First a preliminary question. If you answer it incorrectly, I must candidly say I am not interested in your response to the main question. I say this because I just posed both questions to a pro racer who is a PE in mechanical, structural and environmental engineering, and he amazingly answered the first question incorrectly. Although I was an engineer by schooling, I was a professional pilot by profession so I never plyed the trade.
I am really interested in opionions of my main question - question two - by those who answer question one correctly.
Here is question number 1:
We have a course laid out in the sky running East and West 100 miles in length. For the first part of the question, an airplane enters the course doing 100 mph (indicated airspeed), turns about and runs the course in the opposite direction at 100 mph. The wind is zero. The only elapsed time that counts is the time the airplane spends traversing the course. To further clarify, the airplane's indicated airspeed is its speed through the air. If there was a 50 mph headwind, he would still have an indicated airspeed of 100 mph, but his speed over the ground would be 50 mph.
For the second part of the problem, we introduce a 10 mph wind form the West. The airplane re enters the course travelling westerly at an indicated airspeed of 100 mph into the 10 mph headwind, turns about, re enters the course, and traverses the course at an indicated airspeed of 100 mph, but now with a 10 mph tailwind.
The question: Did it take more time, less time, or the same amount of time for the aircraft to make the round trip with the wind as opposed to zero wind (total time traversing the course out and back only while actually in the course)? Get your answer without calculations which is important to my main question to follow. See below at the bottom of the thread for the answer.
Now the main question and the reason for this thread. Picture a 10K time trial course. Do you think that a hilly course with the exact amount of upgrades and downgrades can be faster depending on how it is laid out? For example, the course I have in mind starts out on the flats, and then goes into a pretty good downhill where it is easy to maintain about 34 mph. You hit the first climb with incredible momentum from the first downhill, and the climb seems effortless due to that momentum. The course alternates between flat areas, descents and climbs, but the layout always seems to give great momentum into the climbs. Now assume the same course, but after the negotiating the intial flat portion, the first grade is an upgrade. Now the first descent comes, and it seems that one must negotiate the first downhill with a bit higher cadence to deal with the lactic acid formed on the initial climb. The one bad thing about this course laid out oppositely is that at the end of the course, one must negotiate an uphill prior to breaking out on the flats leading to the start/finish line.
Do you think that with the same amount of uphills and downhills that the course that is set up as I described it initially with the first grade being a downhill can be a faster course than the same course commencing with an uphill? I think, BTW, that having to negotiate the hill at the end is a bit easier in that when you smell the finish line it is a bit easier than at the start where you are immediately plied with lactic acid in your first climb. Thanks for your input on this.
Answer: It take more time to traverse the course with the the winds - a bit over a minute more. The reason of course is that the aircraft spends more time at the slower speed than it does at the faster speed. If you are skeptical, simply do the calculations using the simple formula Time equals distance divided by rate (speed). The latter was given for the benefit of the non math oriented folks who might read this thread.
asgelle
07-02-07, 11:13 AM
First a preliminary question. If you answer it incorrectly, I must candidly say I am not interested in your response to the main question. ....
I bill at $256 /hr. If you're interested in hiring me, I'll stand for an interview. Otherwise, I'm not interested in taking more exams.
waterrockets
07-02-07, 11:30 AM
Yes, course direction, on the same TT course, with no wind will yield different speeds in each direction.
UT_Dude
07-02-07, 11:35 AM
Are we taking into account rotation of the earth here?
skydive69
07-02-07, 11:54 AM
I bill at $256 /hr. If you're interested in hiring me, I'll stand for an interview. Otherwise, I'm not interested in taking more exams.
Interestingly that is what my friend the PE said although his rate was slightly higher. Unfortunately, he was unable to correctly answer the first question that should be able to be answered intuitively (sans calculations) proving that his worth was closer to zero dollars an hour. Are you smater than a 5th grader? Perhaps not!
I'm looking for someone who has an interest in the second problem from the perspective of someone who races bicycles - not someone who has a overly generous opinion of themselves.
skydive69
07-02-07, 12:00 PM
Yes, course direction, on the same TT course, with no wind will yield different speeds in each direction.
Thanks rockets. Then my theory that a course with the same total uphills and downhills can yield different speed results when laid out such that the same uphills and downhills still follow each other, but the course starts the sequence with an a downhill rather than an uphill, perhaps is correct.
This problem comes from real life, BTW. I just ran the course I described and got a very fast time. Over dinner I opined that although the course was quite hilly, I was able to go under the state record by 19 seconds because of the sequence of the hills. My theory was immediately scoffed at as being impossible the reasoning being that the same total up and downgrades had to be negotiated. In my opinion, I could not have run the same time had the sequence been reversed.
skydive69
07-02-07, 12:02 PM
Are we taking into account rotation of the earth here?
No, disregard things like earth rotation, coefficient of friction and other things that might confuse a rather simplistic problem. Also disregard people who want to send you a bill before proving that they have any qualifications other than paper ones!
FrankBattle
07-02-07, 12:02 PM
Oof!
I'd take a stab, but I don't race bikes.
ElJamoquio
07-02-07, 12:10 PM
Interestingly that is what my friend the PE said although his rate was slightly higher. Unfortunately, he was unable to correctly answer the first question that should be able to be answered intuitively (sans calculations) proving that his worth was closer to zero dollars an hour. Are you smater than a 5th grader? Perhaps not!
I answered correctly, AND I can spell better than most sixth-graders.
I'll charge you the bargain-basement price of $123 an hour.
skydive69
07-02-07, 12:10 PM
Oof!
I'd take a stab, but I don't race bikes.
Please do Frank, I only mentioned the qualifications because I thought that someone who had perhaps experienced that type of course first hand coupled with an engineering mind would come up with a particularly interesting perspective. However, I am sure that a grammer school drop out who has never riden a bicycle has just a valid opinion (if not more valid) than the guy who wants to send me a bill to participate in the discussion. What do you think my man?
waterrockets
07-02-07, 12:12 PM
Well, to simplify the problem, take it to the extremes. Consider an 8-mile course that starts with a 300-foot sheer climb, straight up. From there, it's a constant downhill loop all the way back to the start/finish.
Would it be faster to scramble up 300 feet of stairs with your bike on your back, then TT downhill for 8 miles? Or would it be faster to TT uphill for 8 miles, then fall off a 300 foot cliff to splat at the finish line?
Say you can climb the 300 feet in 2:30. I guess you could fall that distance in about 4.5s. So, the question is, can you TT 8 miles downhill 2:25 faster than you can uphill?
Yes, you can. It's faster to take the steep path up hills.
If you start taking physiology into account, and how different people are, it changes the scenario. Some people would be faster with the long climb just because of a mental block.
ElJamoquio
07-02-07, 12:26 PM
For my low-low price of $123 per hour, I'm willing to download contour data, and using basic aerodynamics and normalized power, tell you at what power to ride every part of your race!
Today only, mention 'kick-ass engineering' during checkout, and get 10% off!
asgelle
07-02-07, 12:33 PM
... the guy who wants to send me a bill to participate in the discussion.
You misinterpret (your own post?). The bill was to take a qualifying exam. You are the one putting restrictions on who is allowed to participate here.
skydive69
07-02-07, 12:55 PM
For my low-low price of $123 per hour, I'm willing to download contour data, and using basic aerodynamics and normalized power, tell you at what power to ride every part of your race!
Today only, mention 'kick-ass engineering' during checkout, and get 10% off!
Unfortunately, that requires a power meter, and our friendly time trialist might not be so equipped. I guess you get what you pay for. :)
skydive69
07-02-07, 12:59 PM
You misinterpret (your own post?). The bill was to take a qualifying exam. You are the one putting restrictions on who is allowed to participate here.
I got it now! I did later remove the restrictions when I realized that non engineers might actually bring more brain power to the problem than PE certified engineers. Consider all restrictions erased, I simply want to know if in the scenario I specifically mention with no sheer cliffs, no loops, no nothing, but simply taking a legitmate time trial course, and reversing the sequence of the up and down hill segments, if my theory that the course that starts with the downhill (after the initial segment on the flats) is conceivably a faster course for the same guy with the same abilities and the genetics and the same ability to withstand pain and the same hill climbing ability, and the.....
Phantoj
07-02-07, 01:07 PM
Imagine two time-trial courses. Both are half climb and half descent. Course A climbs for 10 miles (biked distance) at a steady 6% grade, then has a 10 mile descent.
Course B climbs for 1/10 mile, then descends for 1/10 mile... a hundred times.
Both have the same "total elevation gain" but Course B is really just rollers.
I'd say Course B is way, way faster.
I got the puzzle question right, but it was because I have thought about the idea quite a bit. It's really, really easy to stump an engineer. It doesn't mean that your PE pal is a dummy.
asgelle
07-02-07, 01:11 PM
Are we taking into account rotation of the earth here?
No, but we do have to take into acount stored kinetic energy at the finish which I haven't seen addressed yet.
ericcox
07-02-07, 01:14 PM
My impression is that you are not asking about running the same course forwards and backwards (as the "qualifying" question assumes, but rather that you are riding in the same direction on all roads, but in a different order. Is this correct? If the question is on a reverse loop of the same course, then times can definitely vary. I had one 22 mile course that I could turn a consistent 19-21 MPH without too much difficulty, but could only manage an average of 16-17 on the other way. The difference was the approximately 4 miles on the course that were a very, very gradual downhill or uphill depending on direction.
Now if we are talking sequencing, but the same direction, the problem definitely gets harder, but it seems to me your initial anlaysis makes a lot of sense. If the route has 2 hills, and they are sequenced back to back such that you climb the first, reach a high rate of speed, and can power over the second with the boost from the first, you should be able to spend less time total on the hill.
Eliminating the overall course from consideration, the way I picture it is a hill I have on my commute. I turn left across traffic to get on it. This is a short hill -- maybe 1/2 mile. When I don't have to stop for traffic, I hit it at about 17-18 MPH and maintain about 15-6 MPH to the final steep section, which I finish at about 12MPH. When I have to wait for traffic, my initial speed at the bottom is much lower, though I am usually up to about 13-14 MPH at the steep section, and drop to 10-11 MPH. Though I don't take my time on this hill daily, I do it enough to know that the speed at which I enter the hill does impact the effort it requires to make it up it.
I have now spent way too much time on this in an effort to avoid grading papers. Alas, time to go back to grading papers.
skydive69
07-02-07, 01:20 PM
Imagine two time-trial courses. Both are half climb and half descent. Course A climbs for 10 miles (biked distance) at a steady 6% grade, then has a 10 mile descent.
Course B climbs for 1/10 mile, then descends for 1/10 mile... a hundred times.
Both have the same "total elevation gain" but Course B is really just rollers.
I'd say Course B is way, way faster.
I got the puzzle question right, but it was because I have thought about the idea quite a bit. It's really, really easy to stump an engineer. It doesn't mean that your PE pal is a dummy.
My PE friend is quite bright AAMOF, it just surprised me that he got such a simple problem incorrect. I agree with your assessment of the courses that you use as examples, but I'm trying to figure out the difference with a more subtle change in course. Specifically, the exact course as it exists, but a reversal of the sequence of climbs and descents. My main theory is that with the descents coming first, one gains a lot of momentum going into each hill - at least that was the way it felt to me when I ran the course. For example, in the course that I allude to, after the turn around point - a spot where most people typically bog down - especially running a TT bike with a rear disk wheel and skinny front tire (19 mm in my case), the fast course had a downhill after the turn around allowing a quick regaining of momentum. On reversal of the course, one would bog down in the turn only to be confronted by a climb.
skydive69
07-02-07, 01:25 PM
Eric, thanks for taking the time to reply. I do assume running the course the same way - out and back, but reversing the sequence of the hills. I was astounded that with some rather challenging hills, I was able to average a pace of almost 26 mph which I do not believe I could have done if I was confronted with a climb rather than a descent as the first change in terrain. Again, everyone at the dinner table thought I was nuts when I proposed the theory and I am desperately trying to get some vindication of said theory. :)
waterrockets
07-02-07, 01:36 PM
An easy way to look at this, is that it's faster to climb steep and descend shallow than to climb shallow and descend steep. This is because the former keeps the speed spikes out of your elevation profile, where the later has a tall spike going down a steep descent. Due to the nonlinear progression of air resistance to speed, spiking your speed is less efficient.
skinnyone
07-02-07, 01:38 PM
To answer the 2nd question I am simplifying the problem to the same amount of power being output and assuming that you keep on pedaling and you don't reach any critical velocity..
Yup, you will be faster if you started off with downhill and ended uphill than the other way around.. The reason I think is that even though the net Potential Energy gain is zero, you have a whole bunch of Kinetic energy built up that would go to waste on a downhill finish (you need to hit the brakes to slow down).. If you have an uphill finish then you, used up all the momentum you built up( in getting across the first few sections of the uphill) and are using your power output to get across the line.. You still lose some kinetic energy but not as much as the previous case..
skydive69
07-02-07, 01:44 PM
To answer the 2nd question I am simplifying the problem to the same amount of power being output and assuming that you keep on pedaling and you don't reach any critical velocity..
Yup, you will be faster if you started off with downhill and ended uphill than the other way around.. The reason I think is that even though the net Potential Energy gain is zero, you have a whole bunch of Kinetic energy built up that would go to waste on a downhill finish (you need to hit the brakes to slow down).. If you have an uphill finish then you, used up all the momentum you built up( in getting across the first few sections of the uphill) and are using your power output to get across the line.. You still lose some kinetic energy but not as much as the previous case..
That, is my theory!
skinnyone
07-02-07, 01:56 PM
I see that asgelle nailed it in the 15 mins it took me to post ( BF servers were slow.. I swear!)
recursive
07-02-07, 02:03 PM
Due to the nonlinear progression of air resistance to speed, spiking your speed is less efficient.
Excellent point.
This plus the stored kinetic energy make a strong case for the OP.
dirtyphotons
07-02-07, 02:27 PM
so your qualifier is those who remember the correct answer to an elementary school word problem "without doing any calculations."
urbanknight
07-02-07, 02:34 PM
What does the qualifier question have to do with engineering? I figured it out immediately, and I majored in music. Your engineering friend needs to find another career. :D
As for your main question, I'll also answer that in an unscientific matter. If you're talking about a time trial, it's faster to have the climbing first and the descending last because I hate climbing when I'm tired! Take that as you will.
waterrockets
07-02-07, 02:34 PM
Excellent point.
This plus the stored kinetic energy make a strong case for the OP.
Yeah, but I was answering the wrong question. OP needs a shorter OP :)
skydive69
07-02-07, 02:36 PM
so your qualifier is those who remember the correct answer to an elementary school word problem "without doing any calculations."
I'm sorry, but you miss the point. It is not a test to see who remembers something, but a test to see who understands the concept, the understanding of which is necessary to get the answer without calculating it. In my effort to support my thesis, my assumption was that someone who understood the reason behind the answer rather than the ability to do third grade math to calculate the answer was the person who would probably understand the point I was trying to make about the time trial course.
urbanknight
07-02-07, 02:39 PM
Ahh I see, you just want to make sure the person understands the concept. It's the same reason a hilly ride is slower than a flat one of the same distance. The faster you go, the less time you will take to go that fast.
It seems the only factor here is the momentum going into the climbs versus the momentum carried over a crest? No?
skydive69
07-02-07, 02:42 PM
What does the qualifier question have to do with engineering? It's just basic mathematics. I figured it out immediately, and I majored in music. Your engineering friend needs to find another career. :D
As for your main question, I'll also answer that in an unscientific matter. If you're talking about a time trial, it's faster to have the climbing first and the descending last because I hate climbing when I'm tired! Take that as you will.
No, it's not basic mathematics - I asked that participants glean the answer sans calculation which takes a level of understanding rather than simply putting numbers into the simple equation D=RT.
Have you ever done a competitive time trial? Perhaps I should ask, have you ever won a time trial? I would be amazed to find someone who can time trial faster climbing prior to descending rather than the opposite approach.
In regards to your music, I stuggle more learning to play the drums efficiently than I did doing differential equations!
asgelle
07-02-07, 02:43 PM
... my assumption was that someone who understood the reason behind the answer rather than the ability to do third grade math to calculate the answer was the person who would probably understand the point I was trying to make about the time trial course.
But it seems the two have nothing to do with each other. The first is a simple vector addition problem, the second deals with the functionality of the speed-power relationship and application of some model for human power production. The fact that application of the principles from the first question might give the correct answer to the second is just a fortuitous accident.
skydive69
07-02-07, 02:45 PM
Ahh I see, you just want to make sure the person understands the concept. It's the same reason a hilly ride is slower than a flat one of the same distance. The faster you go, the less time you will take to go that fast.
It seems the only factor here is the momentum going into the climbs versus the momentum carried over a crest? No?
Si!
skydive69
07-02-07, 02:51 PM
But it seems the two have nothing to do with each other. The first is a simple vector addition problem, the second deals with the functionality of the speed-power relationship and application of some model for human power production. The fact that application of the principles from the first question might give the correct answer to the second is just a fortuitous accident.
As long as you have relented to play without payment of a fee, would you please explain the answer to me with the assumption that you have no graph paper, no calculator or even a bloody sextant - only your deep, free thinking mind? Why does the answer come out the way it does? Never mind, I guess that is fairly obvious at this stage - even to an engineer! :)
Oh, and yes, I'm not sure that the first problem is anything but apples to the second problem's oranges. The reasoning behind the first pointed (in my mind) toward my conclusion in the second. Perhaps, however, the first is totally unrelated to the second. That's why I had hoped to tap some engineering minds, but apparently that wasn't a good idea either!
mollusk
07-02-07, 02:58 PM
You would be faster starting high and finishing high than starting low and finishing low. It is even possible to be faster than a flat path, although I'm not going to get into the calculations that show that it is possible unless you pay me.:p It is related to the brachistochrone problem of Johann Bernoulli if you are interested in figuring it out yourself, but it is complicated with drag/friction forces and power inputs and not just gravity.
OT, but of tangential interest because it related to PE's: An elderly colleague of mine, now deceased, was a fine Southern gentleman. And being a fine Southern gentleman he had a distaste for Republicans. Of course he was referring to the Carpetbagger type of Republican and not the new kind that are now beloved by white males in the South.:rolleyes:
He told me that not all Republicans were horse thieves, but every horse thief was a Republican. Likewise, he went on, not all professional engineers were bad, but every bad engineer he knew was registered in at least two states. :)
skydive69
07-02-07, 03:06 PM
You would be faster starting high and finishing high than starting low and finishing low. It is even possible to be faster than a flat path, although I'm not going to get into the calculations that show that it is possible unless you pay me.:p It is related to the brachistochrone problem of Johann Bernoulli if you are interested in figuring it out yourself, but it is complicated with drag/friction forces and power inputs and not just gravity.
OT, but of tangential interest because it related to PE's: An elderly colleague of mine, now deceased, was a fine Southern gentleman. And being a fine Southern gentleman he had a distaste for Republicans. Of course he was referring to the Carpetbagger type of Republican and not the new kind that are now beloved by white males in the South.:rolleyes:
He told me that not all Republicans were horse thieves, but every horse thief was a Republican. Likewise, he went on, not all professional engineers were bad, but every bad engineer he knew was registered in at least two states. :)
Man, that Bernoulli character was busier than I thought! I assumed he retired after he came up with that theorem that allowed the Wright brothers to do their thing!
Dear Professor, I assume you teach at UF. As an aside, I went to UCAL Berkeley and my sophmore physics teacher was Dr. Luis Alvarez, a Nobel Lauriate! It was truly an amazing, but very competitive environment in which to learn engineering.
Also, can I then assume (and I will quote you), that you agree with my original thesis that if the course that I alluded to reversed the order of the hills such that rather than negotiating a nice, fast downhill on the first gradient change, one climbed the same hill first, etc., it would be a slower course? An answer in the affirmative will leave me feeling totally vindicated in my theory, and I will immediately email all of those who scoffed at me last Tuesday night when I stated my opinion.
mollusk
07-02-07, 03:47 PM
Yes, I teach Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering at UF.
And it is possible that a downhill start/uphill finish can be faster than an uphill start/downhill finish with the same elevation change. If the climbs are smaller (say a hundred feet or so), then the kinetic energy gained on the descent can get you an appreciable way up the hill and thereby give an advantage - you will be "fast" over the majority of the path. The difference is that you will be much faster climbing the 100 ft hill starting at 40 mph than starting at rest. If the climbs/descents are really long, then you would reach terminal speed pretty quickly on the descent and your kinetic energy will only get you a very short way up the climb. In that case there will be very little difference, but the downhill start/uphill finish should be very slightly faster.
Also there were a number of Bernoullis. Daniel Bernoulli was the one responsible for the famous Bernoulli equation of fluid mechanics.
skydive69
07-02-07, 04:27 PM
Thanks for your input Professor - I appreciate it. Also, I must meekly admit that I was not aware of the multitude of Bernoullis! When I studied the theorem, they never mentioned the chap's first name. :)
asgelle
07-02-07, 04:37 PM
As long as you have relented to play without payment of a fee, would you please explain the answer to me with the assumption that you have no graph paper, no calculator or even a bloody sextant - only your deep, free thinking mind?
No because the maxim "make a problem as simple as possible but no simpler" surely applies to your hypothetical. Either course could be faster depending on the particular grades, weight and drag of the rider, and her aerobic and anaerobic fitness.
skydive69
07-02-07, 04:42 PM
No because the maxim "make a problem as simple as possible but no simpler" surely applies to your hypothetical. Either course could be faster depending on the particular grades, weight and drag of the rider, and her aerobic and anaerobic fitness.
Well of course the key, and the point that I was trying to make at dinner is precisely that. The person blowing me off opined that if the course has the same amount of climbs and descents, the elapsed time on either course would be the same - "not true," said I.
urbanknight
07-02-07, 04:47 PM
Have you ever done a competitive time trial? Perhaps I should ask, have you ever won a time trial? I would be amazed to find someone who can time trial faster climbing prior to descending rather than the opposite approach.
Yes I have done plenty of competitive time trials, and I would agree that based on the concept you are presenting, ascending first would be slower because you don't get the momentum. The other coin is sports psychology, which is stronger than most people realize. When you start to feel pain, you start to think "I'm not gonna make it" or "is my pacing too fast?" and it's easy to defeat yourself. Of course, psyching myself out might be why I never won a competitive time trial (well, except the ones where I had only 1 or 2 opponents), so you would be correct that someone who has overcome the psychological effects of the pain might prefer to climb later. I never reached that level :o
edit: by the way, if you ask people who consistently win events, they would say they don't give a @#$% because they're all competing on the same course and they just have to be faster.
runtimmyc
07-02-07, 05:04 PM
If we were all steel balls rolling up and down rails... the combination of ascents and descents wouldn't matter. But, because us humans put energy into the bike... the combination of hills let us select when to put the energy into the bike at the most opertune times. Make sense?
skydive69
07-02-07, 05:15 PM
Yes I have done plenty of competitive time trials, and I would agree that based on the concept you are presenting, ascending first would be slower because you don't get the momentum. The other coin is sports psychology, which is stronger than most people realize. When you start to feel pain, you start to think "I'm not gonna make it" or "is my pacing too fast?" and it's easy to defeat yourself. Of course, psyching myself out might be why I never won a competitive time trial (well, except the ones where I had only 1 or 2 opponents), so you would be correct that someone who has overcome the psychological effects of the pain might prefer to climb later. I never reached that level :o
edit: by the way, if you ask people who consistently win events, they would say they don't give a @#$% because they're all competing on the same course and they just have to be faster.
I find the key in time trialing to be the concept of association. I speak as the current USCF Florida time trial champion which I won on June 17th. The great time trialist associates and the poor time trialist who perhaps has just as strong an engine as the former guy disassociates. By associate, I mean that when I am time trialing, my mind never wanders. I am constantly scanning my position on the bike, my grip of the aerobars, and importanly speed and heart rate data. If my speed falls off even slightly, I am immediately on it forcing myself to get back to speed. I am constantly testing the red line to see if I can extract just a bit more performance out of my body. You mention sports psychology. I think the psychological aspects of time trialing are perhaps more important than the physical aspects.
The guy who is an also ran is thinking of girls, the beach, pleasant things, music, anything to escape the incredible pain that is part of a high level time trial performance. He very easily lets his speed fall off ever so slightly relegating him to staring up at the podium at the end. I was in a time trial recently where 4/10th of one second separated three places. One must continually work and suffer to win time trials. I love it - I have been blessed with an incredibly high tolerance for pain. I embrace it - I challenge it - I love it!!
Vinokurtov
07-02-07, 05:45 PM
Have you ever done a competitive time trial?
Yes.
Perhaps I should ask, have you ever won a time trial?
Yes, several.
I would be amazed to find someone who can time trial faster climbing prior to descending rather than the opposite approach.
I'd be amazed if you could find a bike racer who would rather start a TT downhill then do a nasty climb after 25 miles rather than at the start.
You're in Florida. The highest point in your state is Britton Hill, which is 345 feet above sea level. You don't HAVE hills. At best you have overpasses.
voltman
07-02-07, 05:46 PM
I find the key in time trialing to be the concept of association. I speak as the current USCF Florida time trial champion which I won on June 17th. The great time trialist associates and the poor time trialist who perhaps has just as strong an engine as the former guy disassociates. By associate, I mean that when I am time trialing, my mind never wanders. I am constantly scanning my position on the bike, my grip of the aerobars, and importanly speed and heart rate data. If my speed falls off even slightly, I am immediately on it forcing myself to get back to speed. I am constantly testing the red line to see if I can extract just a bit more performance out of my body. You mention sports psychology. I think the psychological aspects of time trialing are perhaps more important than the physical aspects.
The guy who is an also ran is thinking of girls, the beach, pleasant things, music, anything to escape the incredible pain that is part of a high level time trial performance. He very easily lets his speed fall off ever so slightly relegating him to staring up at the podium at the end. I was in a time trial recently where 4/10th of one second separated three places. One must continually work and suffer to win time trials. I love it - I have been blessed with an incredibly high tolerance for pain. I embrace it - I challenge it - I love it!!
Was this thread just a roundabout way of saying you're the Florida TT champ? :)
Vinokurtov
07-02-07, 05:47 PM
Was this thread just a roundabout way of saying you're the Florida TT champ? :)
Or he's channeling Phinnius Phoghorn.
daytonian
07-02-07, 05:53 PM
What's with all the math problems and flying scenarios on BF today?
skydive69
07-02-07, 06:05 PM
Yes.
Yes, several.
I'd be amazed if you could find a bike racer who would rather start a TT downhill then do a nasty climb after 25 miles rather than at the start.
You're in Florida. The highest point in your state is Britton Hill, which is 345 feet above sea level. You don't HAVE hills. At best you have overpasses.
You are making an interesting assumption, and you know what happens when you assume something. I am not alluding to our flat***** state. I competed in a time trial in Kentucky last week, and they had some interesting hills. I was not talking about long time trials, and I was not talking about long climbs. Pay the eff attention please.
urbanknight
07-02-07, 06:27 PM
I find the key in time trialing to be the concept of association. I speak as the current USCF Florida time trial champion which I won on June 17th. The great time trialist associates and the poor time trialist who perhaps has just as strong an engine as the former guy disassociates. By associate, I mean that when I am time trialing, my mind never wanders. I am constantly scanning my position on the bike, my grip of the aerobars, and importanly speed and heart rate data. If my speed falls off even slightly, I am immediately on it forcing myself to get back to speed. I am constantly testing the red line to see if I can extract just a bit more performance out of my body. You mention sports psychology. I think the psychological aspects of time trialing are perhaps more important than the physical aspects.
The guy who is an also ran is thinking of girls, the beach, pleasant things, music, anything to escape the incredible pain that is part of a high level time trial performance. He very easily lets his speed fall off ever so slightly relegating him to staring up at the podium at the end. I was in a time trial recently where 4/10th of one second separated three places. One must continually work and suffer to win time trials. I love it - I have been blessed with an incredibly high tolerance for pain. I embrace it - I challenge it - I love it!!
You pegged it on the head there. I have mild ADD. I'm also gifted, but my mind wanders like a stray dog! I was always better at track match sprints because they were more interesting and required a shorter attention span than 30 minutes (I was a junior) of "heartrate, check. Circle, circle, circle, circle, heartrate, check"
But I was trying to point out that your qustion has nothing to do with winning or losing a time trial, since the question is comparing courses, while competition is comparing riders. That's all.
Vinokurtov
07-02-07, 06:46 PM
You are making an interesting assumption, and you know what happens when you assume something. I am not alluding to our flat***** state. I competed in a time trial in Kentucky last week, and they had some interesting hills. I was not talking about long time trials, and I was not talking about long climbs. Pay the eff attention please.
I was paying attention. No mention of Kentucky in any of your posts. Just Florida. I can only go on the information provided.
When talking physiology and physics, I tend to use gross examples to get the point across. That point being most people will be faster up a hill earlier rather than later, even during a 10km TT, for both mental and physiological reasons which brings me to another point:
Now the first descent comes, and it seems that one must negotiate the first downhill with a bit higher cadence to deal with the lactic acid formed on the initial climb.
If you are doing an even effort, you shouldn't be building lactic. It means you've gone anaerobic. You have $crewed the pooch and have negatively impacted your TT time. You have ceased being a TT god and have descended to wallow amongst the plebes. Or non-engineers.
It takes a very disciplined TT specialist to sit on their CP number as the hill goes up (and even more so down). Most people go too hard up, and not hard enough down (excepting, of course, where you're "spun out").
And some lactic can be your friend... There was an excellent NY Times Science section article on this recently. Or look at this:
Cadence has zilch to do with clearing lactic BTW. Mitochondria and wattage load does. Like lactic being nothing but a poison, this too is an old wives tale.