Depends on your CdA. I can break an hour on 230-250 W depending on conditions (say 3.3-3.5 W/kg). But it really is a function of tires, wheels, helmet, position, etc. and not so much weight.

+1

260+ watts for my 210lb Frame to get under 55min. Much more do do with your setup, than with your weight.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

Jeez.... I need to do some serious work on my position over the off-season.

+2 for me.. Does the "+" in 260+ mean about 275?

---

-----------------------------------------
Donate now to the war on ALS

I don't think equipment or position is my limiter. Here's some basic info on my setup:

Bike: QROO Seduza, frame mounted bottles, 1.5 cm of spacers
Helmet: LG rocket, tail lies flat on the back.
Wheels: shallow generic up front, wheel cover on a powertap out back.

Some sample data:
1) I've averaged 202watts (2.87/kg) over a hilly 90km 1/2IM bike split (02:29:47 @ 36km/h avg)
2) I've also averaged 347watts (4.93/kg) over 15km ITT in low wind. (00:21:55 @ 41km/h avg)

250 watts average for 1 hour a reasonable ball park? more?

---

___________________________________________________
Team Medique Powered by Silber Investments

I did a flat 40K in 58:30 on an embarrassingly low 225W AP a couple of months ago...I'm ~5' 10-11" and ~160-165lbs...

I probably could've just broken 60 minutes on around 205W or so with that position/setup.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

x3

260W 55 min....is this point to point, downhill with tailwind...that's faster than Torbjorn's Kona bike split and he is way above 300W to move at 58 min 40K pace! Yes, he is a big guy too....but wow 260W for 55 min...this is like the invisible man on an invisible bike!

What type of PM are you using? If you've done ~5 w/kg for 16km, breaking an hour for 40k should be a joke on a decent course in decent conditions with the same setup. You could probably hold around 325W for 40k ...

I must be really non aerodynamic because on 4.0 w/kg I can't maintain 40km/hour.

I'm using a wireless PT 2.4 from a few seasons ago.

Frankly, i didn't know what to make of it when i saw the file. I remember feeling strong that day, the PT has always given me good readings, but this was a stand out. The only thing i can make of it is that i generally TT well above my category at shorter distances. Also, as a cyclist, i'm defenitly more of a sprinter then anything else.

---

___________________________________________________
Team Medique Powered by Silber Investments

I hate you.

What bike was that?

These numbers don't make a lot of sense.

202 watts and 36 (22.36 mph) km/h on a hilly course???? How hilly is hilly? That's VERY good depending on how hilly.

On the contrary, 347 watts and 41km/h (25.47mph) assuming it is flat (you did not say) is not good, again, depending on how windy "slightly windy' is. 347 watts should yield almost 30 MPH on a flat course with light wind, especially on the basis of your first 22mph @ 202 watts on a hilly course.

So something is not right.

The one in that box I sent you :-) Just slap some Scott 100K bars and a Jet90 front/rear w/cover on it and equipment-wise it'll be identical. Get your position dialed in and you'll be right there ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I hate me too...especially the fact that I couldn't put out my typical 260-280W that day...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

huh? breaking 60 in a 40k requires 40km/h - if it took him 347w to go 41km/h in a 16km TT it's probably going to take pretty close to that to go 40 km/h, given a similar course/conditions. Assuming that 16km TT was a full-gas effort, I don't think this is going to be a "joke" for him. But I would agree that 325w sounds about right.

I'm either calling BS or hiring you as my coach. 27+ mph for a 210lb dude on 260 watts is arousing my skepticism.

Are you still in this set-up??

The 90 km was at the Tupper Lake Tinman. A rolling course with mild winds i'd say. Probably less hilly then a loop of IMLP. The 15km TT was an out and back on a single pancake flat road. Winds were generally cross tail/cross head. I have PT files for both rides but don't know how to pull them out.

---

___________________________________________________
Team Medique Powered by Silber Investments

uhm he stated 21:55 for 16km which is 43.8 kph ... I took that figure vs. 41 kph.

oops. actual distance is 15km. Edited above as well.

---

___________________________________________________
Team Medique Powered by Silber Investments

I'm wondering just how much good tires/tubes will give me next year.

Last year I did 1:01:16 on 252 watts AP/NP. Flat course, reasonable position on a P3, deep wheels, relatively lousy tires (Conti Sprinter). (Tom, if you want to point to a downside of tubulars, here it is: I was just too lazy to change the tires out, and my local shop was out of good tubulars anyway). A month ago at a pretty much flat practice TT, I did 10 miles in 25:10, (23.9 mph) on 265 watts AP. Worse speed for more power. One difference, I had a training tire (big heavy Rubino Tech) on the rear last month.

This coming year, I'll be running clinchers w/latex tubes, and I'm finally going to get off my wallet and buy some Bonty or Vittoria Evo tires. It'll be interesting to see if there's a big difference.

---

Kendall Frederick

Orange Park, FL

On that day...mostly. The position was nearly identical (I think my hands are slightly lower with the 100K bars) but the wheels were a Jet90 front/rear with a cover on the rear.

This was the position and setup on the day:

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

49:35 on ~319 watts but at el 5400.

I thought wheel covers weren't legal, i guess not?

(b) There may be no protective shield, fairing, or other device on any part of the bicycle, which has the effect of reducing air resistance except that spoke covers may be used

---

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

I made the mistake of explaining AOD to my wife and she wasn't too keen on the D.

you may want to check out this paper. good explanations, examples and equations

http://www.eatel.net/~mikec/aero.html

---

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"

Wheel covers are spoke covers... they are legal except in nationals and UCI events.

How does AC put it?..."Handling skills or hospital bills"?? ;-)

To be honest, I haven't found the 100K bars to be highly "constraining" in the handling department. Of course, it helps that the front-center on that P2K is fairly "long"...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

...and your question is?? ;-)

In any case, that was a CBR event, not a USAC one...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I weigh 180 and went 56:12 at 260 watts

I should of put a '.' instead of a '?'

so would it be legal in USAC races outside nationals and UCI too then?

The rule book doesn't specify the use only in TT's, does that mean I can use my disc cover for Boulevard? :)

---

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

It's legal in any USAC event that doesn't require UCI equipment rules....or, basically 99% of all USAC events.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

A lot of the people responding to this thread have abnormally aerodynamic positions. Most of us won't or can't get that aero.

I'm 5' 10", 158, and have an ok but not great position. For me to break 1:00 (I've been very close but haven't done it yet) it would take 255 watts (3.55/kg). By definition, FTP would be 255.

In case no one mentioned it above, go to www.analyticcycling.com, go to "power, given speed", and punch in 11.084 m/s (if my math is right!). Depending on your position, you can get ideas of how much power you need.

Good luck, I"ll be trying to do the same thing this year!

Who ya callin' "abnormal"?? (or, "Abby Normal", for all of you "Young Frankenstein" fans ;-)

Does this position really look all that strange?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

the 260 + is open ended, so the + was there because the 55min was also open ended. MY last 1 hour TT was an average of 260 watts on the Palmdale course in 2007.
. My position was very good, but VERY painful. I wouldn't do an hour in that position again, on purpose. ;)

You guys are a "TRIP". IF you boast too high of a wattage, you get slammed by the ST web certified experts, and now you also get slammed if your wattage claim is too low?

Make it worth my while to prove you guys wrong. I have the pics of the setup, I have ALL my power files leading up to the race, and I have the file from the race. So, its pretty apparent when you review the data that it IS what I claimed. That, or I doctored months of data just to me able to post up that I put out less wattage.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

Looks like a classic aero position to me.

Holy cow, where did you find that? What a blast from the past!
Note that that was a very early attempt at modeling and there is an error in the aero power term. The power term should be
1/2 rho Cd A Vg Va^2
with Vg being ground speed (not influenced by wind) and Va being air speed (influenced by ground and wind speed). Because of this error the final table overestimates the effect of wind. All the tables with calm conditions are fine.
Since then I have written a few journal articles on the aerodynamics and can send them out to those of you who are interested. If there is enough interest I could put the pdf's up on a server.

Cheers,

Jim

No, really, guys like you (aero-or-die, 60 minutes on 205 watts) and Carl Spackler (the frigging 2nd fastest master tter in the WORLD, who is so aero, that even you aero guys are in awe of how aero he is) are the mainstream! Only a few of us bizarre outliers need 255w to break 60 minutes (and I still haven;t been able to do that)

By the way, you got any advice on how to go sub-60 on 205 watts? As I've posted before (And I got a lot of valuable input from people like you and Bob Chambers and others) the rest of us would love to figure this stuff out but it ain't easy!

Phil

  

Hotel room, night before, trying a raised cockpit that I did not go with.




Hotel room, night before, experimenting with a raised cockpit.



Warming up, but you can see that this setup is not one that'll be comfortable for very long



A good view of the bike's setup, cockpit is LOW. This was the final setup for the bike (obviously, since I am about to step up onto the starting podium).

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

E-moto: If anyone else doubts your wattage figures tell them to come meet you in person and you will snap them like a twig.

My thoughts exactly.

I must be about as aerodynamic as a brick wall.

Yeah, that's a big dude. I'm thinking those arms are costing him at least 25 watts to push through the air.

---

-------------------------------
Ignorance is bliss until they take your bliss away.

Not your average cyclist (or triathlete) for sure.

Also interesting to me that he can get so aero at that weight/body composition. Proves that people like me (5' 10", 158, less aero than E-Moto) can/should be able to do better.

Did I read this correctly?.....210lbs and 260W for 55 minutes? That's only 2.7W per Kg! Dude, if you can get your power up to the 5W per kg (like all the studs on ST) you'll be cleaning up more than you are now.

this is sort of interesting (to me at least) with regard to aero vs. watts. we have a really hilly tt course that measured (with a 705) 36.2km with ~1300ft of elevation change. i did the p1/2 race, finished and a few minutes later did the m35+. first time was 48:05, and 48:58 -- on 28 fewer watts. and of the :53 difference, :08 came in the last 1/2 mile, which was a little over 4% grade.

Here's what's interesting to me: http://www.scncattchampionships.com/...ITT_RESULTS_5-19.pdf


If this is the Palmdale '40K' to which E-Moto is referring, his numbers make a lot more sense...

You should go find this course--you may break the 40 minute barrier!

First let me say that I totally credit E-Moto's statement that he did 55 min on 260+ watts. I hate the way so many people call BS on other people on ST when in my experience the vast majority of people tell the truth.

So, yes he is low w/kg but incredibly aero. So what I wonder is if his position is an aero friendly, power poor position. Maybe he could substantially jack up his wattage if he moved to a more powerful position and maybe that would be slower/maybe faster depending on the aero impact.

In any event, he's a lot faster than me but most ST'ers are. (And man he sure could kick my ass).

Phil

I assume these results are atypical for a 40k, all the cat 5 men breaking an hour? Either that or I have some serious work to do on my cycling...

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

Post #18:

"I'm either calling BS or hiring you as my coach. 27+ mph for a 210lb dude on 260 watts is arousing my skepticism."

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

at the least you should send tom a. $50 for making the argument on your behalf.

or better yet, i'd pay $50 to watch a cage match between you and jerry jayne. that's way better viewing than the two of you flogging tt bikes.

The "real" file. Speed, cadence, HR. all actual data.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

 
So...the real question is, why didn't you just slap a cover on your PT wheel?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I didn't have Tufos mounted on my PT wheel. IF I dont run Tufos..............man, ................I cant even talk about it.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

Must...not...respond...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Hey according to your file 55:06 for 23.045 mi ~ 59.47 for 40K

Not quite 55:06 for 40K....so regardless of power output, your performance was more in line with slightly sub 1 hour vs 55 minutes?

Coming on here and claiming to do a 55 min 40K is like 38 minute 10K coming on here and claiming he's a 32 minute guy....no?

Dave Luscan, right, right, right.

Phil Combs, wrong, wrong, wrong (with his faith in humanity shaken).

This year I was able to go 58:15 in my first 40KTT at an ave Wattage of 264, of course the turn around must have cost me some Wattage. I too am 5'10", albeit 165lbs at the time. It is hard to believe I could be that unaero...but would love to figure out how to do it on just 225 Watts. I don't think it is possible, but willing to learn if it is.

Agreed. 55 is a totally different ball park.

---

___________________________________________________
Team Medique Powered by Silber Investments

You're the man Brian. Thanks.

---

___________________________________________________
Team Medique Powered by Silber Investments

Ha! I know I don't say much around here but that is funny, Tom. The kind of laugh I usually have to hit LetsRun for.

Mike...

Here is a comparison between a 60 min 40 kph guy and a 55 min guy using 0% grade and the standard default data at analyticcycling.com...we're talking about the diff between a 240W guy and a 310W guy @ 75 kg (rider+bike)

60 min guy:
Forces On Rider

Frontal Area 0.50 m2 Coefficient Wind Drag 0.50 dimensionless Air Density 1.226 kg/m3 Weight 75.0 kg Coefficient of Rolling 0.004 dimensionless Grade 0.000 decimal Wind Resistance 18.9 kg m/s2 Rolling Resistance 2.9 kg m/s2 Slope Force 0.0 kg m/s2 Cadence 100. rev/min Crank Length 170. mm Pedal Speed 1.78 m/s Average Pedal Force 136.4 kg m/s2 Effective Pedaling Range 70. degree Effective Pedal Force 350.8 kg m/s2 Speed 11.11 m/s Power 242.8 watts

55 min guy
Forces On Rider

Frontal Area 0.50 m2 Coefficient Wind Drag 0.50 dimensionless Air Density 1.226 kg/m3 Weight 75.0 kg Coefficient of Rolling 0.004 dimensionless Grade 0.000 decimal Wind Resistance 22.5 kg m/s2 Rolling Resistance 2.9 kg m/s2 Slope Force 0.0 kg m/s2 Cadence 100. rev/min Crank Length 170. mm Pedal Speed 1.78 m/s Average Pedal Force 173.3 kg m/s2 Effective Pedaling Range 70. degree Effective Pedal Force 445.7 kg m/s2 Speed 12.12 m/s Power 308.6 watts

That's kind of why I compared 60 and 55 to a the 32 and 38 min 10K runner, as run speed is more of less linear to fitness (well, not really at 32 min 10K pace self generated wind is a factor).

Chris,

It would take a field of Euros to make the results sheet look like that on the River Rd., Stillwater course. And that's just an honest out-n-back 40 with some rollers.

Mike...

Hey Scott....here is a data point for ya. At Esprit on a flat course on a reasonably windy day, I did 2:19 for the 88.5K course (not 90....so really 2:21) off 231 Average watts (including coasting at 20 hairpins ~4-5 second each and 20 south side turns around 2-3 second each). I think we have pretty similar aero positions (well, yours is better for your size, but I am smaller to start) and did pretty well the identical bike performance at Tupper. Not sure how many more watts I would have needed to go from 2:21 to 2:15 (40 kph), but sadly for me, I think it would be well in excess of 30 W. Unlike Tom A, I've found that I cannot be so aero that I can't run off the bike (at least for me, when I get any lower, my runs get bad). But if it were just a TT, I think you can do it off much less.

• Helmet: LG Chrono
• Tires: Vittoria Corsa CX
• Front Wheel: HED Stinger 60
• Rear Wheel: Zipp 808
• One seat tube mounted bottle
• Bike: Kuota Kalibur barn door (ML's words)
• Flapping race belt (no choice have to wear the number)
• Winds were not benign (can't remember what they were, but 20-30 kph rings a bell)

Hmmm, Yea. With this data, and what Brian suggested, 250-265ish seems like a reasonable, though daunting, target for someone of my build/position. Ouf, it's going to be a long off season of painful 20 minute intervals.

---

___________________________________________________
Team Medique Powered by Silber Investments

Totally agree with you. Never meant to imply he was lying. Just erroneously throwing out incorrect numbers.

You can without a doubt bust way under 60 on your target wattage.

Look, let's be clear about a few things.
First, my post was never to lay claim to some astonishing figure. If between now and 3 years ago I forgot that it was not exactly 40k, because it was really NOT that important to me ,well.........heck, you got me.........I forgot, SHOOT ME.

IF for whatever reason, I need to lay claim to a 40K TT any time soon, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, Let's set up something worthwhile down at Fiesta Island. When I knock off a 55min (or less) 40K, then I get to have my picture taken at the finish line with you smooching my bare ass, and I get to post up the picture on ST for a year.

Bring it on, IM ready to ride; and its the off season so............your best chance of not having to smooch my hairy ass is taking this bet sooner, vs. later.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

Scott....I think you can do it ! The Tupper Lake number is articificially "low" due to all the zero watt coasting on downhills. What other races do you have data for?

Didn't read through the whole thing before my previous post but happy to see my suspicions confirmed. Funny bet though. I did not notice the lack of PM in the pic.

Back on track for the OP, I don't usually throw things like this out there, but I think you are looking for a verbal opinion sort of answer, and I offer mine below.

To break 40k you need roughly these watts, assuming a favorable but honest course.

200-215 - if you are smallish with an excellent position and equipment choices
215-235 - a good but not excellent 160 or so lb'er
235-265 - getting into pretty good to average for anyone who does the minimum homework, great road position
265-300 -getting below average / pretty bad, big, poor position, equipment choice put a large % of us into this range.
300-320 -guy on a P3 in typical IM set-up with two bottles out back, noggin in the breeze, number flappin over his Gatorskins, multiple small mistakes costing big time
320-400 - more upright road and comfort bike set ups
400+ -your beach cruiser with over inflated tires
about 170 or so - Carl Spackler riding Tufos

I think it's a reasonable goal for the spring. Are you using a power meter now? I didn't notice one on your bike at Epicman this year. Did you borrow one for Esprit?

In any case, I dug out the file for Muskoka this year. If i remember we had almost identical bike splits there.
55.92km @ 214avg (3.05/kg), good for 35.12km/h avg and a split of 0:1:35:36 on the computer.

Cheers.

---

___________________________________________________
Team Medique Powered by Silber Investments

Is there actually a TT down on river road? If not there are there some local 40k TT's? I think that would be fun, well more painful fun than fun fun but you get the point.

Dev has a srm and a computrainer these days, no more wildly guessing watts for him :-)

How goes the swimming? Is Dev's offer to buy you a power meter still good if you beat either him or ML to T2?

Swimming. Why do you have to bring that up in an obviously bike related thread. It's like to want to hurt me, like you are trying to hurt my feelings.

---

___________________________________________________
Team Medique Powered by Silber Investments

>>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.

Hmmm...according to my field testing, those 100K bars (with nearly the same position) are significantly faster than the Vision basebar/Profile T2+ I had on there before.

I think you might be right IF the bars were tested against each other with no arms "plopped" on top of them...but, you put some arms in close proximity to those "non-thrilling" round sections and the flow around them isn't going to be the same...and the tape might just help things by "filling the gaps" ;-)

All I know is that they were significantly cheaper than anything else that would get me the same aero gains...and "Cheapass Aero" is always a plus :-D

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

BLAMMO! Pay UP SUCKA!..like I told your MOM...I COLLECT!

--sp

and also finishing 2nd, which is a great motivator. i'm going to paint :25.33 on the top tube of all my bikes.

why do you hate cancer research?

I think I get to call a "technical" on this one. Had to pull down the pics before they ended up on TriFat or worse.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose