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