Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Track Cycling: Velodrome Racing and Training Area (http://www.bikeforums.net/track-cycling-velodrome-racing-training-area/)
-   -   I love rollers! (http://www.bikeforums.net/track-cycling-velodrome-racing-training-area/927448-i-love-rollers.html)

sbs z31 02-19-14 04:09 PM

Thanks for the input guys, pro fit is schedule for next monday.

sbs z31 02-19-14 04:16 PM

Thanks for the input guys, pro fit schedule for next monday.

lgp927 02-19-14 04:32 PM

How much time were u able to handle when you first started ? I got a set of rollers yesterday and let me tell you its hard work, I was only able to handle 10 minutes at 17mph .



Quote:

Originally Posted by sbs z31 (Post 16359128)
I've been riding my set of rollers for almost 3mos now and pretty much just today I realized that I need to focus on my pedal stroke. Rode the rollers twice today focusing on even pedal circles/stroke and to my surprise I was able to ride in a straight line longer and with less concentration to not ride off the rollers. Biggest improvements I noticed today was less energy wasted due to more efficient pedaling and not bouncing everywhere and my little guy didn't go numb so quick and was more tolerable lol. Here's a short clip of me doing a quick sprint, I know I need to work on it some more but I was able to hit 40.6mph. Can't believe it took me this long to realized how poor my pedaling technique was.


[video]http://s628.photobucket.com/user/sbs_z31/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20131225_215145_zps8bde1e46.mp4.html[/video]


sbs z31 02-19-14 04:43 PM

I can do 1hr tops with my kilo tt otherwise it becomes a mental game lol. The new bike with aero bars has been keeping me busy. So far I'm only doing 10min of 97-105rpm with the new bike which is set up with 46/14. With that gearing and cadences I'm comfortably cruising at 25-26mph, I'm sure it'll change once I'm out om the road. My ideal goal is to be riding at 110-115rpm comfortably with this gearing for a minimum of an hour. I plan on doing a few 40k tt this year with the new bike.

sbs z31 02-19-14 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lgp927 (Post 16510253)
How much time were u able to handle when you first started ? I got a set of rollers yesterday and let me tell you its hard work, I was only able to handle 10 minutes at 17mph .

To answer your question, when I first started riding the rollers I was doing about 20-25min then gradually increase my saddle time on the rollers to an hour.

lgp927 02-19-14 04:45 PM

Oh ok , i started w my Bianchi which is 48/16 going to work on rollers every other day I want about the same cadence to cruise the streets. Right now I'm at 70 or so comfortably so I have ways to go

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbs z31 (Post 16510280)
I can do 1hr tops with my kilo tt otherwise it becomes a mental game lol. The new bike with aero bars has been keeping me busy. So far I'm only doing 10min of 97-105rpm with the new bike which is set up with 46/14. With that gearing and cadences I'm comfortably cruising at 25-26mph, I'm sure it'll change once I'm out om the road. My ideal goal is to be riding at 110-115rpm comfortably with this gearing for a minimum of an hour. I plan on doing a few 40k tt this year with the new bike.


sbs z31 02-19-14 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lgp927 (Post 16510287)
Oh ok , i started w my Bianchi which is 48/16 going to work on rollers every other day I want about the same cadence to cruise the streets. Right now I'm at 70 or so comfortably so I have ways to go

Keep at it and you'll get there, I believe intervals has help a lot with my cadences.

Velocirapture 02-20-14 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbs z31 (Post 16510342)
Keep at it and you'll get there, I believe intervals has help a lot with my cadences.


Spinning at a higher cadence than you are aiming for will also help you to feel more comfortable at your goal cadence. Either sustained spin (e.g 1 min at 120, if 110 is your aim for 10min), or a rev out for as long as you can sustain it, will help. They work on the co-ordination part of it, and can also be built into an interval type programme to keep things interesting.

I'm sure you know, but just encase; the gearing on the rollers will feel heavier when you are actually on the road. its definitely not like for like. not enough resistance on rollers.

sbs z31 02-20-14 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocirapture (Post 16511393)
Spinning at a higher cadence than you are aiming for will also help you to feel more comfortable at your goal cadence. Either sustained spin (e.g 1 min at 120, if 110 is your aim for 10min), or a rev out for as long as you can sustain it, will help. They work on the co-ordination part of it, and can also be built into an interval type programme to keep things interesting.

I'm sure you know, but just encase; the gearing on the rollers will feel heavier when you are actually on the road. its definitely not like for like. not enough resistance on rollers.

For whatever reason I feel that the 3" rollers comes very close to the same resistance as the road. Now that I have a Garmin 510 I can start doing more structured intervals targeting my cadence goal.

Baby Puke 02-20-14 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbs z31 (Post 16511477)
For whatever reason I feel that the 3" rollers comes very close to the same resistance as the road. Now that I have a Garmin 510 I can start doing more structured intervals targeting my cadence goal.

The road is a much higher load than rollers. Rollers are not intended as resistance training, but as form training. I can easily rev out to 200rpm or so my largest track gear of 50x13 (104"?) on the rollers, but if I could do this on the track I'd be on a plane to the WC's right now. Velocirapture's advice is sound, train on the rollers at way over your goal cadence, get an ergo of some kind to train resistance at what you hope to do on the road or track.

carleton 02-20-14 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbs z31 (Post 16511477)
For whatever reason I feel that the 3" rollers comes very close to the same resistance as the road. Now that I have a Garmin 510 I can start doing more structured intervals targeting my cadence goal.

It is likely that the reason you are getting resistance from the 3" rollers is because your tire pressure is moderate or low. The appropriate tire pressure for your weight will significantly decrease the load you feel on the rollers. Pump your tires up before roller rides just like you would before a road ride.

Tire thread thickness may be a smaller factor, too. If it's a tire with lots of thick rubber, it may be making resistance.

sbs z31 02-20-14 01:22 PM

Thanks for the advices guys, I'm going to start doing more intervals on the trainer as soon as I get my pro fit done. Getting really tired of indoor training lol can't wait for all the snow to be gone.

carleton 02-20-14 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbs z31 (Post 16512550)
Thanks for the advices guys, I'm going to start doing more intervals on the trainer as soon as I get my pro fit done. Getting really tired of indoor training lol can't wait for all the snow to be gone.

Maybe mix it up.

You don't *have* to spend all of your time on a trainer in order to have a fulfilling season on the track. Maybe add or supplement your trainer workouts with:

- Weightlifting (not necessarily heavy sprinter type workouts. Just basic fitness stuff so that you feel good and look good.)
- Swimming
- Running (when it's not snowy/icy)
- Table tennis (done right, it's intense)
- Mountain biking, Cyclocross, Trail riding
- Etc..

Basically anything that will make you fitter, stronger, or build endurance or lung capacity will help.

Keep it fresh and interesting. The season will come with lots of intensity, highs, and lows. You'll want to come into it with a fresh mind. If you don't, you'll "burn out" quickly. That's what happened to me last season. Work was so stressful that I couldn't mentally commit to racing. Racing is a mind-bender in itself.

slindell 02-20-14 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbs z31 (Post 16511477)
For whatever reason I feel that the 3" rollers comes very close to the same resistance as the road. Now that I have a Garmin 510 I can start doing more structured intervals targeting my cadence goal.

For a sense of the load from road, rollers and trainer look at the Kurt Kinetic site which compares its trainer to road watts where you get a nice exponential graph (note they assume 1% grade so not flat). Then on the Krietler site there is the resistance for rollers which is pretty much a straight line (w * speed).
With 3" rollers all 3 lines meet somewhere around 18-20mph. Double the speed on rollers the wattage doubles. Double the speed on the road at it is more like 8 times more with air resistance (speed ^ 3).

With rollers the resistance depends on the tires, inner tubes, pressure and your weight in addition to roller size. Riding a mtn bike or CX bike with knobbies and low pressure is a work out even on 4.5" rollers, where track tires at 180psi barely get any resistance.

Brian Ratliff 02-20-14 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slindell (Post 16513213)
For a sense of the load from road, rollers and trainer look at the Kurt Kinetic site which compares its trainer to road watts where you get a nice exponential graph (note they assume 1% grade so not flat). Then on the Krietler site there is the resistance for rollers which is pretty much a straight line (w * speed).
With 3" rollers all 3 lines meet somewhere around 18-20mph. Double the speed on rollers the wattage doubles. Double the speed on the road at it is more like 8 times more with air resistance (speed ^ 3).
...

If you want to get really technical, resistance (force) changes linearly with speed on rollers and quadratically with speed on a fluid trainer. Power (watts) changes quadratically with speed on rollers and cubic with speed on a fluid trainer.

Double the speed on rollers, the power multiplies by four times (quadratic relationship).

Double the speed on a fluid trainer (or road), the power multiplies by 8 (cubic relationship).

Myko 02-20-14 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carleton (Post 16512686)
Maybe mix it up.

You don't *have* to spend all of your time on a trainer in order to have a fulfilling season on the track. Maybe add or supplement your trainer workouts with:

- Weightlifting (not necessarily heavy sprinter type workouts. Just basic fitness stuff so that you feel good and look good.)
- Swimming
- Running (when it's not snowy/icy)
- Table tennis (done right, it's intense)
- Mountain biking, Cyclocross, Trail riding
- Etc..

Basically anything that will make you fitter, stronger, or build endurance or lung capacity will help.

Keep it fresh and interesting. The season will come with lots of intensity, highs, and lows. You'll want to come into it with a fresh mind. If you don't, you'll "burn out" quickly. That's what happened to me last season. Work was so stressful that I couldn't mentally commit to racing. Racing is a mind-bender in itself.

Highly agree...

Dalai 02-21-14 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carleton (Post 16512686)
Keep it fresh and interesting. The season will come with lots of intensity, highs, and lows. You'll want to come into it with a fresh mind. If you don't, you'll "burn out" quickly. That's what happened to me last season. Work was so stressful that I couldn't mentally commit to racing. Racing is a mind-bender in itself.

This is what I find the hardest as there is no off season here! Year round track racing, Summer crits, winter road season including TTs and CX overlapping between the two...

sbs z31 02-26-14 09:41 AM

Well I went in for a pro fit on Monday and turned out I was pretty much spot on for the aero position. We measured my angles on both side and I guess I did a pretty good job. Now my fitter thinks that I could've gone with a smaller frame to get the front end lower but I should be ok with this frame. We talked about why people uses smaller frame size for tt and tri and it makes sense now since I have a better understanding. I know Carleton said this frame is too small for me so my next frame I dont want to make a mistake so I'm asking you guys for some advices. Should I worry about top tube length more than standover height? Which online bike fit calculator you recommend?

queerpunk 02-26-14 10:09 AM

I don't trust online bike fit calculators.
The idea of a bike fit is that it takes into consideration things that simple measurements can't.

Top tube length matters; standover height doesn't. Standover height is just a rule of thumb to get you roughly where you want to be.

What matters more than top tube length - especially for short people - is Stack and Reach. A lot of small bikes achieve "shorter top tube lengths" by building a steeper seat tube angle, but the reach is the same. Stack and Reach can be compared across bikes with different geometries in a way that top tube angle and other measurements just can't.

Baby Puke 02-26-14 11:37 AM

1 Attachment(s)
No offense intended, but I think your pro fit person has an interesting idea of a spot on aero position. Your position looks like it *might* be comfortable (perhaps your person is more from a triathlete perspective?), but to my (non-pro) eyes it does not look either bio-mechanically powerful (hips too far forward) or aerodynamically fast (head and shoulders very high). You might want a second opinion.

Here's me. It's not perfect, but just an example to check out.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=366165

sbs z31 02-26-14 11:54 AM

Yes indeed he's a triathete, I'll tweak the bike some more once my fit gets better and more experiences under my belt. Thanks so much for your opinion and that sweet photo!

Quinn8it 02-26-14 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Puke (Post 16529207)
No offense intended, but I think your pro fit person has an interesting idea of a spot on aero position. Your position looks like it *might* be comfortable (perhaps your person is more from a triathlete perspective?), but to my (non-pro) eyes it does not look either bio-mechanically powerful (hips too far forward) or aerodynamically fast (head and shoulders very high). You might want a second opinion.

Here's me. It's not perfect, but just an example to check out.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=366165

youve got an impressively flat back- but to me- and just as you said, no offense intended. You appear to be very far back, with a very closed off hip angle.

TT position normally wants to be forward to open that hip angle and increase power output. It's why Triathelon bikes have very steep seat tubes (no 5cm set-back in Tri) it's why short "TT" saddles are all the rage- allowing people to get more forward and still comply to UCI set-back rules..

As as for the OP..
I watched the video again, and it appears he has a short torso- which will always yield a slightly weird looking aero position. As far as saddle position- his looks about like mine. Admittedly his front end looks high- but IIRC he is doing 40K TT's, and ability to breath and comfort may have been a factor..

carleton 02-26-14 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbs z31 (Post 16528712)
Well I went in for a pro fit on Monday and turned out I was pretty much spot on for the aero position. We measured my angles on both side and I guess I did a pretty good job. Now my fitter thinks that I could've gone with a smaller frame to get the front end lower but I should be ok with this frame. We talked about why people uses smaller frame size for tt and tri and it makes sense now since I have a better understanding. I know Carleton said this frame is too small for me so my next frame I dont want to make a mistake so I'm asking you guys for some advices. Should I worry about top tube length more than standover height? Which online bike fit calculator you recommend?

1) You shouldn't be fitting for a TT position. You'll probably do a handful of TTs during your first season. Most of your racing will be mass start.

2) Your bike is too small. Your head should not be that far forward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by queerpunk (Post 16528837)
I don't trust online bike fit calculators.
The idea of a bike fit is that it takes into consideration things that simple measurements can't.

Top tube length matters; standover height doesn't. Standover height is just a rule of thumb to get you roughly where you want to be.

What matters more than top tube length - especially for short people - is Stack and Reach. A lot of small bikes achieve "shorter top tube lengths" by building a steeper seat tube angle, but the reach is the same. Stack and Reach can be compared across bikes with different geometries in a way that top tube angle and other measurements just can't.

+1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Puke (Post 16529207)
No offense intended, but I think your pro fit person has an interesting idea of a spot on aero position. Your position looks like it *might* be comfortable (perhaps your person is more from a triathlete perspective?), but to my (non-pro) eyes it does not look either bio-mechanically powerful (hips too far forward) or aerodynamically fast (head and shoulders very high). You might want a second opinion.

Here's me. It's not perfect, but just an example to check out.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=366165

+1

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbs z31 (Post 16529265)
Yes indeed he's a triathete, I'll tweak the bike some more once my fit gets better and more experiences under my belt. Thanks so much for your opinion and that sweet photo!

There is no tweaking that will help.

Look at this screen grab:

http://i.imgur.com/fGHzCe1.png


Notice 3 major things:

1) Your ears are almost above your front axle. That is waaaaay too far forward.
2) Your elbows are about 6 inches behind your ears (measuring from vertical lines). They should be under your ears as a starting point.
3) Your knee is waaaaaay in front of your pedal spindle. I know the KOPS (knee over the pedal spindle) isn't a hard-and-fast rule. But, it's a great starting point for new racers. The vertical line from your knee is well into your front wheel.


Notice here that his ears are no where close to being over the front axle and if the pic were square on, the elbows would be under the ears:

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment...5&d=1393436660


Man, your bike is like 2 sizes too small.

You posted here for help, let us help. If you don't mind, will you list your height, pants inseam (you'd probably know those off the top of your head). Then later, get a friend to mark your height on a wall then use a ruler (or anything) and mark your crotch on the wall and measure that to the floor. You first have to agree that your current bike is too small before you feel the need to get a larger one.

In track racing, FIT trumps fancy components, materials (carbon), etc every time. A properly fitting bike is the best upgrade you can buy :D

sbs z31 02-26-14 12:33 PM

Hi Carleton, I think you guys all forgot that I built this bike for road tt, not for the track. I'm 5'6" and my inseam is about 30". I appreciate any feedbacks and learning every step of the way, thanks!

carleton 02-26-14 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbs z31 (Post 16529410)
Hi Carleton, I think you guys all forgot that I built this bike for road tt, not for the track.

Then, respectfully, why are you posting in the Track Racing forum?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbs z31 (Post 16529410)
I'm 5'6" and my inseam is about 30".

What size, make, model is this bike? Maybe a link to the geo chart?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:27 AM.