Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Bobridge weight x power
Quote | Reply
During a recent interview about his upcoming hour record attempt, Jack Bobridge was quoted as saying:

Bobridge: “At my weight at the moment, I’m going to have to average at least 375-380 watts to break the current record.


Up until reading this I have been under the assumption that even though watts/kg is a really significant metric when it comes to analyzing power data, it´s becomes much more so when the rider is up against climbs with more than 6 or 7% gradient. Up to this point power per se plays a greater role than power to weight ratio. Following this line of thought, I also assumed that because the hour record event takes place in a velodrome, where gravity´s role is pretty close to nill, changes in rider weight (assuming there were no great gains or losses, or not to the point of interfering with the rider´s overall fitness) would not matter in the athtlete´s power production More significant twould be his drag coefficient, i.e aero position, body mass).


Yet, Bobridge´s comment suggests otherwise, and one friend whom I shared the topic with suggested that weight gains or losses impart directly on the athlete´s ability to produce power.


So I´m left to wonder if:


- Jack´s comment makes sense;
- watts / kg is significant even in flat conditions;
- what the actual relation is between weight variations and power variations;


Any help in layman´s terms would be appreciated.


m.
Quote Reply
Re: Bobridge weight x power [konatrishop] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A significant factor are the bends in the track. This makes the w/kg more significant than if the course was pancake flat.

I forget where but there are some *very* detailed articles on the significance of the bends (individual track dependant) and the physics of it all.
Quote Reply
Re: Bobridge weight x power [konatrishop] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Bobridge weight x power [konatrishop] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
konatrishop wrote:
So I´m left to wonder if:

- Jack´s comment makes sense;

on the face of it, not really.


konatrishop wrote:
- watts / kg is significant even in flat conditions;

Only in the sense that when W/kg goes up, typically so does W/m^2, which is what really matters.


konatrishop wrote:
- what the actual relation is between weight variations and power variations;

That's complex.
Quote Reply
Re: Bobridge weight x power [Watt Matters] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree it's W/aero on flat ground and W/kg on climbs. I've been fortunate to see a lot of power data from the last three years' racing at Ironman Hawaii. Pro racers in Hawaii have the latest, and arguably best, frames, wheels, components, helmets and skin suits, including a move to sleeves on their suits. They've also more often than not been in a wind tunnel. From what I've seen, this tends to even out aerodynamics, making W/kg a meaningful comparison. I'm not saying the same is true for pro cyclists or the hour record, but time trialists tend to be knowledgable and specific about themselves and their equipment. They've also got excellent technical advisors - from both their teams and their sponsors. Jack's comment might be driven from that.

--Troy@Quarq
Quote Reply
Re: Bobridge weight x power [Watt Matters] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Watt Matters wrote:
konatrishop wrote:
- watts / kg is significant even in flat conditions;

Only in the sense that when W/kg goes up, typically so does W/m^2, which is what really matters.


Don't forget rolling resistance and, if the race requires it, the power required to frequently accelerate.
Quote Reply
Re: Bobridge weight x power [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Guys, thanks for the comments.

So bottom line, w/kg matters uphill, w/aero matters (more) on flat ground.

Which basically means Bobridge´s comment either made little sense or entails some knowldege I´m not privy to.
Quote Reply
Re: Bobridge weight x power [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew Coggan wrote:
Watt Matters wrote:
konatrishop wrote:
- watts / kg is significant even in flat conditions;


Only in the sense that when W/kg goes up, typically so does W/m^2, which is what really matters.



Don't forget rolling resistance and, if the race requires it, the power required to frequently accelerate.
Very true, I was thinking about steady state effort. Extra mass is definitely a big deal when accelerating.
Quote Reply
Re: Bobridge weight x power [konatrishop] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
konatrishop wrote:
Guys, thanks for the comments.

So bottom line, w/kg matters uphill, w/aero matters (more) on flat ground.

Which basically means Bobridge´s comment either made little sense or entails some knowldege I´m not privy to.

Or as per my posts above both are significant on track. As Andy points out, the bends in track means cda, rolling resistance and w/kgs all are factors.
Quote Reply
Re: Bobridge weight x power [Tapeworm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Understood.

So rephrasing: Bobridge´s comment makes total sense as long as we´re talking about track. On open roads, w/aero prevails on flat surfaces, w/kg on steeper hills.

Which would render pretty much useless all attempts to make triathlon bikes lighter :-)
Quote Reply
Re: Bobridge weight x power [konatrishop] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
konatrishop wrote:
Yet, Bobridge´s comment suggests otherwise,

Bobridge's pacing during the record suggests he may not have the best technical advisors.

So he may have just been wrong.

That or he has some detailed data on how his own CdA varies with weight, but then forgot how fast to go during the first 1/4 of his hour record.



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: Bobridge weight x power [konatrishop] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Aero resistance will depend on rider size. Greater mass = greater volume = larger frontal area. Bobridge didn't say Hour Record would need a specific W/kg, he said at his current size (getting lighter with road focus?) Hour record pace would need a certain power level, which he had recently exceeded in the Aussie National TT. W/CdA is a better measure of flat speed, larger riders will achieve a given W/CdA from a lower W/kg. First 10k in 11:12 is where it went wrong today.
Quote Reply
Re: Bobridge weight x power [dontswimdontrun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don´t know what he actually said, but what the article I refer to quotes him as saying is:


Bobridge: “At my weight at the moment, I’m going to have to average at least 375-380 watts to break the current record.

I see no mention of body mass there.


Here´s the full article just in case:



http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/01/jack-bobridge-qa-before-his-hour-record-attempt/


Quote Reply