The Frank Day Challenge

Triathlon Forum
1

Frank, at your site you say

Phil Holman of Seattle, a 50 year old track rider increased his top speed from 35 to 38 mph and his pursuit speed from 30 to 32 mph in only seven months . These calculate to be a 28% and 21% increase in power. At the end of this period Phil won a bronze medal at the 2000 World Masters Track Championships!

Sam Whittingham increased his own HPV World Land Speed record from 72 to over 81 MPH the season after starting on PowerCranks! Assuming no increase in aerodynamics this caluclates to a 41% increase in power. Sam subsequently set the hour record, going over 51 miles in one hour.

Another user, in one year, increased his average speed for a 12 mile time trial he did in training once a month from 20 to 25 mph and, again, to over 27 mph in the second year and to 28 mph the third year. This calculates to a 170% increase in power over 3 years!

With this in mind, I’ve got a little challenge for you. Below are average speeds for a ~6.1 mile low traffic (as in just a couple of cars over the entire course). These are speeds over the last 6-7 months and are all done on the same road bike, same slow training tires and wheels, and same upright position (for max drag, which should make this even easier for you since it will emphasize aero resistance more than rolling resistance). Everything on the bike and jersey was as close to the same as you could ask for and done to maximize drag (thus, the relatively slow speeds!).

Here are the speeds - 19.73, 20.37, 20.43, 20.62, 20.64, 20.72, 20.76, 20.78, 20.91, 20.99, 21.53, 21.85

So how much did my power increase? As a scientist, you should be able to easily figure this one out. Now no hints for Frank. He’s a scientist and smarter than nearly all of us. He should be able to do this in his sleep.

2

Now no hints for Frank. He’s a scientist

Actutally, he’s not, in that AFAIK he’s never authored or coauthored a peer-reviewered original publication in his life.

For that matter, I believe that he’s also not a licensed physician.

3

You don’t really need me to go to analyticcycling.com to give you those numbers do you? Or you could just do the cube of the speed increase if you want a quick slight over estimate.

There, doing my part to play your game.

4

35 to 38 mph and his pursuit speed from 30 to 32 mph in only seven months . These calculate to be a 28% and 21% increase in power

fwiw, a 3k pursuit speed of 30.5 mph raised to 31.5 mph takes me 43w more power, or a 9% increase

5

sea level, concrete outdoor track
.

6

Frank, at your site you say

Phil Holman of Seattle, a 50 year old track rider increased his top speed from 35 to 38 mph and his pursuit speed from 30 to 32 mph in only seven months . These calculate to be a 28% and 21% increase in power. At the end of this period Phil won a bronze medal at the 2000 World Masters Track Championships!

Sam Whittingham increased his own HPV World Land Speed record from 72 to over 81 MPH the season after starting on PowerCranks! Assuming no increase in aerodynamics this caluclates to a 41% increase in power. Sam subsequently set the hour record, going over 51 miles in one hour.

Another user, in one year, increased his average speed for a 12 mile time trial he did in training once a month from 20 to 25 mph and, again, to over 27 mph in the second year and to 28 mph the third year. This calculates to a 170% increase in power over 3 years!

With this in mind, I’ve got a little challenge for you. Below are average speeds for a ~6.1 mile low traffic (as in just a couple of cars over the entire course). These are speeds over the last 6-7 months and are all done on the same road bike, same slow training tires and wheels, and same upright position (for max drag, which should make this even easier for you since it will emphasize aero resistance more than rolling resistance). Everything on the bike and jersey was as close to the same as you could ask for and done to maximize drag (thus, the relatively slow speeds!).

Here are the speeds - 19.73, 20.37, 20.43, 20.62, 20.64, 20.72, 20.76, 20.78, 20.91, 20.99, 21.53, 21.85

So how much did my power increase? As a scientist, you should be able to easily figure this one out. Now no hints for Frank. He’s a scientist and smarter than nearly all of us. He should be able to do this in his sleep.
James, I am a little confused. Exactly what is your issue with the above. I thought I perhaps had made an overestimation in what I was posting regarding power improvement gains by using the “calculated” cube of the speed change (ignoring rolling resistance) so I thought I would see what analyticcycling said. The numbers for Phil Holman are correct (well, the 28% is a rounding up) and the number for Sam Whittingham should probably be 40% (rather than 41, I probably put in a wrong estimate for the vehicle weight - those HPV’s are heavy so the RR is a bigger factor). However, I underestimate Skufka’s power increase - analytic cycling says 175% increase from 20 mph to 28 mph.

So, exactly what was it that caused you to post this? Where did you find an error?

Oh, and since I was there I put in some numbers to estimate your "improvement. Putting in a frontal area of 0.8m, crr of 0.008 and weight of 75kg results in a power calculation of 220 watts at 19.73 mph and 286 watts at 21.85 mph. This would represent an improvement of 30%. As we say, our 40% power improvement estimate is 2-3 mph for most people. Your 30% got you just over 2 mph. Not sure how close that is to your actual numbers are but that is what analytic cycling gives me. Not sure what you are hoping for but there it is.

7

Now no hints for Frank. He’s a scientist

Actutally, he’s not, in that AFAIK he’s never authored or coauthored a peer-reviewered original publication in his life.

For that matter, I believe that he’s also not a licensed physician.

Reviewered?

8

Reviewered?

Yeah, you know: peer-reviewered, which is a lot like being skewered. :slight_smile:

(It was late and I had already removed my contact, so that I was basically seeing double while typing, just as I am right now).

9

Frank, you aren’t being very scientific in your assessment of the data. A scientist should question the data critically. You are taking the numbers at face value without asking important questions. There’s a clue in my original post as to why the numbers you came up with a VERY wrong. Think about the question again, ask questions, and then respond. Hint: speed is an indirect measurement of effort. It is not a direct measurement as you seem to believe.

10

Frank, at your site you say

Phil Holman of Seattle, a 50 year old track rider increased his top speed from 35 to 38 mph and his pursuit speed from 30 to 32 mph in only seven months . These calculate to be a 28% and 21% increase in power. At the end of this period Phil won a bronze medal at the 2000 World Masters Track Championships!

Sam Whittingham increased his own HPV World Land Speed record from 72 to over 81 MPH the season after starting on PowerCranks! Assuming no increase in aerodynamics this caluclates to a 41% increase in power. Sam subsequently set the hour record, going over 51 miles in one hour.

Another user, in one year, increased his average speed for a 12 mile time trial he did in training once a month from 20 to 25 mph and, again, to over 27 mph in the second year and to 28 mph the third year. This calculates to a 170% increase in power over 3 years!

With this in mind, I’ve got a little challenge for you. Below are average speeds for a ~6.1 mile low traffic (as in just a couple of cars over the entire course). These are speeds over the last 6-7 months and are all done on the same road bike, same slow training tires and wheels, and same upright position (for max drag, which should make this even easier for you since it will emphasize aero resistance more than rolling resistance). Everything on the bike and jersey was as close to the same as you could ask for and done to maximize drag (thus, the relatively slow speeds!).

Here are the speeds - 19.73, 20.37, 20.43, 20.62, 20.64, 20.72, 20.76, 20.78, 20.91, 20.99, 21.53, 21.85

So how much did my power increase? As a scientist, you should be able to easily figure this one out. Now no hints for Frank. He’s a scientist and smarter than nearly all of us. He should be able to do this in his sleep.
James, I am a little confused. Exactly what is your issue with the above. I thought I perhaps had made an overestimation in what I was posting regarding power improvement gains by using the “calculated” cube of the speed change (ignoring rolling resistance) so I thought I would see what analyticcycling said. The numbers for Phil Holman are correct (well, the 28% is a rounding up) and the number for Sam Whittingham should probably be 40% (rather than 41, I probably put in a wrong estimate for the vehicle weight - those HPV’s are heavy so the RR is a bigger factor). However, I underestimate Skufka’s power increase - analytic cycling says 175% increase from 20 mph to 28 mph.

So, exactly what was it that caused you to post this? Where did you find an error?

Oh, and since I was there I put in some numbers to estimate your "improvement. Putting in a frontal area of 0.8m, crr of 0.008 and weight of 75kg results in a power calculation of 220 watts at 19.73 mph and 286 watts at 21.85 mph. This would represent an improvement of 30%. As we say, our 40% power improvement estimate is 2-3 mph for most people. Your 30% got you just over 2 mph. Not sure how close that is to your actual numbers are but that is what analytic cycling gives me. Not sure what you are hoping for but there it is.

He just called you fat.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b262/jhaggard29/gifs/1181911796832.gif

11

I think analytic cycling asks for total weight, i.e. Bike plus rider. So he called him super skinny.

12

Frank, you aren’t being very scientific in your assessment of the data. A scientist should question the data critically. You are taking the numbers at face value without asking important questions. There’s a clue in my original post as to why the numbers you came up with a VERY wrong. Think about the question again, ask questions, and then respond. Hint: speed is an indirect measurement of effort. It is not a direct measurement as you seem to believe.
Those results do not represent a study. There is nothing scientific about them at all, I am simply transmitting what customers have reported or done, simply an anecdotal reports regarding reported speed improvement that I have tried to convert to something that many are interested in, an “equivalent” power improvement. I make the statement that what I am giving is calculated numbers, not actual numbers, since they are not known.

Speed is only an indirect measurement of effort if the capability hasn’t changed. It was part of what made me wonder what on earth was going on with those number you gave since the represented efforts well below what I would have expected to have been your capability. But, when someone seriously tells you that their race or testing results have changed one can reasonably presume that effort remained constant such that any change represents a change in capability. I see nothing unscientific or unreasonable about this. People who come to my site are looking for examples of what has happened to people like themselves. In the three examples I gave on the site was someone who could ride 20 mph (not particularly good) and someone who could ride 30 mph (very good) and someone who held a world record.

I take it you are trying to learn from Dr. Coggan and have adopted the Socratic teaching method by never saying anything that anyone can understand. You will have to help me out here and be more direct as it has clearly (albeit not quite scientifically) been established here that I can’t possibly understand any of this stuff.

13

I take it you have adopted the Socratic teaching method by never saying anything that anyone can understand.
I understood it.

14

I take it you have adopted the Socratic teaching method by never saying anything that anyone can understand.
I understood it.
I stand corrected (again), hardly anyone.

15

I take it you have adopted the Socratic teaching method by never saying anything that anyone can understand.
I understood it.

So did I.

16

I take it you have adopted the Socratic teaching method by never saying anything that anyone can understand.
I understood it.

So did I.

Yup…me too. I also find it odd (perhaps I shouldn’t) that Frank thinks that the Socratic method entails using non-intelligible statements…interesting.

17

I think Analytic Cycling wants you to include not just bike weight, but also full or empty bottles, helmet, shoes, glasses gloves, clothing…basically everything you are moving along with your body…I think he’s calling Tigermilk a 65 kg climbing machine (depending on bike selection and how badly his bike is weighed down with all of the above) ! I’m actually surprised by how much clothing alone can weigh in the spring!

18

I take it you have adopted the Socratic teaching method by never saying anything that anyone can understand.
I understood it.

So did I.

Yup…me too. I also find it odd (perhaps I shouldn’t) that Frank thinks that the Socratic method entails using non-intelligible statements…interesting.
No, the Socratic method, as supposedly used here by some is mostly unintelligible to most of the participants here, few of whom have the background to understand the nuances of what is trying to be “taught”. Therefore, I think it is a generally inappropriate way of communicating/teaching at a forum such as this.

19

No, the Socratic method, as supposedly used here by some is mostly unintelligible to most of the participants here, few of whom have the background to understand the nuances of what is trying to be “taught”. Therefore, I think it is a generally inappropriate way of communicating/teaching at a forum such as this.

Yeah…well…see, now THAT, I’m having a hard time understanding…

20

I think Analytic Cycling wants you to include not just bike weight, but also full or empty bottles, helmet, shoes, glasses gloves, clothing…basically everything you are moving along with your body…I think he’s calling Tigermilk a 65 kg climbing machine (depending on bike selection and how badly his bike is weighed down with all of the above) ! I’m actually surprised by how much clothing alone can weigh in the spring!
The bike/rider weight has a minimal effect on the power calculation on the flat. And, it is even less significant if one is comparing two speeds and evaluating percentage power improvement. It affects the absolute power number to a small degree. It has a really tiny effect on the relative changes. But, one cannot do the calculation without putting in a number so one chooses something close then stops worrying about it.