Power Meters vs Heart rate monitor and training?

[tfernandez]

I am considering a purchase of a power tap, as I'm not sure that my heart rate alone can tell me much about how I may be improving or not. I know that I will never be a pro cyclist but I really want to improve and am looking for the best way to do so. Does anyone have any thoughts on the use of Power meters (Power tap or other better options) and training? Are they worth the money... . are they overkill for the ave. rider??

[Chuck Norris]

They allow for immediate, specific feedback on the effort that your putting in. Your heart is slow to respond to effort. Your pulse can vary day to day, given an identical effort.

If used properly, a power meter can allow you to dial in your efforts exactly where they need to be. If used improperly, it's just an expensive toy. If you're not going to commit to specific intervals, a power meter won't be of much use.

[tfernandez]

Thanks for the response. Agreed, you need to train otherwise its a waste... I'm thinking that I might invest in one next fall and use this for an intensive offseason program. Do you use one? If so has it made a measurable difference for your power output?

[Graydon]

See the "$$ burning a hole in my pocket..." thread in the tech forum for a further discussion we had earlier to this point:

http://coachchris.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=107

There is no question in my mind training with power is superior IF (and big IF) you use it properly. Otherwise, as has been said above, just a waste of time and money if all you get out of it is another "number". It shouldn't be the dependent variable in the equation... i.e. I go train, what is my power? Rather, power should be independent to the equation: this is the power I want, now I go train at it.

For the cost of the new wireless powertap, I would seriously look into a computrainer as an alternative. There are workouts which can be designed in the erg mode on the computrainer which are very difficult to reproduce on your own, even with a power meter. I (and the makers of the computrainer) guarantee you will get faster with using one. If money isn't as much an issue, for the cost of an SRM your best bet is get a computrainer AND a powertap.

[Chuck Norris]

Yep, I've been using one for the past couple of years. Great interval tool. Not that I'm breaking any records anywhere, but I've never TT'ed like I did last season. It was a season of racing and intervals and nothing else. I put in a net total of 3800km. Without a mass of closely tracked intervals, the season would have been a wash. Without the PT, those intervals would have been guesswork.

[tfernandez]

Thanks. I'm sold. Looks like a PT for training along with a pair of 404's for racing. Now I need to convince my Wife, loose weight and make more money to afford all of these fantastic gadets!! I'm up for the challenge...Got any suggests oh wise one...
All for the LOVE of RIDING!!!:)

[Chuck Norris]

Wise one? I hope you're referring to Graydon because my qualifications make up a pretty short list... If you're thinking of buying a PT, it might be worth skipping eBay. The non-SL ones are very prone to water damage. The transmitter in the SL is located in the middle of the hub, so it's more protected from the rain. I've bumped into a couple guys who were unloading dicey PT's on eBay. Best to buy at your LBS (if you can get a good deal). If you get a bum unit, you're covered. Avoid at all costs the original grey units. I think Tune made them back then. They were super dicey. I can't stress enough that this thing will only be useful if you couple it with a disciplined interval program. Have fun!

[Graydon]

If you are asking my opinion... don't waste your money on 404's. Spend the money on getting a computrainer to compliment your PT.

All-Seasons now has a few of the new 2.4 wireless PT's in stock, and I think one of the wired-Pro versions (yellow hub shell) laced to an open pro at a very good price. I have the latter, no problems, but I am careful to keep it dry.

[Chris Helwig]

Training with power is clearly better than training with heart rate alone. It allows you immediate feedback and is not effected by variables like heat, drift etc. If a rider has the funds to either buy a powertap or Zipp 404's I would agree that a powertap will be a better investment, if and only if they know how to effectively use the powermeter and train at the proper intensity.

Now if you have a coach who knows how to prescribe and analyze power data and a powertap I would disagree with Graydon and say performance wise light race wheels are a better investment than a computrainer. If you have the powertap, a coach and an indoor trainer the coach can prescribe exact power intervals to do on any basic trainer. ERG files are nice and simplify power workouts, but you can come pretty **** close doing the same thing with a powerap and a training plan. Spin scan is usefull on the computrainer as well, but light aero wheels make a big difference in a race.

Now I know Graydon is going to quote a bunch of studies that say wheel weight doesn't matter much at all, although I can't see how you can argue the aero advantage of 404's isn't a good thing (although you can say the aero is only important if you are off the front or in a small break). I can tell you with 100% confidence that 404's will help you in a significant manner. Last year I trained and did some club races on Ksyriums SSC wheels with super light tires and tubes. These are sweet wheels and better than most stock bikes have. But when I put on my 404's that weigh more than half a pound less and are more aero it makes a big difference.

Final question - Graydon what wheels will you race at Niagara? 36 spoke regular wheels :)

[Graydon]

A wind-trainer, mag-trainer, fluid-trainer, rollers, etc... all have a static level of resistance. In increases only with velocity in a linear or somewhat curvilinear matter. Thus, the only way to get high-power is with high-velocity. Depending on your gear, and the finite level of resistance in your trainer, you can probably only get high power intervals with relatively high rpm.

Contrast that to the computrainer, which has an electric load generator. It automatically adjusts resistance to be independent of velocity, which is a product of cadence * gear ratio. This allows you to do, for example, very short and very high-power intervals at very low cadences. Or alternatively, just the right amount of high power level at high cadences.

There are other reasons why I like the computrainer too and think it offers a training stimulus you can't indoors any other way, but that is just my honest opinion.

As for wheels and weight... the data and the science just don't support anything people say about it making a substantial difference. Neglecting the "rotational" weight aspect (in reality once you get them spinning up over 30km/h, it makes little difference anyways), let's just see how much difference it makes. Heck, I'll be really generous and give them 2lbs weight savings:

For a 195lb Cyclist Chris + 17lb bike = 212lbs. Put on zipp's, lose 2lbs = 210lbs. Since weight is only worth any savings going up, and power is proportional to weight regardless of the incline gradient, 212/210 = 1.0095238. If Chris is putting out 300W on a climb, this 2lb savings in weight is therefore equivalent to 300* 212/210 = 302.857 W. That's equivalent to less than a 3W increase. Now I ask, is $1800 spent on 404's worth it to gain <3W???? Or would $1800 be better spent on a computrainer, where I guarantee you can easily get an increase more than 3x that with a proper use.

And finally, what wheels will I use at Niagara??? If you think about the fact that power is proportional to weight, by extension this means more powerful riders stand to gain more from decreases in weight. Effingham climb takes less than a minute to go up. Say I can do it right now in 600W. If I am 168 + 17lb bike and then lose 2lbs putting on zipps, 600*185/183 = 606W. Is an extra 6W worth it? Tough to say. Certainly I can think of bigger reasons to lose that race than 6W on the climb. However, if it's the last lap and you average 900W cresting over the top sprinting for the line, that's like 900*185/183 = 910W. Here 10W could make a second difference, or a matter of a couple important placings. That said, last year in SC I did Ceasar's head with 36 spoke heavy training wheels and thought my time up the hill wasn't too shabby.

[Chris Helwig]

OK if we assume the weight doesn't mean more than 3-10 watts on a climb, Graydon obviously knows his math, what about acceleration? Races are won and lost not by going a steady 42 kp/h, but by the surges and accelerations in a race. Let's take an extreme example of a 70 km crit on a 6 corner 1 km course. That is 420 corners you need to accelerate out of. Add in attacks, covering moves etc. and you can easily be up to 450 accelerations. Wouldn't the weight of the wheels have some type of effect on performance?

What about Aero advantage? 404's are very nice and aero, especially compared to a 32 spoke wheel. If you are bridging to a break or in a small break of 4 riders wouldn't the aero advantage be of some assistance?

On a tangent it should be noted that Graydon won all but one MTB race he entered in his first season training with an old school heart rate monitor with no computrainer and no power training, so you can be pretty fast with proper training with heart rate (I still do agree power is better and computrainer's are effective, but an interesting aside)

[Graydon]

Acceleration is roughly proportional to the square root of the ratio of the masses. Take Cyclist Chris again... 210/212 decrease in mass going from regular wheels to zipps. If each corner takes you 3s on regular wheels to go from the slowest point to normal speed again, on the zipps you would accelerate to the same speed in 3 * (210/212))^0.5 = 2.985815s. Will you win the race because you saved 0.014184 seconds on a turn? Don't blink or you'll miss it!

What about the extreme example of 420 turns. For 420 turns of 3s of acceleration each time, with zipps you'd save the equivalent of 420 * 0.014184 = 5.96 s.

Now to put that in perspective, if you did a 70km time trial, do you think you could repeat your effort to within 6s on a second try? Me thinks not. It's the power in your legs, not the wheels under your bike, that will determine how fast you accelerate.

[Chris Helwig]

I know you are busy putting together lecture notes, so don't worry about responding right away.

So far we see that light wheels save a tiny bit of wattage (3-10 watts) and a tiny bit of time accelerating (6 seconds in a 70 km crit) Now what about aero advantage? In an individual Time trial aero savings on wheels is significant. In a 40 km ITT a pair of 404's compared to 32 spoke wheels would give significant savings. Surely there is some carry over to mass start racing assuming you spend some time attacking, off the front or in a break.

Maybe combining all 3 factors of weight saving on climbs, weight savings in acceleraions and aero advantage the difference is a little bit significant?

Assuming you already have a coach with a good program, a heart rate monitor and a power meter wouldn't light aero wheels be the next best investment? You maximize the power you produce through proper training and don't leave anything to chance by having fast wheels.

[Graydon]

Again, aero effect will be small. Let's take an extreme example. A rotation pure disc wheel measured in a wind tunnel with perfect head-on wind has an aerodynamic drag of 105g (think of this as the additional weight created by the wind resistance). A 36 spoke wheel is 258g.

105g = 0.23 lb
258g = 0.57lb
diff = 0.34 * 2 wheels = 0.68 lb per bike

Cyclist Chris, going from 36 spokes and to a zipp disc, loses 2lb mass and loses an further 0.68 lb air resistance = 209.32

At 300W constant power = 300 * 212/209.32 = 303.84 W. So you are now a tad under gaining 4W, as opposed to gaining a tad under 3W. I don't dispute that there is an aerodynamic advantage (remember, we are talking about pure zipp disc here vs 36 hole regular rim... a far cry from the Ksyrium SSC vs. Zipp 404 real world example), but the question is whether the $$$ is worth the <4W?

[2nd2fignon]

Graydon,

You're neglecting the moment of inertia. Chris is correct, the lower mass of the wheels is a significant factor in accelerating for a sprint. The rotational inertia factor is dependant on the ratio of the masses of the two wheels you are comparing. Add the fact that the mass reduction is at the largest radius and you have a significant difference in the acceleration of a sprint (which is arguably the most important factor). Here is an emprical test you can do. Pick up a wheel and spin it holding it by the quick release and then try twisting the plane of rotation. Now take a lighter wheel and repeat the same experiment. You will find the lighter wheel much easier to twist. This is the same advantage realized with the lighter wheel in a sprint.

The aero nature of large profile dimpled wheels is also significant. The wheels are ~30% of the aerodynamic drag (total=wheels+rider+bike). The air resistance varies as the square of the velocity vector so at higher speeds the wheels make a bigger difference. I think Zipp has the numbers on their web site.

I've seen a lot of gear including my 27lb starter in 1980 and my 'super-light' 19lb Fuso in 1989 and I can tell you that light, large profile wheels are the most significant advancement in tech that I've seen. Second would be 10 speed. Ergo/STI shifting is nice but there was nothing wrong with my bar end shifter.

That's my 2 cents --- now I'll go back to watching Wild On.

[Wool]

Hey guys, not to discount the science, but we have all seen some the fastest professional crit riders ride Cosmic Carbones that weigh about 1950g for the pair.

So on a flat course, does weight of the wheels really matter?

[SIBO]

Nice Rant...... There is one factor that you are not adding to the equation...Power Loss through stiffness of the bike.... I will find the article on a Pro testing his bike on a steep climb with a power meter. He felt that he wasnt getting all the power in forward momentum. He switched to a full Ti with foam filled tubes and increased his max power output by 300 watts, not 3 or 30. What does power equal again Graydon. So think stiff with wheels and frame and get massive gains. How much stiffer are the 404's to an open pro? You dont draft on the climbs so aero isnt a big factor on the hills accelleration is the key on the hills or out of the corners, If you are wheelsucking for 80k in a road race how aero do you need to be? If you are off the front attacking over and over maybe they help. In a pack you dont need aero unless you are on the front or hopefully not off the back. Time Trial aero for sure with stiffness , Crit I say Stiff and Road I say 70% stiff and 30 % aero. Aero looks great and if you can find the aero stiff combo thats the way to go.....

[Chuck Norris]

You guys are all neglecting the Bling factor. On the sexy carbon wheels, you're like 5kg lighter and a whole lot meaner. Rrrrrrr!

[chessclubloser]

It seems like we've come to the conclusion that after having a coach and other basic things in place, the next investment should be in a power measuring device, and the last thing to invest in is a set of aero wheels regardless of weight. But just how much advantage is aerodynamics? Below I've listed a few very interesting articles that go through wind tunnel tested results of just how much can be saved.

found on Cervelo's website
http://www.cervelo.com/content.aspx?m=Engineering&i=Aerodynamics

bicycling magazine article
http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-3-12-14995-1,00.html

Hope this helps.

[Graydon]

Graydon,

You're neglecting the moment of inertia.

Ok... I expected this... and you are right... rotating mass saved at the rim is almost like twice that mass if it were at the hub.

But again, put this inertia in perspective. When you accelerate in a sprint, you are accelerating all 70kg of you as well as your 10kg of bike. Yes, a heavier wheel has a greater moment of inertia, but it doesn't change the fact that the few grams on the rim is insignificant to the nearly 100000 grams of you and bike. The gyroscope property example you listed was a nice illustration for a wheel... but here is another to look at the whole system: stand in the middle of the road and try to stop someone riding by on their bike at 30km/h. That's inertia.

I'll give light wheels an extra 2-3W of power, and an extra tiny savings in acceleration, but I'm sticking to my guns that ultimately it's the power in your legs that counts. Next most important thing in my mind isn't aero bike equipment, it's body position. Then if you have deep pockets, buy all the aero bling you can to shave off those extra few seconds. The Pro's have it all... what will you invest your time and money in?

[Chris Helwig]

Back a few pages ago, the question was if you already had a coach, a training plan, a heart rate monitor and power measurement, If you purchased one additional thing should you choose light aero wheels (404's) or a computrainer. I still stick with my assertion that if you already have a coach. a plan and a powermeter the wheels will be more beneficial to your results than a computrainer. If you have more funds after your wheels, then yes a computrainer is a very good tool.

I have coached a lot of good riders with a training plan and a heart rate monitor. A downloadable Polar is particularly effective. The majority of my successful riders over the years have used just heart rate monitor training. Yes power is more effective, but you should be able to get good results with a coach and a downloadable monitor.

Based on my experience here is the list of most important things to purchase in order:

1. Experienced Coach with a personalized program

2. Downloadable Heart Rate Monitor

3. Power Measuring Device

4. Fast & Aero Wheels

5. Computrainer

5. Powercranks (tie for 5th)

[Graydon]

Further to the point I hoped to make above, I thought I would do the actual math as an exercise in learning. Let's define some variables first:

R = radius of the wheel (same front and rear)
M = total mass of bicycle and rider
F = Force applied vertically (down) at a right angle (90 degrees) to the crank arm at 3 o'clock
r1 = radius of rear sprocket
r2 = radius of front chainring
F1 = reactive force (pushing backwards from ground)
F2 = driving force pushing forwards due to torque from pedalling
w = angular velocity of wheel (same front and rear)
p = length of crank arm

Now, we know:

1. Net force pushing us forward on our bicycle with acceleration 'a' is: Fnet = M*a
2. a = R*u, where u is the angular acceleration of the wheel
3. F2 - F1 = Fnet

Therefore equation 1: F2 - F1 = M*R*u

Next:
1. net torque at rear wheel is: tnet = I * u, where I is the moment of inertia of the wheel
2. torque at rear wheel is: F*p*(r1/r2)
3. Now into equation 1, we get equation 2: F*p*(r1/r2) - F2*R = I*u
4. If we assume moment of inertia of the front wheel is roughly the same as the rear wheel, then: F1*R = I*u (equation 3)

Now combine equations 1,2, and 3: F*p*(r1/r2) = u*(2I+M*R*R)

Using this equation above, and a = R*u, the bicycle's linear acceleration therefore is:


a = R*F*p*(r1/r2)

-------------------
(2I + M*R*R)



SO... Now what does this all mean????

First... the smaller the gear ratio (r1/r2) the larger the acceleration. You can accelerate faster from a stop sign with a 39x14 than a 53x11.

Second.... the longer the crank arm ('p'), the greater the acceleration... we already talked about this in an earlier thread.

Third... the smaller your wheels, the greater the acceleration (i.e. triathletes on 650c and MTB on 26 vs 29 talk about acceleration with smaller wheels)

And fourth... the demoninator of this equation: (2I + M*R*R) is going to be entirely defined by M - a HUGE number as this is your body and bike mass (i.e. 80kg) which is what we are really accelerating here, multiplied by wheel radius (0.35m) squared. This gives a value of 9.8 kgm^2. Contrast to the moment of inertia term for both wheels (assuming all the weight is in the wheel) which is 2I. Here, I = mass of your rim (i.e. 0.5kg) * radius (0.35) squared. Thus, 2I works out to: 0.1225 kgm^2. Thus, the numerator term might be 9.8 + 0.1225 = 9.9225. If you could drop an astounding 50% of the weight from both your front and rear rims, that would only change to: 9.8 + 0.06125 = 9.86125. The effective increase in acceleration you gain going from a 0.5kg rim to a 0.25kg rim is therefore a very small 0.6%.

Anyone claiming that light wheels really do offer a significant acceleration advantage is going to have to show me the math to convince me otherwise.

[Chris Helwig]

Those are some impressive numbers and calculations. Obviously very well thought out.

From my experience racing and coaching, not everything requires a mathematical formula in the real world to work well. I have ridden many many types of wheels over the years. This year I had 3 sets of wheels to ride. I had Ksyrium Elite wheels (around 1750 grams for the pair) Ksyrium SSC wheels (around 1450 for the pair) and Zipp 404's (around 1250 for the pair). No matter how many math formulas I look at, I gaurantee you I felt a substantial difference going from the elites to the SSC, and an even bigger difference going to the 404's. You can even tell the difference just warming up in Z1 down White Oak road to a club race.

I will never be convinced that Light Aero wheels are not a good investment.

My last question for Graydon, what did you buy first your Computrainer, your Powertap or your Zipp 303 tubulars (around 1170 for the pair)?

[Graydon]

I suppose we can agree to disagree. And I mean that with sincerity, as I don't want it to sound like I don't respect the opinions of those posting here who have strong "feelings" that light aero wheels make a big difference. Compared to 2nd2fignon and Chris, I'm just a rookie in the sport. These guys have been around much longer than I have, and I have learned a great deal from them, as well as many others here. There is great value in experience, and if real-world experience is telling them wheels are an important factor, then maybe there is still something the mathematicians have yet to reveal. Regardless, I think by now you fall under the category of either thinking light wheels make a big difference or they don't, and thus any further discussion is likely just going to convince you moreone way or the other in your own beliefs.

That said, being the best scientist I try to be, seeking objective and real data to support any claims, here is where I think money and time should be invested:

1. A proper training program with a coach suited to your needs. There is no escaping that human power is still the absolute greatest variable in the equation. Proper training will make you faster. Train Hard, Recover Well, Race Fast. I can guarantee you will improve with a coach and a well designed training prorgam, but most importantly, I can quantify this improvement over a season with objective physiological testing.

2. A power meter, paired with proper power based intervals. Again, here I can actually test your performance and guarantee you see improvement. I might guess for most people training with power, they might gain an extra 10-100W depending on where they start and what power zone they are targetting.

3. A computrainer. Again, with specifically designed indoor workouts, we can improve your force-velocity profile, and again, I guarantee you will see a further improvement, which above all is measurable. I think this is worth another 10-30W.

Beyond that... I've tried other things, but my critical test is always does it provide a measurable improvement in cycling power (i.e. wattage, easy to test) or cycling velocity (km/h, much more difficult to test). Currently the jury is still out on things like Power Cranks, or Respiratory Muscle Training, but that may be because I think any effect they are having is pretty small, and thus have been elusive to detect. As for wheels, in my objective examination of the evidence, I have found absolutely no data and no logcial aguments based on first principles which support the idea that in road racing, light aero wheels are any advantage over the wheels that came OEM on your road bike. Until I see physical evidence to the contrary, I just can't recommend good wheels or anything else being a greater priority than items #1-3 above.

[Chris Helwig]

We can agree on most points. Obviously it is very important to measure progress with testing on clients. Typically most clients in one year of Coaching and training wtih a heart rate monitor will improve by 30-40 watts at threshold. Some more, some less but if I crunched all the numbers 30-40 watts is the average. Obviously this is significant and the most important factor in performance.

I have also seen very good improvements with clients training with a powermeter, I guess my homework would be to compare improvements with clients using only a heart rate monitor and those who used power.

For Powercranks I now have date on 4 riders including myself. Not a huge number, but all saw improvements over a set period of time. Improvement compared to a test in the previous year at the same time without powercranks were 15, 17, 17 and 20 watts. All these athletes had already been coached for at least one year previous to using powercranks.

[2nd2fignon]

I started to apply some math to the question of what advantage wheels offer in acceleration and it quickly became obvious that a simple model using only classical mechanics was not going to provide a meaningful result. A quick read of the cervelo link provided by a previous poster illustartes the complexity of the problem. I'll reserve the right to put together a sufficient model at a later time.

I will say this, I agree with Chris. My subjective assessment of Zipps is that they provide a significant advantage in acceleration at race speed. I'm pretty sure this is due to 3 factors: mass reduction (at the maximum radius), lower drag, and increased stiffness.

Personal anecdote: I first tried fast aero wheels last February when I picked up my Zipp 303s at a bike store in California (that glued on the tubulars). I put the 303s on after the Swami's ride (100k of riding to that point). On the easy spin back to La Jolla from Solona Beach my immediate reaction was, 'Yikes! These wheels are like riding on crack!'. It's subjective, but I was truly surprised.

Here is an idea. We should conduct an empiracal test with a power meter, 3 riders (of different size), and 3 different front wheels. I would conduct the test on the road and on rollers to decouple the drag of the bike and rider from the wheels.

[Graydon]

Cognit Psychol. (javascript:AL_get(this, 'jour', 'Cognit Psychol.');) 1990 Jul;22(3):342-73.
Understanding wheel dynamics.

Proffitt DR (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Citation&term=%22Proffitt+DR%22%5BAuthor%5D), Kaiser MK (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Citation&term=%22Kaiser+MK%22%5BAuthor%5D), Whelan SM (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Citation&term=%22Whelan+SM%22%5BAuthor%5D).

Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville 22903-2477.

In five experiments, assessments were made of people's understandings about the dynamics of wheels. It was found that undergraduates make highly erroneous dynamical judgments about the motions of this commonplace event, both in explicit problem-solving contexts and when viewing ongoing events. These problems were also presented to bicycle racers and high-school physics teachers; both groups were found to exhibit misunderstandings similar to those of naive undergraduates. Findings were related to our account of dynamical event complexity. The essence of this account is that people encounter difficulties when evaluating the dynamics of any mechanical system that has more than one dynamically relevant object parameter. A rotating wheel is multidimensional in this respect: in addition to the motion of its center of mass, its mass distribution is also of dynamical relevance. People do not spontaneously form the essential multidimensional quantities required to adequately evaluate wheel dynamics

[tfernandez]

Wow, I never thought this would generate this much discussion. Thank you for all of your well thought out comments. According to Master Graydon"s calculations I still need to loose more body weight as this appears to have a big effect on power output. Also to convince my wife... No one had any ideas there eh!! Any mathematic calculations on this one!!

Well... I have a coach- Chris that is... Polar HR monitor, and a fluid 2 for now... What the future holds I'm now not 100% sure what I'll do. Power tap, Computrainer, Zipps, you all have good arguments. THANKS!!!

[the Superstar]

I'm no scientist so I find it helps to take analyses to extremes to discern effects. One myth is that in Ontario, which is relatively flat, lightness in general is of no real benefit. To illustrate how this is total BS, try to imagine filling your frame with lead, so your bike weighs, say, 100lbs. Now imagine racing it in a pan flat road race or crit. Do you really think it would not slow you down? Of course it would. I could beat Ivan Basso up Alpe d'Huez if he rode that bike. It's not a matter of whether 5 or 10lbs less between you and your bike is faster, it's only a matter of how much faster.

Light wheels? If they were available, would you race deep dish, aero, solid steel 50 lb wheels up Effingham? No? Why, they're aero, look cool and are waay cheaper. I mean, the hill only lasts one minute, maybe 700 meters out of a 12km lap right? Of course you wouldn't. Lighter wheels either make you go faster, or allow you to go the same speed with less energy, period. If you are in a duel to the death for the last podium spot up that hill, neck and neck with a guy whose bike is 3 lbs lighter than yours and you lose by 6 inches, you could reasonably assume a better bike might have helped.

I'm not saying everyone has to get the best equipment or that training properly is not more important than equipment. I am saying that if you think disco wheels won't make you faster, you probably haven't tried them. When the theoretical outcome diverges with the real life outcome, it's not real life that needs to be updated.

I believe I was materially faster last year than I have ever been in the past. I looked at all the variables that changed. I may have been tactically savvier, but I doubt it and that does not explain the speed increase or work rate in breaks. I actually tested worse than before. What changed was I lost weight, my bike lost weight and i got a stiffer, faster, more efficient bike.

[Graydon]

To illustrate how this is total BS, try to imagine filling your frame with lead, so your bike weighs, say, 100lbs. Now imagine racing it in a pan flat road race or crit. Do you really think it would not slow you down? Of course it would. I could beat Ivan Basso up Alpe d'Huez if he rode that bike.

Actually, I think you would still lose to Ivan the Terrible. Assume right now he weights 155lbs and his bike weighs 17lbs. Thus total is 172lbs. Now after you sabotage his frame with lead shot, his bike weighs 100lbs, and his total weight is thus 255lbs. That is a ratio in mass of 172/255 = ~67%. Since power is directly proportional to weight, we can now deduce if Ivan can produce 450W going up the Alp (I think is probably a close guess), him at 272lbs would produce the same climbing speed as his usual 172lb weight at 67% of 450W = 303.5W. Even without know your testing numbers, this is still a pretty high power to put out for an hour, and I don't think many mortals around here would be able to beat that no matter what their bike weighed.

I point this out, not to humiliate anyone, but to show that it's still, overwhelmingly, the power in your legs that makes the most difference. Anything else is splitting hairs.

P.S. Good luck keeping up to Ivan on the downhills now...

[the Superstar]

Actually, I think you would still lose to Ivan the Terrible....
I point this out, not to humiliate anyone, but to show that it's still, overwhelmingly, the power in your legs that makes the most difference. Anything else is splitting hairs.

P.S. Good luck keeping up to Ivan on the downhills now...

Of course you are 100% right but I was hoping no one would do the calculation. No such luck with a bunch of PhDs and Engineers on this friggin board.

Power is indeed overwhelmingly important. It is for this reason that I look under so many stones in my quest for speed, I just don't have a lot of power to throw around. And really, I'm not even that good a climber, at least I'll never know because we don't have any big climbs around here. When I do go up a hard hill, though, and I see a guy with two large bottles on his bike and another one in his jersey plus a banana, it makes me tired just looking at him LOL!

[fancy]

this just goes back to an old discussion, about the advantage of light weight wheels and areo wheels. 1st and 2nd place at the niagara classic 1/2 mens race won on mavic open pro wheels with ultegra hubs, and a set of schwabe stelivo tires, nothing fancy. i talked to both ian, and arron about the wheels during pre ride, the both agreed, people need to train more, and stop worrying about all the bling bling. that said both riders train consistently 20 plus hours a week on top of full time jobs, thats commitment. i was really suprised when i saw that both their primary and extra wheels were open pros. the lesson is ride, ride ,ride, or get dropped. i have to go now and train more, big eye opener for the move up to 1/2 men.

later

[Chris Helwig]

Hats off to Aarron and Ian, they rode very well to finish 1st and 2nd. It is even more impressive that they had open pro wheels and it does show that it is the rider not the bike or the wheels that makes the difference. Having said that two thoughts come to mind.

First is the reality that most people just don't have the time or can't make the time to train 20 hours a week. Kudos to those that can, but unless you are single and have a not too stressfull no extra hours full time job 20 hrs per week just isn't going to happen. Train more may work well to a point, but most people are all ready riding close to the most hours they can with life, work and family commitments.

Second thought is eventually you will run into someone that is either slightly stronger than you or at least as good as you. Go to any NRC race in the states and you will find plenty of guys who could dominate a race like Niagara. Once you come up against these fast riders and if they have fast wheels, even if it is only a couple watts savings wouldn't you like to save those few precious watts?

A couple thoughts for discussion.

[Suprvedov]

Here we go again. I thought this thread was done.

[OhSoFast]

I have to agree with Fancy and his observations about Niagara.

We're here to win bike races because that's when we're having fun. Everyone can type and tap till their fingers fall off but if you weren't there in the final sprint, those wheels aren't going to make any difference. We've all had that race where we got our ass dropped on the climb and zipps or a colonic would not have kept us in that race. People that show up at a race with fancy wheels tell me that they are afraid and have no confidence in their abilities, they think wheels will make them faster.

You always should race as much as possible, and always find the longest hardest race you can find. You don't get faster from staying home on the weekends, and you sure won't win anything. If you can't find a race, time for the 15 min 95% 20 MP efforts to increase the density of your mitochondria, or do a long endurance ride. I went out for almost 6 and a half hours the day after Niagara just because I had the time. Seize every opportunity to ride!!

OSF