My Very First Recumbent is a V20

[Frito Bandito]

That's great Matthew. The Cherohala Challenge sounds brutal, but doable. Congrats on the KOM too. 258w for 6 minutes is sweet, so the next goal could be for 10 minutes haha.

Coaches are the way to go. I took an ISSA (International Sports Science Association) course a long time ago so I didn't have to hire a personal trainer, and while most of my focus was on lifting weights and power lifting, it wasn't too difficult to apply some of what I remember to cycling. When your Off-the-shelf plan starts to stale or not lead to an acceptable improved ability then a coach would be a good step. I'm guilty of this at times, but "If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got." Shock your system at times. Our bodies are capable of so much more than our safety valve tries to shut us off at.

During my ride I got cramps numerous times in my feet during my ride but I just kept pedaling through because I knew the muscle couldn't stay contracted forever. I got numerous hamstring cramps, 1 was when trying to stand up to flatten out a foot cramp, and I also got a cramp on my adductor longus, which was the first time ever. This shows how I need to work on my hydration, but also on my fueling for the ride.

Making the bike aero is great to boost the speed data, especially to know what works to get your CdA down, but there is a lot that can be gained by keeping the bike sluggish so you build muscle faster. Once I got my CdA to respectable levels I somehow see my speed at 37-39kph and think that is good enough and not push harder, when it was slow tires, un-aero wheels, a bad position, and more that got me my best gains. IOW, I got complacent which is largely why I went too much yesterday

Anyway, keep it up braddah. Plenty of fast guys here to chase.

 

[vosadrian]

First, establish your normal speed with the more comfortable "cruising pace." Then, give a 10-second push to get to a new and slightly higher speed. Once you're at the new higher speed, go back to the "cruising pace" and that pace will maintain the new higher speed. Because the V20 holds its speed so well, something like a 10-second push tends to keep it at that new higher speed. At least, that's the hypothesis. It definitely works as far as maintaining the new higher speed. However, I haven't done it over a long ride to see if repeated 10-second efforts are sustainable over a long ride.

Are you suggesting that you can go at the same speed at lower power if you push to a higher speed and then drop back off the power? That seems to go against basic physics and does not agree with my experience. It is true that the V20 holds speed well, but I think that is more a comment on the fact that it has good aero and weighs more than a normal bike, so the momentum and low drag mean you don't slow down as quick when you got off the power. This is noticable in rolling hill terrain. You get to a higher speed down the hills and this means when you get to the flat at the bottom of the hill (or the bottom of the next incline) it takes longer before you slow to the normal speed for the power.

If you are on a flat road with no interruptions, the fast way to get to the end of the road is to maintain the highest constant power you can for the time it takes. The human body can generally maintain higher average powers if the power is constant than if it goes up and down. Of course for training purposes, doing intervals at higher power and lower powers is good to increase fitness which in turn increases the average power the body can do.... but if you are doing a TT effort and want the best time, you will achieve this with the highest constant power you can do.

 

[John Formsma]

Are you suggesting that you can go at the same speed at lower power if you push to a higher speed and then drop back off the power? That seems to go against basic physics and does not agree with my experience. It is true that the V20 holds speed well, but I think that is more a comment on the fact that it has good aero and weighs more than a normal bike, so the momentum and low drag mean you don't slow down as quick when you got off the power. This is noticable in rolling hill terrain. You get to a higher speed down the hills and this means when you get to the flat at the bottom of the hill (or the bottom of the next incline) it takes longer before you slow to the normal speed for the power.

If you are on a flat road with no interruptions, the fast way to get to the end of the road is to maintain the highest constant power you can for the time it takes. The human body can generally maintain higher average powers if the power is constant than if it goes up and down. Of course for training purposes, doing intervals at higher power and lower powers is good to increase fitness which in turn increases the average power the body can do.... but if you are doing a TT effort and want the best time, you will achieve this with the highest constant power you can do.

Yes, sort of. I'm theorizing...while I know there's no avoiding laws of physics. I might be totally wrong, and I haven't been in good enough shape to really test it out. The theory: 10-second bursts of power to maintain the same speed as a constant power input **might** result in less overall stress to the body. Of course, you'd end up with the average power being about the same, because...physics. But if you could do it with less stress on the body--that's easier to recover from. I wish I knew the formulas for 'Training Stress Score' that is used by many of the training programs out there. Someone with access to that could easily answer my question because it's really about TSS more than speed.

Here's an example with power output numbers.

Scenario 1: Constant average power input of 200W. Let's say the average speed is 21 mph.

Scenario 2: Varied power input: 10-second surges at 225W (as needed) to keep same average speed as Scenario 1, with the average power after the surges around 185W.

I'm thinking Scenario 2 might not be as stressful on the body as Scenario 1. As I'm sure you know, maintaining your max output for several hours requires a certain amount of recovery time over the next days. Otherwise, burnout will occur.

I'm quite familiar with interval training, having done lots of that with a DF bike, and some with the V20. It works. Slowly, but it works.

 

[Frito Bandito]

Interval training is great IMO. As for the 2nd "Cruising pace" that you wrote about after the 10 second sprint, I just assumed you meant a perceived effort after coming off the sprint equal in relation to the initial cruising pace. As for which scenario is going to require more recovery time, I guess it depends on the fitness level and which scenario your body is most adapted to. For example, the last ride I did was pretty tame. It was a holiday and busy so I couldn't push as hard as I wanted. However, when it was clear I did a few efforts where I tried to hold +300w for 30 seconds which I hadn't been doing anything similar at all recently. When I woke up the next day I had a small case of DOMS in my quads. Probably time to start doing intervals again

Anyway, I have the slow training wheels and tires off and now I have the 50mm Bullet with a tubeless 28mm Schwalbe One and either a 23mm One on my Monokote disc rear, or a 28mm tubeless One on a 50mm Bullet, depending on the wind. So, I should be seeing a bit more speed.

 

[benphyr]

Yes, sort of. I'm theorizing...while I know there's no avoiding laws of physics. I might be totally wrong, and I haven't been in good enough shape to really test it out. The theory: 10-second bursts of power to maintain the same speed as a constant power input **might** result in less overall stress to the body. Of course, you'd end up with the average power being about the same, because...physics. But if you could do it with less stress on the body--that's easier to recover from. I wish I knew the formulas for 'Training Stress Score' that is used by many of the training programs out there. Someone with access to that could easily answer my question because it's really about TSS more than speed.

Here's an example with power output numbers.

Scenario 1: Constant average power input of 200W. Let's say the average speed is 21 mph.

Scenario 2: Varied power input: 10-second surges at 225W (as needed) to keep same average speed as Scenario 1, with the average power after the surges around 185W.

I'm thinking Scenario 2 might not be as stressful on the body as Scenario 1. As I'm sure you know, maintaining your max output for several hours requires a certain amount of recovery time over the next days. Otherwise, burnout will occur.

I'm quite familiar with interval training, having done lots of that with a DF bike, and some with the V20. It works. Slowly, but it works.

The below I have changed to quoted conversation because the best explanation is below in post 410 https://forum.cruzbike.com/threads/my-very-first-recumbent-is-a-v20.13604/page-21#post-175126

@John Formsma
While laws of physics maybe cannot be ignored, your body may work differently in different conditions and therefore...

Eg. If you push 225w for 30s from the bottom of every small hill and after returning to average speed you then took a rest for 30s at the required power to maintain your average power - in that case you would gain a higher speed for the same average power as you would have by maintaining the exact same power the whole time. Reasons include momentum and air resistance.

If doing as you say allows you to go faster then by all means do it even if it is tricking yourself. The interval nature of getting you to output more sometimes will likely make you stronger regardless and be much more fun. Because of the physics, if it is exaggerated you would probably be noticeably slower.

My 2c.

 

[John Formsma]

@John Formsma

If doing as you say allows you to go faster then by all means do it even if it is tricking yourself. The interval nature of getting you to output more sometimes will likely make you stronger regardless and be much more fun. Because of the physics, if it is exaggerated you would probably be noticeably slower.

My 2c.

Yes, all those intervals eventually add up to better overall fitness/strength. I'll hopefully explore my own theory more when I get a chance to lace a rim around my PowerTap hub. Rim bent last fall. Also had neck pain that required time off the bike from October-December. I think the stars are lining up to where I can go back to normal pretty soon.

 

[vosadrian]

I personally find that if I am aiming for a certain average power, if I do short intervals at a higher than that average power followed by a longer period below it, I am going to feel more physically stressed than if I just sit on the average power the whole time. But maybe that is just me. I find it easier to get higher average power on my rides when I am on the flat lands doing a constant power than when I am doing rolling hills with high power followed by low power down the hills. I am fatigued much quicker in rolling hills than sitting at threshold on the flats for a long period. I find on rolling hills there is not enough resistance in the pedals on the downhill to push against, so my average drops a lot and to keep it up, I have to go up the hills hard and that is very physically stressing quickly. Of course it is also great training, so you get better at it!!

Late last year I did an hour at an outdoor velodrome at 45kph at 230W average power. There is no way at that time I could have done the same average power in an internal style.

 

[vosadrian]

@John Formsma
Eg. If you push 225w for 30s from the bottom of every small hill and after returning to average speed you then took a rest for 30s at the required power to maintain your average power - in that case you would gain a higher speed for the same average power as you would have by maintaining the exact same power the whole time. Reasons include momentum and air resistance.
.

Curious what the basis is for this claim. I'm pretty sure if you analyse the physics it is not the case. Any time you go faster, the increase in drag is not linear..... which means you have to put more power in to maintain the increase in speed that you did for the same increase in speed at lower speeds. So the increase in power at the bottom increases the drag so to get to the same point on the climb, more energy has been used. The lowest energy way between two points is with the most constant speed and lowest speed peak. If air resistance is ignored, physics says the energy required to move a mass from one elevation to another is constant no matter how fast you move it. Energy is power multiplied by time.... so if you reduce the time, the power must go up. If the power is the same, the time will be the same.

 

[benphyr]

The below I have changed to quoted conversation because the best explanation is below in post 410 https://forum.cruzbike.com/threads/my-very-first-recumbent-is-a-v20.13604/page-21#post-175126

From sites like veloviewer.com it seems that with the same power it is faster to apply more power on the uphills and back off a little on the downhills to get the quickest time for any given average power. Maybe that is the big if. IF you can maintain the same average power. I am not consistent enough to be able to maintain a target average power very reliably.

I am agreeing with you on the physics but I may not be able to explain what I mean or may be I am misunderstanding the physics.

 

[vosadrian]

To be the most efficient in terms of using the least power/energy for a given route in a certain time, you want to reduce your time at high speed as air drag increases non-linearly with speed. You are wasting lots of energy if you start putting in lots of power down hills as you increase the speed a little but put in lots of power. If you put in lots of power up hills you do not increase the speed much so the drag does not increase much. So what you observe is correct with the physics. The most efficient power way on a hilly route is to coast down the hills with no power, and then apply as much power as you can up the hills where negative effects of drag are minimised. Basically, the most efficient is to keep speed as constant as possible by lifting speed up hills and reducing it down hills (coasting... not braking!!). It is true that a constant average power would be slower, as the power applied down the hills is inefficient. Unfortunately the human body does not respond so well to that (coasting down hills and full power up them) and gets fatigued quickly, so typically we put in a little less up the hills than the most we can do, and we continue to do some smaller power down the hills at a rate we can recover well for the next uphill.

But none of that applies to the example you posted for flat roads. The most efficient way in terms of power/energy on a flat road is to keep the speed constant. You use more energy to cover the same flat route moving your speed up and down then if you kept it constant. In my experience, this is also the best way to minimise fatigue/physical stress, but maybe that is not the case for others. I note that professional TT riders do try to keep the power relatively constant. They try not to go too deep on the up hills and ride to their power, as going deep on a hill may cause them to bonk and be unable to make good power on the flats after the hill. Many TT riders tend to gradually ramp up their power. It is better to have a little in reserve and come home strong then to go out strong and bonk and come home weak. They tend to ride at 90% until some point and if they feel good, then ramp it up and may come home at 110% when they know they can make it to the end at that level.

I'm sure you are aware of the term Normalised Power (NP) used when cyclists talk about power meter data. Normalised power is a way to compare a non constant power output to a constant power output. Typically NP gets higher the more variable the power. The higher/longer the power efforts, the higher the NP as it is "equivalent" to a higher constant average power in terms of stress on the body. This figure is basically saying that doing variable power in an interval style is higher stress on the body than just doing a constant power. I find when I ride in crit race, my NP can be much higher than my average power. If I ride a solo TT effort, the NP can be very close to the average power. I think NP is normally what is used for TSS calculation.

 

[benphyr]

. So what you observe is correct with the physics.

But none of that applies to the [original] example [regarding] flat roads.

Normalised Power (NP) .

Thank you for explaining it so well. Anybody reading should take note of @vosadrian ’s explanation immediately above and disregard my fumblings earlier in the thread.

 

[vosadrian]

I actually think your method has some merit to go faster.... but not because of the V20s inherent ability to hold speed or the body's ability to handle physical stress. So much about cycling and other endurance sports is about mental motovation. Sometimes you compromise the physics and the physical stress to give better motivation to overcome the pain. All my fastest climbing times are when I was chasing someone up a hill. I find the mental motivation I can't find solo to push myself into pain levels that get me PRs on climb times and power. One climb I was targetting I had a max average power of just over 300W previously. Then one day I did with a good climbing mate I spotted 100m up the road. It took me the full climb to catch him and I was focussed on that. I ended up doing 340W which was 10% higher than my previous best and I thought not possible. Knocked about 30 seconds off my PR. I think I almost collapsed at the top.... I just found a motivation I could not find otherwise.

So if doing intervals gives you a motivation to go faster..... then you will go faster regardless of the physics or stress levels!

 

[Frito Bandito]

I actually think your method has some merit to go faster.... but not because of the V20s inherent ability to hold speed or the body's ability to handle physical stress. So much about cycling and other endurance sports is about mental motovation. Sometimes you compromise the physics and the physical stress to give better motivation to overcome the pain. All my fastest climbing times are when I was chasing someone up a hill. I find the mental motivation I can't find solo to push myself into pain levels that get me PRs on climb times and power. One climb I was targetting I had a max average power of just over 300W previously. Then one day I did with a good climbing mate I spotted 100m up the road. It took me the full climb to catch him and I was focussed on that. I ended up doing 340W which was 10% higher than my previous best and I thought not possible. Knocked about 30 seconds off my PR. I think I almost collapsed at the top.... I just found a motivation I could not find otherwise.

So if doing intervals gives you a motivation to go faster..... then you will go faster regardless of the physics or stress levels!

Same here Adrian. Motivation to chase someone, or trying to stay ahead of them gets my power output above what I would consider a max effort. Occasionally I can perform without that motivation from another rider, particularly when I am trying to reach a significant milestone. For example, trying to get to a 38kph average for 50km. My CdA wasn't great, and it was only about 205w for 1 hour and 16 minutes or so. But I was more focused on my power output over the full route and staying aero instead of who to chase or run from regardless of the pain.

Your post about energy expenditure on climbs, descents and the flats was concise and well written. A Youtuber (forgot who) I watched a few months ago said in his video less eloquently than what you wrote here that bettering your time by getting up the hills quickly instead of trying to hold a higher speed on the flats and/or descent was more efficient and faster. Previously, to try and cover the distance as fast as possible, I tried to hold a pretty constant power throughout the whole ride, but on the descents I was trying to build up as much speed as possible and then hold it until I eventually dropped back to my target power or speed. I thought that having a higher top speed on the flats for as long as possible would cut off more time than shaving seconds on the climbs. He explained just how long it took at a higher top speed to make up seconds than what could be done on the climbs in a much shorter time, and it was enlightening. I don't remember him saying much or anything at all about the power being non-linear in relation to the wind resistance like you wrote though.

 

[John Formsma]

I think this is how to answer my own question. It's really TSS (Training Stress Score). I'll need to do some test runs on the same stretch of road. One will be as in Scenario 1 and the other in Scenario 2. If I can maintain the same average speed over a 10 mile section with a lower TSS for Scenario 2, then the idea has some merit. Of course, there will be variance b/c of wind and other conditions. I'll try to get my power meter going in the next few days so I can have some actual numbers to compare.

To reiterate, this is not about cheating physics, but about whether it's possible to do the same average speed with an effort that doesn't take as much recovery time as a constant power output.

 

[Frito Bandito]

I'm sure you understand the physics part. Getting into the recovery part is going to need to include each person's body type. For simplicity's sake, on the extreme ends you have pure sprinters and pure endurance riders. Virtually everyone falls between those ends. While we can improve our abilities to some degree outside of our body's natural makeup with specific training, there is going to be a limitation. As you can imagine, trying to turn a sprinter into an endurance athlete will make him/her better at endurance with proper training, but don't expect him or her to compete at a high level of endurance compared with others who have the endurance genetics and train properly in it. A rider who sprints for a short time and then slows for a time to recover can finish 100km at the same time as a rider who simply holds a set power as you know. The Sprinter is going to have intense short bursts of discomfort for parts of the ride while the other is going to have a continuous but lower level of discomfort for the whole ride. Neither is less capable, they are just doing the ride in the way that best suits their muscle make-up. If you are better at those short sprints and recoveries then that is the type of training you should do. I used it a while back with great improvements and recently started using it again. They work well in increasing strength and endurance.

Now, to explain why I am focusing on this 200w for 4 hours bit is mostly for a few reasons. 1, I did several 4-hourish rides late last year with my PM that had me a little over 200w, so it is a goal to get back to after slacking more than usual during Winter. Getting back to that level would also help build endurance for a lower power output over a longer time. 2, For ultra-endurance races, I don't expect to hold 200w for each 4-hour section during an event, but I felt 4 hours was a good time to be on the bike considering fuel and hydration stops, as well as timing for sleep for recovery. 3, While I do love putting out as much power as possible for a max speed over a short distance, that is simply not going to be a deciding factor in where I place because it is a multi-day event and I can make up that time in other ways. Besides, chasing the 500m or 5km Strava KOMs isn't as fun as it used to be. A decent cyclist on a perfectly windy and uncrowded day can take down 3 fast roadies working in tandem in less than ideal conditions.

I had a 247w FTP on my road bike, and finally got up to a 250w FTP on my V20 with a bunch of specified training. That was great for my age and body type, but it didn't make me competitive enough for any AG race I'd ever be in. Also, that high of an effort even for a short time would trash my legs throughly which would have left me hanging the following day on a multi-day event. Also, since it is a non-drafting, self supported event that is going to be less frantic than a group of fast riders working together at dizzying speeds and frequent position changes requiring high-effort pulls with short recovery breaks, I don't expect to turn the event into short races. There is only 1 real finish line and getting to that one in the quickest time is the goal. Hare and Tortoise

 

[Frito Bandito]

I can't say that I am a fan of disc brakes yet. My V20 came with them on some cheapo wheels the previous owner installed. While they did their job well in stopping me they were noisy and difficult to adjust. Not having a good set of disc brake wheels and being unfamiliar with disc brakes I decided to put on a spare set of rim brake wheels with plans to switch to disc brakes at some point in the future after searching for and finding a set of good disc brake wheels I could afford even if they were used. 18 months has gone by and I still haven't found an affordable set of fast disc brake wheels nor a set of post mount disc brakes in good condition. The good thing is that the used market for fast rim brake wheels is in pretty good condition here so I guess I'll be sticking with rim brakes for a while. I can't complain though. Rim brake wheels and brake pads are simple to clean with a rag and water, the brake pads are cheap and easy to install and are cheap, and they require virtually no adjustment.

 

[Tuloose]

I have never understood the fascination with disc brakes on road bikes.
I can understand it on mt bikes since grit & mud can wear down a set of rims in short order.
The lightest brakes with the most aero profile are side pull rim brakes.
I find they work just as well in wet weather as in dry and we get a good bit of rain out here in the Pacific Northwest.
Brakes are only good for slowing you down anyway and the Vendetta was built to go fast.
As far as braking power goes the larger the disc rotor the more the braking power and a bike wheel is much larger than any disc rotor.

But I know I'm just shouting into a gale force wind.
Discs on road bikes are here to stay - I'll just have to accept the inevitable and move on.

 

[Frito Bandito]

They do stop better than rim brakes, and that is the most important thing so a great argument can be made just from that. I think they even make any bike look better than clinchers do. The previous owner had 160mm discs and a ton of washers on each post mount disc brake to make it fit since he was a big guy and needed the extra power and heat dissipation. I'm about 78kg so I would do just fine with 120mm discs on the flats, maybe 140mm in the hills, but I am a fairweather flatland rider on on uncrowded paths so it is going to take an incredible wheel deal or a very important and hilly event to get me off my rim brakes.

 

[vosadrian]

I am with you both on disc vs rim. The only time I have found rim brakes lacking is in wet weather. I typically avoid riding in wet weather and only do it if I got caught out in which case I just take it easy to get home. If I routinely did riding in the wet in my area (which is hilly), I would probably prefer disc brakes.... but rims brakes are fine for the riding I do.... and easier, and I believe lighter and more aero. The only issue now is that most new wheels are disc.

 

[Frito Bandito]

Might get lucky with some old stock of rim brakes with a bit of Googling. My current wheels still have plenty of life left in them, but having a spare set to take over duties would be nice. I can't remember the brand now, but 1 of them had black aluminum brake tracks that had grooves for water dissipation in them that looked great. HED? FFWD? Zipp?