% increases in power required to improve average TT speed

velomanct

of course I wear tight cycling clothes. my bike is setup as a normal racing position, i'm not upright like on a hybrid or anything.

maybe you guys have a misreading powermeter! lol

__________________
"friendship, family, religion. These are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business!" -Mr. Burns
The faster you go, the fewer passing cars

ric_stern/RST

doesn't Andy C, get about 40 km/hr on flat roads for about 200 W and he's the same height (ish) as you?

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

velomanct

I have no idea, but 40kph for 200watts is BS if you ask me. I don't believe that for a second. I would need a 20mph tailwind for that to happen.
40kph requires about 350watts for me

__________________
"friendship, family, religion. These are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business!" -Mr. Burns
The faster you go, the fewer passing cars

Mansmind

They both sound BS to me... the 200 AND the 350.. .

I'm still under 300 at 40kph, but just under ~ 275-285. I wish I had more flat road around here to test this.

I'm really curious as to why it seems to take you more power to ride at a certain speed as compared to most of the people that's responded. Could it be something about the bike, wheel bearings, etc.? It's hard to imagine you're just creating that much more wind drag due to position.

I used analytic cycling to check whether my power output seems right in several different situations...hills, flats, etc. So far it seems very close every time.

ric_stern/RST

sorry, that's on a TT bike iirc

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

velomanct

I still don't believe it. I just can not imagine how insanely aero you would have to be for that to happen. 200watts is peanuts, I might go 20mph with that power.

__________________
"friendship, family, religion. These are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business!" -Mr. Burns
The faster you go, the fewer passing cars

velomanct

it's really hard to compare because we both need to ride an indoor velodrome, then see what our power requirements are. outside, conditions are never the same with so many variables. I can't remember the last time the wind was under 10mph

however, I am extremely jealous that you can go so fast with such little power!

__________________
"friendship, family, religion. These are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business!" -Mr. Burns
The faster you go, the fewer passing cars

ric_stern/RST

that's likely to require a CdA of ~ 0.21 m^2 (just a quick guesstimate). this isn't 'abnormal'. From memory, i think Boardman's CdA was estimated at ~ 0.18 m^2 for his Superman Hour Record.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

velomanct

well, that would explain why I can't hold 35mph for 4 minutes!

__________________
"friendship, family, religion. These are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business!" -Mr. Burns
The faster you go, the fewer passing cars

ric_stern/RST

on reading back, my previous post doesn't look too clear: the ~ o.21 m^2 CdA referred to a power of ~ 200 W and a velocity of ~ 40 km/hr (not 20 mph).

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

acoggan

W/ the equipment/positions I've been using in timed events most recently, my CdA is 0.22-0.23 m^2, and I need to produce 215-220 W to go 40 km/h - see, for example, the plot shown here:

http://www.biketechreview.com/aerod.../aero_frame.htm

However, I am now significantly less aero than I used to be on my old Hooker TT bike - on it, my CdA was ~0.205 m^2 and I needed only 200-205 W to go the same speed. Part of this difference was undoubtly due to the Hooker "aero-or-die" handlebars, but I don't think that is the whole story.

Based on the few tests that I have done, I need to produce at least 235-240 W to go 40 km/h on my Cervelo Soloist equipped with semi-aero (30 mm deep) wheels and Scott Rakes.

For the record, I'm 6'0" (183 cm) and 148 lbs (67.1 kg).

ric_stern/RST

not wanting to ask a daft question... ;-) is there some reason why you've elected to ride a less aero bit of kit (unless it's to help give everyone else a chance!!)?

Glad i'd remembered your data correctly!

thanks
ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Mansmind

I think I'm going to look in the mirror this evening and try to see where I could get rid of 35 lbs.!!! I "look" skinny at ~184, I can't imagine that much less.

acoggan

A confluence of circumstances, actually:

1) USA Cycling will be adopting UCI rules as of 1/1/2007, which means that the Hooker will be illegal after next year,

2) John Cobb's BicycleSports made an offer to buy it to display alongside TT bikes ridden by Lemond and Armstrong (I kid you not),

3) I was down to my last proprietary front hub shell, and in general was tired of working on it, and

4) I haven't been doing very many TTs lately, focussing instead on mass start racing and also the pursuit on the track (I did use the Hooker for one pursuit, but between #'s 1 and 3 above and the fact that it had vertical dropouts, couldn't see keeping it for this purpose, especially since my wife's perfectly good P2T has been collecting dust).