eat a lot or a little, put on whatever wheel I felt like, whatever whatever whatever, but the aero frame would always be an aero frame.
Hm.
That double seat stay arrangement with a tire jutting through it suddenly didn't seem like a good idea. Instead of one tube hitting the wind there, there'd be three (tire and two "seat tube stays"), they'd be wider (by the width of the two stays), and to top it off the tire would be pushing air forward.
Egads.
I questioned Joseph (he of Tsunami Bikes) about aero tubing. You know, do the whole Cervelo aero frame in aluminum thing. He sent me some pictures of aero tubing and after looking at them, I put them aside so I could percolate ideas.
At Interbike 2010 I saw a lot of stuff and, interestingly enough, not a lot of data on aero road frames. No one was out there saying, "You're gonna kick butt because our frame will give you 1 mph in the sprint!" They weren't saying it because they couldn't. Too many variables. You know, the whole "just chuck your bottles, you'd be better off" thing.
And that got me thinking.
Aero road frames, bare, work pretty well. Even with wheels and components (cables) they work pretty well.
Then you have two enormous cylinders in the middle of the air flow.
Yep, water bottles.
What a disgrace. They used to make aero bottles (I have one somewhere, with a matching cage) but those aren't legal. So you have to use those honkin' big bottles.
Or not.
IB2010 showed me, again, the CamelBak gizmo where the water thing is built into the baselayer. I saw them in 2009 but didn't realize their significance in the mass start aero road world.
See, they would eliminate the honkin' big cylinders.
And suddenly aero tubing looked... promising.
Ideas properly percolated, I checked out the aero tubing shots Joseph sent me. I started sketching ideas on how to work on making the frame more aero.
I looked at shots of the bike, head on, sideways, and realized that I'll be in the worst case scenario. My bike is so small that there's barely anything hitting the wind - heck the head tube isn't even 100mm tall!
But you rarely hit wind head on. It's usually a side thing. And side winds, they like surface area. Sails. You can tack into the wind, i.e. sail a sailboat into a wind. That's how much wind likes surface area.
The aero tubing had surface area.
We decided on an aero downtube (of course), aero seat tube (of course - it's now significant if I have no bottles), and he suggested aero seat stays. Booyah!
Then the kicker. The aero seat tube would need to be cut out for the rear wheel. This meant that I could specify the chainstay length because the tubing no longer limited him. I had asked him about a shorter stay, under 400mm if possible.
He countered with an offer for a 390mm stay.
Well now.
He also sent me pictures of said stay, seat tube, etc in action. Probably because he figured I wouldn't believe him, partially to show me the clearance for rims and tires (they should clear the HEDs), and probably because they look so freakin' cool and he's proud of the frames he built.
And let me tell you, the set up will look so freakin' cool it'll blow your socks away. I have no idea how aero it'll be compared to the first Tsunami, but I can tell you that it should corner much better because of the shorter chainstay. It shouldn't lose much in rigidity.
It will weigh a bit more, and although that's not desirable, I figure I can handle that. I'm hoping to get a lighter fork (the original one sports a 456g fork) and possibly one or two other lighter widgets so the overall weight gain is negligible. Or negative even.
There's one more build detail that I have planned but that'll have to wait for a couple months. Stay tuned!
Okay, to be frank, I bought 3 pairs of HED wheels - that's what intruded. My resources were stretched a bit with that.
Now, with things calming down a bit, I freed up some resources so I could go ahead and get that second frame.
When I ordered my first Tsunami, I knew that I'd want to make changes after I'd ridden it for a bit. I couldn't define the changes, nor could I define how much I'd ride the frame. Within a couple months I'd homed in on some tweaks I'd want to try on a second one.
The overall on the first Tsunami:
- Excellent length and saddle-bar drop.
- Excellent and predictable handling up front, as long as I kept the headset adjusted.
- Rear wheel seems unweighted in fast sweeping turns; requires a shorter stay.
- Rider incapable of exceeded 42 mph in a flat sprint; requires faster rider.
Reviewing the list above, it's apparent that I don't need to fix the fit. It's also apparent the front end is fine (head tube angle + fork rake).
It's also apparent that my forward weighted fit resulted in a little too little weight on the rear wheel. I made up for it by sitting further back on the saddle, but that then unweighted the front wheel. My natural tendency is to really dig in with the front wheel when diving into a turn. The rear wheel follows naturally.
The problem with my stretch limo top tube is that if I really bore down on the bars diving into a turn, the rear wheel was out in la-la land, unweighted, uncared-for, and totally unsupervised. It therefore took a life of it's own, skipping and dancing where ever it wanted.
Okay, it wasn't that bad, but I figured that I needed about 10mm less chainstay because I was sliding backwards on the saddle about 10mm from center. 10mm is about the most we could shorten the chainstay because I hadn't seen a stay less than 395mm long in forever (405mm is normal), and the last frame I saw that had a shorter stay was my own Basso. And that thing was short.
And while I was thinking that, I was secretly thinking about a radical solution that would allow me to get 385 or 390mm stays, perhaps by doing a double seat tube like the old radical crit bikes whose name escapes me once again. They had two seat stays going up from a stub seat tube (enough to hold the front derailleur I think) up to another stub seat tube (to hold the seat post). The twin stays allowed the rear wheel to scoot up a lot, resulting in ridiculously short chainstays to the tune of 370mm or 380mm. I sketched a bunch of these frames over the summer but ultimately decided against it, for reasons explained below.
The max speed of the bike... yeah, this really bothered me. I used to think 42 mph was a bad sprint for me, a ho-hum-haven't-warmed-up-yet sprint. But since the turn of the century (heh) I don't remember going faster than 41 mph in a sprint, and that was when I first got 175 cranks for the road bike.
Although kicking and fighting all the way, I've finally decided that my lack of speed is due to an overabundance of age.
Yeah, I got old.
So, to follow the theories I had as a kid ("old guys have real jobs and have nice bikes but ride slow; young guys have no job, no money, crappy bikes, but ride fast"), I decided to throw some money at the problem. Well, money and theory.
A little while ago I got into a somewhat heated discussion over aero road frames, meaning aero frames for mass start races. I vacillate between being a huge fan and a huge skeptic. I think all pros should be riding aero frames because at their level every bit counts.
At the same time I can see how that "bit" may not be enough to matter. Would it matter if McEwen road an aero road bike in the mountain stages of the Tour? Probably not. However, watching him lose over and over to Petacchi at the Giro (2007), should he have used aero wheels instead of box section ones? Probably.
So the one takeaway I had from the aero frame discussion was... okay, there were two. First, a very experienced wind tunnel engineer pointed out that an aero frame, at sprint speeds, is worth maybe 0.5 kph or about 0.3 mph. It could be as high as 1 kph (0.6 mph) but realistically that's about it.
As he put it, it would be more aero to toss your bottles than to worry about the frame.
The second takeaway was that an aero frame is ALWAYS an aero frame. I could train a lot or a little, eat a lot or a little, put on whatever wheel I felt like, whatever whatever whatever, but the aero frame would always be an aero frame.
Hm.
That double seat stay arrangement with a tire jutting through it suddenly didn't seem like a good idea. Instead of one tube hitting the wind there, there'd be three (tire and two "seat tube stays"), they'd be wider (by the width of the two stays), and to top it off the tire would be pushing air forward.
Egads.
I questioned Joseph (he of Tsunami Bikes) about aero tubing. You know, do the whole Cervelo aero frame in aluminum thing. He sent me some pictures of aero tubing and after looking at them, I put them aside so I could percolate ideas.
At Interbike 2010 I saw a lot of stuff and, interestingly enough, not a lot of data on aero road frames. No one was out there saying, "You're gonna kick butt because our frame will give you 1 mph in the sprint!" They weren't saying it because they couldn't. Too many variables. You know, the whole "just chuck your bottles, you'd be better off" thing.
And that got me thinking.
Aero road frames, bare, work pretty well. Even with wheels and components (cables) they work pretty well.
Then you have two enormous cylinders in the middle of the air flow.
Yep, water bottles.
What a disgrace. They used to make aero bottles (I have one somewhere, with a matching cage) but those aren't legal. So you have to use those honkin' big bottles.
Or not.
IB2010 showed me, again, the CamelBak gizmo where the water thing is built into the baselayer. I saw them in 2009 but didn't realize their significance in the mass start aero road world.
See, they would eliminate the honkin' big cylinders.
And suddenly aero tubing looked... promising.
Ideas properly percolated, I checked out the aero tubing shots Joseph sent me. I started sketching ideas on how to work on making the frame more aero.
I looked at shots of the bike, head on, sideways, and realized that I'll be in the worst case scenario. My bike is so small that there's barely anything hitting the wind - heck the head tube isn't even 100mm tall!
But you rarely hit wind head on. It's usually a side thing. And side winds, they like surface area. Sails. You can tack into the wind, i.e. sail a sailboat into a wind. That's how much wind likes surface area.
The aero tubing had surface area.
We decided on an aero downtube (of course), aero seat tube (of course - it's now significant if I have no bottles), and he suggested aero seat stays. Booyah!
Then the kicker. The aero seat tube would need to be cut out for the rear wheel. This meant that I could specify the chainstay length because the tubing no longer limited him. I had asked him about a shorter stay, under 400mm if possible.
He countered with an offer for a 390mm stay.
Well now.
He also sent me pictures of said stay, seat tube, etc in action. Probably because he figured I wouldn't believe him, partially to show me the clearance for rims and tires (they should clear the HEDs), and probably because they look so freakin' cool and he's proud of the frames he built.
And let me tell you, the set up will look so freakin' cool it'll blow your socks away. I have no idea how aero it'll be compared to the first Tsunami, but I can tell you that it should corner much better because of the shorter chainstay. It shouldn't lose much in rigidity.
It will weigh a bit more, and although that's not desirable, I figure I can handle that. I'm hoping to get a lighter fork (the original one sports a 456g fork) and possibly one or two other lighter widgets so the overall weight gain is negligible. Or negative even.
There's one more build detail that I have planned but that'll have to wait for a couple months. Stay tuned!
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Life - Bone Grafts
I'm typing because I can't do much else. My mouth hurts. Aches really, not a sharp pain, just a dull aching one. I can't smile because it pulls on my gum, and my gum... let me explain.
Today I went to the peridontist. A good guy, really, but I seem to be in pain after I leave there. First they deep cleaned my teeth, below the gum line. This involved literally a dozen shots of numbing stuff (not a dozen full shots - more like a dozen "little bit here, a little bit there" kind of pokes), including the dreaded "roof of the mouth" shot.
This work attempted to enable my jawbone to grow a bit back so it could properly support a bunch of my teeth (five of them). Without bone structure, and we're talking something like 8mm of bone missing, my teeth would be vulnerable. Their roots would be mainly exposed and the teeth would fall out.
I like my teeth and I want to keep them.
So yesterday I went back to the House of Pain and got another bunch of shots. Then, working in a mostly numb area (once they poked, I grunted, and the doc muttered something about, "You're really burning through this anesthesia quickly"), they cut open my gum, cleaned out the degraded bone, put some "calcium attracting substances" in, and sewed it shut.
The calcium attracting substances are pieces of bone. Since I didn't donate any bone, they came from someone else (a dead someone else to be exact).
I wonder if they did a DNA swipe there if they're be two DNA things. That'll be an episode for CSI, take note!
"Hm, according to the DNA the body remains are those of an Asian male and a white (do you say Caucasian?) female. Waitaminute... two DNAs?"
Anyway, it's 10 days before the sutures come out. I hope the ache goes away earlier. I'm on some kind of penicillin so I'm bacteria proof for a bit - now's the time to volunteer at a cat shelter I guess, or use up my "step on a rusty nail" luck.
I'm also taking pain killers (over the counter) and have to gargle with antibiotic mouthwash (I can't brush there and it need to "stay clean").
So all in all it's kind of a, shall we say, "period of postponement" as far as the riding goes. I can ride in a couple days, definitely the weekend, but I figure I won't be in the mood if I can't eat very much.
Maybe I'll lose weight. Yeah. That's the ticket.
I do have some other things to keep me occupied. I'll post about one of them tomorrow, I promise, since I realized that, in email conversation with friends, I hadn't mentioned it in font, only in actual conversations face to face.
Of course my face is a bit glum now. But, look, Cavendish went through this. And he won all those stages in the Tour.
Hopefully this procedure is worth, oh, at least a town line sprint. That I can smile about afterward and have a full mouth of teeth.
Ah life.
Today I went to the peridontist. A good guy, really, but I seem to be in pain after I leave there. First they deep cleaned my teeth, below the gum line. This involved literally a dozen shots of numbing stuff (not a dozen full shots - more like a dozen "little bit here, a little bit there" kind of pokes), including the dreaded "roof of the mouth" shot.
This work attempted to enable my jawbone to grow a bit back so it could properly support a bunch of my teeth (five of them). Without bone structure, and we're talking something like 8mm of bone missing, my teeth would be vulnerable. Their roots would be mainly exposed and the teeth would fall out.
I like my teeth and I want to keep them.
So yesterday I went back to the House of Pain and got another bunch of shots. Then, working in a mostly numb area (once they poked, I grunted, and the doc muttered something about, "You're really burning through this anesthesia quickly"), they cut open my gum, cleaned out the degraded bone, put some "calcium attracting substances" in, and sewed it shut.
The calcium attracting substances are pieces of bone. Since I didn't donate any bone, they came from someone else (a dead someone else to be exact).
I wonder if they did a DNA swipe there if they're be two DNA things. That'll be an episode for CSI, take note!
"Hm, according to the DNA the body remains are those of an Asian male and a white (do you say Caucasian?) female. Waitaminute... two DNAs?"
Anyway, it's 10 days before the sutures come out. I hope the ache goes away earlier. I'm on some kind of penicillin so I'm bacteria proof for a bit - now's the time to volunteer at a cat shelter I guess, or use up my "step on a rusty nail" luck.
I'm also taking pain killers (over the counter) and have to gargle with antibiotic mouthwash (I can't brush there and it need to "stay clean").
So all in all it's kind of a, shall we say, "period of postponement" as far as the riding goes. I can ride in a couple days, definitely the weekend, but I figure I won't be in the mood if I can't eat very much.
Maybe I'll lose weight. Yeah. That's the ticket.
I do have some other things to keep me occupied. I'll post about one of them tomorrow, I promise, since I realized that, in email conversation with friends, I hadn't mentioned it in font, only in actual conversations face to face.
Of course my face is a bit glum now. But, look, Cavendish went through this. And he won all those stages in the Tour.
Hopefully this procedure is worth, oh, at least a town line sprint. That I can smile about afterward and have a full mouth of teeth.
Ah life.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Training - Working On Form
Apparently I left out a huge part of my whole trainer routine thing, namely how I work on pedal stroke (and resulting form) on the trainer.
I'll state a few "rules of the road", for lack of a better term, and go from there.
1. Rollers offer the best way to improve form.
2. Trainers offer the best way to improve strength.
Strength and form can be mutually exclusive. You can be strong and have horrible form. You can have excellent form and get beat by a 4 year old.
If you watch my helmet cam clips, you'll see a wide variety of "form". The riders that seem "normal" have good form. This is because most of us watch cycling on TV for some period of time, and that's when we can study other riders most intently. At least that's the case for me - if I'm groveling in the hurt pit trying to hang onto a wheel, I don't notice much about another rider's form. But when I'm watching a helmet cam clip or a race DVD while munching on dinner, weird form pops out right away.
Just like us, commentators may comment on poor form, simply because it's unusual at the top level. Phil Liggett mentioned something while watching one Casino rider in a Liege Bastogne Liege (1996?). The guy's name is Massi and he has his saddle so low that Phil commented that it looked like he was "pedaling with his knees".
Sean Kelly is famous for his low saddle height and crunched up top tube. It almost looks like he's riding a bike that's too small, but it worked for him.
Other poor form riders include Pedro Delgado (watch him bob and weave to the end of time trials and mountain top finish lines) and Tyler Hamilton (he moves his upper body a lot too, although his hips are relatively still).
Some will criticize Greg Lemond for using bigger and bigger gears - he climbed best when turning over enormous gears, looking like he'd almost fall over at the bottom of each pedal stroke. His redeeming quality was that he was otherwise smooth and had one of the more optimized positions on the bike. As another pro described it, he said something about "Greg is Greg" and went on to comment that he's a pro, he's aero, and even when not in shape he's incredibly strong.
However, when you watch amateur racers, especially from a helmet cam, and compare them to the pros, you'll see some things in the amateurs that you never see in the pros.
To work on your pedal stroke you need to have good form. And to have good form... you need to know what makes for good form.
What makes for good form?
Well, there are a few things.
Hips
First, power should come from the hips, the glutes and quads and associated muscles. I'm not a physiologist so I don't know the terms, but the pelvic area is the center of the rider. This needs to be stationary, anchored, solid. Even Tyler, with his bobbing and weaving head and shoulders, keeps his hips anchored solidly on the saddle. This is the key to efficient riding. I can't think of one pro that bounces in the saddle. My helmet cam clips are not so picky.
Cadence
Second, cadence should be "reasonable". New or less experienced or slower learning riders tend to spin too much. Others push too big of a gear. As someone that grew up (in a cycling sense) following the big gear likes of Greg Lemond and Bernard Hinault, I tend to push gears rather than spin. Others will follow the faster cadence stylized by Lance.
What's too fast or slow?
Someone told me about some study where they found efficiency drops off dramatically over 105 rpm. This study was linked to a relatively famous-for-his-analysis rider and basically laid the foundation for his faster cadence style.
I do find that my perceived effort is much, much lower at a high cadence, especially when climbing. Of course I also tend to explode doing this since I think, "Hey, this feels great" not realizing that I'm holding an unholdable-for-me 450 watts at 100 rpm.
Too slow... that's debatable, but anything under about 75 rpm will get you some sideways glances. It's natural to let your cadence drop when climbing or when you blow up. I seem to go about 81-83 rpm when I blow up or climb, respectively. I don't know how I got to that number but it must be related to my physiology as well as my training.
So basically if you're pedaling at over 105 rpm (let's say 110 rpm) or under 75 rpm, you're probably doing something either wrong (i.e. unintentionally) or different (i.e. intentionally).
Upper Body
The final aspect of form has to do with upper body stability and... I can't think of the term, but it has to do with being able to absorb unexpected inputs without crashing.
In other words your upper body is relatively stable and is both relaxed and anchored enough that you can brush off relatively significant impacts with no need to brace yourself or change your position.
Now that you've decided you're like a tree in quicksand with rock-like rigid limbs about to snap off in the wind, how can you improve things before next year's races start?
Working on Form
Hips
The best way to work on keeping your hips stable is to... keep your hips stable. Now I have to confess something. When I first started riding I had the luxury of having more experienced riders tell me, flat out, what I was doing wrong. And believe me, I was doing a lot of stuff wrong.
One of the first things that someone noted was that I steered with my bars. That seems natural, that you steer with your handlebars, but you're on a bike, not in a car. And on a bike you steer more with your hips (by leaning) than you do with your bars (by turning). Sure you turn the bars a bit, but the motion is more a "push the bar" rather than "turn the bar".
So when a more experienced rider matter-of-factly told me that I was doing it wrong, I felt determined to fix it. Since there wasn't a manual on "how to steer with your hips" I made up my own manual. This is what I did.
First, I had rollers. You can do this on the road too, but rollers help isolate the exercise.
Second, I used smaller gears, easier gears, at that time a 42x17 or so (39x16).
Third, I basically clenched my whole upper body, from my pelvis to my neck, holding myself totally rigid. Movement? Forget it!
Then I pedaled, riding in a straight line, at whatever cadence I could hold (90-110 rpm). I'd try and move over a few inches by willing the bike to go that way, keeping my upper body totally rigid. I naturally put a tiny bit of input into the bars, but it was minimal.
Yeah, it was exhausting. My neck would almost seize, my arms got exhausted, heck, even my glutes were tired (from clenching them). But my upper body didn't move at all.
It was rock solid.
Now, mind you, this is NOT the way to ride in a group. I was always alone. If someone so much as tapped me on the shoulder I probably would have ricocheted off into the woods, I was that wound up.
But, after I got the initial rigidity down, I tried to relax my upper body. I let my neck tension go. I let my shoulders go. My arms. And, finally, even my hips.
After a couple exhausting weeks of rollers and outdoor sessions working on steering with my hips, I tried it in a group ride. I was in a paceline and consciously tried to avoid turning the bars. Instead I'd kind of push my saddle one way or another with my hips, at least that's the sensation I felt.
And you know what?
The guy never said another word about steering with my hips to me.
Cadence
Part of a rider's repertoire is their pedal speed. Just like a flexible engine operates at a wide range of rpm, a good rider should be flexible enough to ride at a wide range of pedal cadence. High cadence isn't always ideal or possible, nor is a low or mid-range cadence. Therefore you need to work on all ranges, not just focusing on, say, spinning.
53x12
This is probably one of the best ways to work on pedal stroke. I used to play violin a lot. This involved some fast playing here and there, the fancy blurred-finger stuff that sounds so impressive. What I quickly learned is that you don't learn the piece by going blurred-finger fast over and over and over.
Nope.
Instead, you start by playing the passage painfully slow, carefully getting the intonation right (because violins don't have frets, you have to be able to place your fingers accurately else it sounds horrible).
As you master the intonation (for us cyclists we'll associate intonation with "pedal stroke form"), you start playing faster ("increase cadence"). You practice small bits at a time; if it's a bunch of fast stuff in a row, you break it up and practice it in sections. For us cyclists that's like doing 1 minute efforts with perfect form for a given cadence.
You slowly pick up the tempo so you're going faster and faster. You may need to make an extreme pace change, a large jump up in tempo.
One of my workouts when I was still in high school was to do 20 minute intervals in a huge gear at low rpm. On my trainer that meant a 53x15 (my biggest gear at the time, due to Junior gear restrictions), about 60 rpm, for 20 minutes.
Believe you and me, this was a difficult workout. I think it still affects me because after doing them devotedly once a week for something like two or three winters, I have a hard time completing more than a few 20 minute intervals in a year.
The big gears force you to pedal hard through the whole pedal stroke, helping you smooth it out. The low cadence doesn't allow you to kind of "jerk" the pedal into place and then coast for a bit, like you'd do if you were lifting weights over your head. Instead, you need to focus on each part of the pedal stroke, pushing and pulling and lifting.
Initially you'll be able to focus on just one leg or one foot. I find it natural to focus on how to exert force on the pedal. I don't think much about what muscles to trigger, just that I want to "lift up" or "push forward" or "push down". It's not like "Okay, now do a hamstring curl... okay now to like a leg extension... and now a leg press."
Later, at least for me, I could focus on both sides at once. I had this idea of pulling up on one side of the cranks with one foot while pushing down on the other with the other.
Then I incorporated that pedal stroke into the other interval described in the detailed workout booklet that came with the RacerMateII - the 60 seconds at 120 rpm interval.
The interval consisted of, wait for it... 60 second intervals where you pedal 120 rpm. Who'd'a thunk? For me that meant a 42x16 or so, else I'd explode after two or three efforts.
Now I had to think about the pedal stroke, be smooth and anchored, but still flexy and willowly, all while cranking away at 120 rpm.
Ultimately it worked. My best sprints on the road are when I have the mental capacity to focus on my pedal stroke while assimilating all of the tactical permutations in the field around me with 300 meters to go. I focus on working both my feet together to get the bike tilted and the cranks turning. Tilted because I stand when I sprint, and it's important to rock the bike when you do that. Turning because that's the pedal stroke focus that I do when the riding gets difficult.
Higher cadence works too, but everyone works on that. Spin here, spin there, spin up the hills, shift down a gear, whatever. Before downloadable data existed I could only go by averages, so when I finally got a cyclocomputer that showed average cadence, I'd go out and try and do 120 rpm average for an hour. Initially I did this on my rest days because I figured it'd be "easy". After the first attempt or two I made the 120 rpm days my hard days.
It's hard.
Since the tendency is for everyone to overspin, I'd focus on working on the low rpm stuff. Then spin on all the easy days. Shift into an easier gear if you're getting a bit bogged down, and do it again. Spin. It's easy.
Upper Body
The folks that ride with me will chuckle on this one because of all the people to talk about stable upper bodies, I'm probably not the one to lecture on it. See, my upper body bobs a reasonable amount when I'm under pressure.
But I can tell you that it's, um, kind of tree-like. Sapling-like to be exact. Push and it gives a bit, without falling. Push hard and yes you'll move it. But it (almost) always springs back in place, ready for the next bump. Like a tree in the wind, my upper body moves around. But my hips are anchored firmly in place, just like the tree's trunk is rooted to the ground.
A rider needs to hold the bar firmly enough that a bump in the road doesn't let the bar escape the rider's grasp. At the same time the rider can't clench the bar with a death grip - that automatically causes the arm to become too rigid, which then makes the ride vulnerable to lateral impacts (i.e. a bump or a push).
This is a prime reason why you should never lock your elbows while riding the bike. A locked elbow cannot flex at all so it transmits all shock from the hand to the shoulder. Not only will potholes and such affect your line, so will lateral bumps. A locked elbow rider can't effectively absorb shock to the shoulder or elbow because there is no give there. If you ride with locked elbows frequently then you may have a fitness problem (typically with your core/torso) or a poorly fit bike.
Obviously the best way to practice this is to do it while riding the bike outside, preferably in a "softer" environment (grass field for example). But in Connecticut, in December, that's probably not possible.
If you feel adventurous, put your rollers next to a wall. Then pretend the wall is trying to push you aside. Push back at the wall; use your elbows a few times, your shoulders next, even your finger tips (extend them out like you're trying to wave "hi!").
Heck, try using your head, a la Robbie McEwen. Just remember that when your head tilts you'll oftentimes tilt the bike too. On rollers that spells "crash".
If it's boring, you're probably okay.
Hm. This turned into a form thing, not just a pedaling thing. But hopefully it'll help someone out there.
I'll state a few "rules of the road", for lack of a better term, and go from there.
1. Rollers offer the best way to improve form.
2. Trainers offer the best way to improve strength.
Strength and form can be mutually exclusive. You can be strong and have horrible form. You can have excellent form and get beat by a 4 year old.
If you watch my helmet cam clips, you'll see a wide variety of "form". The riders that seem "normal" have good form. This is because most of us watch cycling on TV for some period of time, and that's when we can study other riders most intently. At least that's the case for me - if I'm groveling in the hurt pit trying to hang onto a wheel, I don't notice much about another rider's form. But when I'm watching a helmet cam clip or a race DVD while munching on dinner, weird form pops out right away.
Just like us, commentators may comment on poor form, simply because it's unusual at the top level. Phil Liggett mentioned something while watching one Casino rider in a Liege Bastogne Liege (1996?). The guy's name is Massi and he has his saddle so low that Phil commented that it looked like he was "pedaling with his knees".
Sean Kelly is famous for his low saddle height and crunched up top tube. It almost looks like he's riding a bike that's too small, but it worked for him.
Other poor form riders include Pedro Delgado (watch him bob and weave to the end of time trials and mountain top finish lines) and Tyler Hamilton (he moves his upper body a lot too, although his hips are relatively still).
Some will criticize Greg Lemond for using bigger and bigger gears - he climbed best when turning over enormous gears, looking like he'd almost fall over at the bottom of each pedal stroke. His redeeming quality was that he was otherwise smooth and had one of the more optimized positions on the bike. As another pro described it, he said something about "Greg is Greg" and went on to comment that he's a pro, he's aero, and even when not in shape he's incredibly strong.
However, when you watch amateur racers, especially from a helmet cam, and compare them to the pros, you'll see some things in the amateurs that you never see in the pros.
To work on your pedal stroke you need to have good form. And to have good form... you need to know what makes for good form.
What makes for good form?
Well, there are a few things.
Hips
First, power should come from the hips, the glutes and quads and associated muscles. I'm not a physiologist so I don't know the terms, but the pelvic area is the center of the rider. This needs to be stationary, anchored, solid. Even Tyler, with his bobbing and weaving head and shoulders, keeps his hips anchored solidly on the saddle. This is the key to efficient riding. I can't think of one pro that bounces in the saddle. My helmet cam clips are not so picky.
Cadence
Second, cadence should be "reasonable". New or less experienced or slower learning riders tend to spin too much. Others push too big of a gear. As someone that grew up (in a cycling sense) following the big gear likes of Greg Lemond and Bernard Hinault, I tend to push gears rather than spin. Others will follow the faster cadence stylized by Lance.
What's too fast or slow?
Someone told me about some study where they found efficiency drops off dramatically over 105 rpm. This study was linked to a relatively famous-for-his-analysis rider and basically laid the foundation for his faster cadence style.
I do find that my perceived effort is much, much lower at a high cadence, especially when climbing. Of course I also tend to explode doing this since I think, "Hey, this feels great" not realizing that I'm holding an unholdable-for-me 450 watts at 100 rpm.
Too slow... that's debatable, but anything under about 75 rpm will get you some sideways glances. It's natural to let your cadence drop when climbing or when you blow up. I seem to go about 81-83 rpm when I blow up or climb, respectively. I don't know how I got to that number but it must be related to my physiology as well as my training.
So basically if you're pedaling at over 105 rpm (let's say 110 rpm) or under 75 rpm, you're probably doing something either wrong (i.e. unintentionally) or different (i.e. intentionally).
Upper Body
The final aspect of form has to do with upper body stability and... I can't think of the term, but it has to do with being able to absorb unexpected inputs without crashing.
In other words your upper body is relatively stable and is both relaxed and anchored enough that you can brush off relatively significant impacts with no need to brace yourself or change your position.
Now that you've decided you're like a tree in quicksand with rock-like rigid limbs about to snap off in the wind, how can you improve things before next year's races start?
Working on Form
Hips
The best way to work on keeping your hips stable is to... keep your hips stable. Now I have to confess something. When I first started riding I had the luxury of having more experienced riders tell me, flat out, what I was doing wrong. And believe me, I was doing a lot of stuff wrong.
One of the first things that someone noted was that I steered with my bars. That seems natural, that you steer with your handlebars, but you're on a bike, not in a car. And on a bike you steer more with your hips (by leaning) than you do with your bars (by turning). Sure you turn the bars a bit, but the motion is more a "push the bar" rather than "turn the bar".
So when a more experienced rider matter-of-factly told me that I was doing it wrong, I felt determined to fix it. Since there wasn't a manual on "how to steer with your hips" I made up my own manual. This is what I did.
First, I had rollers. You can do this on the road too, but rollers help isolate the exercise.
Second, I used smaller gears, easier gears, at that time a 42x17 or so (39x16).
Third, I basically clenched my whole upper body, from my pelvis to my neck, holding myself totally rigid. Movement? Forget it!
Then I pedaled, riding in a straight line, at whatever cadence I could hold (90-110 rpm). I'd try and move over a few inches by willing the bike to go that way, keeping my upper body totally rigid. I naturally put a tiny bit of input into the bars, but it was minimal.
Yeah, it was exhausting. My neck would almost seize, my arms got exhausted, heck, even my glutes were tired (from clenching them). But my upper body didn't move at all.
It was rock solid.
Now, mind you, this is NOT the way to ride in a group. I was always alone. If someone so much as tapped me on the shoulder I probably would have ricocheted off into the woods, I was that wound up.
But, after I got the initial rigidity down, I tried to relax my upper body. I let my neck tension go. I let my shoulders go. My arms. And, finally, even my hips.
After a couple exhausting weeks of rollers and outdoor sessions working on steering with my hips, I tried it in a group ride. I was in a paceline and consciously tried to avoid turning the bars. Instead I'd kind of push my saddle one way or another with my hips, at least that's the sensation I felt.
And you know what?
The guy never said another word about steering with my hips to me.
Cadence
Part of a rider's repertoire is their pedal speed. Just like a flexible engine operates at a wide range of rpm, a good rider should be flexible enough to ride at a wide range of pedal cadence. High cadence isn't always ideal or possible, nor is a low or mid-range cadence. Therefore you need to work on all ranges, not just focusing on, say, spinning.
53x12
This is probably one of the best ways to work on pedal stroke. I used to play violin a lot. This involved some fast playing here and there, the fancy blurred-finger stuff that sounds so impressive. What I quickly learned is that you don't learn the piece by going blurred-finger fast over and over and over.
Nope.
Instead, you start by playing the passage painfully slow, carefully getting the intonation right (because violins don't have frets, you have to be able to place your fingers accurately else it sounds horrible).
As you master the intonation (for us cyclists we'll associate intonation with "pedal stroke form"), you start playing faster ("increase cadence"). You practice small bits at a time; if it's a bunch of fast stuff in a row, you break it up and practice it in sections. For us cyclists that's like doing 1 minute efforts with perfect form for a given cadence.
You slowly pick up the tempo so you're going faster and faster. You may need to make an extreme pace change, a large jump up in tempo.
One of my workouts when I was still in high school was to do 20 minute intervals in a huge gear at low rpm. On my trainer that meant a 53x15 (my biggest gear at the time, due to Junior gear restrictions), about 60 rpm, for 20 minutes.
Believe you and me, this was a difficult workout. I think it still affects me because after doing them devotedly once a week for something like two or three winters, I have a hard time completing more than a few 20 minute intervals in a year.
The big gears force you to pedal hard through the whole pedal stroke, helping you smooth it out. The low cadence doesn't allow you to kind of "jerk" the pedal into place and then coast for a bit, like you'd do if you were lifting weights over your head. Instead, you need to focus on each part of the pedal stroke, pushing and pulling and lifting.
Initially you'll be able to focus on just one leg or one foot. I find it natural to focus on how to exert force on the pedal. I don't think much about what muscles to trigger, just that I want to "lift up" or "push forward" or "push down". It's not like "Okay, now do a hamstring curl... okay now to like a leg extension... and now a leg press."
Later, at least for me, I could focus on both sides at once. I had this idea of pulling up on one side of the cranks with one foot while pushing down on the other with the other.
Then I incorporated that pedal stroke into the other interval described in the detailed workout booklet that came with the RacerMateII - the 60 seconds at 120 rpm interval.
The interval consisted of, wait for it... 60 second intervals where you pedal 120 rpm. Who'd'a thunk? For me that meant a 42x16 or so, else I'd explode after two or three efforts.
Now I had to think about the pedal stroke, be smooth and anchored, but still flexy and willowly, all while cranking away at 120 rpm.
Ultimately it worked. My best sprints on the road are when I have the mental capacity to focus on my pedal stroke while assimilating all of the tactical permutations in the field around me with 300 meters to go. I focus on working both my feet together to get the bike tilted and the cranks turning. Tilted because I stand when I sprint, and it's important to rock the bike when you do that. Turning because that's the pedal stroke focus that I do when the riding gets difficult.
Higher cadence works too, but everyone works on that. Spin here, spin there, spin up the hills, shift down a gear, whatever. Before downloadable data existed I could only go by averages, so when I finally got a cyclocomputer that showed average cadence, I'd go out and try and do 120 rpm average for an hour. Initially I did this on my rest days because I figured it'd be "easy". After the first attempt or two I made the 120 rpm days my hard days.
It's hard.
Since the tendency is for everyone to overspin, I'd focus on working on the low rpm stuff. Then spin on all the easy days. Shift into an easier gear if you're getting a bit bogged down, and do it again. Spin. It's easy.
Upper Body
The folks that ride with me will chuckle on this one because of all the people to talk about stable upper bodies, I'm probably not the one to lecture on it. See, my upper body bobs a reasonable amount when I'm under pressure.
But I can tell you that it's, um, kind of tree-like. Sapling-like to be exact. Push and it gives a bit, without falling. Push hard and yes you'll move it. But it (almost) always springs back in place, ready for the next bump. Like a tree in the wind, my upper body moves around. But my hips are anchored firmly in place, just like the tree's trunk is rooted to the ground.
A rider needs to hold the bar firmly enough that a bump in the road doesn't let the bar escape the rider's grasp. At the same time the rider can't clench the bar with a death grip - that automatically causes the arm to become too rigid, which then makes the ride vulnerable to lateral impacts (i.e. a bump or a push).
This is a prime reason why you should never lock your elbows while riding the bike. A locked elbow cannot flex at all so it transmits all shock from the hand to the shoulder. Not only will potholes and such affect your line, so will lateral bumps. A locked elbow rider can't effectively absorb shock to the shoulder or elbow because there is no give there. If you ride with locked elbows frequently then you may have a fitness problem (typically with your core/torso) or a poorly fit bike.
Obviously the best way to practice this is to do it while riding the bike outside, preferably in a "softer" environment (grass field for example). But in Connecticut, in December, that's probably not possible.
If you feel adventurous, put your rollers next to a wall. Then pretend the wall is trying to push you aside. Push back at the wall; use your elbows a few times, your shoulders next, even your finger tips (extend them out like you're trying to wave "hi!").
Heck, try using your head, a la Robbie McEwen. Just remember that when your head tilts you'll oftentimes tilt the bike too. On rollers that spells "crash".
If it's boring, you're probably okay.
Hm. This turned into a form thing, not just a pedaling thing. But hopefully it'll help someone out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
