• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Bicycle age

frontieruk

Member
In most circumstances I'm a fan of v-brakes, but that would require either different levers or the use of something like a Problem Solvers Travel Agent to make the cable pull correct, and I doubt you want to bother.

If you don't mind their color (aesthetics are obviously the most important aspect of a bicycle), try Kool Stop salmon pads. They're very aggressive, and also formulated to hold up pretty well in wet conditions.

It's a beater bike I don't really care, it was cheap and though it looks good I'm not that fussed on it, so I'll have a look at those pads thanks :) though on the return journey I found that is the range of movement on the lever and it requires about 80% movement for a strong stop, that's never happening from the hoods but it's good to know there is some stopping power.

I was about to put together a rant about how you need to HTFU and learn your double-shifts, but then I made a log chart of what I think are your ratios, and:

I'll be honest my attitude was in just going to have to HTFU and ride over this in the harder gear once I get used to it.
H3PwGH0.png


wat

The highest gear on the small ring is barely lower than the third-highest on the big ring, and at that spot on the cassette, the step size borders on palatable anyway. You do get a run of sensible spacing below that, but that's ~76 gear inches and lower.

giphy.gif


This really makes me appreciate the use of 10-tooth gaps between chainrings when dealing with wide-range clusters that don't have very many cogs. Here's my Stumpy drop bar conversion, with its 48-38-24 triple:

AIRZDth.png


A run of beautiful 1.5-step shifts starting at the second-highest cog on the big ring, at ~95 gear inches. Works pretty well even for pacelining on the flats with speedy roadies. (Granted, my low gears aren't really any better-spaced than yours.)


Sounds like a feature. Less clothing drag on the saddle means less chafing and less wear and tear. A well-fit and correctly-positioned saddle shouldn't require a very high coefficient of friction for you to stay put.

Any sort of bump has my sliding forwards, but the saddle is set right, I may see if I can re-angle it.
 

teepo

Member
speaking of trainerroad, i got through the first session of sweetspot training without a hitch despite bonking the ftp assessment. overall, i'd say it felt easier this year despite pushing more power and averaging a higher heart-rate. though i defiantly lost some patience since i've been cutting the sunday rides short. i unclip the second whatever film or sporting event i'm watching finishes. i couldn't have unclipped any faster once the credits started rolling for suicide squad (the extended cut with 11 additional minutes!). moving forward i'll attempt doing those rides outdoors.


and i just got around to crosschecking the accuracy of my kickr using my crank based powermeter (+/- 1.5% accuracy) and the power read outs are nearly spot on, which is quite relieving. a good percentage of first generation units were notorious for inaccuracy and power drifting, with the latter being the real issue. supposedly the power drift was either fixed or mitigated via a firmware update that changed the way their algorithm compensated for changes in temperature inside the flywheel once heated up. luckily you didn't need a powermeter to spot it, only a heart-rate monitor.

also it seems like the major issue i had with my kickr last season was also fixed via a firmware update. the kickr would get wildly inaccurate whenever there were periods of acceleration (e.g. downhill sections) while running in simulation mode in zwift. the only time i managed to crosscheck the accuracy of my kickr last season, the power was spot on during the flats and climbs but there was a 30-50w difference whenever i was pedaling downhill. even before i had my crankset powermeter, downhill sections just felt off on zwift. this is no longer the case

i know wahoo has sorta lost their topdog spot in the smart trainer world, but their support does seem to be a notch or two above the rest.
 
I never did the Sunday rides. They were always shit.

You'll be pleased to know that in the latest version of the Sweet Spot plan they've replaced them with shorter / harder sessions.
 
i know wahoo has sorta lost their topdog spot in the smart trainer world, but their support does seem to be a notch or two above the rest.

I think they are b/c the Tacx ones have been having some issues.

And I agree, the weekend rides suck. I always skip them in the winter.
 

teepo

Member
and here i was half expecting to be chastised for admittingly cutting those sessions short

luckily i will never have to ride conness or maclure ever again, so i don't necessarily need the negative-encouragement
 
Was always a no brainer for me to get out and do a 2-3 hour ride in the real world. They never suck half as much as long trainer rides.

I still feel that the short / painful trainer rides are more effective than outdoor rides though.
 

Mascot

Member
Was always a no brainer for me to get out and do a 2-3 hour ride in the real world. They never suck half as much as long trainer rides.

I still feel that the short / painful trainer rides are more effective than outdoor rides though.

And there's me, riding for fun and doing it all wrong.

:p
 
Again with the -15C here. Morning commute was at 8AM. My face flesh sloughed off my bones and the most important feature of any riding glasses is to block wind.
 

Lonely1

Unconfirmed Member
Cycling is the perfect exercise since its fun and useful. Trainer rides sounds like going to the boring and filthy gym or elliptic machine...
 
I think my FTP numbers are way off after a recent test. I know anaerobic is supposed to be tough but I'm basically pedaling through sand. Looking back at the test the first block was erratic as hell and the second was way smoother. Which might explain why it jumped 13%
 

T8SC

Member
I think my FTP numbers are way off after a recent test. I know anaerobic is supposed to be tough but I'm basically pedaling through sand. Looking back at the test the first block was erratic as hell and the second was way smoother. Which might explain why it jumped 13%

All the more reason to do another, average of the 3. :-D

Embrace the burn. ;-)
 
I like the burn, I love it actually. I just wonder where things went wrong because the efforts don't seem right. I know they're 120% of FTP but I feel like I'm mashing gears way too much to make it work. This is just completely destroying me by 20-25 minutes in so I feel that is just not right.

I knocked it back down 3-5% based on TR help documents and see how it goes. That or I jumped too quickly into the Rolling Race program and should go back to SSB2.
 

T8SC

Member
I like the burn, I love it actually. I just wonder where things went wrong because the efforts don't seem right. I know they're 120% of FTP but I feel like I'm mashing gears way too much to make it work. This is just completely destroying me by 20-25 minutes in so I feel that is just not right.

I knocked it back down 3-5% based on TR help documents and see how it goes. That or I jumped too quickly into the Rolling Race program and should go back to SSB2.

Zone 5 is a lot for 25-30mins, no wonder you're destroyed.
 
Zone 5 is a lot for 25-30mins, no wonder you're destroyed.

The one workout I did that wasn't bad was a ramp, but the next two were intervals at 3-4 minutes each. So the one I tried today was 3x8's with 3 minute rest. I pushed through the first, but blew up with a minute left in the second. Tried to do the third but just had nothing in my legs.

It could also be me not being used to ERG mode. Previous to this I could spin 95-100rpm to hit my targets, but now spinning 90rpm to hit targets I might as well have weights on my ankles.
 
What workout?

(I know virtually all of them, intimately)

Edit - Hang on, you only just finished Sweet Spot Base. Why are you doing speciality and not build?
 
I went from SSB Phase 1 to SSB Phase 2 but only did a few workouts before jumping into specialty. My FTP at the start of build was 192, and when I did it again on my Snap it jumped to 218.

I completed Ansel Adams, barely, but blew up with 2 intervals left on Gould. Then I completely crashed when trying to finish Morgan. Only made 3 intervals before my lungs just gave out.
 
So yeah... you're missing the point of the plans completely. If you want to train at random, that's fine, but there's a reason they're structured the way they are.

Finish SSB (which sets you up for the build phase as it has more high intensity intervals), do something like General Build, which will give you some of your high end power back, THEN hit up Rolling Road race to increase your sprint and VO2 max output.

Gould and Morgan aren't even particularly bad compared to some of the stuff you'll have thrown at you in the Speciality stage.
 
I mainly use TR to get me through the winter an dwas figuring I'd jump into a specialty phase since I'll be outside again in another 2 months but going back to General Build or SSB2 probably makes sense.

Though I have to admit I think the mountain biking is doing wonders for my overall aerobic ability
 
I think you might be measuring differently, 15% gradient hills are serious business.

For comparison, here are some of the hardest hills on the Tour de France.

climbdiff_large.jpg


Obviously distance is a huge factor, but none of them even come close to 15%. Even the might Monte Zoncolan is "only" 11.9%.
 

T8SC

Member
It's the distance coupled with the gradient that makes them difficult, not just the actual gradient. A regular 15% climb, is pretty average. A difficult climb would be a 25-30% gradient.
 
I still think you've got a different definition of what a gradient is. Most of those climbs have a MAX gradient of no more than 25% at any point. Much past that is pretty much impossible (for anything other than an short sprint anyway).

Edit - Just looking at my Veloviewer numbers, I've only ever done four climbs above 25% average gradient (ignoring everything shorter than say, a minute), and none of those you would get up if you weren't either a pro, or had gearing so low that you'd take the best part of half an hour to do it.

Take these climbs in the UK, considered some of the steepest / most brutal (there are longer, but that's not the point): https://roadcyclinguk.com/sportive/ten-uks-steepest-climbs.html

I've love to see you in action if you think these climbs are nothing because they're sub 25-35%, because I can climb like few others and some of those climbs can annihilate me. I'm assuming you must have an FTP/KG of something like 6 or above?
 

kottila

Member
15℅ is difficult for any cyclist, skill level be damned

It's steep, but I wouldn't call it difficult (at least it wasn't when I was 5kg lighter). On a 100m 25-30% climb on the other hand you have to go max power and still your rpm slowly decreases towards 0 and you'll either reach the top completely exhausted or come to a stop halfway and clumsily fall over.

Edit: just checked some of my steepest segments and they weren't as steep as I hoped. I've changed my mind, 15% IS difficult! (Maybe not on granny geared mtb's))
 

T8SC

Member
I still think you've got a different definition of what a gradient is. Most of those climbs have a MAX gradient of no more than 25% at any point. Much past that is pretty much impossible (for anything other than an short sprint anyway).

Edit - Just looking at my Veloviewer numbers, I've only ever done four climbs above 25% average gradient (ignoring everything shorter than say, a minute), and none of those you would get up if you weren't either a pro, or had gearing so low that you'd take the best part of half an hour to do it.

Take these climbs in the UK, considered some of the steepest / most brutal (there are longer, but that's not the point): https://roadcyclinguk.com/sportive/ten-uks-steepest-climbs.html

I've love to see you in action if you think these climbs are nothing because they're sub 25-35%, because I can climb like few others and some of those climbs can annihilate me. I'm assuming you must have an FTP/KG of something like 6 or above?

I understand what you mean and don't wish to sound like a total douche but where I live there are a lot of climbs which have chunks of them at 25% & above, in fact 2 of them are on your link above, surprised more aren't listed but I guess they have to put some others on from around the country.

My average FTP wattage last night was 364w for the 20 min test. This was measured on a Wattbike.

Also as your link shows, a lot of the steep climbs in my area (And probably the UK in general) are measured in % at the bottom (or top) of the climb plus Strava will give you the % at various parts of the climb too.

Hope that makes a bit more sense.
 
So what's that per KG? Given we're talking about climbing here... not your flat TT time. :p

I'm guessing you weigh sub 70kg?

...and yeah, I'm being a douche in return, but it's such a ridiculous statement to make. You're more than welcome to come out and prove me wrong on some of my local hills though!

Edit - That said, kudos, one way or another even if you weigh 90kg that's still a solid power output.
 
I may not have high power output, but on the flipside I can extract superior suffering from hills. My 15% hill probably feels like PT does when climbing mount Everest in a speedo. :p
 
Top Bottom