Fair points, in the past my feeling was that if I'm paying for the stage race, I don't want to "phone in" a tempo paced TT. I can certainly see why folks do it. At my level (4) winning a GC doesn't get you anything at all. So a TT is somewhat pointless unless you're after cash. And that's probably why I placed as reasonably as I did on a first day TT!

I'll likely just save this TT frame in my basement until cat 3.

As for the wheel thing, the Jet+ wheels are awesome. I don't ever take them off my bike. Aero data backs up the wider wheels for sure so get 25mm. Whooshy noises for days. They do hold and get up to speed better but a good body position is worth one heck of a lot more. Want to descend a hairpin turn in the rain? They've got you covered. Neutral descent at Quabbin in the rain like two years ago? Hell yeah.

You really are overthinking this to the point of micro-management. Quit under utilizing it if you plan to race on it next year.

Say you picked up track or CX for the first time this Winter. Do you think first blush will produce more meaningful results and experience? Or would having ridden that bike exclusively for a few months outside of racing or training provide insights and muscle memory you could revisit this year?

Food for thought. My only concern here is what is wrong with a frame that was given away for free. Personally I'd go over it until I found exactly that.

Stack the aero gains and the differences are pretty dramatic. Any single one on its own feels more like a novelty than anything though.

You should get a coachbro, bro!

i don't pay for a coach for several reasons, mainly because I don't get a whole lot of free time for riding, and my schedule can be pretty erratic these days.. Therefore, if I can't even put my hours in on a given week to do what I want to do on the bike, then paying for a coach is pretty much money down the drain. also, I feel like a lot of information that coach provide can be found for free on the internet, or just by asking people who are passionate about this type of stuff. lastly, even if paying for a coach does give me a say 15% gain in performance, it's stil lnot worth while to me because i have other priorities.

I feel like I want to chime in here.

Deep Carbon: In my opinion it is useful if you make it useful. I am a breakaway guy and in my experience deep carbon wheels do make a difference. Even if it is just a half MPH more when you are OTF that really matters in a race. As for braking I have mostly used newer rims. They are great when dry (arguably better than my aluminum rims) and in the rain you just need to hit them a little earlier which is not really that big a deal and I have had the same experience with aluminum rims in the rain (hit them earlier).

TT Frames: This was the first year I have used a real TT bike and it really does make a world of difference. But yeah, you need to dial your position in. Personally I couldn't get comfortable till I saw Dean Phillips, he made a few simple adjustments and my power went up, along with comfort and if I were to extrapolate from my before and after TT results I got more aero as well.

yes, this. all of this is what I would say.

we're lucky that it's relatively dry in norcal, but I've been riding the same cabon rims for 30+k miles in training and in some races. (the 50mm ones). I paid $800. I weigh 185 and descend as much as I climb without issue in re: to the brakes.

which ones did you get out of curiosity?

i'm not opposed to building my own.. I don't mind the labor.

2x$80 flo 30s (aluminum!)
$30 shipping
~80 on cx sapim spokes (20/24)
$70 novatec hubs (or others; open to suggestions)
+ tax and whatever..
---------------------
~$375

well.. that's not a whole lot of savings compared to just getting deeper 50 mm carbon rims from china.. nevermind

for the record i wasn't doubting the benefits of aero gear, just saying that for me if the question was "$500 to make my cycling better" i'd go elsewhere, but I understand everyone has different priorities, etc.

racerims built by a local guy, Sean Loller. They are reynolds rims that he builds out. If you contact him tell him I sent you - likely give you a little discount.

Great wheels and why we have him on our kit. I had about 30k on my 50mm wheels before they died a quick death in a crit crash last month. Already have an order in for more.

I train and race (road) on carbon. I'm 150lbs and never notice any issues with braking, even in the wet.
I have a set of November RFSC 58mm, recently set up tubeless with Schwalbe Pro Ones, and a set of Reynolds Attack. Both with PT hubs.
TT bike has a set of HED Jet 5/9, care a little less about weight there, and use a Wheelbuilder AeroJacket on the 9. Also a PT hub.

In the wet I just hit the brakes for a second before I really need them to clear the water and then they brake great.

if you want carbon wheels for racing, i'm cleaning out my garage and have a bunch of tubular wheelsets i'm inching closer to selling. i think tubulars are relevant for racing in big packs--e.g., saw many dudes flatting after hitting square edges at KSR, and that's basically a non-issue with tubulars.

i think a set of 808FC are going to a buddy.

i also have a set of 303FC (basically new) with Vittoria CX IIIs, Shimano C50s (Specialized Turbo Allround 24s), and 404s (front is new after being sent to Zipp for that hub recall).

all are 11s.

(i also have an H3 tubular, H3 clincher, Zipp Super 9 clincher.)

i got around to taking pictures and am inching closer to listing them. i'd make a good deal on any of them. I love them all but I'd rather see them put to use than sit in my garage.

I texted tetonrider about buying the 404s and he looked in his garage for them, but wrote back that the 404s were not found.

This isn't the geek thread!

301 to the 41

cycling analytics with the power history chart.

eye opening for me.

everybody wants to be fast but don't nobody want to ride these heavy ass lung-busting 3 minute efforts.

What settings do you find most useful/interesting?


.. I'm not sure how useful I find it. A lot of my peak power per time numbers are from workouts where I did the first interval way too hard and ended up spending less time in zone than would have been optimal. I'd rather see a more customizable chart of historical time in zone -- the zone analysis chart is almost what I need but if you hide zones zones, the y-axis doesn't rescale so the visualization is not great.

I mean, it's chicken/egg, but for me I find confirmation in my belief that I get fastest when I do all-out 3ish minute efforts. They are the hardest for me mentally, but when I look at that chart and run it against my best periods of fitness, it's when I have high 3-min efforts.

Same. I always hated 1 minute efforts. Until I started focusing on 2 and 3 minute intervals. I guess I still hate them, I just hate them a little less now.

wonder how many will understand that joke.

have you tested WKO4?

the interface is a bit of a PITA, but i would think with your background you would enjoy the ability to basically plot anything, and do so as you want to see it.

correlation or causation?

edit to add: most amateur road races are blown apart in a span of 2-3'. we'd like to think that it's about FTP (and it can be, for some), but usually (a) selective hills in amateur races in the USA are not all that long and (b) the split happens in the first 2-3', regardless.

there are examples to the contrary, of course.

train to the demands of the event rather than pretty #s on a pace.

I've become "proficient" with Golden cheetah over the last year and I'm very pleased with it. Between GC and plugging rides into TP(basic) I have more than enough data and analytical information.

took me forever to realize this. I would say "oh X is a 10 minute hill so i should train 10 minute efforts" then get shelled in the first two minutes when everyone goes ape **** before settling in. so even if i could do the AP over the course of 10 minutes that I needed I'd go OTB because I couldn't stick with the initial surge.