Slornow and Wannabefaster's mentor group...Closed (Page 21)

Great discussion on crank length.  Very helpful.  May have to drop down to 167.5 at some point.

In a fit of boredom I looked through the Triathlon Talk forum...rarely do that anymore as it is just not that interesting most of the time. However, there is a very robust discussion of "Efficiency losses on the Bike."  Discusses to some extent the testing Nicole did on the road, through Marc's guidance, to dial in some aero gains. So,

Marc/Nicole-I was hoping you could go through the protocol you used to do this testing.  If this is proprietary then I understand wanting to keep it under wraps...so not looking for you to give away secrets. But, if it something you can share II would be very interested in the process.  I ride a road that is flat, 5 miles long with no stop signs and minimal traffic that would  be ideal for this sort of  testing.  Did you have a hand held wind speed meter (anemometer) to accurately guage wind for each run?

Longish run on tap for me....although my butt and hamstrings are begging for less.   Did some leg work with lunges and squats Friday afternoon and I am feeling it today.....not so much yesterday on the bike though.

Anyone charged up for the Super Bowl?  I'll probably watch but just not that into pro football. Have a good Sunday all.

Randy -- I posted this a few pages back; it tells you exactly what I did to get the data for aero testing.  Marc did the analyzing, so I won't go into that (because I can't....I know a little bit, but have not played with it much).  

One thing to note, and this is important imo: not every time you test will give good/repeatable results.  Sometimes the weather sucks (constant wind is manageable, gusts are not so much).  Sometimes the testing will lead you to believe one thing, and subsequent testing will lead you to believe something else -- often, your later runs will appear to be better, even though you doubt it's true.  Marc may have an opinion on why that is, but in the end we settled on making changes every run, versus every two or three runs (i.e. if I had three helmets to try out, I'd try one on the first run, the second on the second, the third on the third, the first on the fourth, second on the fifth, and third on the sixth).

All that above is to say that aero testing on the road should not be done simply for the sake of aero testing.  It should also be meaningful training.  I would do 40-50 miles at HIM power while aero testing, so even if the data didn't give an ounce of meaningful information, I got in quality training that allowed me to hold HIM power for the entire race and feel fresh at the end of the bike leg.  Aero testing was done in addition to my planned bike training, not in lieu. 

Couple of different questions:

1)  If playing with aero positions, what do folks think about adjustable stems to really help dial things in?  Pros / Cons?

2)  Anyone aim for specific breakdown in calories by carbs/fat/protein?  After logging with MFP for the past week or so I'm noticing that I'm a touch over on fat and a little under on protein.  The "goal" split it gives is Carbs 50%, Fat 30%, Protein 20%.

I've been using Golden Cheetah for years and decided to finally give Aerolab a try.  I'm embarrassed to say that the hardest part was finding the damn thing (FYI its in the drop down menu at the top right hand corner of the 'Analysis 'view). 

I had two races after I installed my Power2Max - a Sprint in late August and an Olympic in mid-September.  The Olympic was pretty windy with strong gusts, and so I couldn't get the data to align, but the Sprint was an out and back and, from what I can recall, the wind wasn't a factor. 

Below is a screenshot after fiddling with a few of the sliders.  I left most at their default levels, but had to increase the Eoffset by about 20 metres to get the two lines to align.

(Aerolab - Wasaga Beach Sprint 2015(2).JPG)

Marc-I may take you up on that a little later into the Spring.  I am sure it would be enlightening to make some changes and see how things shake out.  I had the option of  getting a sleeved race jersey through my team kit this year but did not go that route. Seems they are testing better than some of the sleeveless tri tops.  I will try to look for some race pictures of me on the bike as that may give some idea of current position and potential low hanging fruit. Thanks!  

Marc - I sent you the file. I left Crr and Rho at the default levels and basically just tried to see if I could get the lines to even remotely align.

My weight is 75 kgs, but I thought that you included the weight of the bike (9 or 10 kgs).

Sorry if this seems naive but how would I do that?  Just go out on the tri bike and do an up and back and send you the data with conditions? Would this include full race kit with wheels, helmet, hydration etc.?

Very cool Marc.  Thanks for doing this.

A few questions - I see you adjusted the Eta to .9801.  What is Eta?

Also, in the last step you modeled the data to adjust for wind.  For an out and back ride, if the wind is constant can you do a separate calculation for each run and then then take the average?

The average Cda in screenshot #3 and #4 above is 0.2691, and so a difference of only .0011 from your final calculation.

Lastly, how precise would you go with the calculation?  It sounds like a difference of 0.01 will make a difference, but if two runs are only 0.005 apart, is that significant and would it translate to any real power gains? 

I know you use a "more fat" type diet because of the diabetes, and at this point I've always known I had a tendency towards a high carb diet, it's just interesting to start to see the numbers.  What I really don't understand is the relationship between what types of carbs vs other types, fats vs other fats, etc.  I'm aware of foods that tend to be higher on the glycemic scale, and staturated fat vs non-staturated, but that's about as far as it goes.  I'll try to eat something higher on the glycemic index after a workout.

If you want some 155's, I've got some -- I'll make you a good deal

I remember liking my 155's, but it's been years since I used them, so I don't know if they were good for me or not.  I got a good deal on a power meter (Quarq, crank-based), and the smallest was 165's, so I went for that. 

Recognizing that the most integrated bars limit your options in some cases, I'm on a tight budget anyway.  Really it comes down to two simple facts:

1)  I am not that comfortable in aero for long periods.  Any of my time on the trainer is usually zero time spent in aero (being on the road is more comfortable than on the trainer).  Olympic distance is about my max in aero and even then I'm hoping for the end of the ride. 

2)  I want to be more aero - need is probably a better word.  I don't think I'm a total brick, but can certainly improve my position.

So, I'm thinking about an adjustable stem, along with shorter cranks (feel like my hip angle is tight) and then getting a fit done.  As much as testing at the velodrome would be great, I think that ship has sailed in terms of the cost, so that means trying to do field testing at some point.