Flying 200s
#126
Senior Member
Hit YouTube and search for some videos. Moscow videos would be a good one as some proper fast guys ride that track
#127
Full Member
Thank you, have also been looking for a 333m track diagram with wind-up lines, measurements, etc, have you ever come across something like that? I’ve seen this for 250m only so far. I’m basically trying to figure out an energy-efficient wind-up with longer than normal drive for a rider who has less peak power but more endurance.
#128
Full Member
UpUpUp has a good advice for 250m tracks - but its principles can be applied to any place - accumulate potential energy without saturating muscles, making the climb progressive, accelerate to an intermediate speed in advance but keep it fresh for the final acceleration.
Flying 200 ? Up! Up! Up! An introduction to track sprint cycling
More:
https://www.trackcyclingacademy.com/...00m-time-trial
And more..
200m track..
https://analyticcycling.com/Fly200_Page.html
https://analyticcycling.com/genmodel...unExample.html
Flying 200 ? Up! Up! Up! An introduction to track sprint cycling
More:
https://www.trackcyclingacademy.com/...00m-time-trial
And more..
200m track..
https://analyticcycling.com/Fly200_Page.html
https://analyticcycling.com/genmodel...unExample.html
Sidenote: I wasn't planning on getting a power meter for track (I've used them for years on road and TT), but now I'm thinking it's probably very useful here, as you can try different wind-ups, entry points, lines, etc and see power, speed and time together retrospectively and see how the guesses for best energy efficiency really played out. I've got an Omnium crank, too bad Stages doesn't make a PM for this.
Likes For Morelock:
#130
Full Member
#131
Senior Member
In general the problems with track sprinting and power data (and the reason wired SRM's are still used) is "wakeup" and lag. Wakeup applies to your standing starts... the time from when you start applying force to when the power meter actually "wakes up" and decides to start recording. This is very important for timed events but for a sprinter in particular actually not "all" that important outside of a team sprint. Lag on the other hand is very problematic. Say you're winding up for a flying 200... applying constant(ly increasing) power for your wind up laps, which is something the Stages does handle fairly well... then as you start your sprint "proper" you suddenly go to 2-3x (+) the watts as you dive. The power meter takes some amount of time to figure out "oh hey, something different" and in those moments you're going to find the difference between a stages and a more "powerful" power meter.
In very short, violent efforts you need consistent, reliable data, perhaps even moreso than other forms of cycling. Stages do a passably good job for "most" cycling/cyclists... that is, averaging long stretches of relatively consistent power output. (most forms of cycling) The cracks show up in things like track sprinting, bmx, mountain biking where power shifts quickly and violently and often the spikes are so short that the average it spits out is flawed heavily by a misreading.
Somewhere in one of the threads on here (maybe the power meters for track thread) there is a stages rep who responds to some questions a few years back. He point blank says it's not really made for sprinters.
#132
Elitist
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,965
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1386 Post(s)
Liked 93 Times
in
78 Posts
I think Stages is covered here: Training and Racing with Power Meters and other computers
Basically, Stages is designed for long road rides where what happens with one leg can safely be extrapolated to happen with the other...on average. Also, the sampling rate and wake up time are issues with track sprint efforts.
Yes, it's a power meter, but not one that's ideal for for recording Track Sprint efforts. Like when one needs to cut a steak and reach for a butter knife because you used it daily to cut butter and it was good at that.
It will be able to cut the steak. But, it's not the best knife for the job.
Basically, Stages is designed for long road rides where what happens with one leg can safely be extrapolated to happen with the other...on average. Also, the sampling rate and wake up time are issues with track sprint efforts.
Yes, it's a power meter, but not one that's ideal for for recording Track Sprint efforts. Like when one needs to cut a steak and reach for a butter knife because you used it daily to cut butter and it was good at that.
It will be able to cut the steak. But, it's not the best knife for the job.
Last edited by carleton; 12-31-19 at 08:41 AM.
Likes For carleton:
#133
aka mattio
Thank you, have also been looking for a 333m track diagram with wind-up lines, measurements, etc, have you ever come across something like that? I’ve seen this for 250m only so far. I’m basically trying to figure out an energy-efficient wind-up with longer than normal drive for a rider who has less peak power but more endurance.
In the classic 250 corkscrew, as you're coming out of turn 2 before you get your bell, you're on the pedals, gathering speed, using the exit bank to get back up the 3/4 turn nearly full steam from which to launch your final sprint acceleration from speed.
To do the same thing on a 333, you've got to be at full height in 3/4 before your bell, regain that height in 1/2, and use the full drop-off from turn 2 in your sprint acceleration. This means that you've got 1.5 laps to gain the rail. Personally I'd get most of the way there by turn 2, using a bit of bank coming out of it for speed to get up it in 3/4 before the bell.
But overall, unless you're racing in Moscow, you're dealing with a lot less height and there's a lot more room for flexibility - with fewer turns, too, there are fewer options to tire yourself by gaining altitude only to lose it. Especially if you're a "less peak, more endurance," it seems a very forgiving environment for a flying 200. Just make sure you're at the rail by turn 2 in your bell lap and come down off of it, don't cross that line too high.
#134
Full Member
On a 250, you've got 3.5 laps in a flying 200, which means you go through 7 sets of turns; 5 of them are in your windup and 2 are in the effort. On a 333, you've got 2.5 laps, which means you've got 5: 4 in your windup, 1 is in effort.
In the classic 250 corkscrew, as you're coming out of turn 2 before you get your bell, you're on the pedals, gathering speed, using the exit bank to get back up the 3/4 turn nearly full steam from which to launch your final sprint acceleration from speed.
To do the same thing on a 333, you've got to be at full height in 3/4 before your bell, regain that height in 1/2, and use the full drop-off from turn 2 in your sprint acceleration. This means that you've got 1.5 laps to gain the rail. Personally I'd get most of the way there by turn 2, using a bit of bank coming out of it for speed to get up it in 3/4 before the bell.
But overall, unless you're racing in Moscow, you're dealing with a lot less height and there's a lot more room for flexibility - with fewer turns, too, there are fewer options to tire yourself by gaining altitude only to lose it. Especially if you're a "less peak, more endurance," it seems a very forgiving environment for a flying 200. Just make sure you're at the rail by turn 2 in your bell lap and come down off of it, don't cross that line too high.
In the classic 250 corkscrew, as you're coming out of turn 2 before you get your bell, you're on the pedals, gathering speed, using the exit bank to get back up the 3/4 turn nearly full steam from which to launch your final sprint acceleration from speed.
To do the same thing on a 333, you've got to be at full height in 3/4 before your bell, regain that height in 1/2, and use the full drop-off from turn 2 in your sprint acceleration. This means that you've got 1.5 laps to gain the rail. Personally I'd get most of the way there by turn 2, using a bit of bank coming out of it for speed to get up it in 3/4 before the bell.
But overall, unless you're racing in Moscow, you're dealing with a lot less height and there's a lot more room for flexibility - with fewer turns, too, there are fewer options to tire yourself by gaining altitude only to lose it. Especially if you're a "less peak, more endurance," it seems a very forgiving environment for a flying 200. Just make sure you're at the rail by turn 2 in your bell lap and come down off of it, don't cross that line too high.
#135
Elitist
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,965
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1386 Post(s)
Liked 93 Times
in
78 Posts
Experiment with different windups like the gradual acceleration or the "rolling standing start" that has not much windup, just a jump from low speed from high on the track.
I've found that the latter works better for me. I found out by analyzing my SRM speed and cadence data from Man1 efforts in Team Sprint. I found that my final 200M of a Man1 effort had the exact same split as a full-windup Flying 200 on the same day using the same gear. Basically, the F200 windup didn't really help me much at all.
This also helped me understand that I has hitting a terminal velocity based on my frontal area. This means that I needed to work on becoming more aero if I wanted to be faster. Getting a smaller position was more important than gaining more strength or power.
#136
Senior Member
Actually with the gears people run these days most people I see going fast start their jump in (or even before) T1 on a 333. And most stay at the rail all the way through 1 and 2 which means you jump and accelerate at the rail for something like 50-60m before you see any help from the banking. This is tricky to get right.
Last edited by Baby Puke; 01-03-20 at 08:17 AM. Reason: *on a 333
#137
Full Member
So, I won't cover a full range of issues with stages reliability in data (i think the internet has done a sufficient job over the years) but something a bit more focused to track and sprinting.
In general the problems with track sprinting and power data (and the reason wired SRM's are still used) is "wakeup" and lag. Wakeup applies to your standing starts... the time from when you start applying force to when the power meter actually "wakes up" and decides to start recording. This is very important for timed events but for a sprinter in particular actually not "all" that important outside of a team sprint. Lag on the other hand is very problematic. Say you're winding up for a flying 200... applying constant(ly increasing) power for your wind up laps, which is something the Stages does handle fairly well... then as you start your sprint "proper" you suddenly go to 2-3x (+) the watts as you dive. The power meter takes some amount of time to figure out "oh hey, something different" and in those moments you're going to find the difference between a stages and a more "powerful" power meter.
In very short, violent efforts you need consistent, reliable data, perhaps even moreso than other forms of cycling. Stages do a passably good job for "most" cycling/cyclists... that is, averaging long stretches of relatively consistent power output. (most forms of cycling) The cracks show up in things like track sprinting, bmx, mountain biking where power shifts quickly and violently and often the spikes are so short that the average it spits out is flawed heavily by a misreading.
Somewhere in one of the threads on here (maybe the power meters for track thread) there is a stages rep who responds to some questions a few years back. He point blank says it's not really made for sprinters.
In general the problems with track sprinting and power data (and the reason wired SRM's are still used) is "wakeup" and lag. Wakeup applies to your standing starts... the time from when you start applying force to when the power meter actually "wakes up" and decides to start recording. This is very important for timed events but for a sprinter in particular actually not "all" that important outside of a team sprint. Lag on the other hand is very problematic. Say you're winding up for a flying 200... applying constant(ly increasing) power for your wind up laps, which is something the Stages does handle fairly well... then as you start your sprint "proper" you suddenly go to 2-3x (+) the watts as you dive. The power meter takes some amount of time to figure out "oh hey, something different" and in those moments you're going to find the difference between a stages and a more "powerful" power meter.
In very short, violent efforts you need consistent, reliable data, perhaps even moreso than other forms of cycling. Stages do a passably good job for "most" cycling/cyclists... that is, averaging long stretches of relatively consistent power output. (most forms of cycling) The cracks show up in things like track sprinting, bmx, mountain biking where power shifts quickly and violently and often the spikes are so short that the average it spits out is flawed heavily by a misreading.
Somewhere in one of the threads on here (maybe the power meters for track thread) there is a stages rep who responds to some questions a few years back. He point blank says it's not really made for sprinters.
I think Stages is covered here: Training and Racing with Power Meters and other computers
Basically, Stages is designed for long road rides where what happens with one leg can safely be extrapolated to happen with the other...on average. Also, the sampling rate and wake up time are issues with track sprint efforts.
Yes, it's a power meter, but not one that's ideal for for recording Track Sprint efforts. Like when one needs to cut a steak and reach for a butter knife because you used it daily to cut butter and it was good at that.
It will be able to cut the steak. But, it's not the best knife for the job.
Basically, Stages is designed for long road rides where what happens with one leg can safely be extrapolated to happen with the other...on average. Also, the sampling rate and wake up time are issues with track sprint efforts.
Yes, it's a power meter, but not one that's ideal for for recording Track Sprint efforts. Like when one needs to cut a steak and reach for a butter knife because you used it daily to cut butter and it was good at that.
It will be able to cut the steak. But, it's not the best knife for the job.
The more I'm learning about gearing and cadence connected to speed objectives, the more I realize that those are my true must-have factors. If I'm not hitting the required cadence in the given gear combo, the speed simply will not be there.
#138
Full Member
Testing is the key.
Experiment with different windups like the gradual acceleration or the "rolling standing start" that has not much windup, just a jump from low speed from high on the track.
I've found that the latter works better for me. I found out by analyzing my SRM speed and cadence data from Man1 efforts in Team Sprint. I found that my final 200M of a Man1 effort had the exact same split as a full-windup Flying 200 on the same day using the same gear. Basically, the F200 windup didn't really help me much at all.
This also helped me understand that I has hitting a terminal velocity based on my frontal area. This means that I needed to work on becoming more aero if I wanted to be faster. Getting a smaller position was more important than gaining more strength or power.
Experiment with different windups like the gradual acceleration or the "rolling standing start" that has not much windup, just a jump from low speed from high on the track.
I've found that the latter works better for me. I found out by analyzing my SRM speed and cadence data from Man1 efforts in Team Sprint. I found that my final 200M of a Man1 effort had the exact same split as a full-windup Flying 200 on the same day using the same gear. Basically, the F200 windup didn't really help me much at all.
This also helped me understand that I has hitting a terminal velocity based on my frontal area. This means that I needed to work on becoming more aero if I wanted to be faster. Getting a smaller position was more important than gaining more strength or power.
I've started testing a seated, earlier long drive with higher speed starting from T4 versus a standing, later short drive starting from T1 with a slower roll into it, to see how aero would affect the outcome (of course, the energy used for standing VS seated is also a factor, and it was interesting to see in the seated example an HR of 137bpm at start line to 155 at finish, and for the standing option a 150bmp at start line and 158bmp at finish). The seated version has been marginally faster so far. Guessing, I would attribute this to aero. Both were well under my threshold HR of 170 (that's a TT HR for me, not a true sprint max HR which is more up in the 190-200bpm range from road racing).
Gearing choice is so important here. I'm not built like a sprinter, and not a high cadence spinner, so if I try to rely on power to bring the given gearing up to required cadence with a short ramp-up, I can't see how I wouldn't come up short. My initial approach is to build up the ability to endure a longer ramp-up with higher speed starting at T4 (seated, aero as possible).
I feel like my standing, shorter ramp up around T1 and T2 are not as smooth with tire path. Rocking the bike slightly introduces more rolling resistance, whereas seated, without rocking, the tires are following a more consistent path with most likely lower resistance. That was in my mind while testing, trying to keep the bike stable as can be while out of the saddle.
I've really just begun testing, and with little experience and only basic data, certainly no conclusions yet, just guesses. Tracking the testing results over time, to kick out variance for fitness level, health, recovery time between efforts, etc will also be helpful no doubt.
Actually with the gears people run these days most people I see going fast start their jump in (or even before) T1 on a 333. And most stay at the rail all the way through 1 and 2 which means you jump and accelerate at the rail for something like 50-60m before you see any help from the banking. This is tricky to get right.
#139
Full Member
Reporting back, in case any of this is of interest to anyone other than myself.
I've been rehabbing a hip issue, and gearing down seemed like a good measure to take some pressure off, so I've been running a 56/16 the past two weekends in practice sessions. Feels great, much easier on my hip. Matter of fact, I'm not feeling any significant pain while riding the track bike now, only when walking...which is great, it only hurts when I walk. That's like when I've had broken ribs, and someone asked, "Does it hurt much?" and I'd say, "No, only when I breathe."
Anyway...The interesting thing is that I'm running 136-137 rpm (max) in the 200 training runs, higher than I thought I was able to. It feels like I'm maxed out on cadence in this gearing, but perhaps that's just because I'm in experienced and need to work on smoothness and what I would call foot speed. (I hear people talk about leg speed, but in my mind, I'm visualizing food speed.) I wonder when it makes sense to go one tooth smaller in the rear, are there any general guidelines? For example, if I can raise my max rpm in this gear up to 140, would that indicate an improvement in mechanics, at which time, moving to a smaller cog would be reasonable, because I'd bring better spinning technique to the table to get the most out of that next heavier gear?
I'm trying to apply some logic and goal-setting to working my way into heavier gearing little by little. I sort of rushed into it in the Fall, and that's certainly what contributed to firing up my injured hip. The combination of lack of diligent training, lack of strength to turn the heavier (56/14) gear set efficiently, and lack of spinning technique all culminated in imparting serious torque into my hip joint instead of distributing the workload over the muscle groups surrounding it. Good lesson learned. And it's now forced me to learn how to become a better spinner, so I feel fortunate; I'm taking a step back to learn important fundamentals which I wasn't necessarily putting enough time or focus into.
If I can establish a sensible goal for improving spinning technique, and reach it in some basic, recognizable way, I'll move from the 56/16 to the 56/15, and then 14, with the ultimate goal of trying the 13 without blasting my hip apart. The objective is to hit 120 rpm in the flying 200 in that gear sometime later this year. Not convinced that's possible, but I'm going to work toward it and we'll see what happens.
I've been rehabbing a hip issue, and gearing down seemed like a good measure to take some pressure off, so I've been running a 56/16 the past two weekends in practice sessions. Feels great, much easier on my hip. Matter of fact, I'm not feeling any significant pain while riding the track bike now, only when walking...which is great, it only hurts when I walk. That's like when I've had broken ribs, and someone asked, "Does it hurt much?" and I'd say, "No, only when I breathe."
Anyway...The interesting thing is that I'm running 136-137 rpm (max) in the 200 training runs, higher than I thought I was able to. It feels like I'm maxed out on cadence in this gearing, but perhaps that's just because I'm in experienced and need to work on smoothness and what I would call foot speed. (I hear people talk about leg speed, but in my mind, I'm visualizing food speed.) I wonder when it makes sense to go one tooth smaller in the rear, are there any general guidelines? For example, if I can raise my max rpm in this gear up to 140, would that indicate an improvement in mechanics, at which time, moving to a smaller cog would be reasonable, because I'd bring better spinning technique to the table to get the most out of that next heavier gear?
I'm trying to apply some logic and goal-setting to working my way into heavier gearing little by little. I sort of rushed into it in the Fall, and that's certainly what contributed to firing up my injured hip. The combination of lack of diligent training, lack of strength to turn the heavier (56/14) gear set efficiently, and lack of spinning technique all culminated in imparting serious torque into my hip joint instead of distributing the workload over the muscle groups surrounding it. Good lesson learned. And it's now forced me to learn how to become a better spinner, so I feel fortunate; I'm taking a step back to learn important fundamentals which I wasn't necessarily putting enough time or focus into.
If I can establish a sensible goal for improving spinning technique, and reach it in some basic, recognizable way, I'll move from the 56/16 to the 56/15, and then 14, with the ultimate goal of trying the 13 without blasting my hip apart. The objective is to hit 120 rpm in the flying 200 in that gear sometime later this year. Not convinced that's possible, but I'm going to work toward it and we'll see what happens.
#141
Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Reporting back, in case any of this is of interest to anyone other than myself.
I've been rehabbing a hip issue, and gearing down seemed like a good measure to take some pressure off, so I've been running a 56/16 the past two weekends in practice sessions. Feels great, much easier on my hip. Matter of fact, I'm not feeling any significant pain while riding the track bike now, only when walking...which is great, it only hurts when I walk. That's like when I've had broken ribs, and someone asked, "Does it hurt much?" and I'd say, "No, only when I breathe."
Anyway...The interesting thing is that I'm running 136-137 rpm (max) in the 200 training runs, higher than I thought I was able to. It feels like I'm maxed out on cadence in this gearing, but perhaps that's just because I'm in experienced and need to work on smoothness and what I would call foot speed. (I hear people talk about leg speed, but in my mind, I'm visualizing food speed.) I wonder when it makes sense to go one tooth smaller in the rear, are there any general guidelines? For example, if I can raise my max rpm in this gear up to 140, would that indicate an improvement in mechanics, at which time, moving to a smaller cog would be reasonable, because I'd bring better spinning technique to the table to get the most out of that next heavier gear?
I'm trying to apply some logic and goal-setting to working my way into heavier gearing little by little. I sort of rushed into it in the Fall, and that's certainly what contributed to firing up my injured hip. The combination of lack of diligent training, lack of strength to turn the heavier (56/14) gear set efficiently, and lack of spinning technique all culminated in imparting serious torque into my hip joint instead of distributing the workload over the muscle groups surrounding it. Good lesson learned. And it's now forced me to learn how to become a better spinner, so I feel fortunate; I'm taking a step back to learn important fundamentals which I wasn't necessarily putting enough time or focus into.
If I can establish a sensible goal for improving spinning technique, and reach it in some basic, recognizable way, I'll move from the 56/16 to the 56/15, and then 14, with the ultimate goal of trying the 13 without blasting my hip apart. The objective is to hit 120 rpm in the flying 200 in that gear sometime later this year. Not convinced that's possible, but I'm going to work toward it and we'll see what happens.
I've been rehabbing a hip issue, and gearing down seemed like a good measure to take some pressure off, so I've been running a 56/16 the past two weekends in practice sessions. Feels great, much easier on my hip. Matter of fact, I'm not feeling any significant pain while riding the track bike now, only when walking...which is great, it only hurts when I walk. That's like when I've had broken ribs, and someone asked, "Does it hurt much?" and I'd say, "No, only when I breathe."
Anyway...The interesting thing is that I'm running 136-137 rpm (max) in the 200 training runs, higher than I thought I was able to. It feels like I'm maxed out on cadence in this gearing, but perhaps that's just because I'm in experienced and need to work on smoothness and what I would call foot speed. (I hear people talk about leg speed, but in my mind, I'm visualizing food speed.) I wonder when it makes sense to go one tooth smaller in the rear, are there any general guidelines? For example, if I can raise my max rpm in this gear up to 140, would that indicate an improvement in mechanics, at which time, moving to a smaller cog would be reasonable, because I'd bring better spinning technique to the table to get the most out of that next heavier gear?
I'm trying to apply some logic and goal-setting to working my way into heavier gearing little by little. I sort of rushed into it in the Fall, and that's certainly what contributed to firing up my injured hip. The combination of lack of diligent training, lack of strength to turn the heavier (56/14) gear set efficiently, and lack of spinning technique all culminated in imparting serious torque into my hip joint instead of distributing the workload over the muscle groups surrounding it. Good lesson learned. And it's now forced me to learn how to become a better spinner, so I feel fortunate; I'm taking a step back to learn important fundamentals which I wasn't necessarily putting enough time or focus into.
If I can establish a sensible goal for improving spinning technique, and reach it in some basic, recognizable way, I'll move from the 56/16 to the 56/15, and then 14, with the ultimate goal of trying the 13 without blasting my hip apart. The objective is to hit 120 rpm in the flying 200 in that gear sometime later this year. Not convinced that's possible, but I'm going to work toward it and we'll see what happens.
The Internet bought me here randomly so I thought I’d reply.
Essentially the training youre doing ie spinning a small gear is what juniors do (because they have restricted gearing), which is fantastic to build leg speed. Sprinters will always include this in their training at all levels. I don’t know how it is where you train but European and Australian sprinters typically do what is know as a woosh flying 50m entry on something like 81” at the beginning of every sprint track session. Typically hitting a cadence of 160+rpm.
I think you should be able to hit a similar rpm, unless you feel you hip limits you from such a high rpm? Another great way to work on this is through rev outs on rollers which accelerate this development.
regarding increasing the gear.. as said above just go up 2” (one tooth in the front) each effort, you should get faster by 0.1/0.2 with each increase when you reach the point a gear doesn’t make you increase your speed hold it there to work on your strength and power.
Additionally, I noted you were having trouble with your position. Sprinters normally have very large/long TT bikes to get the aero position required, which is possible because you only hold the position for at max 2 mins.. I’m 6’0 and have a 61 BT with a 140mm stem and bars with a lot of reach.. about 3.75” more than my road bike.. excluding get a new bike, which I see other noted. new sprint bars will give you another 3cm 1.25”, typically globally different countries favour different bars UK Alpina, Australia BT, which could be hard to find in the US.. 3T Scatto bars in 35 or 37cm are pretty common globally that’s what I would recommend you look for.. they will also give you more drop. Additionally, on eBay you can find titanium stems from China which go from 150mm to 190mm for $100.. your bike won’t be UCI legal ( front point of your handlebars will be further than 10cm past the centre of your front wheel) but your position will be much better like you have a bigger bike..
I hope that helps
#142
Full Member
Hey SuperD,
The Internet bought me here randomly so I thought I’d reply.
Essentially the training youre doing ie spinning a small gear is what juniors do (because they have restricted gearing), which is fantastic to build leg speed. Sprinters will always include this in their training at all levels. I don’t know how it is where you train but European and Australian sprinters typically do what is know as a woosh flying 50m entry on something like 81” at the beginning of every sprint track session. Typically hitting a cadence of 160+rpm.
I think you should be able to hit a similar rpm, unless you feel you hip limits you from such a high rpm? Another great way to work on this is through rev outs on rollers which accelerate this development.
regarding increasing the gear.. as said above just go up 2” (one tooth in the front) each effort, you should get faster by 0.1/0.2 with each increase when you reach the point a gear doesn’t make you increase your speed hold it there to work on your strength and power.
Additionally, I noted you were having trouble with your position. Sprinters normally have very large/long TT bikes to get the aero position required, which is possible because you only hold the position for at max 2 mins.. I’m 6’0 and have a 61 BT with a 140mm stem and bars with a lot of reach.. about 3.75” more than my road bike.. excluding get a new bike, which I see other noted. new sprint bars will give you another 3cm 1.25”, typically globally different countries favour different bars UK Alpina, Australia BT, which could be hard to find in the US.. 3T Scatto bars in 35 or 37cm are pretty common globally that’s what I would recommend you look for.. they will also give you more drop. Additionally, on eBay you can find titanium stems from China which go from 150mm to 190mm for $100.. your bike won’t be UCI legal ( front point of your handlebars will be further than 10cm past the centre of your front wheel) but your position will be much better like you have a bigger bike..
I hope that helps
The Internet bought me here randomly so I thought I’d reply.
Essentially the training youre doing ie spinning a small gear is what juniors do (because they have restricted gearing), which is fantastic to build leg speed. Sprinters will always include this in their training at all levels. I don’t know how it is where you train but European and Australian sprinters typically do what is know as a woosh flying 50m entry on something like 81” at the beginning of every sprint track session. Typically hitting a cadence of 160+rpm.
I think you should be able to hit a similar rpm, unless you feel you hip limits you from such a high rpm? Another great way to work on this is through rev outs on rollers which accelerate this development.
regarding increasing the gear.. as said above just go up 2” (one tooth in the front) each effort, you should get faster by 0.1/0.2 with each increase when you reach the point a gear doesn’t make you increase your speed hold it there to work on your strength and power.
Additionally, I noted you were having trouble with your position. Sprinters normally have very large/long TT bikes to get the aero position required, which is possible because you only hold the position for at max 2 mins.. I’m 6’0 and have a 61 BT with a 140mm stem and bars with a lot of reach.. about 3.75” more than my road bike.. excluding get a new bike, which I see other noted. new sprint bars will give you another 3cm 1.25”, typically globally different countries favour different bars UK Alpina, Australia BT, which could be hard to find in the US.. 3T Scatto bars in 35 or 37cm are pretty common globally that’s what I would recommend you look for.. they will also give you more drop. Additionally, on eBay you can find titanium stems from China which go from 150mm to 190mm for $100.. your bike won’t be UCI legal ( front point of your handlebars will be further than 10cm past the centre of your front wheel) but your position will be much better like you have a bigger bike..
I hope that helps
I've mostly solved my fit issues now, running a 60cm top tube DF frame, 150mm stem, and 80mm reach Zipp SL-80 bars. Could get longer reach bars, will probably do so in the future, but I don't want to get more drop, just longer reach---without breaking the bank. Seems like a decent fit right now. If I could swap bars to something that has 100mm or 125mm reach for less than a couple hundred bucks, that would be enticing. Haven't done my UCI measurements on this new setup yet, but will at some point. I don't expect to go to worlds anytime soon, it's too far away geographically. Did so when it was in LA, but that was for IP. Now trying to get speed up and put together a little team sprint squad to have some fun regionally and eventually at nats perhaps.
#143
Senior Member
I've just had two seasons running of my best times in my life of 200's, and I'm more convinced than ever that doing a fast 200 is voodoo.
This year I'm severely underdone (in terms of training depth) yet still managed to get a time that I would have killed for a few years ago, and with a slightly better execution may have even PB'ed.
Some observations:
1. Big gears work. It may take a couple of years of struggle with them for it to pay off.
2. You have to start big gears a lot earlier, so get used to jumping at the rail in the corner (T1 if it's a 333). I start all my warm up jumps (regardless of gear) at the jump point I use on a race gear.
3. You have to really ninja up on your jump and learn to expend as little energy as possible, and I think I'm going slower than before on my final windup lap.
4. Ramping up into a jump doesn't really work for me. I have to smack it as hard as possible right at the jump point, like a standing start.
5. It's really tricky.
This year I'm severely underdone (in terms of training depth) yet still managed to get a time that I would have killed for a few years ago, and with a slightly better execution may have even PB'ed.
Some observations:
1. Big gears work. It may take a couple of years of struggle with them for it to pay off.
2. You have to start big gears a lot earlier, so get used to jumping at the rail in the corner (T1 if it's a 333). I start all my warm up jumps (regardless of gear) at the jump point I use on a race gear.
3. You have to really ninja up on your jump and learn to expend as little energy as possible, and I think I'm going slower than before on my final windup lap.
4. Ramping up into a jump doesn't really work for me. I have to smack it as hard as possible right at the jump point, like a standing start.
5. It's really tricky.
Likes For Baby Puke:
#144
Full Member
I've just had two seasons running of my best times in my life of 200's, and I'm more convinced than ever that doing a fast 200 is voodoo.
This year I'm severely underdone (in terms of training depth) yet still managed to get a time that I would have killed for a few years ago, and with a slightly better execution may have even PB'ed.
Some observations:
1. Big gears work. It may take a couple of years of struggle with them for it to pay off.
2. You have to start big gears a lot earlier, so get used to jumping at the rail in the corner (T1 if it's a 333). I start all my warm up jumps (regardless of gear) at the jump point I use on a race gear.
3. You have to really ninja up on your jump and learn to expend as little energy as possible, and I think I'm going slower than before on my final windup lap.
4. Ramping up into a jump doesn't really work for me. I have to smack it as hard as possible right at the jump point, like a standing start.
5. It's really tricky.
This year I'm severely underdone (in terms of training depth) yet still managed to get a time that I would have killed for a few years ago, and with a slightly better execution may have even PB'ed.
Some observations:
1. Big gears work. It may take a couple of years of struggle with them for it to pay off.
2. You have to start big gears a lot earlier, so get used to jumping at the rail in the corner (T1 if it's a 333). I start all my warm up jumps (regardless of gear) at the jump point I use on a race gear.
3. You have to really ninja up on your jump and learn to expend as little energy as possible, and I think I'm going slower than before on my final windup lap.
4. Ramping up into a jump doesn't really work for me. I have to smack it as hard as possible right at the jump point, like a standing start.
5. It's really tricky.
I'm starting to realize that while I can spin 120-135+ (not fast, I know, but relatively fast for me, haha), I'm faster in the 200 in the 115-118 rpm range, so for lack of other influences, I'm starting to focus on gearing that puts me in that cadence range. Then, as I get stronger, instead of spinning faster, I'll increase gear-inches and stay in that general range. I know that cadence is a personal thing---and I'm very inexperienced, so I'm taking any of my own findings/beliefs with a healthy grain of salt.
#145
Senior Member
Any tips/fundamental truths for finding one's preferred gear-inches?
I'm starting to realize that while I can spin 120-135+ (not fast, I know, but relatively fast for me, haha), I'm faster in the 200 in the 115-118 rpm range, so for lack of other influences, I'm starting to focus on gearing that puts me in that cadence range. Then, as I get stronger, instead of spinning faster, I'll increase gear-inches and stay in that general range. I know that cadence is a personal thing---and I'm very inexperienced, so I'm taking any of my own findings/beliefs with a healthy grain of salt.
I'm starting to realize that while I can spin 120-135+ (not fast, I know, but relatively fast for me, haha), I'm faster in the 200 in the 115-118 rpm range, so for lack of other influences, I'm starting to focus on gearing that puts me in that cadence range. Then, as I get stronger, instead of spinning faster, I'll increase gear-inches and stay in that general range. I know that cadence is a personal thing---and I'm very inexperienced, so I'm taking any of my own findings/beliefs with a healthy grain of salt.
Also, I find standing with a tiny bit of effort on the last downhill (T4->T1 on 333 or 400) before the jump helps me gain/hold speed better with a minimum of effort, but I rarely see others doing this.
Please share what you find!
#146
Full Member
Not really, I'm still experimenting myself to be honest. This year I'm on 52/13 which may not be huge compared to what some of you are using, but before last season my PB (from nearly 10 years ago) was on 49/14, so that's a significant change. I'd say just keep going up until you go slower? The tipping point seems to be, 'when do I start my jump?' If your gear is so big that you have to start jumping uphill into T1 that's gonna start getting pretty hard, so I'd imagine track length/design will play into this. On a 250 or a 400 (my local track) you may have more room to move your jump point back before needing to accelerate uphill. Experimentation and practice seem to be key; maybe of relatively more importance than being at peak condition? (of course the confluence of both being ideal).
Also, I find standing with a tiny bit of effort on the last downhill (T4->T1 on 333 or 400) before the jump helps me gain/hold speed better with a minimum of effort, but I rarely see others doing this.
Please share what you find!
Also, I find standing with a tiny bit of effort on the last downhill (T4->T1 on 333 or 400) before the jump helps me gain/hold speed better with a minimum of effort, but I rarely see others doing this.
Please share what you find!
I do slight off-the-saddle push out of T2 to take advantage of the downhill and start to increase speed, then the same thing like you said at T4 > T1. Also, I've been playing with a slightly lower line through T1 to avoid the slow-down in the uphill at T1 (this is on a 333 track). I know this is counter to what everybody does, and what I've been told, but when I enter T1 lower than the top line, I'm carrying more speed and it feels easier to me. I guess that's just another sign that I'm undertrained and need more strength!
#147
Senior Member
Also, I've been playing with a slightly lower line through T1 to avoid the slow-down in the uphill at T1 (this is on a 333 track). I know this is counter to what everybody does, and what I've been told, but when I enter T1 lower than the top line, I'm carrying more speed and it feels easier to me. I guess that's just another sign that I'm undertrained and need more strength!
Additionally, I don't think you should be expending significant energy going uphill into T1 before the jump. Sometimes people go too fast here and then they have less in the tank for the real effort. You need some speed, but you want to get that speed as cheaply as possible (example: I stand down T4 and ride that into T1). You have to ninja it, and it takes a lot of practice and is probably pretty personal. Somebody with better sprint endurance than me could probably put more effort in before the jump in order to have a higher speed to jump from, but I've found that's not the kind of rider I am. I have to save as much as possible and spend it all on the jump itself. YMMV!
#148
Full Member
I'd agree with everybody on this-- intentionally losing height just before you jump probably won't help you lower your times. Could it be you're a bit tentative jumping at the rail? I know this has been a problem for me, so that's why I do all my warm-up jumps at my race gear jump point, in order to get comfortable with this. It seems to have helped.
Additionally, I don't think you should be expending significant energy going uphill into T1 before the jump. Sometimes people go too fast here and then they have less in the tank for the real effort. You need some speed, but you want to get that speed as cheaply as possible (example: I stand down T4 and ride that into T1). You have to ninja it, and it takes a lot of practice and is probably pretty personal. Somebody with better sprint endurance than me could probably put more effort in before the jump in order to have a higher speed to jump from, but I've found that's not the kind of rider I am. I have to save as much as possible and spend it all on the jump itself. YMMV!
Additionally, I don't think you should be expending significant energy going uphill into T1 before the jump. Sometimes people go too fast here and then they have less in the tank for the real effort. You need some speed, but you want to get that speed as cheaply as possible (example: I stand down T4 and ride that into T1). You have to ninja it, and it takes a lot of practice and is probably pretty personal. Somebody with better sprint endurance than me could probably put more effort in before the jump in order to have a higher speed to jump from, but I've found that's not the kind of rider I am. I have to save as much as possible and spend it all on the jump itself. YMMV!
I like your thoughts in that second paragraph, a lot!
Really fun experimenting with all of this. Being someone who isn't built like a sprinter, it's especially motivating to figure out how and where to find efficiencies and carry momentum. When racing cars and karts, I think running a "momentum car" was so beneficial, it forces you to carry speed. Then, if/when you get the opportunity to race something with power, you're automatically more efficient than someone who never learned to carry momentum in the first place.
Back to the experimenting more this weekend, will try what you advised, good times.
#149
Senior Member
Really fun experimenting with all of this. Being someone who isn't built like a sprinter, it's especially motivating to figure out how and where to find efficiencies and carry momentum. When racing cars and karts, I think running a "momentum car" was so beneficial, it forces you to carry speed. Then, if/when you get the opportunity to race something with power, you're automatically more efficient than someone who never learned to carry momentum in the first place.
Back to the experimenting more this weekend, will try what you advised, good times.
Back to the experimenting more this weekend, will try what you advised, good times.
Likes For Baby Puke:
#150
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,571
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1853 Post(s)
Liked 680 Times
in
431 Posts
Super D, yes, the incline into the corner will absorb speed, but a 333 track is not so steep that you should not be able to make up for it with a little dig up T1. Plus, as BP says, if you really nail T4 and push that speed through the flat, you won't loose that much speed going up T1.