Franklin27

Hey, guys.

In other blogs (and FB forums) people brag a lot about pushing a 52 x 14 (or any gear longer than 100 in.) to superb F200 times. Well, that might be good for them, but I was wondering the opposite side of the situation.

What about the high-rev best ever F200, sprint heats, keirin or 1 Km time trial? I mean, if other people get noisy about pure (even low-rev) strength, why not to celebrate our super speedy cadence and tell about our best ever high-rev performance?

I have read in other forums about people who forget to change their training gear and ride with it to victory only to realize their "mistake" only after the winning ride.

I was able to ride a sub-11 F200 (a PB by the way) with a 86 in. gear. I am not very sure how many rev/min where those, but it was fantastic.

Tell us your experiences, please.

gycho77

I think this will help you answer your question.
https://upupup.aboc.com.au/the-book

Big gears are trend right now and spin to win is kind of old style.
But i wouldn't say high cadence is wrong. However, Now days it's hard to see a good sprinter using low gear(spin to win style)

SprintzNKiloz

I've done three F200s this year. The best was an 11.6 in a 98" or so and the worst was a 12 in a 108"


I think peak RPMs in the best was around 140 and change, versus 125 or so in the 108. I still think there's value in finding that gear that lets you accelerate through the effort and much as you can. We have some folks obsessed with big gears, and I was one of them, but I think we are collectively realizing we aren't elites (and some of us are old). It's key to ride a gear that you can REALLY get on top of.

carleton

Hi and welcome to the forum!

Citation Needed.



Math:

To ride a 10.96" using 48t/15t (86.4" | 6.72m | 3.2 ratio) with a 23mm rear tire you would have to average 163RPM for more than 11 seconds with peak RPMs around 168RPM.

That's not impossible...that's world class ability.

Franklin27

Thanks, Carleton. That's exactly what I am wondering.

Which was your highest RPM (on your track bike, not ergo) ever on training? What about racing max RPM?

queerpunk

The max I've recorded in a race was 155rpm. It was a fast sprint, I was well sheltered, and, as it turns out, undergeared.

In training, I've gone a little bit higher than that on the bike. And, on rollers - quite a bit higher.

taras0000

Race - 160 when I was restricting my gearing. 260 on rollers.

Rumor has it that Harnett was above 300 on the rollers.

carleton

160rpm in match sprint when I was riding a 15t cog when I thought I was on a 13t 165mm cranks made it easier to spin that fast.

I think 240rpm on rollers.

Have you really been timed at under 11s in a flying 200? And did you do it on a 86" gear?

gl98115

Since the math really isn't that hard, a sub-11 F200 on a 86 in. gear would mean an 163+ rpm average cadence.

Voodoo76

Man I'm the slow dog here. Sub 12 (just) on 84". 1993 Masters Nats in Colorado. Tweaked a hamstring 10 days before, 20 hr solo drive to get there (no place to stop due to flooding, partner crapped out) and left my warmup gear on. I did remember to put air in the tires though.

I've spun up to 155 recently training in small gears, but right now hit a power wall around 135.

SprintzNKiloz

I seem to have a functional limit to revs of about 140. Did a sprint tourney last night and did 11.5 w max of 140, but on a slightly larger gear than normal. Now I just have to figure out how many " I can push and still keep the 140rpm

carleton

Yeah, anything over 140 is just you "getting out of the way of the pedals". You aren't able to apply any significant force at that speed.

It has to do with muscle contraction times and the subsequent force production. Basically, you don't have enough time to apply force for long enough to add energy to the system.

Actually, the sweet spot for adding force the the pedals is lower than 140rpm

Bulldogsprinter

Yeah during races I look at predicted topend and choose a gear that will be 135-140 if I need to hit that topend. During flying 200s I've noticed that even bigger work for me. My PB had avg 126 with 133 highest rpm. I can go higher that 140, but not really able to accelerate. Ie. behind derny I can do 66-70 kph with really high cadence, but during a sprint I hit my topend speed at 140

carleton

This is why I say that "Cadence is King"

Cadence, not Power, is the thing that we should measure, chart, and analyze to be as fast as possible.

Bulldogsprinter

Today after a very short wup (5min) I did a flying 200 with my wup gear 50x16 84", 11.68s with avg cadence 157rpm. Later I did over geared efforts (57x12) flying 200s, best one was a 11.25 with a cadence of 108rpm

carleton

Franklin27

I was training behind a derny on a particular un-windy day (early at morning). As I was not on heavy-weight training, I just left my usual (roadie borrowed) 53 x 16 on the bike. After a couple of practice F200 behind the bike, I went alone. I was fit and had trained many hill sprints, but yet I do not very well how I did it, but it was there.

10.94

I tried next week with the same approach. It did not worked again.

carleton

What was your time the next week?

Franklin27

11.16

And from there, I can say that I drooped any serious training.

With no training at all, I was posting 11.9 -12.1 -12.3 a few months ago. But recently, I got even slower (I am on the 13's now).

New job. Nothing to do.

PS. Normally I train with a comfy cycling shirt, cycling pants, softy gloves and no aero-helmet. When I got my race setup (long-sleeve-skinsuit, aero helmet, no gloves and front aero wheel), I can barely buy a whole second in the final time...

carleton

I don't know man. I'm not buying this. Those are US National level times.

I'm still gonna ask for some outside confirmation

Franklin27

My velodrome is at 3.600 mts above sea level.

Factorize that.

Bulldogsprinter

Which velo would that be?

Franklin27

La Paz, Bolivia.

Bulldogsprinter

ok, 3600 confused me

carleton

OK.

-0.75" on a Flying 200M as compared to sea level. So, your 10.96" is really 11.71"

Factorization done

Now it all makes sense.

Dude, you can't come in throwing "at altitude" numbers around without mentioning that they were at altitude. You know you are purposely misleading everyone. That's what it sounded fishy...because it was