On my offer to train on Big Blue last night. There was no shortage of riders on the hill though. I rolled out of work a bit later than planned. As I got ready to leave, I realized it made more sense to just leave my car there and ride home after my hill session. Now I get to ride back in this morning for a little recovery spin. After getting the logistics sorted out, I went around the short loop, taking in the Hillside Road climb in each direction before doing some tempo up Unquity to wake up the legs. My HR still wasn't elevating normally, and my legs are surely fatigued, but after a half an hour of riding I felt good enough to head over to the access road.
This would be my first time this year on the race bike. It's a few pounds lighter than my Slim Chance, but it also sports 36/52 chainrings. Combined with the 12-25 cogset currently installed on the rear CR-420, this gave me a slightly lower gearing option than the 41/27 low gear I've been using on the Slim. In theory, I could have used this for a slow warm up run. Instead, planning to do two ascents, with the first a trial run and the second a speed test, I started the first one in the 36x21. This proved too easy to stand and too hard for sitting. Not a good sign, as when you are feeling good, whatever gear you are in always feels like the right one, and you just motor. I chose to stand on the first steep section but turning this slightly easy gear got me breathing hard pretty early. I was supposed to be doing this run as a warmup and wanted to save something for the second trip. When I got to the flat spot for the first time check, glancing down and seeing 1:23 reassured me that I wasn't going too hard.
Over the middle of the climb, a bunch of riders were coming down. A few of them looked like gumbies and sure enough they were recklessly descending and used a lot more road than they should have, but it didn't really slow me down. Over the steep top portion I didn't really find a rhythm and got to the top at 5:35. Hmmm. Faster than I wanted to go on the first run, but not bad considering I conserved a little.
I spun down and the others were coming back up. There was also a Landry's guy doing the hill himself, and he looked faster than the gumbies. At the bottom I selected a 36x17 to start run two and turned around. This felt better while standing on the bottom section, but I wasn't turning it too well when I sat. Time check one was 1:19, hardly stellar. I sat down and pushed it across the "flat" as long as I could before going to the 19 for the switchback. Standing and sitting depending on the steepness, I think I even went to the 21 for a bit in order to sit passing the ski slope. For the last rise and run into the top I went back to the 19 and gave it all I had.
I've done this hill enough times to know what a good ride feels like. Most rides up have at least one "dead spot" where you're barely moving as you climb off the saddle. On a good run, you have more momentum and that feeds you to power over the obstacles and never let your speed drop to pedestrian levels. Tonight was not one of those runs. At the top I clicked the watch at 5:27. My fastest this year, but a disappointment since we're into June and this was all out on my race bike. I was sucking wind pretty good as I circled the tiny lot at the weather station, and one of the gumbies (still sitting there after their ride up) quipped "that good, huh?"
I muttered, "no, not really" and rode down. They came racing by when I reached the bottom. Not very wise. I hope they don't take out some dog walker and get us all kicked off the road. They turned around to go back up, and I thought briefly about going up again to teach them a lesson, but as I've lectured Gewilli before, never race people you just run into out on the road. Races are for racing, and when training stick to your plan and don't mix it up with people whose skills you can't trust. As an aside, since we spoke of gearing, the first run had an average cadence of 68, and the second 63. High rpms just don't seem to work (for me) on a climb this severe. Maybe you power aficionados can comment on that. If I were doing a 5 minute all out effort on the flat, like a pursuit, I know I'd feel best at 95-100 rpm. On a climb like this though, trying to gear down and hold that just doesn't work. It is an interesting problem, as in theory your CP5 should be the same whether you're going uphill or not. I'd guess that maybe the pitch changes of the climb require spikes that can only be produced by standing, but even on a constant grade I think I feel better climbing at a lower cadence than is best for the same duration of effort on a flat.
I headed home down 138 and through Canton. When I got there, I realized how tired I was. This past week has been a big step up in mileage for me. Last night I didn't sleep too well (hey, that's why I'm up at 5 writing this). It's been so long since I've even been close to overtraining, I'd forgotten what the symptoms were. Today I'll just ride in to work easy, which will push me over 50 hours on the bike for the month, 55 including running. The weekend is still up in the air. Since I skipped the duathlons the past two weeks, I feel sort of obligated to give Rye a shot on Saturday, but part of me says just save the money and finish off this block with a pair of long rides. There are also races each day up in Maine, which normally I would skip, but they're being promoted by a teammate and so I'd like to support them as well. Driving to Maine and back on a summer weekend though, not my favorite activity. I'll just have to see how I feel about it tomorrow night.
See what a piece of crap this post is? I told you my creative mind was still on vacation. Think of this next time I have no post at all. Which would you rather have? Thanks for reading.
i dunno, spinning up the hills should work.
ReplyDeleteThe difference has to be position? Somehow riding up the gravity influences are not to be negated in the perceived balance?
But still, power is power, as you know. Force is force. To turn those gears over at those rpms you need lots of force.
I would like to see how you would do keeping the rpms over 80 the whole way up. Your cardio strength should allow you to main the rpms, no? 36x25. Spin the sucker from the bottom. TT it. But do an RPM TT. I can still sort of remember the hill a bit and while steep it ain't that bad. Park it in the lowest gear and spin... that or if ya insist on grinding the sumbitch at least grind in your fahking BIG ring.
Seems to me that some guy was saying you can never have too low of a gear?
It is all force x rpm man. The only reason to power climb is if it is short or you got power but no cardio, or no gears.
when ya all rested up it could be worth it to see if ya can spin your ass up the climb.
I should have 48hrs in for the month after today. What does your month look like for June for mileage?
ReplyDeleteI think the changes in the grade are the main key. The steepest portion of the climb is around 13%. 90 rpm in a 36x27 yields a speed of 4.24 m/s, which would require someone my size to put out ~520 watts, which is significantly more than the ~410 I am currently averaging over the distance.
ReplyDeleteWith the variation in grade comes variations in speed. My minimum speed looks to be around 3.2 m/s, and the maximum ~6 m/s. In order to maintain 3.2 m/s at 90 rpm, I'd need a 34x30.
So it's still a little mysterious to me. I know some riders would do the pursuit at 70 rpm and feel they were most efficient, and I also saw a few riders climb Ascutney (which has a very consistent grade) with super low gears and high rpms, posting very impressive times.
Big ring or small, compact or otherwise, a ratio is a ratio. I've tried to gear down and would expect that even with a lot of shifting, keeping up 80+ rpm for the duration would be more efficient and faster, but I've never actually seen it happen. Around 65-70 rpm seems to yield the best times. This may be because it facilitates quicker accelerations in the spots the grades lessen, with effort (though theoretically equal in terms of work) that is biomechanically easier to produce. The resulting momentum allows you to conquer the steeper pitches, perhaps "recover" etc.
FWIW, when hanging on to the back of the pack by a thread on real climbs in real races, I've used 50 rpm, 120 rpm, standing, sitting, and everything in between. Whatever it takes.
come on... Solo? 520? Cake man... (cue SNL dude) YOU CAN DOO EEET!
ReplyDeleteSounds like ya just need more powa... low rpm or high rpm, no matta how ya geet eet.
Powa is powa...
Intervals be da best way to boost it...
but then... soro does prenty of intervas... Soro prenty fast... soro need rest
520 watts average would have me at the top in 4:03. Nice thought.
ReplyDeleteNow, is keeping power constant the fastest way to the top? Or should I use more on the steep parts and less on the less steep parts?
Maybe now a few of the faithful are getting my point; we are not machines and maybe we should not be treated (and measured) as such. Or???
Nah... we still have to obey the laws of physics and stuff...
ReplyDeletepower is a great measure of our abilities...
if you only ever average 170 watts on a daily basis you'll never be able to hold 520 watts up Big Blue.
Power is still a fantastic metric. Nothing else is as telling. Well i guess not finishing with the pack and getting dropped and shit in races (like i am) is one way to say "you suck" but the Power makes a big difference in targeting your training and racing.
Power plus Heart Rate is pretty cool too. If ya making 170 watts and you averaging 95% of max, well... time to take up lawn bowling or something, or start riding a two wheeler with a big fahking motor.
That said 4 minutes at 520 watts is quite a bit... No sweat for the likes of Mahk the Shahk or Yogurt boy maybe but it is a decent number...
i'll shut up now and go see what kinda poopy kJ i can pump out on the ride home ;)
1) this question hasn't been studied all that well yet. but one thing you can probably pick out is that it's pretty individual.
ReplyDelete1a) gearing determines a lot of it.
2) the key to z5 intervals (like big blue) is to cover a lot of ground fast. lower cadence = higher torque = better muscle recruitment = higher short-term power. obviously this won't work for long climbs b/c this type of work depletes glycogen stores faster than higher-cadence cycling. So there is one theory why lower cadences could work better in short/high-power situations (see #5)
3) muscle fiber dependency: higher %age of fast-twitch fibers --> *tendency* for higher cadences.
4) fatigue: higher fatigue --> lower cadences tend to work better.
5) "inertia hypothesis". this applies to low speed/high power situations like climbing and head winds. the idea is that the bike won't roll forward as well, and that a lower cadence allows for a more even application of power.
6) power differential on climbs vs. flats: In theory this may be the case, but there's no place to hide on a consistent pitch, but it's easier to have some power dips on a flat road, even if you're trying. it's normally pretty easy to pick out the climbs from a power file b/c they're pretty smooth, vs. the more jagged 'flat' intervals.
7) you've been doing low cadence z5 intervals for what, 20 years? I'd certainly expect that you'd be better at one over the other by now.
lastly (seated vs. standing). When in doubt, I always go back to 'specificity, specificity, specificity'. in this case, what gets me over the hill fastest? am I going to use both seated and standing efforts?
(my seated 5-sec max is about 300W less than my out-of-the-saddle). sorry, i'm sleep deprived and prolly diaper-stained. maybe i'll write a post on this sometime soon, it deserves it.