Originally Posted by
carleton
You won’t need different bikes for different tracks. Basically, track bike angles have evolved as the speeds have increased and the move from shallow 333-400m tracks to steep 166-250m tracks happened.
Also, many “sweet street fixies” that are labeled as “track bikes” have a road geometry that pales in comparison to one with a modern track geometry.
The most dramatic thing I’ve seen in terms of multiple bikes is one bike for TTs (with aerobars) and one for mass start or sprints. A more relaxed (“sluggish”) geometry helps with holding a great line. Agile handling is preferred for mass start and sprinting.
I would imagine in addition to having two stem/bar sets for different events, one could even modify wheelbase with a longer chain, tune steering response with longer stem, and get a bike with quick handling geometry to somewhat imitate a slower one. I've done this with my road bikes with stems and have been looking at the rear dropouts on the track bike thinking, "Hmm...not only does this give flexibility with gearing, it also gives me some wheelbase tuning capability.".
Of course fit and body position has to be balanced within all of this, but the long rear dropouts have got me thinking...
Originally Posted by
carleton
Study cadence, not power.
Modeling cadence, speed, and heart rate over time (preferably every 1/2 second) can tell you 95% of what’s happening with you and your bike. Adding power data only gets you that extra 5%.
Power is gennerally used to monitor fatigue...or make numbers to brag about on forums
Max Speed and Average Speed are what determines who wins and who loses. Cadence is how you get there.
Keeping with the auto theme: Cadence is your tachometer. There exists a sweet spot.
It's interesting, looking at the different metrics. I don't look at HR during activities, just retrospectively. There's drift and latency, so HR tends to be a bit counterproductive for me in real-time. Retrospectively, it might tell me that I should've/could've been pushing just a little bit harder across the entire session (averaging 170bpm instead of 164, for example in a TT, falling just short of target time). And then knowing that, training with HR helps get to know better what that effort level feels like. With cadence, it's fun trying to understand how well-matched your gearing was for the particular event. I might average 94 in a road race or crit, but 84 in a road TT with different gearing and different workload. I have zero instrumentation on my track bike so far (other than a Garmin in my back pocket and HR sensor), so I can't even compare cadence or power indicators to road currently, but I can go with RPE, breathing, and pick gearing that seems pretty close to "good". Once I get a left-crank power meter on the bike and can capture cadence, etc, it'll be fun to start testing gearing on track more purposefully than what just sort of feels right. Power has been helpful for me on road. It's taught me what my capacities are for sprint duration, long efforts in TT's, etc, interval training, etc. I don't look at it during TT's interestingly; I know some modulate their effort based on % of FTP, but after experimenting, I've gotten more comfortable with Cadence and target Avg Speed as my working metrics.
There are variables that affect HR and power output on any particular day, but if I know the course and my average speed target to nurture, then it's just up to the cadence I can reasonably sustain that day while keeping the average speed within range. I need simple, and it turns out that those two things are simple and manageable for me; doesn't mean it's applicable to others, it's just what I've settled into. That's on road, but in track we're flying blind in races; that was an interesting realization for me. In training, I'll do some of the basic info monitoring to develop a feel for it. I'm truly a novice in track, so I don't want to get too mired in the data, but having familiarity with basic metrics in training will be a good learning experience. There are so many who are expert with this stuff, super knowledgeable and precise. Part of me wanting to keep things simple is....just having fun. I want to be competitive, but if I get too over-data'd, I'm afraid I'll lose some touch with the simple thrilling experience of riding my bike and going fast among friends who enjoy the same thing. That's actually one of the most important metrics, one which doesn't have measurement or comparison.