interesting, I hadn't heard of Speedbar before. Unlike the Carbonwasps, the cups are indeed just part of the design. I am not sure how they got around that (well... I assume the comm at the event just didn't see it / care) They look good. I wonder if they meet all the other measurements in the revised rules. Not too hard to make a little change and detach the cups.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

They make a nice piece of kit! Campenaerts was on this bar last year till, I assume, the UCI told him it was illegal. But I bet he has a new sweet setup for his hour next month.
Rohan used a very similar bar at Aussie nats 2 years back.
Buekeboom used these as well for his hour record.

---

Alex Arman

Strava

Seems like you could fluctuate power, speed, or both. Would it be better/easier to keep power fairly stable and let speed/cadence fluctuate?

Colby Pearce said he varied power quite a lot, but went harder in the turns rather than straights... so I guess his speed/cadence fluctuated a large amount.

Women's national team testing - and my own experiences - reflects about a 75w difference at pursuit pace in Carson between straights and corners. And 75w extra doesn't even keep you at the same speed in the corners; it just keeps you from slowing down a lot.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Wait, I thought the turns were naturally faster not slower... ?

Going into the details it becomes complicated!

What speed? The speed of the center of gravity, the speed of the center of (pressure) drag or the speed a wheel speed sensor is measuring?

I think if one stays at the black line the speed of the center of gravity allways increases going into the turn because potential energy is transfered into kinetic energy. This „short free fall“ can be so „fast“ that the cyclist is not able to keep the power up.
In the turn rolling resistance is higher due to centrifugal force hence it takes more power to hold the speed. I would also suppose that the center of drag has a slightly higher speed than the center of gravity in the turns (is the center of drag in the turns lower than the center of gravity?) thus the aerodynamic drag is higher than on the straights.

Out of the turn one has to lift his mass or center of gravity respectively i.e. kinetic energy is transfered back into potential energy, therefore one often see a power increase after a turn.

If one goes over the black line in the turns the center of gravity may keep the same altitude throughout a complete round. Then the power fluctuations are often smaller.

I'm not sure there's a single answer. The rolling resistance is higher throughout the turn. You gain kinetic energy entering, but lose as you exit. You have to brace your musculature against the acceleration.

The end result of all that is that the turns "feel" harder. At least they do to me. In pursuit efforts I always feel like I'm hammering the turns and coasting the straights.

I sure don't seem to have a ton of fluctuation. This is me on an effort last night . Mass start position. Pole lane. Alone on the track. And pretty good speed and power, so that acceleration and leaning over was definitely happening.


I sure can't pick out where the turns and straights are in the power, speed, or cadence numbers.

Interesting. Does the original file look any different? Strava has a weird averaging algorithm that is very good at masking the variations you're looking for.

Typically you can if you calculate the VE profile.

(As an aside, this is the problem I was trying to solve when I came up with VE 16 years ago. I had power, speed, cadence, HR, but I wanted to identify laps).

It's painstakingly clear in every VE profile I've ever done on my track sessions.

Why do people filter their data through unknown 3rd party filters before analysing? GIGO :-/

Not convinced it would be easier as you would just have to fluctuate torque to keep power constant, i.e. it might be the same power, but it would still not 'feel' steady state for the legs. Imagine a straight road where every ~100m you have a descent of maybe 20m and of fairly steep grade, followed shortly after by a 20m ascent with the same grade. I think naturally you will tend to decrease the torque at the descent and increase it at the ascent. That should also be the most efficient use of your power (speed per watt), though the question if of course if the negative effect of this on your average power will negatve the efficiency increase.

The VE profile (look at the pink chart in the attached image) basically reflects the speed profile, i.e. if one sees the curves in the VE profile one should see them also in the speed profile (from a wheel speed sensor).
The VE profile based on the speed from a wheel sensor overestimates the altitude fluctuations of the centre of gravity (compare pink chart with blue chart in the attached image).


(In the sample of the attached image is from a 11 rounds run on a 200m track with a curve radius of 17.75m. Power data from a SRM PM and speed from a wheel speed sensor are “original” i.e. unfiltered as they come from the ANT+ streams. Power and speed data are synchronized to each other roughly ~0.2sec. And both are synchronized to lap times or a lap marker respectively.)

So the UCI bans trade teams from world cups from now on.. They really want the sport and innovation to die I guess.. Apparently the large sums of money of the national squads is enough to convince those crooks. I hope they have some succes going after the records they're going after!

You can always trust the UCI to mess it up.

https://www.uci.org/..._SOnPobahp1J4m7dpsPM

https://www.instagram.com/...?igshid=t2uk4oobzfft

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/...p-controversy-428315

https://www.beatcyclingclub.com/...we-need-your-support

Head over to the BEAT Cycling Club website and sign their petition! I doubt the UCI will actually listen but it’s worth a shot.