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.

Protips for a new track racer

Reply

Old 08-18-18, 04:53 AM
  #151  
Baby Puke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kanazawa
Posts: 1,327

Bikes: Marin Stelvio, Pogliaghi SL, Panasonic NJS, Dolan DF3, Intense Pro24 BMX

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Originally Posted by krispenhartung View Post
Cripes! This thread turned dark quick! This whole gear thing is almost like religious dogma for some track racers, leading to gnashing of teeth, ad hominems, etc. I am wondering if there any hard, scientific data to support any of the anecdotal claims and advise? Seems that in the absence of such hard data (if it doesn't exist), Carlton's general stance seems the most rational by default, namely, use what works for you. If one has enough ride data to show that when they use big gears they do better than with smaller gear (meaning, they win more races or place better, etc), then use it...and visa versa. But, as we all know in the world of data analytics, one instance of data does not imply a general claim. That I believe is referred to as an inductive fallacy or hasty generalization in the world of logic. :-)
There is data. I believe Southern Fox linked this video, and it is worth watching:
But it's not all about big gears, there's a lot in there, and depending upon your reading it would not be hard to read some of it as contradictory. You still have to roll your own as far as what you race and train on, there's no cookie-cutter template that will work for everyone.
Baby Puke is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-18, 07:19 AM
  #152  
tobukog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Baby Puke View Post
There is data. I believe Southern Fox linked this video, and it is worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i9DtIFi9pM
But it's not all about big gears, there's a lot in there, and depending upon your reading it would not be hard to read some of it as contradictory. You still have to roll your own as far as what you race and train on, there's no cookie-cutter template that will work for everyone.
Martin and (Povey) are great, and this video posted by Southern Fox more or less summarizes much of his views. The only thing that I don't like about the video is his part on crank length -- I've gone down to 150 -- and I sure hope more of my competitors don't see the part where he pretty much lays out the case that anyone under 5' 9" should be running under 165. There's actually a lot of research on track cycling, probably more than the road.
tobukog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-18, 08:51 AM
  #153  
krispenhartung
Senior Member
 
krispenhartung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 183

Bikes: S-Works Venge Dura-Ace DI2, KTM Strada 4000, Fuji Norcom Straight 1.3 (TT), Fuji Track Elite, BMC Trackmachine TR02

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Baby Puke View Post
There is data. I believe Southern Fox linked this video, and it is worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i9DtIFi9pM
But it's not all about big gears, there's a lot in there, and depending upon your reading it would not be hard to read some of it as contradictory. You still have to roll your own as far as what you race and train on, there's no cookie-cutter template that will work for everyone.
This is absolutely fascinating, and exactly the type of information I was getting at. I just watched the entire video, but will need to watch again, probably twice. I'm trying to track down the slides as well.
p.s. Did they have this presentation at a skeet shooting range?! Good grief. Weird venue.
krispenhartung is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-18, 09:52 AM
  #154  
tobukog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Originally Posted by krispenhartung View Post
This is absolutely fascinating, and exactly the type of information I was getting at. I just watched the entire video, but will need to watch again, probably twice. I'm trying to track down the slides as well.
p.s. Did they have this presentation at a skeet shooting range?! Good grief. Weird venue.
I suggest you look at the sprint training seminar put out by Kolie Moore and WKO4. It provides a more practical look at applying these ideas for Sprint cycling.
tobukog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-18, 10:39 AM
  #155  
krispenhartung
Senior Member
 
krispenhartung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 183

Bikes: S-Works Venge Dura-Ace DI2, KTM Strada 4000, Fuji Norcom Straight 1.3 (TT), Fuji Track Elite, BMC Trackmachine TR02

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tobukog View Post
I suggest you look at the sprint training seminar put out by Kolie Moore and WKO4. It provides a more practical look at applying these ideas for Sprint cycling.
I will, out of curiosity, but my main focus is not sprinting, but endurance (sprinting in the context of mass start races, etc) and pursuit, I'm sure I can pick up some tips in the book, however. Thanks for the reference! :-)
krispenhartung is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-18, 10:57 AM
  #156  
krispenhartung
Senior Member
 
krispenhartung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 183

Bikes: S-Works Venge Dura-Ace DI2, KTM Strada 4000, Fuji Norcom Straight 1.3 (TT), Fuji Track Elite, BMC Trackmachine TR02

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
This by no means proves anything, but is just for discussion and commentary. I was just looking at my race data for the last week and a half. I looked at my fastest lap sprint in a Cat 4 points race, and then (after I upgraded to Cat 3 that night), a Masters Cat 1-3 points race 3 days later, again my fastest lap. This is a 400m lap, btw. During the Cat 4 points race, I was on restricted gearing (86 in), and my average fastest lap sprint cadence was 130rpm. On the Masters Cat 1-3 race, I was racing on 93 inch gearing and my average fastest lap sprint cadence was 125rpm. However, my average speed on the Masters race lap was 2.2 mph faster (at 34mph) than the Cat 4 (at 31.8 mph), yet my average power was 7% lower. Of course, much of this could have been related to the wind speed and direction at the time. However, if the difference is related to cadence and gearing, then I wonder what my lap time might be at 94 or 95 inches. I don't have enough Cat 1-3 data yet to draw any decent conclusions.
krispenhartung is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-18, 11:06 AM
  #157  
krispenhartung
Senior Member
 
krispenhartung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 183

Bikes: S-Works Venge Dura-Ace DI2, KTM Strada 4000, Fuji Norcom Straight 1.3 (TT), Fuji Track Elite, BMC Trackmachine TR02

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tobukog View Post
I suggest you look at the sprint training seminar put out by Kolie Moore and WKO4. It provides a more practical look at applying these ideas for Sprint cycling.
I am looking at my data in WKO4 right now, actually, using one of Kolie's charts.
krispenhartung is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-18, 09:10 PM
  #158  
Baby Puke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kanazawa
Posts: 1,327

Bikes: Marin Stelvio, Pogliaghi SL, Panasonic NJS, Dolan DF3, Intense Pro24 BMX

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tobukog View Post
Martin and (Povey) are great, and this video posted by Southern Fox more or less summarizes much of his views. The only thing that I don't like about the video is his part on crank length -- I've gone down to 150 -- and I sure hope more of my competitors don't see the part where he pretty much lays out the case that anyone under 5' 9" should be running under 165. There's actually a lot of research on track cycling, probably more than the road.
Tobukog, I'm a little confused by your post: Are you saying that you disagree with the short crank thingy? Or are you saying you wish they hadn't laid that out so your competitors can benefit from the short crank idea? I do have one buddy who has gone below 165 (considerably) and is liking it, so there's anecdotal stuff around.
Baby Puke is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-18, 07:37 AM
  #159  
tobukog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Baby Puke View Post
Tobukog, I'm a little confused by your post: Are you saying that you disagree with the short crank thingy? Or are you saying you wish they hadn't laid that out so your competitors can benefit from the short crank idea? I do have one buddy who has gone below 165 (considerably) and is liking it, so there's anecdotal stuff around.
I'm sorry. I'm currently running a 150mm and I'm loving them. This is one place where I disagree with Dr. Martin -- it's not just an aerodynamic / ftting gain. I'm hitting higher speeds near the end of my sprint, both in and out of the saddle. My foot velocity is actually a little slower than before, rpm a little higher, maximal torque a little higher (more than what's lost through foot velocity so it's not a wash).

So why did this occur? I can produce more torque in the saddle because the knee doesn't come up as high -- going from 165 to 150 allowed me to lower my knee by about 30mm at the top of the stroke. Out of the saddle, it didn't make that much of a difference but it was huge when you sit back down. At the end of a race, I used to spend an inordinate amount of time accelerating and maintaining out of the saddle. Now I can sit down and accelerate after the initial hit.

Last edited by tobukog; 08-20-18 at 08:16 AM.
tobukog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-18, 08:24 AM
  #160  
Morelock
Senior Member
 
Morelock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 255
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Aerodynamically speaking, a shorter crank suggestion usually works under the assumption that a lower front end / cockpit is better.

In my testing, that's very often not the case (like everything of course, higher/lower/etc all depends on the starting place) and as tobukog suggested that going shorter lowered his knee at the top of the pedal stroke - this is possibly one of the main reasons shorter cranks can be bad for aerodynamics... more upper leg in the wind all the time. (another possible reason is that the rider generally goes farther forward - and up - in the saddle, which can also be bad aerodynamically, sometimes at least) On the flip side, going shorter does allow a more open hip angle all other things being equal, and many people produce more power (again, depends on where you start) so it's something to test for sure.
Morelock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-18, 09:25 AM
  #161  
tobukog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Morelock View Post
Aerodynamically speaking, a shorter crank suggestion usually works under the assumption that a lower front end / cockpit is better.

In my testing, that's very often not the case (like everything of course, higher/lower/etc all depends on the starting place) and as tobukog suggested that going shorter lowered his knee at the top of the pedal stroke - this is possibly one of the main reasons shorter cranks can be bad for aerodynamics... more upper leg in the wind all the time. (another possible reason is that the rider generally goes farther forward - and up - in the saddle, which can also be bad aerodynamically, sometimes at least) On the flip side, going shorter does allow a more open hip angle all other things being equal, and many people produce more power (again, depends on where you start) so it's something to test for sure.
Since you've spent time in a wind tunnel, you know how it goes.... That's one thing people forget -- many studies, usually performed on average height males -- might not apply to riders who are 6'3" or 5'5". It even applies to bike reviews (which are suspect anyways). A 56cm bike doesn't necessarily perform the same as the larger or smaller sizes.
tobukog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-18, 09:41 AM
  #162  
Morelock
Senior Member
 
Morelock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 255
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
@tobukog absolutely. Bike sizing is something that gets no thought often, although I heard in an interview with Dion Beukeboom (on thetrackstand podcast) that they had tested different size GIANT bikes and sized down an unusual amount for his upcoming hour attempt because it turned out much faster (if you could get the reach from a smaller size, maybe aero pedestals under the pads > aero headtube) interesting stuff. In theory you also move the rider farther away from the top tube doing that though, which can be bad....maybe

John Cobb told me the first time I went that I'd spend an hour or two in there, come out thinking I'd figured something out, and then a day or two later realize all I had left with was more questions. So far, that's been spot on.
Morelock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-18, 12:21 PM
  #163  
tobukog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Yeah, until you test you just don't know and even then it can open up a can of worms. My team mate, who is a wind tunnel guru (I think you've worked with him before) was testing water bottle placement positions on a smaller woman. Basically, the numbers showed that it didn't matter: no bottle, 1 bottle, 2 bottles, etc.... It was all the same cda. Maybe the triangle was so small that it didn't matter -- who knows.
tobukog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-18, 12:31 PM
  #164  
taras0000
Senior Member
 
taras0000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 1,509
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 237 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tobukog View Post
I'm sorry. I'm currently running a 150mm and I'm loving them. This is one place where I disagree with Dr. Martin -- it's not just an aerodynamic / ftting gain. I'm hitting higher speeds near the end of my sprint, both in and out of the saddle. My foot velocity is actually a little slower than before, rpm a little higher, maximal torque a little higher (more than what's lost through foot velocity so it's not a wash).

So why did this occur? I can produce more torque in the saddle because the knee doesn't come up as high -- going from 165 to 150 allowed me to lower my knee by about 30mm at the top of the stroke. Out of the saddle, it didn't make that much of a difference but it was huge when you sit back down. At the end of a race, I used to spend an inordinate amount of time accelerating and maintaining out of the saddle. Now I can sit down and accelerate after the initial hit.
I mentioned this exact same "phenomenon" about setting up track bikes and road bikes the same. I out 165s on my road bike and experienced the same things you did. Despite the smaller crank, having your leg more extended at the top of the stroke allows more power output in your dead spot.
taras0000 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-18, 12:58 PM
  #165  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,125
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 985 Post(s)
I've raced on 172.5, 170, 167.5, and 165mm. Only on 165mm can I "run on the pedals" where I hold high RPMs out of the saddle. With the other crank lengths, I would have to sit at certain RPMs in order to get more RPMs. Basically, the crank length limited how fast I could spin out of the saddle.

This might get better at even smaller crank lengths.

The downside of going shorter is that, for a given amount of torque (whatever your legs can offer each pedal stroke), the gearing must come down. My from-the-hip calculation is, to keep the torque feeling the same, go up 2 gear-inches when you go up 2.5mm in crank length or go down 2 gear-inches when you go down 2.5mm in crank length.

I posted the actual formula that I found in Bicycling Science (D. G. Wilson). But, I don't have it at hand.

The takeaway is: Pick the crank length that complements your pedaling style.
carleton is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-18, 02:27 PM
  #166  
Divebrian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 155
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Originally Posted by carleton View Post
The downside of going shorter is that, for a given amount of torque (whatever your legs can offer each pedal stroke), the gearing must come down. My from-the-hip calculation is, to keep the torque feeling the same, go up 2 gear-inches when you go up 2.5mm in crank length or go down 2 gear-inches when you go down 2.5mm in crank length.
For me personally, I found this to be incorrect. Granted, I'm not your average cyclist and at 6' and 235 lbs, I'm built more like an NFL linebacker. I recently went down to 165 cranks and both my road and track bikes, my gearing stayed the same and my speed went up. I attribute this to a few different factors of power delivery, comfort and aero gains. There is nothing aero about me, but stick with me and I'll explain. Every time I have gone for a bike fitting, they have done things by numbers, angles, flatness of back, etc to give me the correct position. That position was my optimal position in the fitting studio, but didn't translate to real world. In the real world, it led to a very upright position that killed aerodynamics. Since I have a very large chest and wide shoulders, with longer cranks, my knees were hitting my chest, which caused me to open up my hips to give my knees room to go to the side of my chest, which then meant my knees now hit the inside of my elbows, so I flared out my elbows. To keep my knees and elbows in, I adopted a more upright riding style to get my chest further away from the top of my knees. When I went to shorter cranks, my knees didn't come up as high, so they no longer crashed into my chest. This meant that I could keep my knees in, which in turn brought my elbows back in and allowed me to maintain a lower riding position. With the shorter cranks, it allowed me to keep a lower position with my knees in and elbows tucked, knees in gave me a better power delivery and not smacking myself in the chest with my knees allows me to be more comfortable, which means I can maintain that position and power output for longer periods of time. As an extra benefit, I picked up a few more rpm's, which coupled with better aero properties and power delivery, allows me to maintain a higher speed for a longer period of time.
Divebrian is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-18, 02:45 PM
  #167  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,125
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 985 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Divebrian View Post
For me personally, I found this to be incorrect. Granted, I'm not your average cyclist and at 6' and 235 lbs, I'm built more like an NFL linebacker. I recently went down to 165 cranks and both my road and track bikes, my gearing stayed the same and my speed went up. I attribute this to a few different factors of power delivery, comfort and aero gains. There is nothing aero about me, but stick with me and I'll explain. Every time I have gone for a bike fitting, they have done things by numbers, angles, flatness of back, etc to give me the correct position. That position was my optimal position in the fitting studio, but didn't translate to real world. In the real world, it led to a very upright position that killed aerodynamics. Since I have a very large chest and wide shoulders, with longer cranks, my knees were hitting my chest, which caused me to open up my hips to give my knees room to go to the side of my chest, which then meant my knees now hit the inside of my elbows, so I flared out my elbows. To keep my knees and elbows in, I adopted a more upright riding style to get my chest further away from the top of my knees. When I went to shorter cranks, my knees didn't come up as high, so they no longer crashed into my chest. This meant that I could keep my knees in, which in turn brought my elbows back in and allowed me to maintain a lower riding position. With the shorter cranks, it allowed me to keep a lower position with my knees in and elbows tucked, knees in gave me a better power delivery and not smacking myself in the chest with my knees allows me to be more comfortable, which means I can maintain that position and power output for longer periods of time. As an extra benefit, I picked up a few more rpm's, which coupled with better aero properties and power delivery, allows me to maintain a higher speed for a longer period of time.
I would guess that your speed went up because your aero gains outweighed your torque losses for a given gear.

We are built about the same.

For guys our size, wind is our biggest challenge, not power production. I would suggest continuing to focus on aero gains to find speed. -5% frontal area will make you faster than increasing your squat 20%. Seriously. It took me years to learn that.

This is also why I went from 57cm frames to 61cm. Stretching out made my aero profile better. Arms went forward and back and head went down.
carleton is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-18, 02:51 PM
  #168  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,125
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 985 Post(s)
The lure of getting stronger is so tempting because it seems (and is) so attainable, especially for bigger riders who excel in the gym. My goal for this summer was to get my (non-sumo) deadlift to 500lbs (and I woulda achieved it if it wasn't for you meddlin' kids!).


But, air is the biggest enemy for bigger riders, *especially* at higher speeds.
carleton is offline  
Reply With Quote

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