>>about 170 or so - Carl Spackler riding Tufos

You mean 170psi in the Tufos, right? If that's the case I'll try dropping to that from the 200 I normally run.

Interesting thing is that the CT and SRM track within a watt of each other when the CT is calibrated. However the CT in ergo mode is totally off the instantaneous wattage.

Sorry to bring up a painful subject. I thought it fit as it was included in the offer to buy you a pm :-)

Yeah, that's correct...my ace in the hole is not letting Scot out swim me....but the way my swim is going (bad) and his bike is going we might just converge at T2!!! Plus I am on the wrong side of the age curve and Scot is on the right side. My arteries aren't getting any less clogged.

You sure don't seem to be slowing down any...

Sure...it's even been the state championship 40k a time or two. I've done it once and it was fun, in a hurt-real-bad kinda way. It's the only organized 40 I'm aware of in our immediate area.

Mike...

You must be stupidly aero or full of shit. I am the same weight and did a 100km TT in 2:29:51 @ 313 watts average.

edit, just saw your 'come clean'. I call BS on that as well. You just got busted hard and tried to back pedal.

How do you get your back so level without your legs hitting your torso? I'm trying to get to that position but that little detail is stopping me.

ok, I'm getting to this thread late -

imho, the palmdale SCNCA district "states" course is about ~3mins faster than a out-n-back sea level 40k course - on most years - give or take

altitude, course length, tailwind all play a part

I am just glad that Carl is now in the 40-44 so he cannot whomp me in '10 if he makes the trip south

I raced the course in 06, 07, 08, 09, indiv and team (won the elite 2m TTT in 08)

the timing for years past (prior to 08) may have been questionable - some faster, some slower, so it is all relative to the day

Ummm...I basically took my "hammerin' on the hoods" road position and just rotated everything forward about the BB.

Oh...and I watch what I eat...so I don't end up with a "belly fairing" ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Tom A - do you mind if I ask about your arms/shoulders, forearms, did it take some getting used to in that position - is there any tension in them at all? I'm curious because of this problem
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...psed;page=last;#last

I maybe just need to perservere and get used to my position. It is very simlar to yours except forearms are flat.

I got "busted hard" when the pictures were up for the whole day, that's busted-hard? uh............ok, fine.

And I got busted for claiming lower than realistic wattage, so I'm being busted for appearing weaker.........again.......oh............ok. I thought just posting up a low wattage figure would be better than putting up some "pumped up number". I didnt realize that this would actually affect anyone to the degree that it has. I feel kinda bad now.

UP to a point, I thought this was all funny, but its been pointed out to me that a few of you are typing responses in a way that indicates the possibility of being emotionally invested in all this stuff; I just didn't realize it, and I'm sorry if I triggered anyones issues.. Based on some of the responses, I must have touched on some stuff. My bad. I need to be more sensitive. Thank you for teaching me this lesson guys, I feel really good about the progress we've made here tonite.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

You sound like finman.

Seriously.

If a guy comes on here and claims he is a 55 min 40K TT guy, that's all fine.

However, you posted a file saying that your time was 55.06 for just over 23 miles, or equivalently 59.47 for 40K.

To me, it wasn't the power claim, but more the claim that you are a 55 min 40K TT guy, when in reality this is not true. Pretty well most people know that you can only contort yourself so many ways to reduce Cda, after which you'll need to put up some pretty solid Watts to get down to 55 (or find a downhill with tailwind course)....its a completely different world from riding 60.

Looks like I'm out of excuses that my age is keeping me from being flexible enough to get that compact.....damn you! You look like a freakin' bullet, while I resemble something slightly less;)

Last nite I said some stuff that I feel really bad about, because I know it upset you. I know you deserve better, and I really want to try harder.

I realized last nite, that you love me too. IF you didnt, then you wouldnt care enough to argue with me, you'd just leave me.

so I want you to know, I love you too. Our relationship means a lot to me, and you make my life better. Its YOU that inspires me, its you that matters most to me. You make me want to be a better man.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

Just let me know: did I win any money? If so, Paypal works...

And really, it's OK, all of Spackler's numbers are made up as well. That sub 50 40K he did was actually at around 400W--at >1,500 meters! He just doesn't want to arouse the very obvious suspicions that go with numbers like that.

I know Carl, I know--all you're on is your bike 6 hours a day.....

It's all fairly "comfy"...no stress or anything in my arms/shoulders...although, my eyes get slightly "sore" sometimes looking out of the tops of my eye sockets ;-) If I were to do courses longer than 40K I'd probably experiment with positions that would allow me to look up the road a bit easier.

IMO, a good way to figure out how to locate your arms, etc. "in space" is to just bend over in front of a mirror and play around with arm positions and find one that allows you to "shrug"...then, try to replicate that on your bike.

For the case in that link you have above, my suggestion would be to try raising your hands slightly...but, it sounds like you'll need to move away from the one-piece bar and go to some separate extensions to accomplish that...or, get some "ski bend" extensions for your current bars. I've found that having the hands angled slightly up is not only faster (for me) but also affords a more "locked in" position. Plus, when needing to put out some short-term extra power (like popping over a small rise) I find that this arm position allows me to just "pull" myself forward to the point I'm barely touching the seat to lay down the power...it's as close to standing on the pedals as you can get without getting out of the aero bars.

YMMV :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Tom, I have a set of Scott Extreme Aerobars from back in 1993. 38 cm wide and I've done some technical tris on them "back in the day" including the Old World's Toughest tri out of South Lake Tahoe that took you up to the summit of Monitor Pass (it was like death descending on those flying over cattle grates.....dumb dumb)....but how many watts would those bars save vs a standard Vision basebar and clip on @ 40 kph (assume same position, just cleaner front end)

According to Andy C., the extremes aren't any faster than a Vision bar with w/clip-ons (IIRC, that was from a Jim Martin test...you should be able to search the forum on that)...the speculation is that the 2 round sections that form each "loop" on each end don't help things. The 100Ks bars are significantly narrower.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

as an old guy, i'm only on my bike 4 hours a day. and i don't even tweet every minute of it.

OK, intuitively, that makes sense....the air has to go over the first loop and reattach on the back side before going over the second loop and the faster you go, the more turbulent the air would be on the second "hit", yet the second hit is not close enough for the separated airflow to stay apart before passing over the second. I guess the second part is not "drafting close enough"!

By the way, this morning's CT ride was 10 min warmup, 50 min course averaging 239W (3.8W per kg), 5 min cooldown....now if I can get more aero and figure out how to do that and run off the bike, I should be good for sub 60 min an Olympic tri :-)

thanks

I'm gonna make a wild guess that an 'optimized' vision one-piece bar would be as fast, or faster, than the 100K's if you can get in the same position--and the bars are more adjustable than they seem if you're willing to tinker with the extensions.

While the 100K's are narrow, that big round section isn't thrilling the eyeball tunnel (nor is all that bar tape--YIKES!).

I know, I know...all you're on is hard work...

It's all fairly "comfy"...no stress or anything in my arms/shoulders...although, my eyes get slightly "sore" sometimes looking out of the tops of my eye sockets ;-) If I were to do courses longer than 40K I'd probably experiment with positions that would allow me to look up the road a bit easier.

IMO, a good way to figure out how to locate your arms, etc. "in space" is to just bend over in front of a mirror and play around with arm positions and find one that allows you to "shrug"...then, try to replicate that on your bike.

For the case in that link you have above, my suggestion would be to try raising your hands slightly...but, it sounds like you'll need to move away from the one-piece bar and go to some separate extensions to accomplish that...or, get some "ski bend" extensions for your current bars. I've found that having the hands angled slightly up is not only faster (for me) but also affords a more "locked in" position. Plus, when needing to put out some short-term extra power (like popping over a small rise) I find that this arm position allows me to just "pull" myself forward to the point I'm barely touching the seat to lay down the power...it's as close to standing on the pedals as you can get without getting out of the aero bars.

YMMV :-)[/reply]
Thanks, so just wondering, why the trend for the flat/straight extensions and flat hand positions these days? I do notice my wrists cop the worst in this position. Sore the next day after a hard time trial.

Does anyone know if you can safely bend aluminium vision tech bar extensions. The bars are one piece but attached to a head stem (i.e. semi-integrated). I can rotate them up, but that means the pads go with them and the flat base bar is angled up.