Well, many of you know who Thurlow Rogers is and he went 46 in the TT that Roady is mentioning....

Elite Women 4

1 188 yvonne rodriguez 144507 0:55:07 0:00:00

2 186 Angela Dybdahl 255446 1:00:13 0:05:06

3 184 Robin Brown 260904 1:00:35 0:05:28

4 183 Debbie Betts 219103 1:01:01 0:05:54

5 182 Teresa Steele 259544 1:03:32 0:08:25

6 187 Dora Lendvai 257032 1:06:26 0:11:19

7 185 debra buchanan-p 236769 1:10:48 0:15:41

Elite Men 1-2

1 302 Thurlow Rogers 30417 0:46:19 0:00:00

2 277 Mike Garrett 42851 0:47:48 0:01:29

3 297 Patrick Caro 88582 0:47:54 0:01:35

4 276 Joseph Wiley 227264 0:48:04 0:01:45

That's 52 kph which is faster than the current "classic" world hour record. Even in a standard aero position, which Tony Rominger and Chris Boardman used to go 53 and 54 kph respectively on the boards of Bordeaux and Manchester, I don't think that Thurlow on an open road was ever in the same category of time trialist in his peak....so my take is fast course :-)

RE 260 @ 55minutes = Was it a point to point or round trip race?

The other thing is, not that this amount of power -> speed is necessarily impossible, why not (a LOT) more power for your weight?

yeah, those times always make me wonder... perhaps it's one-way with a tailwind? or is it like the one that i mentioned above, which was advertised as 38k?

actually a few of us from norcal have been talking about heading down there and settling the notion of a 'state champion' once and for all, like the m45-49 winner did that year.

Palmdale is at 3000 feet MSL. That equates to about a .8 to .9 mph speed advantage over sea level at the same power. Plus, I beleive this course was a trifle short.

Sorry Phil, I don't--and I think it's irresponsible for folks to make such assertions since they leave guys like you scratching their heads and asking "WTF???".

The numbers simply don't add up. While I don't want to use the word 'impossible', it's simply inconceivable that a 210 lb dude is in the same range of CxA as a 5'4", 115 lb women with a very aerodynamic position.

Lastly, I know your current TT bike will go fast without a lot of watts!

Let's put it this way: if that race were actually 40K, a number of those folks would probably be in Europe right now. There were at least 20 guys under 50 minutes (that's over 30 MPH).

nothing crazy about cat 5s breaking an hour, but a little odd to see so many people breaking 48. let's put it this way: the fastest time on the norcal district tt course, which happens to be a certified 40k and at 5400 feet (or something close to that), is 49:29. and that was set by a dude with a huge motor who rode for ouch this year. in the past two years 50 minutes has been broken only 2x.

It depends on your equipment/position big time, but 220-240W would be in the right range with good position on a decent tri bike.

Weight is only a big factor in that the heavier you are the bigger hole you need to make in the wind; it's about frontal surface area more than mass.

In the TT you will be in a position that is sub-optimal for power generation, so on a trainer (on the lever hoods) I'd aim to be able to push 260 for a 20min TT.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

there is nothing like a good tail wind to get you going. it is a good motivator. but in all fairness a disclaimer of "tailwind point to point race" is called for. 260 watts/27mph on FLAT road with NO WIND is , IMO, more than many many many people can do.

"..Plus, I beleive this course was a trifle short...".


Usually the "short part" covers the bulk of the delta when that many people go that fast. WRT to lower drag, while I accept that this is a factor, I don't think it accounts for most of the delta. In the now outlawed superman position Francesco Moser only went 51.8 kph at his ~1994 Mexico City hour record attempt....where the drag is a lot lower...this is slower than Thurlow's average speed at the aforementioned race and Moser did it in a velodrome, not open road.

They picked Mexico City cause at one hour effort they (him and his "advisors"), figured that it offered the best tradeoff between O2 absorption and drag. So I don't think that the reduced drag at 3000 ft was enough to account for the fast times at this race.

I just saw the course listed online. It's 37.5K--at 3000 ft. That adds up to the ultimate 'Ego 40K'.

its not 40k, its ~38k. I don't have the exact number because I missed my start time and forgot to press "go" until a minute into the race. The only thing is it isn't a 'fair' course because you do 1 leg twice which is uphill. Usually you have a tailwind over that section so it makes it an 'even' course but this year ('09) it was a slight headwind so times might be slightly slower than previous years. This is the only year I have done it so most of the 'wind' knowledge is hearsay

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

I'm working my butt off to make your old bike go as fast as I can make it go this year. It looks great, built it up with DA and a Quarq compact, and it's beautiful!!! Fit is much improved over my old 56.

Well whether E-Moto can or can't or did or didn't and whether his course was short or long, I sure know I can get more aero. I came very close to breaking an hour this year and next year is going to be the year. My goal is ftp of 270 (3.75 w/kg). If I can do that without getting less aero, ought to get the job done.

Phil

So if a guy did 55 min for 37.5K that's around ~58.30 for 40K which is a solid time and that seems quite in line with 260+W for a reasonably big guy, especially at 3000 ft?

As I was the first one to call BS on EMoto's claims, albeit in a friendly and joking manner, allow me to respond. I too think the hair trigger BS calling on here is absurd sometimes and I have never done it. The vast majority of people may indeed tell the truth, but the 'vaster' majority of people don't ride 27 mph on 260 or so watts at 210 lbs. As a matter of fact, I would guess none of them do. Pending a reply from the man himself as to what race this actually occured at, I think my BS claim seems to be gaining momentum, while your assertions are proving to be groundless.

I will agree he is faster than you and could kick your ass though.


All in good fun here of course.

see post number 8 in this thread :-)

I disagree that our positions are as inconsistent as you think.

If E-Moto did what he thought was a 40k in 55 minutes and it turns out the course was short and he really did a 38k in 55 minutes, that's just being wrong, it's not being deceitful.

You are probably right that he is objectively wrong. I calculated his numbers on analytic cycling and he would have had to have had cda of .20 (.5 frontal area, .4 coeficient) to get there. Not impossible but pretty unlikely given that his frontal area has got to be bigger than average--just has to be.

So, I'm not going to call E-Moto a liar (after looking at a picture of that guy--anyone who does is crazy), but I agree that you are probably right and he did not do 55 minutes @ 260 watts and I should have done the math before responding.

Now the more important question to me is can I do 59:59 this year on 260-270 watts?

Phil

3.14w/kg = 57:53 for a long 40k, more like 40.5k AP/NP 266/269. this course was flat, with one little hill~:20sec of climbing in each direction and a couple of rollers <:10 in each direction.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I covered the first 40km of a (long) olympic distance in 59.30 on 268w the other day. 3 turnarounds, 10 speedbumps (get off the aerobars and stop pedalling type, a stop and restart for a mechanical (actual stopped time not counted) and the putting shoes on phase at the beginning. All that fluffing meant my drag calculates out much higher than on a smooth course. I'm 6'4" and 195lbs.

If he's using the tires he appears to be using in the photo, I'd say he's even under .2, closer to the .18 range. I don't think he's lying, just like I don't think Jose was lying about his 410 watt trainer ride--I just think he's most likely incorrect; and the resident cynics need to point this out, or there are more threads like this one.

If his numbers did come from the aforementioned TT, his numbers do make sense and put him around .25 or so--give or take. Good numbers, but reasonable for a guy his size.

using analytic and the 3000'elev, 37.5k someone stated, zero slope(yeah, bad) and .004rr, 20lb bike, I got .255

seems pretty reasonable given his size and position

BTW...to be clear, my time quoted earlier (58:30 on 225W for 40K) was NOT on the Palmdale/Lake Los Angeles "loop" course (i.e. the SCNCA district TT).

Instead, it was at the CBR Lancaster "out and back" course that (according to my speedo at least) actually measures 40K.

http://www.uncletren.com/states.html

I've done a 52:49 on ~250W for the Palmdale/Lake Los Angeles 37.5K course before...in a "slow conditions" year...and I'm just an old fart Cat 4. For 40K at the same power level, that would work out to be ~56:20 or so.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Man I hope I don't get in trouble for this, but here goes: time to come "clean".

I had a bet with "XXXXXXXX" here on ST, that nobody would find the obvious holes in my story. The thread got past the 1500 views a while back, so I need to arrest this before it goes any further. The signs were there, you guys missed 'em, and now I am out $100 bucks.

I claimed a 260 watt average, and a 55min finish time, and NOBODY, NOT ONE PERSON noticed in the huge pics that I posted, that I was running a plain old disc wheel. I was accused of cheating by "XXXXXXXX" because the pic of the disc was such that it wasn't obvious that it was a NOT PT disc , so I posted up an additional pic of me warming up, and the disc at a 3/4 angle view. Matter of fact, I'm not even sure Powertap made a disc in 2007.....but don't quote me on that. Did they?

So, there is not power file.......there never could have been. There is only a speed and HR file provided by the Powertap computer. I'll dig up the file and JPG. it, because the remainder of the story IS accurate, just not the 260 watts part. I have NO idea what the actual watts were, besides...............that was 2 years ago when I had only been riding for about a year.

The rest of the story is true, there was no intention to deceiving anyone beyond the scope of the bet ,we just betting on/against the resident experts abilities to examine the data presented before rendering their judgment.

Now I gotta go pay my debt to XXXXXXX.....cuz he just took me for $100. You guys need to pay better attention.

Edited for spelling errors. My bad.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

I don't get it...was your bet that nobody would call BS, or that they would?...'cuz it seems to me that Mr. Luscan said "I don't believe it" right off the bat...

BTW, my times are real...and I DO have the files to prove it ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Hmmmm. I gotta double check on that. I had bet that nobody would call BS on a wattage claim, because there obviously could be NO wattage claim, but you may have a point, I might be able to keep my dough.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose