Test riding a true racing recumbent

[ed72]

A couple of observations. I've noticed that I need to ride at least five miles to be warmed up. Prior to that, power output is 20-30 watts less, and this is consistent no matter which of my three recumbents I ride. I also see that when performing the two mile test, my power output seems to drop after about a mile, but then it increases again. I've seen this happen four times now. Since this is solely a measure of power output, it can't be accounted for by variables like wind or slope. Not sure what causes it.

The so-called primary component of VO2 dynamic modeling is an exponential increase in oxygen supply based upon demand from the working muscles. This is essentially the time from starting until getting into a steady state pace. In the upright position, this time period is much shorter than during supine position (recumbent). I apologize if my memory is wrong, but it is about 90-120 seconds in the upright and 120-180 seconds in supine position. Prior to the the delivery and use, working muscles are more dependent upon anaerobic sources. There were a number of studies out of Japan IIRC on this topic and some were not cycling (swimming and rowing IIRC but some were cycling specific).

For someone like you who has a high W' or we can say perhaps more of a sprinter than a marathoner, it would be very easy to overdo the first minute or three and feel some suffering until the oxygen saturation/desaturation curves somewhat equilibrate.

I observed that too, which is why I had researched it a year or so ago. I was going to buy an infrared sensor to measure this effect in my vastus lateralisbut decided to spend the money on tires. I don't want to overstate the difference in these time constants but important to realize there should be significant variation from individual to individual and would also depend on the bike (seat angle and height of legs over the heart). I like to think of myself like a pot of water, it should be simmering before a hard effort but not boiling. Once I light the fire, it is going to take some time to boil and a little patience is important, so, no gas on the fire. Patience.

 

[ed72]

Count yourself lucky, my warm up is 30-40 minute or around 12-14 miles. About every 3 weeks, I do an FTP test. That is my standard time to warm up to go full barf

 

[ed72]

(The big warm up is more related to the slow component but I have forgotten all of that studying I had to do to undo the crap in my brain from BROL)

 

[Osiris]

Count yourself lucky, my warm up is 30-40 minute or around 12-14 miles. About every 3 weeks, I do an FTP test. That is my standard time to warm up to go full barf

I once watched the lead up to a big TT race in which the early portion showed the riders doing their warm-ups on trainers. The narrator explained that these warm up take up to three hours, IIRC! I remember thinking to myself that in the time it takes them just to get ready to race, I would have completed one of my longer rides and been done for the day.

I haven't done any testing to confirm this, but I think my muscles have traded some of their top end power for more midrange. It's probably due to all the long distance (by my standards) intervals I've been doing for the past couple of months. I can't seem to hit the really high power numbers I'm used to seeing, but I can keep my foot on the gas for so much longer than before. Last year, going hard for only a mile would leave me completely exhausted at the end. Yesterday and last week I went at it pretty hard for two miles, and at the end felt as if I could have just kept going. I only backed off because I'd completed the segment and wanted to conserve my energy for the remaining 25 miles or so.

 

[Osiris]

This morning I removed the aluminum Flo 30 front wheel and replaced it with a Zipp 808, shod with a 20mm GP4000 tire. The Zipp wheel is part of a set that I'd bought back in 2014 for use with my TT bike. I'd planned to sell them along with the TT bike, but I thought it would be interesting to see what could be gained from ditching the barely aero Flo 30 for a deep section 808. The answer, based on this morning's result is, not much. The 808 and extremely narrow profile GP4000 tire is bound to be more aero, but the difference is too small to show up in my 2 mile speed/power test. It reminded me that I had the same experience on my TT bike years ago. I had already claimed a KOM on a local trail with the stock aluminum wheels, so I was certain that I'd be able to beat that record with the Zipp 808's. It never happened, and after numerous tries which all ended in disappointment, I gave up. It was worth another shot, but it looks like these 808's will be looking for a good home to go to soon.

 

[ed72]

At zero yaw and/or calm conditions, the Zipp 808 might only have 50 grams of drag advantage on the pretty good Flo30. This is around 5 watts at your speeds. Much less for recreational riding speed. In the 8 to maybe 15 degree yaw range, the gap opens considerably. The Zipp might have 15 watts advantage. To put this in perspective, a dirty chain costs you around 10 watts and lousy tires can cost 50 watts, going to latex tubes can get you 2-5 watts.

My M5 2-Spoke only got me a little under 5 watts over the FLO60 carbon in calm conditions at TT speeds but in cross winds, it blows the Flo60 away (pun intended).

 

[Osiris]

At zero yaw and/or calm conditions, the Zipp 808 might only have 50 grams of drag advantage on the pretty good Flo30. This is around 5 watts at your speeds. Much less for recreational riding speed. In the 8 to maybe 15 degree yaw range, the gap opens considerably. The Zipp might have 15 watts advantage. To put this in perspective, a dirty chain costs you around 10 watts and lousy tires can cost 50 watts, going to latex tubes can get you 2-5 watts.

My M5 2-Spoke only got me a little under 5 watts over the FLO60 carbon in calm conditions at TT speeds but in cross winds, it blows the Flo60 away (pun intended).

It was dead calm this morning when I performed the test, so that would explain why I didn't notice any improved performance. At about 10:00 AM, the wind arrived, so that was the end of my test session. I did ride one other long segment which ran almost perpendicular to the wind, but that only served to remind me why I hated those 808's on my TT bike. The amount of wheel deflection crosswinds cause can be really unnerving at high speeds. I'm just glad the group of cyclists who passed me going the other way arrived just before I encountered crosswinds, otherwise it may have resulted in a head on collision.

One good thing that did come out of my test segment was that I was able to hold a steady speed for a long time, which I usually can't do. This time I aimed for 25 mph and held it as close as I could for over a mile, which made for a nice smooth graph. Taking just that portion, I got an average speed of 25.6 mph @212 watts. I don't recall having done any previous runs at that particular speed which I could compare it to, but that looks pretty good to me for a paltry 212 watts.

By the way, when you're on the M5 and just enjoying the scenery, does your cadence drop a great deal? I noticed that when just rolling along at 21 mph, the cadence which felt most natural to me was something like 66 rpm. At higher speeds I'm most comfortable turning the pedals at around 80-85 rpm.

 

[ed72]

I don't have the studies at my fingertips, but aside from individual preference on cadence, Type 1 and type 2 have different preferences in terms of maximum power and also gross efficiency. Slow twitch (type 1) muscle fiber is most efficient at around 60-65 rpm with max. power of these fibers around 95 RPM, whereas fast twitch is most efficient over 100 rpm with max power even much higher....see track racers. In general, riders will correctly self select lower cadences at lower power and higher cadences at higher power. I have learned to pedal a higher cadences on a recumbent, theory of mine is it helps venous return. When you are just riding for pleasure at a modest pace, trust what feels good.

On Saturday's 255 mile ride, I averaged 75 rpm at a fairly moderate pace averaging about 19 mph on flat terrain but with lots of traffic lights and stop signs. When I time trial at say my FTP, I am usually in the 90-95 rpm range. If I approach a rolling hill, I will shift to increase RPM and let the speed naturally bleed off. I found a slightly higher cadence (5-7 rpm ish) works better for me on a recumbent than what I would do on an upright.

If you look at the power files of Tour de France on Training Peaks, it is plain to see that even the pros pedal more slowly when the pressure is off or when sheltered in the pack but when dialing up the power, the cadence comes up, too.

What is really silly is spinning like mad at low power going up a little hill.

 

[Osiris]

I don't have the studies at my fingertips, but aside from individual preference on cadence, Type 1 and type 2 have different preferences in terms of maximum power and also gross efficiency. Slow twitch (type 1) muscle fiber is most efficient at around 60-65 rpm with max. power of these fibers around 95 RPM, whereas fast twitch is most efficient over 100 rpm with max power even much higher....see track racers. In general, riders will correctly self select lower cadences at lower power and higher cadences at higher power. I have learned to pedal a higher cadences on a recumbent, theory of mine is it helps venous return. When you are just riding for pleasure at a modest pace, trust what feels good.

On Saturday's 255 mile ride, I averaged 75 rpm at a fairly moderate pace averaging about 19 mph on flat terrain but with lots of traffic lights and stop signs. When I time trial at say my FTP, I am usually in the 90-95 rpm range. If I approach a rolling hill, I will shift to increase RPM and let the speed naturally bleed off. I found a slightly higher cadence (5-7 rpm ish) works better for me on a recumbent than what I would do on an upright.

I'm just the opposite. On an upright, my natural cadence is around 95 rpm, compared to 80 rpm on a bent. When sprinting, it goes much higher than anything I'm capable of on a recumbent. IIRC, it got as high as 144 rpm when doing the 100 meter sprint, and my all time high was 168 rpm. Even when sprinting on a bent, it's rare that I go above 120 rpm, so I was amazed when Kent Polk mentioned that he can spin at 300 rpm on his M5. I don't know how he does it. I've tried that on a trainer, but couldn't move my legs anywhere near that fast even with the resistance set to zero. The effort was so exhausting that it made me wonder how much energy is being burned in a sprint just to move all that leg mass around.

If you look at the power files of Tour de France on Training Peaks, it is plain to see that even the pros pedal more slowly when the pressure is off or when sheltered in the pack but when dialing up the power, the cadence comes up, too.

What is really silly is spinning like mad at low power going up a little hill.

I have a very difficult time keeping my speed/power steady when performing a test. That variation in power output vs. speed makes it very difficult to find a spot on the graph where I can say with confidence that it takes me X amount of power to hold a speed of Y, which is precisely the thing I want to know. Is there any software that would allow me to isolate those areas where I was traveling at a specific speed and see what the average power output was during those times?

 

[ed72]

Is there any software that would allow me to isolate those areas where I was traveling at a specific speed and see what the average power output was during those times?

GoldenCheetah is free and does that. It also automatically finds intervals and reports the data from them. It also has interval search (useful if doing Rchung testing on a long ride). I use this on most rides.

Strava (free version) used to let you do that, I guess the paid version lets you analyze as you wish. When you do a segment on strava, it reports the average power for that segment. I have three hills with segments that I used to measure power (FTP) tests. It also shows my trend of those segments. For instance on one hill, I used to do 5:10-5;30 on my upright. It took me forever to crack 7 minutes on the bent, I now have my PB on that hill with my bent. Another steeper hill (10-12%), my PB is 4:04 on the upright but I only can do 4:58 on the bent. On the third hill, it is 12% steep, then a false flat thru the meadow and then just 3%, my bent is fastest. Of course, this sort of testing is more about the engine.

It has been a while since I used TrainingPeaks, I think the WkO option gives you what you want.

I also use XERT (10 bucks per month), it does that too. I use this to quickly detect changes in my fitness in an easy to understand way although GoldenCheetah basically is just as good but not so user simple.

I am not sure about Garmin IQ Connect, I don't use it on my 1030

 

[ed72]

Note....you have to tell each software your area of interest using the cursor.

You really need to learn how to use Chungs' Aerolab option inside Goldencheetah. Otherwise, the sensitivity of your testing might be 20 watts. With aerolab and testing control, you can detect small changes. For instance, A guy walking 5 dogs towards me showed up on the graphs.

 

[Osiris]

Here's another thing I've been wondering about. Suppose that you've done two runs on a given Strava segment. Assume all the relevant variables (temperature, wind, etc.) are identical for both runs, but that the runs were done in very different ways. In run A, you cross the starting line at 25 mph and hold that speed all the way to the end. In run B, you cross the starting line at 10 mph, accelerate to well above 25 mph and hold on as long as you can until you cross the finish line at say, 18 mph. Let's say that in both cases your fatigue levels at the end are the same and that your average power/speed readings are the same. My inclination is to think that despite getting identical results, A and B are not comparable. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[ed72]

Let's say that in both cases your fatigue levels at the end are the same and that your average power/speed readings are the same. My inclination is to think that despite getting identical results, A and B are not comparable. What are your thoughts on this?

Some more recent models break the Banister impulse response equations into several parts corresponding to each of the three energy systems (PCR, glycolic, and the fat burning one). They are saying that recovery from hard efforts is quicker on the aerobic system (fat burning muscles) and takes longer for PCR and glycolic. Consequently, some are modeling TSS differently than the Coggan model. I do not know what is correct to be honest because the new kids don't publish peer reviewed data anywhere. I believe Coggan has taken the very complex and made it easy for us dumb asses to understand. I do believe Option B in your scenario would be far more taxing than Option A and would cause more fatigue......you know the old saw about burning matches. This is one of the secrets to long distance rides, keeping the really hard efforts down as much as possible. On a short segment, the correct strategy for starting probably depends on the time duration of the effort and your specific energy systems. On long TTs, it is best to ease into the effort whereas on like a pursuit, I think they just kill it until they almost die.

 

[Osiris]

Since I've started training for longer intervals, I'm looking more closely at things that I've not really considered in the past. Here's one oddity I've become aware of lately. Let's say that I know from experience that I can hold a speed of 26 mph @ 240W for a given segment. So I'm cruising along at 26 mph, but I encounter a group of slow riders, so I briefly drop my speed to 23 mph to get around them safely. Though my legs have rested a bit while slowing, I find that the effort it takes to get back up to 26 mph is really taxing. When I finally do reach 26 mph, I feel much more fatigued than I would have, had I not reduced my speed at all. Have you noticed anything like this?

 

[ed72]

Since I've started training for longer intervals, I'm looking more closely at things that I've not really considered in the past. Here's one oddity I've become aware of lately. Let's say that I know from experience that I can hold a speed of 26 mph @ 240W for a given segment. So I'm cruising along at 26 mph, but I encounter a group of slow riders, so I briefly drop my speed to 23 mph to get around them safely. Though my legs have rested a bit while slowing, I find that the effort it takes to get back up to 26 mph is really taxing. When I finally do reach 26 mph, I feel much more fatigued than I would have, had I not reduced my speed at all. Have you noticed anything like this?

Not yet. When I am passing a bunch of roadies, I floor it, smile, ding my little bell, and then all a good whilst giving them the Queen's best wave.

Well, this is what I think is going on. If you ride over threshold power, there is a limit to how much anaerobic energy that any rider can produce. It is in the region of 15-30 kJoules. Let's say a rider is riding 50 watts into that anerobic region meaning he/she is above threshold. Let's assume the rider has 15kJ available. 15,000 divided by 50 = 300 seconds. Once that limit is reached, the rider is forced to stop. Digging into that reserve gets more and more difficult. So, you might be over threshold at 26 mph and slowing to 23 mph, the acceleration to 26 mph hits those anaerobic stores again. The perceived (and real) effort can be hard. The restoration of these anaerobic stores can take a long time to recover, a mere slowing for 20-30 seconds won't do much. Full recovery can take 20-30 minutes, depending upon the effort during recovery. This is how stronger riders break the legs of weaker competitors.....lots of change in pace. Over and over again. Snap.

 

[Osiris]

Well, this is what I think is going on. If you ride over threshold power, there is a limit to how much anaerobic energy that any rider can produce. It is in the region of 15-30 kJoules. Let's say a rider is riding 50 watts into that anerobic region meaning he/she is above threshold. Let's assume the rider has 15kJ available. 15,000 divided by 50 = 300 seconds. Once that limit is reached, the rider is forced to stop. Digging into that reserve gets more and more difficult. So, you might be over threshold at 26 mph and slowing to 23 mph, the acceleration to 26 mph hits those anaerobic stores again. The perceived (and real) effort can be hard. The restoration of these anaerobic stores can take a long time to recover, a mere slowing for 20-30 seconds won't do much. Full recovery can take 20-30 minutes, depending upon the effort during recovery.

That's exactly what I thought it might be. I'm trying to figure out exactly where my aerobic threshold is, so I'm doing lots of longer segments at what I think may be the highest power levels I can sustain. My only indicators are the amount of lactic acid buildup and how out of breath I get, but I've discovered that these aren't very reliable guides. There have been times when I was sure I couldn't push any harder, but then I'd discover near the end that I could still increase my speed by 0.1 or 0.2 mph and maintain it. In weight training, it was much easier to find that line; no amount of will power will take you beyond the point of muscle failure, but endurance seems to be much more of a mental game.

 

[ed72]

That's exactly what I thought it might be. I'm trying to figure out exactly where my aerobic threshold is, so I'm doing lots of longer segments at what I think may be the highest power levels I can sustain. My only indicators are the amount of lactic acid buildup and how out of breath I get, but I've discovered that these aren't very reliable guides. There have been times when I was sure I couldn't push any harder, but then I'd discover near the end that I could still increase my speed by 0.1 or 0.2 mph and maintain it. In weight training, it was much easier to find that line; no amount of will power will take you beyond the point of muscle failure, but endurance seems to be much more of a mental game.

Do a trial subscription to XERT and load your power files, it will give you a decent estimate of your threshold power assuming you have enough recent data to load.

http://baronbiosys.com/

When you push so hard you feel like you are going to die, you are only halfway to using your pull potential. Overcoming the brain's self defense mechanisms is the challenge. Paradoxically, it has been shown that muscle recruitment is lower and lower as a rider approaches voluntary cessation of exercise. This is one reason I tortured myself with twice weekly Tabata intervals on my bent for a few months. To teach my legs to STFU.

 

[ed72]

I should clearly state that I am an advocate of volume or miles moreso than high intensity intervals, there is no substitute for it. I do not do a ton of intensity, just once a week or occasionally twice. But my weekly volume averages close to 20 hours on the bike, rain or shine.

 

[Osiris]

Do a trial subscription to XERT and load your power files, it will give you a decent estimate of your threshold power assuming you have enough recent data to load.

http://baronbiosys.com/

When you push so hard you feel like you are going to die, you are only halfway to using your pull potential. Overcoming the brain's self defense mechanisms is the challenge. Paradoxically, it has been shown that muscle recruitment is lower and lower as a rider approaches voluntary cessation of exercise. This is one reason I tortured myself with twice weekly Tabata intervals on my bent for a few months. To teach my legs to STFU.

I actually did pretty well with the Tabata intervals because I have a high tolerance for extreme pain over short periods. Much harder for me is tolerating lower levels of pain for long periods. I'm not cut out psychologically or physically for endurance sports, but I don't want to go back to playing to my strength and confine myself to sprints. I had a good excuse for doing that when I was riding uprights exclusively. They're so damned uncomfortable that just sitting on one for a couple of hours was unpleasant.

 

[Bill Wightman]

Speaking of anaerobic...down here in Houston in the summer (and even now), there is the problem of overheating with the high temperatures and humidity. It is fine at 7:30 am and 75 deg F but after 3-4 hrs it is up to 90 and the DF group I ride behind is still going 23 and my heart rate is in the 170-180 bpm range because it is hot. That is when I start to move up closer to get some draft from the group. So this is a form of training high when you really want to train low. It takes a good nap to feel human again. Since these rides have a lot of red light acceleration and hard corner acceleration there is a tendency to go anaerobic over and over. To mitigate this difficulty I am embarking on some ketogenic based weight loss as well as removing any non-critical weight from the bike (like the rear wheel cover). This has worked in the past and also works for hilly rides. I have 10 pounds of M&M chocolate waistline fat to burn off. Too bad M&Ms don't turn into leg muscles. Life would be perfect.