Notices
Track Cycling: Velodrome Racing and Training Area Looking to enter into the realm of track racing? Want to share your experiences and tactics for riding on a velodrome? The Track Cycling forums is for you! Come in and discuss training/racing, equipment, and current track cycling events.

Flying 200s

Old 12-29-19, 05:08 PM
  #126  
brawlo
Senior Member
 
brawlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,093
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 246 Post(s)
Liked 26 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by Super D View Post
I recall seeing a wind-up path discussion here at one point, but can't find it now. Anyone got a link? (Thank you)

My home track is a 333m, and I'm experimenting with different wind-up paths, and would like to learn more about this important aspect.
Hit YouTube and search for some videos. Moscow videos would be a good one as some proper fast guys ride that track
brawlo is offline  
Old 12-29-19, 08:30 PM
  #127  
Super D
Senior Member
 
Super D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 217

Bikes: C'dale Road, Giant TT, DF Track, DB MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by brawlo View Post
Hit YouTube and search for some videos. Moscow videos would be a good one as some proper fast guys ride that track
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? Iíve seen this for 250m only so far. Iím 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.
Super D is offline  
Old 12-30-19, 12:03 AM
  #128  
Super D
Senior Member
 
Super D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 217

Bikes: C'dale Road, Giant TT, DF Track, DB MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Clythio View Post
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
Good stuff, thank you! Been looking at these over the past few months off and on (not surprisingly, seems there isn't much out there for sprinting), good principles overall just as you said. Very interesting learning about all of this.

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.
Super D is offline  
Old 12-30-19, 06:01 AM
  #129  
Morelock
Senior Member
 
Morelock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 543
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 16 Posts
^you don't want a stages anyways, definitely not for sprinting.
Morelock is online now  
Likes For Morelock:
Old 12-30-19, 11:43 PM
  #130  
Super D
Senior Member
 
Super D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 217

Bikes: C'dale Road, Giant TT, DF Track, DB MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Morelock View Post
^you don't want a stages anyways, definitely not for sprinting.
Please elaborate, are they problematic? I had stages on my last few road bikes, and a Pioneer on my TT bike, didn't see much difference in terms of accuracy or reliability.
Super D is offline  
Old 12-31-19, 05:01 AM
  #131  
Morelock
Senior Member
 
Morelock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 543
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 16 Posts
Originally Posted by Super D View Post
Please elaborate, are they problematic? I had stages on my last few road bikes, and a Pioneer on my TT bike, didn't see much difference in terms of accuracy or reliability.
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.
Morelock is online now  
Old 12-31-19, 08:37 AM
  #132  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,839
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1319 Post(s)
Liked 42 Times in 36 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.

Last edited by carleton; 12-31-19 at 08:41 AM.
carleton is offline  
Likes For carleton:
Old 12-31-19, 09:04 AM
  #133  
queerpunk
aka mattio
 
queerpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,572

Bikes: yes

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 43 Times in 27 Posts
Originally Posted by Super D View Post
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? Iíve seen this for 250m only so far. Iím 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.
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.
queerpunk is offline  
Old 01-01-20, 01:09 AM
  #134  
Super D
Senior Member
 
Super D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 217

Bikes: C'dale Road, Giant TT, DF Track, DB MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by queerpunk View Post
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.
Thank you, good and helpful summary. Iíve been experimenting a bit with my windup, will report back, maybe get some video. This is fun.
Super D is offline  
Old 01-01-20, 02:59 PM
  #135  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,839
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1319 Post(s)
Liked 42 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by Super D View Post
Thank you, good and helpful summary. Iíve been experimenting a bit with my windup, will report back, maybe get some video. This is fun.
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.
carleton is offline  
Old 01-03-20, 08:16 AM
  #136  
Baby Puke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kanazawa
Posts: 1,623

Bikes: Marin Stelvio, Pogliaghi SL, Panasonic NJS, Dolan DF4, Intense Pro24 BMX

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked 37 Times in 26 Posts
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
Baby Puke is offline  
Old 01-04-20, 02:12 PM
  #137  
Super D
Senior Member
 
Super D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 217

Bikes: C'dale Road, Giant TT, DF Track, DB MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Morelock View Post
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.
I found that thread, interesting discussion. Wonder if there have been any advancements at Stages since. It's a shame, I've had good luck (and service experiences) with Stages on the road bikes. Nice that they're affordable as well. (Granted, accurate is the most important factor, as carleton rightly points out.)

Originally Posted by carleton View Post
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.
I planned a circuit road race finish using my power graph with Stages data for 45s and 30s power as a reference a few years ago, and while it wasn't as accurate as an SRM, it, along with analyzing the course shape and elevation changes, contributed to a solid finishing strategy. Not disputing what you've pointed out, rather matching an example of where it was helpful for longer sprint efforts, 400m+, in this case, unusually long. Decent tool for the job in that scenario.

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.
Super D is offline  
Old 01-04-20, 03:05 PM
  #138  
Super D
Senior Member
 
Super D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 217

Bikes: C'dale Road, Giant TT, DF Track, DB MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by carleton View Post
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.
This is pretty fascinating. Aero is so important. Add optimized/maximized energy output in the given gearing from the start line which can be sustained to the finish, and that seems to me the whole equation for each individual.

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.

Originally Posted by Baby Puke View Post
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.
It really is tricky. I don't like sounding like I'm saying this over and over, but I'm really appreciating more and more how technical sprinting is. So much more than just power. Being a long-lanky guy, I'll have to find ways to make up for lack of brute strength, kind of like learning how to race a momentum car on track versus higher horsepower cars (which I've done, really fun).
Super D is offline  
Old 02-24-20, 12:51 AM
  #139  
Super D
Senior Member
 
Super D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 217

Bikes: C'dale Road, Giant TT, DF Track, DB MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 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.
Super D is offline  
Old 02-24-20, 08:02 AM
  #140  
topflightpro
Senior Member
 
topflightpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,837
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1508 Post(s)
Liked 234 Times in 156 Posts
56-16 is 94.5 inches. Maybe try 96 (50-14) or 98 (51-14) next?

I've largely done things in 2" increments.
topflightpro is offline  
Old 02-24-20, 08:57 AM
  #141  
DownunderAussie
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
Originally Posted by Super D View Post
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.
Hey SuperD,

The Internet bought me here randomly so I thought Iíd 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 donít 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 81Ē 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 2Ē (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 doesnít 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.. Iím 6í0 and have a 61 BT with a 140mm stem and bars with a lot of reach.. about 3.75Ē more than my road bike.. excluding get a new bike, which I see other noted. new sprint bars will give you another 3cm 1.25Ē, 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 thatís 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 wonít 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
DownunderAussie is offline  
Old 02-24-20, 02:52 PM
  #142  
Super D
Senior Member
 
Super D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 217

Bikes: C'dale Road, Giant TT, DF Track, DB MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by DownunderAussie View Post
Hey SuperD,

The Internet bought me here randomly so I thought Iíd 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 donít 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 81Ē 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 2Ē (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 doesnít 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.. Iím 6í0 and have a 61 BT with a 140mm stem and bars with a lot of reach.. about 3.75Ē more than my road bike.. excluding get a new bike, which I see other noted. new sprint bars will give you another 3cm 1.25Ē, 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 thatís 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 wonít 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
Interesting and helpful, thank you. I'd like to avoid super high rpms, due to knee and hip injuries from many dangerous/destructive previous sports lives. I'm thinking 140 is the max I should tamper with, and not especially often. I'd like to last a long time in this sport, and active life in general. I feel lucky to be able to play on bikes, not taking that for granted.

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.
Super D is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Elysium32
General Cycling Discussion
8
10-23-14 03:43 AM
WTBATS
Track Cycling: Velodrome Racing and Training Area
18
08-31-13 04:53 PM
sstang13
Road Cycling
10
12-01-12 11:42 AM
HMF
Road Cycling
9
01-31-11 01:59 PM
kayzee
Road Cycling
10
08-29-10 02:09 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.