Swords CC Club League

buffalo

manwithaplan wrote: »

@dario

For what it's worth, my arse muscles (I'll let the anatomy students correct that) were sore last night, although I didn't feel it too badly until after the finish. My ride home to sunny Killester was a little uncomfortable, but not too bad.

I can still feel it this morning. I agree with Beasty - riding in the saddle and in the drops continually for an hour is very different from racing and introduces different stresses. The saddle might be an issue but there's more to it than that.

I suffer regularly with this, and I was particularly bad after the Stephen Roche GP, which was a lot of time in the drops, and very hard efforts. The crux of the problem is that when you're hunched over in the drops, you're putting a lot of stress on your lower back to support you. This is carried down into the gluteal muscles, hence the sore arse.

There are stretches and exercises for it, but mostly I'd recommend working on your core, and getting some aero bars for TTs. This allows you to lean on your handlebars, so your lower back isn't doing all the work.

RobFowl

Agree with Buffalo on this. Specifically its due to the Gluteal group of muscles tightening up.
Getting used to stretching them after training/racing as well as training for prolonged sessions in the drops even on easy runs should help.
(Pre race stretching is of very questionable benefit post race stretching is of benefit, the science shows that but has not yet fully esplained why so don't ask me to explain it ('cos I can't fully))

abc_xyz

So how much faster then last year would people estimate the conditions to be? I went 3:44 faster but know I'm not that much faster.

Lusk Doyle

killalanerr wrote: »

some super times out their tonight mel i only class MWP and LD if they ever get the full TT gear would be posting some serious times,well done to the beast on improving your pb,LD dont even attempt to line up for G3 next week

Awh, but who will drag your a$$ around Garristown in that case

Beasty

abc_xyz wrote: »

So how much faster then last year would people estimate the conditions to be? I went 3:44 faster but know I'm not that much faster.

I was just over 2 minutes faster - wouldn't say that all of it was down to conditions. In fact, my power output was up about 15w last night, which probably explains 90s or so of the improvement, so I would suggest around 30-40s max for the conditions (and possibly less as I was probably a bit more aero also)

I think your pacing was probably a bit better last night, which does make a difference - you held me off very well in the second half last year which possibly siuggests you could have gone out a bit faster in the 1st half. Last night it was a lot more even between the 2 halves (for me at least) and I suspect it was a more even differential between us over the two halves last night

Also bare shoulders are more aero (but also UCI illegal;))

Lusk Doyle

Beasty wrote: »

I was just over 2 minutes faster - wouldn't say that all of it was down to conditions. In fact, my power output was up about 15w last night, which probably explains 90s or so of the improvement, so I would suggest around 30-40s max for the conditions (and possibly less as I was probably a bit more aero also)

I think your pacing was probably a bit better last night, which does make a difference - you held me off very well in the second half last year which possibly siuggests you could have gone out a bit faster in the 1st half. Last night it was a lot more even between the 2 halves (for me at least) and I suspect it was a more even differential between us over the two halves last night

Also bare shoulders are more aero (but also UCI illegal;))

DSQ!!!

Beasty

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

DSQ!!!

The guy who drafted Inquitus certainly should be - it was pretty blatant what I saw of it. Two riders (one of whom lurks around here) were disqualified 3 years ago for drafting - once overtaken you are supposed to drop back 7 bike lengths straight away (it's 25m in the IVCA)

Just waiting for someone to own up now;)

Lusk Doyle

Looking at the data for my ride and those who were close to my time I noticed:

- Melanie Spath max speed @ 59.5kph (faster overall)
- Phil O'flaherty max speed @ 57.3kph (slower overall)
- Paul Atkinson max speed @ 56.5kph. (slower overall)

My max speed was only 51.0kph! That's got to be an area that I could improve on

I must have made my time on Phil and Paul on the 3rd quarter drag if the above is read into correctly?

Beasty

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Looking at the data for my ride and those who were close to my time I noticed:

- Melanie Spath max speed @ 59.5kph (faster overall)
- Phil O'flaherty max speed @ 57.3kph (slower overall)
- Paul Atkinson max speed @ 56.5kph. (slower overall)

My max speed was only 51.0kph! That's got to be an area that I could improve on

I must have made my time on Phil and Paul on the 3rd quarter drag if the above is read into correctly?

Based on our discussions last night we were not too far adrift at the turn. I always struggle on the 3rd quarter, although my power output held up. That's where I was having the problems with the gears though, which probably cost me a few seconds

Don't worry too much about maximum speed. I think I was hitting it in the second quarter down past the Warrenstown Arms where I could power downhill while still getting some recovery, but you're only ever hitting it for a relatively short time

What I found was my average speed over the out and inward parts on the same bit of road (eg first and last 4km, 2nd and penultimate, etc) were fairly consistent throughout, except for the last bit where I pushed up the power on the home straight (more of that in the log later).

Doing that sort of analysis will help identify where you could possibly have pushed harder. However even if you had pushed harder in places, it may have been at a cost elsewhere.

Generally though you are at your most efficient at a steady power output, with a slight increase going up hills and into the wind, and slight decrease going downhill and with the wind behind you. Ideally you want the wind behind you when going up the hills to even it out more (which is what caught me out a bit last night - I was expecting a slight push in the 3rd quarter, but found the wind more in my face)

killalanerr

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Awh, but who will drag your a$$ around Garristown in that case

i suspect you will again when you catch us with the scratch group :rolleyes:
Feelin much better today done a nice handy 80k seems to have done the job

manwithaplan

I noticed on Strava that my average heart rate seemed to be a good bit above most of the other rides. I know very little about this sort of stuff having donned a HR monitor for the first time last night. My average HR was 186bpm and I was very close to that throughout. Is it of any great significance? Does it tell me anything about myself physically or about last night's effort? Is it reasonable to conclude that a lower average HR would always result in a slower time? Could your HR 'outperform' your muscles, essentially pushing them to tie up?

@LD - I would say you made a fair amount of time on me on the way back into the wind, including on the drags. I can't see Strava from here but I felt like I had put up a big sail when I turned at the roundabout.

Beasty

manwithaplan wrote: »

I noticed on Strava that my average heart rate seemed to be a good bit above most of the other rides. I know very little about this sort of stuff having donned a HR monitor for the first time last night. My average HR was 186bpm and I was very close to that throughout. Is it of any great significance? Does it tell me anything about myself physically or about last night's effort? Is it reasonable to conclude that a lower average HR would always result in a slower time? Could your HR 'outperform' your muscles, essentially pushing them to tie up?

Everyone's max HR is different - the max I've ever recorded has been 186 (a few times actually, and I suspect there's scope to go higher). Last night it went from 110 to 160 within a minute of starting - a bit startling how quickly it moved up there, and perhaps indicative of the fact I maybe went out slightly too hard. However it then hovered pretty much between 160 and 165, going above 170 in the final stretch

In a TT I would expect a very small amount of upward drift (very different from a RR when it can be all over the place). Your "trend" looks absolutely fine - you maximum was 197, which probably means your real maximum is over 200, making you a "teenager at heart";)

The higher you can get your HR, the more blood and oxygen it's pumping round your body - having a high max HR is generally a very good sign, and the closer you can get to it over the full TT the better, in general, your performance will be (assuming there is nothing else, such as a fever, pushing it up)

Hungrycol

You're good a suffering

Lumen

manwithaplan wrote: »

I noticed on Strava that my average heart rate seemed to be a good bit above most of the other rides. I know very little about this sort of stuff having donned a HR monitor for the first time last night. My average HR was 186bpm and I was very close to that throughout. Is it of any great significance? Does it tell me anything about myself physically or about last night's effort? Is it reasonable to conclude that a lower average HR would always result in a slower time? Could your HR 'outperform' your muscles, essentially pushing them to tie up?

HR is an indicator of oxygen use. It doesn't say much about aerobic efficiency. In theory you can get more power for the same HR by dropping your cadence, but the perceived effort will be higher (it will hurt more).

There have been studies that show optimal cadence for efficiency at about 50rpm, but no one TTs at 50rpm. I take this to mean that aerobic efficiency is not a limiting factor in TT performance.

Lusk Doyle

Mine hit 235 or something like that once while out for a spin in Poland earlier this year. I don't know why as I had just started out that day and was only getting going! The previous day I got approx 210 and was thinking "WTF is going on?". I lowered the monitor slightly on my chest and haven't exceeded 195 since!

Beasty

Lumen wrote: »

There have been studies that show optimal cadence for efficiency at about 50rpm, but no one TTs at 50rpm. I take this to mean that aerobic efficiency is not a limiting factor in TT performance.

I definitely find the legs rather than the lungs are my limiting factor in a TT despite very high overall averages (but very few spikes) - although it can often be the other way round in a road race

My cadence last night was 92, the highest I think I've recorded in a TT

Lusk Doyle

Has anyone got the top ten times?

Are our two illustrious visitors being included in the above?

Beasty

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Has anyone got the top ten times?

Are our two illustrious visitors being included in the above?

Don't worry, you should top the league either way;)

Inquitus

Beasty wrote: »

I definitely find the legs rather than the lungs are my limiting factor in a TT despite very high overall averages (but very few spikes) - although it can often be the other way round in a road race

My cadence last night was 92, the highest I think I've recorded in a TT

My cadence was 95, I have been working to try and keep it high. Not sure if my thoughts on the matter are borne out by the facts, but it feels to me that the higher the cadence the more cardio effort I am putting out and the less I am shredding my legs, and cardio effort seems more sustainable in things like a TT then leg effort.

Beasty

Inquitus wrote: »

My cadence was 95, I have been working to try and keep it high. Not sure if my thoughts on the matter are borne out by the facts, but it feels to me that the higher the cadence the more cardio effort I am putting out and the less I am shredding my legs, and cardio effort seems more sustainable in things like a TT then leg effort.

That's pretty much what I'm saying - my cadence is much higher in TTs than in road races, and last night the only time it dropped beneath 85 for more than a second was at the turn

Anyway, if anyone wants a much more detailed breakdown of my stats they can be seen here

07Lapierre

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Has anyone got the top ten times?

Are our two illustrious visitors being included in the above?

40K TT Times are now up on the Swordscc Website. (I haven't allocated points yet)

Hungrycol

Thanks 07lapierre, interestingly I get passed over for 8th place. If yiz don't like me folks just say

07Lapierre

Hungrycol wrote: »

Thanks 07lapierre, interestingly I get passed over for 8th place. If yiz don't like me folks just say

Actually i did notice that!....I'll promote you to 8th later.;)

Beasty

Hungrycol wrote: »

Thanks 07lapierre, interestingly I get passed over for 8th place. If yiz don't like me folks just say

Actually the guy who is down as second in the "club" list is a visitor AFAIK, which makes you 7th club member

Lusk Doyle

Beasty wrote: »

Actually the guy who is down as second in the "club" list is a visitor AFAIK, which makes you 7th club member

I think that you are right there. He does compete in the league but is not a member of the club AFAIK.