If the dome is inflatable, that means she will be riding in denser air than the surrounding 6000' altitude. Not smart.

---

res, non verba

I think it's got inner and outer layers, and that is what is pressurized.

But even if the interior was pressurized, it would be only a tiny fraction of an atmosphere. 0.1 psi would be a lot. 14.4lb/sq ft, and about 1,000,000 lb on the whole dome.

I have heard chatter that the pressurization equates to around couple hundred feet. Not an issue. One has to consider the OTC track with the dome one of the fast in the world.

---

BoulderCyclingCoach.com

The Aguascalientes track also sits under an inflated dome. I did a calculation on its effect on air density. It's there, but it's tiny. You don't actually need much pressure to hold up an inflatable dome.

I don't know about the concrete surface at the Springs but I've got some data files for a rider using the same equipment at an outdoor concrete velodrome and an indoor wooden track. I don't remember exactly what the Crr difference for this rider and equipment on those two particular tracks was and I'm loathe to dig it up and re-calculate but my recollection is that while it wasn't tiny, it was small.

I've been in a couple domes like this, it uses pressurized ribs to maintain structure (like a raft). The inside is not pressurized at all (other than the minor positive pressure you get from the HVAC units). I think it gives a significant advantage from a climate control standpoint as well. She can decide how warm or cold she wants it, with the low humidity and high altitude here she could have it relatively cold and still face less air resistance than at most other locations.

No idea on how the concrete vs wood will affect the run, though given it's the olympic training center I can't imagine there would be many better facilities out there for an attempt. I'm close enough I might actually go down for the weekend and watch.

Good luck to her.

I don't remember exactly what the Crr difference for this rider and equipment on those two particular tracks was and I'm loathe to dig it up and re-calculate but my recollection is that while it wasn't tiny, it was small.

I wonder what the reason is for wood being better. If there even is an inherent reason.

Seems like it would be easy enough to make the concrete very smooth if it isn't cracked. You could even paint it with something. But maybe it's hard to prevent little undulations and such. Seems like it would be difficult with wood also, but I don't know. Concrete is harder, but maybe that isn't a good thing, if the wood is mostly elastic?

For outdoor tracks the choice is concrete because of durability, not because of the lowest possible Crr. Stevens is making the attempt now before the dome gets removed.

I definitely understand why concrete would be chosen for outdoors, it's why wood is faster for indoors that has me puzzled. I've never ridden on either.

Wonder what distance she will do? Beating the current record shouldn't be difficult for her. I think the women's record may get to 50km before long, but not this time.

It's hard to make a concrete track in smaller distances (like, 250 m) because the turns need to be banked steeply. That's why outdoor tracks tend to be longer: they're made of concrete for durability, but you can't easily bank the turns as much so they need to be longer.

I find the women's hour record even more exciting than watching the men's because there seems to be more room for an outsized ride that could smash the existing record.

The current record isn't very strong so she will "smash" it. It wouldn't surprise me if she broke the 50k mark

At women's WR speeds, COS would be worth approx 1.5km +/- 0.4km extra distance over a good sea level track.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

Jeanni Longo did 48.16km in superman position in Mexico City, I don't think we will see 50km any time soon. The current record is quite good, especially for a sea level attempt!

Humid air is less dense than dry air.

Thanks for the info. I would have guessed a little less benefit, but it depends on how her power scales with altitude.

I'm curious about how different tracks vary in speed due to material, smoothness, banking, etc. The fastest tracks are usually wood, and of course these are indoors. I don't know if concrete is inherently slower, or if it's just that wood is cheaper to use if it's going to be enclosed anyway. Any ideas? Do you have experience with both?

46.88 + 1.5 = 48.4

Humid air is less dense than dry air.

Yep, get those humidifiers and heaters cranked up.

Jeanni Longo did 48.16km in superman position in Mexico City, I don't think we will see 50km any time soon. The current record is quite good, especially for a sea level attempt!

The difference between men's and women's records for the Merckx rules was 46.065 vs 49.700. Only 3.6 km.

I'd guess the reason why there was a relatively small difference between the women's Merckx and superbike speeds (compared to the men) was due to a lack of funding and interest among the women who would have been capable of putting it over 50km. I definitely expect to see > 50km before long if the women get serious.

Stevens is the first attempt we've seen lately by a top pro, but I have no idea what her preparation has been for this. The plan might be to just beat the record. Get some publicity for herself, the team, and the track before more serious attempts are made.

Interesting, for whatever reason I thought the dome would stay in place year round but apparently that was never the plan. I guess the burden to cool it over the summer is more than the labor to add/remove it each season.

rruff wrote:

Thanks for the info. I would have guessed a little less benefit, but it depends on how her power scales with altitude.

Hence the variability quoted.

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/...record-part-iii.html


e.g. Molly Shaffer Van Houweling in an hour ride at Carson rode 44.173km and in 3 subsequent hour rides at Aguascalientes averaged 45.999km (45.637km, 46.088km, 46.273km) a difference of 1.826km to the average distance at sea level (1.464km, 1.915km, 2.100km respectively).

Considering that at each attempt Molly likely improved her technical execution as well as some aero refinements and possibly form as well, then seeing the gap at the higher end of my estimated benefit range does not surprise me.




Most concrete tracks are not super smooth, and certainly don't roll as nicely as good wood tracks (the exception in my experience are tracks that are made of large sheets of timber rather than the thin timber strips used in most modern tracks). I'm not sure why this is the case but quality timber surface is definitely faster to roll on. Perhaps there is some inherent "give" in timber that helps.

As to other factors to consider, it's often easier to maintain a good line on a larger track such as COS 333.33m and that can be an advantage. The slight downside is the centre of mass travels further per track km on larger tracks than on smaller ones.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

She'll need ~ 1250W/m^2 for an hour.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

She'll need ~ 1250W/m^2 for an hour.

To beat the record, I guess (not 50km). Seems too easy, .17m^2 yields 213W.

Doing the maths is the easy part of an official hour record attempt.

Actually doing it is the tricky part. That just requires her to ride at less than 25.6 seconds per lap on average for an hour on the nominated day and time. In this game, all that matters is being able to sustain the target lap times. That and meeting all the requirements of an official attempt and the logistics involved.

IOW all one need do is get to a track a see how long you can sustain WR lap times. Do it for about an hour an you're in with a shot, provided you have the time and resources to make it happen. Nowadays attempts cost between $50-100k to do.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

Sorry I wasn't more clear, what I meant was she would be able to more carefully control both temperature and humidity to be more favorable than someone like Wiggins run at sea level where he had it quite a bit hotter/humid than might have been ideal for pacing. She could choose to keep the dome cooler and/or less humid and still face less air resistance than Wiggins did. If she is really pushing for a remarkable run she can jack both heat and humidity up significantly and really try to shatter the current record.

Hello rruff and All,

Apologies if previously posted ..... I just ran across this ...... Some nuts and bolts of Molly's record discussed in podcast ..... not an inexpensive adventure:

http://cyclingtimetrialpodcast.libsyn.com/...mens-uci-hour-record

And some other info about the effort:

http://www.beyondaero.com/...for-the-hour-record/

.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

Sounds like she is gonna try to surpass Jeannie Longo's record!

http://cyclingtips.com/...new-uci-hour-record/

I hope she gets it! Event will be live streamed but no details yet.

How many watts is she wasting with those up-turned bull horns? Half pink? Maybe not?

---

Alex Arman

Strava

In following her progress, I don't think that is the bike she will be using for the attempt. It sounds like they are still playing with equipment.

Given that her attempt is only a week away, I'm not sure how much they will change but we won't know until she makes her attempt.

Anyone see th velo was story? The quotes power seemed a bit high for 48km - 270-290w. Anyone do the math on that?

http://velonews.competitor.com/...e-hour-record_395878

"The precise power figure she�ll be shooting for is still a secret. But watching her power figures bounce up and down on Henderson�s laptop during her 48km effort � her race-day target � suggests something in the neighborhood of 270-290 watts. That would be enough for her slight, 120-pound frame to hit the mark."

"Specialized has provided a track version of its Shiv time trial frame, and Stevens will run a pair of Zipp discs (narrower on the front, and stiffer on the rear) along with an ultra-thin track version of Specialized�s Turbo Cotton tires on race day."

If 280W gets only 48km, that is higher drag than I'd expect. CdA of ~.21. I'm also skeptical that she could sustain that power at 6000ft. I think she will reach her goal, but with less power and drag than that.

To reach her goal with my math (and I am terrible at math), I get around 274ish watts.

---

BoulderCyclingCoach.com

What assumptions for CdA and Crr?

These are shots in the dark but they match up well with her road TT events that I had some data on.

Crr- .0038
CdA-.205

I was looking at her position in the Velonews coverage, its not very good but she is only 120 pounds.

---

BoulderCyclingCoach.com

Yes, that sounds about right, as far as the calculations go. Do you have her power data or just guessing?

It's sad if her CdA is really that high, but there might not be a lot she can do about it. If that is her road number, she should be a good bit lower on a track bike.

Just guessing so it could be way off. After she completes the attempt I will have better insight for my pontificating.

---

BoulderCyclingCoach.com

Kristin Armstrong's 2012 Olympic data was up for awhile, but I haven't been able to find it. IIRC her power was a little under 300W (shorter effort) and I calculated a CdA of .18-.19.

Now for some poorly informed, barely educated speculation! Armstrong was #1 in the world so I wouldn't expect Stevens to match her W/CdA. Then you have altitude (should be at least 5% power drop, but she is fully acclimated) plus a few percent for the longer effort. Stevens is smaller, but probably a better climber, and they say she doesn't lose any power in the TT position (maybe she should!). So for fun, let's say Armstrong's Olympic ride was 300W/.185 for 1621. Assuming I remembered that right! And Stevens would have been a little slower in similar conditions, say 1550 W/CdA? Times .92 for altitude and longer effort, and 1.05 for being on a track bike, puts her ~1500. With Crr of .0038, 6W of transmission loss, 30in barometric pressure, 75F (is it heated?), she'd be beating 50 km/hr. I might be too generous with the W/CdA though.

In 2009 when I was helping Kristin set the then-record at LSWT, her lowest CdA measured about 0.203, down from about 0.217, if I recall correctly.

This clip must have been her baseline position, since she's just starting:
https://www.youtube.com/...aB2SPKNk&t=5m29s

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

I have the data on my laptop, I remember 292W for about 40min.

Thanks! I recall seeing an article about her WT testing closer to the Olympics which stated she got additional gains, but I doubt it would have been much at all. And that was gains compared to her baseline, which could have been higher than in 2009 with different equipment.

In your experience would you generally expect women to have a higher CdA compared to men of the same height and weight?

Unfortunately, I don't have enough experience with men & women close in height or weight. Carlos Sastre seemed smallish to me, but his CdA was about 0.230~0.240 or so. Also, he didn't specialize in the time trial like Kristin did. On the other hand, IMHO his final time trial won him his 2008 Tour de France, so maybe he was a good time trialist after all!

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

I have the data on my laptop, I remember 292W for about 40min.

If I redo the numbers with that and .203 CdA for Armstrong, the guess for Stevens drops to 1330, which yields 30.05 mph or 48.4 km/hr. Probably closer to reality.

Does weight have any bearing on hour record performance, other than in the initial acceleration? I thought wattage, CdA and CRR were the only meaningful variables for this event?

No, weight is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure they know that.

Weight will affect the power lost to rolling resistance, so 10% less total (rider + equipment) weight will be 10% less power lost to rolling resistance. Of course at the hour record speeds 90% of the resistance is from aero drag, so RR is only going to be part of that remaining 10%, so really the gains of less weight are pretty small.

Also wouldn't it have some direct effect on the turn-related acceleration on turns. Wouldn't a heavier rider experience greater fluctuation in downward force vs. a lighter rider? In my subjective experience in 4K pursuit that fluctuation can be non-trivial to experience. Particularly for someone more used to flat-and-boring 40K TTs. It takes some mental effort to handle that for an hour. And some physical effort. Not to mention that the direct effect on the fluctuation in rolling resistance. I've read that the huge track sprinters can have over 200kg of downward force mid-bank. That's a lot!

Oh, I'm talking about rider weight, here, which is (mostly) uncontrollable. I agree that equipment weight is nearly irrelevant by comparison.

Edit: By "downward force" I meant force pressing into the track...not really downward in opposition to the gravity vector.

trail wrote:

Wouldn't a heavier rider experience greater fluctuation in downward force vs. a lighter rider?

The relative variance in effective g forces experienced between straights and turns is a function of speed and turn radius, not weight. e.g. you might experience ~20% variance on a 333m track at these speeds (I haven't actually calculated it precisely, just a reasonable guesstimate based on other similar calculations).

Here's something I wrote about such things including a chart to show estimated g forces at different speeds on a 250m track:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/g-force.html

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

Thanks! Very interesting blog, and it clarifies the physics for me.

But I'm a little confused about the term "force." When you use the term "g force" you're not talking about force, but acceleration. Acceleration is a function of speed and turn radius.

And the force to counter-act that "g force" would then be proportional to mass, right? Given an acceleration (due to velocity, radius) a more massive rider will feel more force. Right?

Particularly in the case of an hour-rider who's going to be riding near the black line on the turns, very little banking to "absorb" the additional force? It is taxing. I've never done an hour on the track, but I know that if I'm sprinting along the black line at the end of a scratch race at near 40MPH, it takes a lot of physical effort to hold the turn correctly down there near the apron. It's not as noticeable in a 4K pursuit - less velocity. But I imagine if it takes a lot of effort in a sprint there must be some cumulative fatigue over an hour.

As I said in the blog, g "force" is a misnomer, it's really an acceleration rate. However the term g force entered the popular lexicon so long ago that it's become a ubiquitous way of normalising forces due to acceleration that we experience as "weight" to that which a human experiences when standing on the surface of the Earth.

The actual force is obviously proportional to the mass being accelerated (F=ma), but that's not what was asked, which was about the relative difference experienced while riding on the track. In other words, two riders going at 40mph on the track will experience the same g-force in the turns irrespective of their mass. That's because they are being accelerated at the same rate (and g-force is actually the rate of acceleration).

Put it this way, a 100kg guy normally "feels" the 100kg when standing, and of course will "feel like" ~150kg or so when travelling around the banking at speed. The 50kg guy will "feel" 50kg when standing and ~75kg when travelling around the banking at speed. Both are experiencing an acceleration of 1.5g.

The banking angle at the black line is the same as it is at the top of the track. Tracks generally don't have radially variable banking. It only becomes flatter on the cote d'azure.

The effort to hold a good line is minimal on well designed tracks and you barely notice the need to try and stay on line. On less well designed tracks, there can be a tendency to be pushed outwards a little and that create more tyre scrub. Such tracks are not generally fast as a result. There is a trade off with track radius and banking angle. The shorter the turn radius, the steeper the banking needs to be but that also means the minimum speed to ride safely increases.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

I am getting older and my memory is getting weaker. According to the published data Armstrong did 297W for 37:34 min.

Here the data: https://www.flickr.com/...n/dateposted-public/

Only if they are particularly well-endowed (bad) or narrow-shouldered (good).

For somebody of Stevens' height and mass, a CdA of ~0.18 wouldn't be uncommon, but of course it depends on your precise shape, position, ad equipment.

Good to know.
And I agree.

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

That clarifies it thanks - agree with the rest...there are some possible issues I have with your blog math, but I'll sort it out myself before I make myself look stupid(er) by posting here.

But, back to the question being asked...

Quote:

but that's not what was asked, which was about the relative difference experienced while riding on the track. In other words, two riders going at 40mph on the track will experience the same g-force in the turns irrespective of their mass

So we've established that g-force will be the same, but force will vary with mass. I'm not - yet- totally convinced there's no "relative difference."

Let's say I do an hour all-out from a rolling start (to remove the effect of mass on initial forward acceleration). Then a strap on an aerodynamically invisible 20 kg. weight at my existing center-of-mass. And do another hour. Will I get the exact same time? My intuition says no - that it will take at least some marginal level of effort to counter the additional lateral force (with the same g-force) that results from the additional 20kg.

Which brings up the tire inflation calculation for the track. It seems if you had a precise inflation vs. weight chart you'd want to inflate your tires not to your static rider+equipment weight, but the something like the average between the static weight and the calculate pressing-into-the-track force at peak turn radius.

Adding such a hypothetical 20kg to a 64kg rider and 8kg bike will reduce distance achieved due to the additional time taken to get up to speed initially (very minor) and then extra rolling resistance due to the additional mass. It'd cost about 450-500 metres at a W/m^2 required to ride at women WR hour speeds on a concrete track. Less distance would be lost on a high quality timber track due to the lower overall proportion of energy demand from rolling resistance (e.g. such a mass would add ~350m).

The lateral forces don't really come into play because the track pushes back as much as you are pushing into the track (else you would sink into or float above the track - hence there is no work done in that direction). It's the additional rolling resistance that matters and that's proportional to "weight" felt at the track, which of course varies depending on where you are on the track and COM velocity but can be considered to be an average value per lap. Add 20kg and all you do is up the average rolling resistance by whatever proportion 20kg is of your original mass.

In the case above, rolling resistance increases from ~10% of the total energy demand to ~13% of the total energy demand.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

The bike . . .

http://cyclingtips.com/...zed-s-works-shiv-tt/

Info on streaming live video here - saturday at noon MST

http://velonews.competitor.com/...s-hour-record_396379

I've tested her a half dozen times (all in the off-season) and those are quite reasonable. On better form, I see no issues. Knowing Neal, I wouldn't doubt he's also having her do intervals a few % under the target.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

why the upturned bar ends?

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Thanks for the info! Just power testing or aero too? And at sea level or altitude?

Total speculation here - but it is probably what she is used to. From the articles, it sounds like she has not spent extensive time on the track or on this bike.

She may also be limited by sponsor as they do look like specialized bars. Again - total speculation - I just saw the articles on her twitter feed and thought folks here might be interested in the bike pics.

Live now!

http://velonews.competitor.com/...s-hour-record_396379

She is staying smooth. Looks good

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

Speeding up a little now, that's probably the strategy. Looks good for beating Longo.

Or maybe not... slowing a bit and looking a little ragged.

Oh ya! Pouring it ne, now! Needs 48.160 km.

And... I think she changed her mind about that...

Suffering like crazy now.

Yeah she is crushing those little bumpers!

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

Digging dip now - needs to dig a little deeper if she wants Longo's record

God that looks so painful

She didn't hug the black line very well, there were many times she was on the red line

Lap times are going down again - she wants the all time record.

Unofficial 47.667km is what I'm seeing right now...

Commentator said 48.3 but I think he counted the last lap. The clock they were showing said 47.975 I think.

47.866 unofficially

So what was the benefit she got from the altitude difference and 333m vs 250m track? Would she have beaten the previous record at the same track?

Cycling news is reporting 48.333km

Official - 47.980km from UCI

So what was the benefit she got from the altitude difference and 333m vs 250m track? Would she have beaten the previous record at the same track?

Concrete tracks are not as fast as wood, but the altitude should have accounted for more than 1km on its own.

That was cool, great job. Didn't quite nip Longo's "enhanced" record, but a great effort.

A great ride and congratulations to Evelyn!

There are several variables of course when considering hypotheticals but it would have been touch and go if ridden at same track (Adelaide at sea level) as previous record. COS is worth ~ 1.0 - 1.5km over sea level pace.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

Thanks Alex. I was reading another article and figured that I'd come over to ST and see what you had to say on the altitude diff.

One question I ask is why they even allow any records at altitude. It is like 100m running with wind aided times and if you have more than 2m/s the record does not count. They should just put a minimum atmospheric pressure below which the time would be the equivalent of track "wind aided times" (basically you got assisted by the atmosphere). I'd prefer to see all these run at sea level to take out the guess work (obviously an altitude acclimatized athlete would gain more at altitude vs a sea level athlete popping up to 6000 ft and trying it thus the range 1-1.5 kph that you provided).

Don't go giving the UCI ideas there ;)

Well up until the early 1990s, the UCI used to have separate records for above and below 600m. They also had categories for pro and amateur, and for indoor and outdoor tracks. And male/female. So there used to be 6 hour record categories for men and four for women (I don't think there was professional women's category in those days).

e.g. the Merckx record at the time was classed as the above 600m, outdoor professional record.

Earlier in this thread this is what I wrote:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=5855299#5855299

and match that to experience of Molly Shaffer Van Houweling who on average rode 1.8km further in her 3 rides at Aguascalientes than in Los Angeles.
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=5855430#5855430


Here's a chart I did showing likely range of distance gained based on altitude:



from this blog item:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/...record-part-iii.html

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

How much actual track experience does she have? Easier to ride a straight line on a bigger track IMO. Riding the black line instead of the red line will save you a lot of time or gain you distance.

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

CdA is a function of drag coefficient and frontal area. Frontal area is a function of rider shape, mass and density. So unless you are of unusually low density, light = small. In short, 280W from 120lb = a lot of speed potential.

She didn't hug the black line very well... particularly towards the end there, she was on the red line more. There was even times she was running over the bumpers on the inside of the track. I was waiting for a UCI official to decide to disqualify her as she must cheating cutting the track ;)

The conservative assumption you're making is only valid if the bank angle of the track is solely responsible for the centripetal force, in which case there is no lateral tire force on the track and the only extra multiplier is the increased normal load to crr as you mention.

But, If the required centripetal acceleration does not satisfy a_c = g*tan(track angle)= V^2/R, then there must be a lateral force on the tire otherwise the cyclist will not go through the ground obviously, but ride up or down the slope of the track. The better the cyclist is at keeping corrections smooth or minimal relative to the "conservative" requirement, the less "non-conservative" lateral force there will be on average and thus the more efficient they will be.

It will always take some work to turn, as the total energy of the cyclist is approximately 1/2 mV^2 + 1/2 (m*R^2) omega^2 for an instantaneous radius R, where R >> human length scales. The lowest energy trajectory would be something like the path a coin would take if thrown into a banked turn if it also left the banked turn in the desired trajectory, but this will not likely be the least distance path.

Edit - (Corrected Quote Blocks)

Both in Boulder and years ago at the Velodrome in LA. Interestingly, Her first time on the track. Had Taylor there to help show her the ropes.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Alex, is the Crr of 0.0023 a reasonable number for the concrete track at Colorado Springs? In addition, what would be the expected difference between a wood track and a concrete track?

---

BoulderCyclingCoach.com

It depends and I have not measured it of course, so to know you'd really need to measure it. From memory of visiting the track at COS (but not riding it), it looked a pretty decent surface for concrete. I think when I did my quick and dirty equivalence for COS earlier in this thread (but maybe it was elsewhere), I added ~ 0.001 to the Crr which alone is responsible for reducing distance attainable by ~ 500-600m. Adding 0.001 to Crr has the equivalent effect of adding a 0.1% gradient to the ride.

However one would need to performance measurement on each track to really know the actual Crr differential.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

You say this in jest, but she did run over the bumpers a number of times. What is the rule there? In track, if you put a foot inside the rail and you are DQed. No ifs, and, or buts. What's the rules with track cycling and cutting inside the bumpers?

One question I ask is why they even allow any records at altitude. It is like 100m running with wind aided times and if you have more than 2m/s the record does not count.//

Not exactly Dev. A 100 meter runner would surly benefit at altitude, as long jumpers, high jumpers, and any throwing guys. But what I have not seen in any equations here when talking about these high attempts, is the toll on the human body. You know what would be really low drag, a track at 20,000ft. But how many of you out there think a record would be set there. And if not, then why? There is you answer to this question. Yes there is a sweet spot to do it at, it will be different for different athletes, but all pay some price for breathing less 02 for an hour at a balls(or lack there of) effort.


Your 100m sprinter would get all the advantage and none of the disadvantage of thin air, as their race just is not long enough for the lack of 02 to catch up with them..

Nothing specific in the UCI rules. This is the closest thing, but it doesn't say what happens if you ride on the impassable area.

Preparation of the track
3.2.062 The blue bands shall be made impassable round the bankings by the placing every
5 metres of 50 cm long pads of a synthetic material.

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

She certainly proved they aren't impassable ;)

i love this front set up with the low bull horn bars. although not same picture from the event. what i dont get... sup with cyclists and their high over ankle sock deal? wouldnt that drag of cotton or whatever they are be enough to wear ankle socks only since these people are such aero/weight weenies ?

They aren't cotton. It's aero fabric of some kind, that they'd like to have on their whole leg if allowed, plus boundary layer trips.

Wiggins appears to have had trips in his:

Couldn't really tell from any shots I've seen, looked like she was wearing non-trip socks (maybe bioracers?)

Trips haven't really caught on in the US yet... part of that is the UCI but part of it is probably we're just behind.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

Does anyone have the actual lap-by-lap splits? I know I saw it somewhere.

---

BoulderCyclingCoach.com

https://twitter.com/...s/703675350111358976

Thanks Ron, but I am looking for the actual split time for each lap.

---

BoulderCyclingCoach.com

Doh!

https://www.cuore.ch/shop/us/en/TEAM-USA-ACCESSOIRES-UNISEX-CYCLING-AERO-SOCKS-LONG.html

late reply to this but if you look at USAC rules, trip socks would not be allowed, unless maybe they are full socks. thinking of nopinz here, those would not be allowed if called out on it.

 It is forbidden to wear non-essential items of clothing or items designed to influence the performances of a rider such as reducing air resistance or modifying the body of the rider

But if that's the case, Wiggo's socks shouldn't have passed either. I agree passing off nopinz specific trip socks (or just the aerocoach strips) would be tough, but so long as the socks don't come up past mid calf...

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

right, is it okay if they are full socks, not just sleeves. looks like wiggens were actual full socks, though one can really see how far they go . integrated things seem to pass whereas non-integrated things do not(UCI: wheel cover....)

on the tunnel post, rockdude took first at VOS TT in his age group using the sleeves. seems a clear violation to me, but I could be misinterpreting the rules. I wondered how these things perform, but if one cant use them, then there is no point in wondering

I think in a race where a good number of your competitors are going to be doing something illegal (how many people in that VOS TT fit in a Jig? Had legal forks/seatposts? 3:1 bars? Were riding Tri bikes?) you are pretty safe. Hell most people wouldn't even know what trip socks were. I'm not sure at what point you would have to start worrying about it.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

for me it is more a matter of knowing I am violating the rules.

I am guessing the masters were not UCI so 3:1 stuff doesn't apply, just USAC which says no aero enhancers

I know what you are saying, it's just a matter of where do you draw the line? If you follow the rule by the T you could argue a lot of things we wear are only for aero enhancement. Are socks with trips ok? Not sleeves... or are sleeves ok as long as they aren't compression? Are skinsuits (like the new nopinz/bioracer) with trips ok?

I (and many more before me that it was much more pertinent to) just have a hard time finding the defined line.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

agreed

but if you get protested, what happens?

I think it goes back to, is it integrated or stand alone for one purpose only? large part of problem here is the "I think" just as you said. I don't know

I guess soon all TTers will look like triathletes with compression socks. oh the humanity. every year we look just a little more silly, but only to ourselves as general population wont notice any difference :)

I'm not sure what happens if you get protested. My only experience with someone protesting was in a juniors race where the winner got DQ'd for having too big of a gear after another racers dad protested. That's not exactly apples to apples though.

My guess is probably nothing (or at most a slap on the wrist) up to the nats level. Plenty of State TT racers (in TN at least) last year were riding Shiv Tri's and Felt IA's and nobody batted an eye, and I would assume that were more of an issue than having trips. But again, who knows.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

apples oranges. nothing in USAC stops shiv tris(other than common sense that they are not fast) there are no usac 3:1 rules, just equal size wheels so all those shiv tris and IAs are legal in USAC TTs. trip socks, however, seem/appear to be/maybe violate actual USAC rules. they enforce USAC rules at USAC events, at least some here in WI. ie no restarts in a TT. I flatted 3 mi in. went beck changed wheel, they let me restart but gave time from original start, ie 25 min slower than actual riding time without telling me in advance(I should have known the rules,it sucked to go from 1st to last but so be it). I think if someone called out someone here in WI for wearing them, the head ref would DQ them. she does not delve into gray areas.

i dunno then :( We are (hah obviously) out of my wheelhouse.

Would be nice if they made things a little clearer, we can dream I suppose.
I was always under the impression that USAC just took UCI rules regarding equipment and went with it (on a paper at least) level. I guess that's what I get for assuming though.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

they used to, on occasion, for master nats, or elite and junior nats. just not for weekend warrior events.

only thing listed for master nats this year is double diamond and equal size wheels