Fishboy's Racing on Blue

Last race of the season - race footage.

2011-03-27T15:28:00.011+11:00

Last race of the season - went out equipped with a camera on the bike that records in HD (1920 x 1080).

Such a great day out there - one of those rare windless and very beautiful days for racing. Had a blast ... 1st out of the water in my wave, 1st off the bike, then ran up the white flag on the run (as per usual) and finished 6th in A/G. 4th fastest A/G swim and bike - bike time was 30:28, which is probably spot on 40kmh av on the road and about 14 sec at each end mount and dismount to the timing mats.

The camera is a Contour HD which I ordered from the manufacturer in the states, but there are places in Aus you can order online at the same price. About $350. Awesome little camera records in full HD (1920 x 1080) at 30fps (which is almost too much info to process for most computers to play easily) onto a small SD memory card. At 3/4 HD size and 30 fps you can record 1 hr of footage on a 2 Gb card, will take up to 32 Gb card, which could possibly hold a full IM bike at full HD quality.

The 25 min odd recorded on Sunday was about a 1.1 gb file at 3/4 HD res. Started the camera on the bike once I had my feet in and wasn't going to be a danger to anyone. Left it running the whole race and switched off in the rack (would have auto shut off anyway).

Here's a few speed increasing tips and times from the vid you can use to hopefully ride faster as well:

0:25 - 0:50
Get aero as possible on the downhills (even slight ones) - doing so can produce a much higher speed, and by keeping up the power output you can get a good head of steam up that can carry you up the next hill, or further along the course.

1:25 - 1:44
Make sure if you do pass any packs you go over the top with sufficient speed they can't suddenly jump on (may not be that easy!). Remember to hurl appropriate abuse as you steam by.

2:12 - 3:44
Slipstream up behind people, just remember you have 15 seconds to make the pass stick and get out of their draft. Don't get too close or pass too close - a swerving cyclist is hard to miss at full tilt. Also ride in the wheel tracks where the cars have been - they are typically smoother, but may be more prone to potholes (keep an eye out!) Remember to pass only on the right, and move left as soon as you overtake and it is safe to do so. Failure to do so may incur a blocking penalty.

3:44
Take it easy on the turn arounds, particularly if it is wet. No prizes for wiping out. Don't blow a fuse building speed on the way out from the turn around - get up to full race pace again without overcooking yourself... it's usually faster than riding out too hard from the turns.

4:48
Wave to the draft busters, they are your friends.

5:08 - 5:20
Know the course, and ride the corners hard; get in the right gear beforehand and nail it in, through, and out.

6:00
Practice those dismounts and squeeze out your opposition over the timing mat! At least then if they get away on the run you can say you dismounted first.

Time to learn how to run properly over winter...

Oh and if you do end up buying your own Contour HD, you just have to put yt:stretch=16:9 into the Youtube video Tags field to tell it it should be a 16:9 widescreen movie.

Cervelo's LSWT tests against the Big 4

2011-03-12T09:32:00.017+11:00

As published on Slowtwitch.com recently, Cervelo recently tested the big 4 TT rigs against the P4 in the San Diego LSWT wind tunnel, in a long series of pretty significant tests.

These tests are interesting because Cervelo is using their famous DZ (Dave Zabriskie) mannequin - although Dave is super good at sitting in the same position each time, wind tunnel testing is largely a repetitive chore, and I'm sure Dave has better things to do than freeze his goolies off sitting in the same position in a couple of hundred tunnel runs.

< Super Dave - the mannequin.

This means that the test results are actually representative of what we'd expect to see in real world use - ie. someone actually riding a bike round a course, rather than bike only drag figures which are often published from tunnel tests. The second reason this is so significant is because arguably the widely available current best 5 TT bike/frame combos are there being tested, and thirdly, independant observers from Slowtwitch were present during the tests (what level of exposure to tunnel testing they had is unknown however).

Cervelo has stayed quiet on the publication of this material, possibly choosing to release the info via an "independant" third party, rather than publish the test results themselves. Given how much hype surrounds tunnel tests by manufacturers this may be a smart way of releasing the results without incurring the suspicion of "manufacturer bias" prevalent when a manufacturer goes to a tunnel, particularly since their bike comes out either on top or close to the top (depending on the wind angles being tested).

So to results:

Firstly, the graph of Bikes, with Super Dave on, and trying to get the fastest possible ride - ignore-hydration-do-whatever-it-takes-to-win. This run sweeps from -20 yaw to +20 yaw, also important, because the drive train side affects the run numbers (if you look at drive side and non drive side in isolation you can get an idea, but not the full picture of what is going on.)

What does this show? Well by and large the P4 with a bottle on is certainly better than its competitors in the narrow range of -7.5 to +7.5 degrees of yaw. So if it is a low (or no wind) day, it could be hard to hang onto that guy on the P4 that just came steaming past. At 0 yaw the P4 is an average of 100 grams less drag than the average of the competitors - or around 5% better which is a significant reduction in drag. Between -15 to -7.5 and +7.5 to +15 the bikes chop and change in results, with the P4 being worse than all competitors in -10 to -15 yaw. Strangely, the P4 is again better than all competitors at less than -15 or greater +15 yaw. All competitors to the P4 test faster with a bottle OFF, making the P4 the only bike to go faster with the bottle on (whether you can actually get at that fluid while staying relatively aero is another matter - if you have a P4 you should be racing with the bottle in, regardless of what it contains).

The second part is to compare these results against the Trek Speed Concept white paper that came out last year. This is also available from Slowtwitch. In those tests, they did use a mannequin similar to super Dave, but only published limited data for tests with a mannequin. Most of their published data was without rider... which isn't a problem here as we have without rider data from the Cervelo tests too. Now this data was collected by 2 companies that have years of experience in tunnel testing, from the same tunnel (LSWT). The only apparent difference between these tests is the use of a H3 front/Hed disk rear in the Trek study, compared with Zipp 808 front/Zipp disk rear in the Cervelo study.

Cervelo results:

Trek results:

OK, so we have to confine ourselves to 0 to +20 deg yaw, but WTF? How is it possible that these results are so dramatically different between these tests? Admittedly, we only have 2 identical bikes in both tests: Trek Speed Concept and the P4 - but even these figures themselves are widely different for each set of results. If we take the data for P4 and Speed Concept from both tests and overlay it against each other we get:

The Trek data (solid line) is markedly different to the Cervelo data (dotted line), and given what I know about the 2 wheelsets (including independant tunnel tests and field tests), I'd be very surprised that either wheelset is the primary contributor to this margin of difference. Given the large (and consistent) gap between P4 and Speed Concept in the Trek data - I'd say "please explain, Mr. Trek".

Dan Empfield (Slowtwitch) does have the following conclusions:

Other bike companies might argue that the superior straight-on performance of the P4 is: 1) Somewhat due to the superior 0° yaw performance of the Ventus (the minimal drag of the pursuit position seems intuitively to be optimized for straight-ahead winds; and, 2) The most important yaw angles are those between 7.5° and 15°. As to the latter point, that's above my pay grade.

What is nevertheless undeniable, based on the results of this test, is that the P4 is the equal, or near equal, of every other bike in the test at these greater yaws, and better yet when as the bike points directly into the wind.

I'm betting the performance of the P4 in low yaw won't vary that much regardless of what bars go on that machine. As to the idea that yaw angles between 7.5 and 15 degrees are more important, that only works if you're a mere mortal spending the majority of your time racing in wind lower than about 10 kmh (6 mph). Once the wind strength goes above 10kmh (6 mph) you'll be seeing a wide range of yaw angles depending on the direction you're pointing, so you need a bike/wheelset that works well across a wide range of yaw. And if race day dawns calm and still, I hope you've got a P4 hanging on the wall of your garage!

Going faster in shorter races - esp. if you are of larger build

2011-02-26T17:43:00.011+11:00

A mate from my local forum hangout [steamroller] recently asked a couple of questions regarding going fast in shorter races, particular for the bigger blokes.

Q. I was wondering what the benefits would be for each piece of technology, specifically in relation to bigger bodies over a sprint distance triathlon.

I am a BOP [Back of Pack] participant and will probably always be down that end. In saying that I would still like to get faster over the sprint distance. Prior to everyone saying do more training and lose weight, I already understand that and have taken steps in that direction. I am specifically talking about improvements in transitions and also the use of technology i.e aero helmets, wetsuits etc.

I have read the stuff that fishboy did regarding the aero helmets,wheels etc but was wondering if the results he got would be significantly different based on greater weight and width regarding shoulders stomach etc.

I think steamroller was referring to: http://fishboy.triathlete.com.au/2009/11/v...el-testing.html when he asked his question.

So how can we squeeze a few savings off a short race time without actually doing much for it, particularly if you're bigger than the average bear?

I'm big-ish, but not Clydie* big - 81kg (180lbs) and 186cm (6 ft 2in), 55cm shoulder width, 100cm chest circumference. However, big enough that first time in the wind tunnel I was worse than an average triathlete (CdA 0.265-0.275 seems to be pretty on the mark average for someone with aero lid and bars, I was 0.285 with aero lid and aero wheels, and not much changed in the course of that wind tunnel session 1).

[* Clydie = local dialect for "Clydesdale category" (after the horse), in which the triathlon participant must be over 100kg (221 lbs).]

Being bigger means you have more frontal area that you have to either hide or somehow disguise as a slippery-as-a-fish shape.

Sprint is all about high speed racing... therefore being aero, and powerful as well, is crucial to success on a Sprint bike leg (20km or 12.4 mi of pain). Forget comfort, find the smallest possible slippery shape you can squash your body into, train to adapt to that shape and deliver race power in that position. Learn how to unpretzel yourself off the bike and "still run good" (I haven't quite mastered that bit yet).

You can throw tech dollars at the solution, but getting the body aero is usually the single biggest thing you can do followed by an aero helmet.

The time savings below are based on a 36kmh (22.5mph) average sprint bike speed using the same power, if you do just that *one* thing listed below.

Unfortunately you can't add all the time savings together - it doesn't work like that.... as you go faster, you save less total time.

Bike:
Aero lid (fishboy mandatory, and independent of body size): Steamroller had possibly the best aero helmet (Limar Chrono), but hadn't actually used it in a race!! Get it on the road son: wear it, you will PB next race.
A good aero helmet can make about 1.0kmh (0.6mph) speed difference: 54 sec (at 30kmh (18.7mph) the difference in speed is about 27 sec.)
A not so good aero helmet will increase your speed around 0.5kmh (0.3 mph): 27 sec saved over a road helmet - still a cool saving.
Below 26-28kmh (16.8 mph) the benefit of an aero lid is relatively negligible, and you may probably start feeling silly...so just wear your road lid if you feel like riding that slow.

Aero bars (or getting away from road position into TT position, this is dependant on body shape, flexibility etc) will generate a 1kmh (0.6 mph) speed increase: 54 sec saved

Aero wheels (independent of body size): 30-45 sec
Simkins aero brake (independant of body size): 8 sec saved
No front brake (illegal but what the hell) (independant of body size): 16 sec saved

So in essence you can get an array of bike time savings by just investing $$$ independant of body size.

You will however need some assistance to fine tune a larger body to go quick.
Though it sounds expensive, if you can get into a wind tunnel with someone who knows their schizzam from their elbow, or do field testing with power (also expensive if you have not a power meter) this is probably the best way of return on investment (see graph in the article mentioned above, you can spend loads of $$$$$$$ on bike bling and not be much faster than you already were).

Based on my starting and final aero setup I've saved 1:51 over 20km (12.4 mi) based on same input power, by tweaking body position and some specific aero hardware bits.

Swim:
For me, a wetsuit saves about 6-8 sec/100m, and takes ~8 sec to remove. Given a bit slower running in the wetsuit the break even point for me is around 300m swim (0.18 mi). Longer, than that I'll definitely have a suit on. If you are big, and sink like the proverbial, it may save more you than this.

Transitions:
Time can be had left, right and centre if you practise, practise, practise. None of these seem to be body shape dependent. Here's a bunch of stuff that I've worked out is faster for me. It might, or might not be for you. ;)

1. Walk through all transitions before the race. Work out swim entry, bike exit, bike entry, run exit and shortest distance, and physically walk/jog round them all so you see what it looks like in the race (nothing like seeing it before hand). Look for shortest route and landmarks. Remember aisle row markers "I'm between 13 and 14". Getting lost is sure fire way to add seconds.

2. Set up your gear carefully, in the same setup as you practice your transitions with (not practicing transitions? - tsk - better get on that too). Mine is towel folded, running shoes at bottom of towel, helmet top side down at top of towel, straps out in the right orientation for pick up and straight to head. Sun glasses open inside helmet ready for straight to head. Shoes clipped on bike (R shoe on R pedal and L shoe on L pedal, not as I have done once the other way :blush: ), appropriate gear pre-selected for bike exit.

3. Practice getting out of that wetsuit: get out of water, get running for a bit (recover from shock of standing up, and move faster for a bit), then try to remove wetsuit top - after top is down remove cap and goggles and finish run to bike. Practice removing wetsuit quickly after every open water practice swim - experiment with oil/glide substance on calves and feet to get feet out easier. As you arrive at bike, bend down pushing wetsuit as low as possible on legs, grab glasses put on, grab helmet and put on; at the same time stomp feet alternatively to remove suit; once helmet clipped, use hands to remove any last bit of suit and get bike off rack and go. A good 20 sec to be had here with practice.

4. Shoes on bike, run barefoot. Easily 15 sec saved in transition, you may give up some on the road getting your feet in, but you are at speed (yes, accelerate up to at least 30-35kmh before trying to put feet in, to go fast enough to minimise time loss).

5. Practice mounting. Keep running till the road is clear enough for a fast running mount, sometimes this may be past the mount line - run through the slower traffic, get to the front, quick mount and away up to speed before trying to get feet in. Another 5 or so sec saved.

6. Practice dismounting. Feet out of shoes resting on shoe tops in last 300m, hands on brakes decelerating on approach to line, swing leg over before you get to dismount line and leap into run on the dismount line. If you race long, and have bottles on the back - take 'em off - you don't need that much fluid, and it is a lot more aero without them, and worse, rear bottles can be a serious dismounting hazard as you swing a leg off the back of the bike.
If coming in overcooked, use a bit of brake and support a bit of weight on the front wheel between strides to get down to an actual running speed that your (now detonated) legs can cope with. I find acknowledging marshal at dismount line by nodding that you understand that you will be dismounting (or attempting to not crash and burn) leads to less yelling on their part. Very satisfying when you come in hot and they're gobsmacked you can actually be off the bike and through dismount that fast. Another 8-10 sec saved.

7. Get running quick - try and stand up as tall as you can and keep cadence high as you (try) to get into decent run form. It's hard, and I suck at it. There are many other better qualified runners than me that might have a few more pointers there.

Run:
There is no magic bullet (or else I would have found it by now). Sorry.

Actually - make sure you put glide or vaseline on parts of your feet pre-race you are prone to blister in... I wouldn't use socks in Sprint or Olympic race, but would for a long course or half ironman.

So there you have it, a few time savings that you can (hopefully) squeeze out of your next short race, independent of the fact you block the sun from most people standing next to you. Enjoy!

New Pioneer power meter pic

2011-02-04T09:52:00.006+11:00

Aaah those tricky Japanese... we've seen a few hints, schematics and press releases but here is some concrete evidence of a new Pioneer power meter.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50271552@N06/5156954007/sizes/m/in/photostream/

Who knows how good it is, but more people riding with power can only be a good thing ;-) And I'm pretty sure that is an ANT+ logo on the device.

New QR CD .01 - Reviewed

2011-02-03T09:51:00.000+11:00

New Quintana Roo CD .01 reviewed, looks interesting.

QR CD .01 Review

Interesting post on A2 wind tunnel with Chris Boardman and Rory Sutherland

2011-01-13T19:29:00.003+11:00

Aaah. Boardman. Probably more aero testing than any other cyclist. Holder of the world hour record. Sir. Still involved with cycling, helping our Rory Sutherland in the A2 tunnel.

More: http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/news/black-magic-chris-boardman-and-rory-sutherland-in-the-wind-tunnel_155356

30% increase in power since Sep 2010

2010-12-29T09:21:00.004+11:00

Well, in just 12 weeks of training, I've increased power over the same interval distance/session by 30%, which is a bucketload. OK so there wasn't that much there to start with, but improvement is improvement.

This increase in power over shorter distances has also translated into some PB times over 20km, 28:51 notably, which is an all time PR.

Zipp releases Firecrest rim shape

2010-12-14T10:43:00.014+11:00

Well the folks at Zipp are at it again. A new rim shape, dubbed Firecrest, has been developed and looks like being rolled out across the Zipp lineup.

The shape is less toroidal, and more boxlike, with a much fatter rim profile than before. I suspect this is to allow the use of 23C tires which can also help lower the rolling resistance of the wheel.

There's only one problem... no data. Can't find a single test result (either within Zipp) or externally that has any kind of data. Instead we just have more Zipp marketing speak:

From their webpage explaining the new shape:

"The performance benefits are substantial. With Firecrest, the latest 404 Tubular (58mm rim depth) matches the aero performance of the pre-Firecrest 808 (81mm depth). And the new 808 Tubular is faster than any competitor’s 90mm rim."

A bit better: from a press release:

"At a 10-degree wind angle, the performance improvements from Firecrest are substantial: 9 seconds over 40km for the 404 Tubular, and 15 seconds for the 808 Tubular that is now faster than any 90mm rim and even some disc wheels. At higher wind angles, the benefits are even more dramatic."

But this kind of data is still really annoying, it doesn't give you any idea of how the rim shape actually performs in different conditions ...

Edit: Zipp have since released some data on their website which shows the 404 Firecrest shape performing in comparison with other wheels.

This data shows the Firecrest shape on a 404 outstripping a 2010 808 by a reasonable amount.

Enter YouTube: Finally some real data from a presentation at Interbike ... I'm not even sure how I found this now, but it appears to be the only source of real data available for the Firecrest shape on the web currently (edit: until the above graphic surfaced on the Zipp website).

This presentation is by Josh Portner, the Zipp Technical Director, and (obviously) the dude behind Ask Josh on the Zipp website, and actually explains why and how they have been able to reduce drag and make the wheel more stable in cross winds.

I'm wondering if Zipp had some cross pollination from some CFD work that was published recently ... in that study, the side forces of the wheels were measured and plotted as side axial forces acting on the wheel (they also collaborated with Zipp to check the CFD results against tunnel data). (Paper available as 3.2Mb PDF)

It does make a lot of sense ... if you can design a wheel where the side axial force pushes right on the centre of the wheel, it actually doesn't exert any turning force at all on the wheel, and so behaves so much more nicely in cross wind, rather than having to wrangle it like some carbon fibre cowboy.

Here's a screenshot from the video showing the reduction in drag in a crosswind, both on the front, and on the trailing edge of the wheel as well:

Mind you, this is comparing the Firecrest shape to a traditional V design, so you'd expect to see quite a bit of difference. It's clear how the more rounded back of the rim, once it is the leading edge of the trailing side of the wheel becomes closer to a traditional NACA foil shape with a thinner trailing edge, and therefore has less drag.

There is an interesting side story here, one which Zipp has conveniently avoided by clever use of comparisons... they've compared a FC 404 to 2010 808, and a FC 404 to 2010 404 and a FC808 to a 2010 808, but why not FC 404 to FC 808? The answer appears in the following graphic:

This graph shows a mixture of data from HED and Zipp and plots the FC 404 v the FC 808 directly against each other - what is clear is that the better wheel is probably the FC 404! Why? Because the wheels have almost identical drag down to 10 deg Yaw, and the FC 808 only manages a slight drag decrease to 15 deg yaw, and then the drag on the FC 808 rises significantly after 15 yaw because the wheel is stalling and starting to cause massive turbulence at that point. So the (pretty much) age old rule of deeper=better may not necessarily hold in Firecrest country, the FC 404 should perform almost the same as the 808, and once it gets windy, it performs significantly better than the FC 808. It will also probably cost a lot less than a FC 808 as well.

I'd still like a please explain from Zipp (or HED) as to why their data for the H3 (top line) goes nowhere near the H3 data from Hed (bottom line). What does this tell me? It tells me that there are a myriad of ways to get data from the tunnel, and it is easy to pick or inadvertantly make data that may show you in a more positive light than your competitors (for example, put a nice fat tire on a skinny rim and see how poorly it performs). It also says that perhaps the only true way of telling "faster is faster" is field testing it yourself to see what works for you, relying on marketing speak may well be a sub optimal method for buying speed.

Pedal selection and aero characteristics

2010-12-01T13:44:00.007+11:00

It isn't very often that companies post raw wind tunnel data, but kudos to Speedplay for coming up with the goods... not only have they tested their product at one of the better tunnels, they've released the raw tunnel data that clearly shows their product outperforming competitors. While there may be some sources of error that could allow the data to show their product in a more positive light than the competitors (for example testing on a different day, with different atmospheric conditions and then not adjusting for air density), we're pretty sure that this is not the case.

The results shown indicate the following CdA's:

Speedplay4 0.237 = 11.35 m/s = 40.86 kmh (25.5mph) = 58:44 40 km (25 mi)
Speedplay3 0.242 = 11.27 m/s = 40.57 kmh (25.2mph) = 59:09 40 km (25 mi)
Shimano 0.243 = 11.26 m/s = 40.54 kmh (25.2mph) = 59:12 40 km (25 mi)
Look 0.243 = same as Shimano

That's 28 seconds faster over 40 km, and a pretty surprising result for the 4 hole cleat and 4 seconds for the 3 hole cleat. Also it isn't 33 seconds faster over 40km as claimed by Speedplay ... but that depends on the input parameters you use to do the calculations (in the above case 0.004 Crr, 85kg, 0 slope, 250w, 1.226 air density), but it is in the ball park.

With the bottom of the line speedplay retailing for around $150, this is quite good return on investment at $18 per second (4 hole), and not so good $37.50 per second for 3 hole.

Now I'm a bit intrigued as to why there is such a difference between the 3 and 4 hole mount systems... I suspect it has a lot to do with the way that the 4 hole system requires less bits to mount and therefore makes a lower profile underside to the shoe. As the following graphics (copyright Speedplay) show, there is probably at least an additional mm, perhaps more of material under the show with a 3 hole system. Which means, of course, that you may need to look at some new shoes as well to get that time difference.

vs.

You can read more about the Speedplay testing:33 seconds saved

Back on the wagon

2010-09-09T10:42:00.002+10:00

After a long layoff (having squashed 6 competitive seasons into 3 calendar years) - needed a long break to recharge and recover... that done, its been a hard road for the last month getting back in the pool and on the bike and out running.

Blood test shows Vit D level of 19 ng/ml, which is less than half of the minimum optimal range recommended by numerous health bodies... (32-50 lower end of optimal range, 65-70 upper end of optimal range). Melbourne winters are hard on the sun absorbtion factor, and the one just past was worse than the last few years as we finally got some relatively normal rainfall...

However, onward and upward.

Next wind tunnel session 6 Mar; Pacing Optimisation

2010-01-31T20:00:00.006+11:00

Yee ha - back to the tunnel - 6 Mar. Like a drug that thing.

Hot Gatorade race in Melburn today... 37 deg C and with a run time approaching my cycle time I still somehow managed 10th in my age group.

Also been working on a pacing optimisation calculator. Alex Simmons has a ripper one in Excel, but it's pretty slow (well Excel is pretty slow at the best of times) - it takes 20-30 min to optimise a course with 100 segments. The idea is that if the course is hilly (or there is a stinking headwind like today) you can actually be faster by applying more power on the uphill/headwind sections, and less on the downhill/tailwind sections, while still keeping the normalised power at the same level as if you rode the course at the same even power.

Executing such a pacing strategy is pretty simple if the course is hilly - add % grade to the screen of a Garmin 705 alongside power and ride X power for Y gradient.

So I figured I'd have a crack at the same problem, but using a different technique: genetic algorithms. A genetic algorithm is a way of finding solutions to maths problems, but without doing every possible calculation required with brute force. You come up with a way of encoding the problem as a gene (you set the power for each course segment), then determine how well the gene solves the problem (arrive at the end of the course with a specified Normalised Power and fastest time).

By creating a population of genomes, you can then calculate how good each gene is at the problem, and rank the results. Then comes the fun bit, you take the best genes, divide them into Mums and Dads and then start creating children by swapping some of the gene segments of the Mum and the Dad into the babies. You also get to mutate the gene pool randomly to keep things interesting.

Preliminary tests are that I can calculate a population of 1000 genomes on a 6 segment course and do a full generation every half second or so(each 1000 genomes calculate how good they are at the problem, have babies and die off, then a few might get mutated); so in a minute could calculate 120,000 attempts at solving the problem. Because the genes adapt to the problem, picking the better solutions each generation, this might be a lot faster than using Excel... time will tell.

I'm planning on factoring in bearing, wind bearing and wind speed as well as the course (elevation, CdA, Crr) etc. You'll be able to vary things per segment if you need to (like a really rough section of course, or an exposed windy section). If the thing is fast enough, you should be able to run it on the website from your mobile browser on the way to the race site. Under a minute good, longer than that not so flash. And it should be easy to use - upload a TCX/GPX file from a Garmin or exported from WKO and there's the course - tweak the input parameters and solve away!

3 weeks till Nationals - CTL 70.

Oops

2010-01-11T08:08:00.003+11:00

Raced yesterday after 1 week of full training (instead of just swimming); accidentally won my age group after fastest swim/ride and very slow run. 4th overall fastest ride. All the work in the pool and in aero is paying off. Gotta figure out this running caper... somehow.

Whoa! Cool nerd tool under development

2010-01-04T21:40:00.010+11:00

Finally had some time to sit down and fritz around with some new(ish) Microsoft technology that I've been meaning to catch up on for a while (Visual Studio 2008, Microsoft MVC and some other stuff).

And it's good - in fact great. Really streamlines web based development and makes things much faster to develop.

Anyway I won't bore everyone with the tedious technical details, here's a screenshot of the first part of the application:

A brand spanky new power calculator that does, amongst other things, calculate one of Crr/CdA/Slope/Speed/Power from given information, draw a graph of power v speed for current CdA/Crr, and generate split times for a variety of length rides from 20k to Ironman®.

Kind of like analytic cycling, but roided up for the 'teens (we are 2010 now after all). Plus I fixed the stuff that annoyed me over there (sorry Tom Compton) like not having CdA as a single measure, and having to calculate metres/sec all the time from kmh (divide by 3.6). Also now that I programmed in a proper air density calculator, it should be a lot more accurate than guessing at air density values all the time.

Anyway there is a bit more to do on this, but should have something publically available before I have to go back to work towards the end of Jan.

I'm thinking conversion of imperial units for altitude (ft -> metres), temperature (deg F -> deg C), and pressure (inHG -> kPA), plus an override for pressure for people who actually have their own portable weather station (Andy Coggan: Google Wattage for one ;-)), rather than the sea level reported pressure.

CTL up to 50. Big week, including riding with some A graders. Ouch.

Will a Simkins Aero brake be worth it?

2010-01-01T13:23:00.007+11:00

Recently saw Matt Simkins new aero brake design - kinda like the old Hooker TT brakes (which incidentally go for a very pretty penny on eBay). The big question is: Are they worth it?

According to Matts real world aero calcs (performed by Tom Anhalt, Google Wattage member), the Simkins brake had a CdA of 0.2125 vs the Cervelo brake mech of 0.2152, or a difference of 0.0027.

That's gotta be a pretty small difference... heading on over to analyticcycling.com:

250w, CdA 0.2152 = 11.62 m/s or 41.83 kmh (25.98 mph)

250w, CdA 0.2124 = 11.66 m/s or 41.97 kmh (26.07 mph)

So a difference of 0.04 m/s... thats 4 cm (about an inch and a half) further per second.

Over 40 km, that's 57:22 compared with 57:11, a scant 11 seconds saved for $335 USD or $30/sec.

Worth it? Might be if the race was a biggie, and the winning margin is less than that! Probably not if 10 seconds can be gained reasonably easily by some other means, like practicing a transition between swim and bike. For TT's only, there would be more merit as the podium is frequently exchanged on the basis of a few seconds here and there.

As an aside I actually sanity checked what a front brake assembly was worth in CdA terms; Cervelo front brake mech on and off the bike the CdA difference was 0.004 - roughly double the difference between the Simkins brake and the Cervelo brake. So the test results do seem to be reasonable.

You can check out Matt's site: www.simkinsdesigns.com

Long time between drinks

2009-12-28T12:45:00.002+11:00

After a rather long enforced layoff after the last ITU worlds, today marks the start of training for this season. Yeah, kinda late, but better than never.

Been swimming a lot, but only running and riding infrequently. CTL 43.

It's time because Triathlon Australia, in their infinite wisdom (did you get the sarcasm there?) scrapped the Challenge Series, and moved all the National championship races from Mar 20, to OD in Canberra Jan 24, and Sprint Mar 20 to Feb 21. So instead of 90 days I now have 27 days to train for the OD champs and 55 for the Sprint champs. Nice one TA.

Might have to blow off the OD champs and concentrate on Sprint. Turns out after having chased this race all over the country for the last 10 years (Southport Qld, Forster NSW, Huskisson NSW), it's in my own backyard in Sandringham, Vic, on my local 2x20 course. So close I'd have to ride somewhere else first to get a decent warmup.

Carbon Hydration system

2009-12-12T18:06:00.000+11:00

Following up on the value of wind tunnel testing ... this little puppy helped refine my CdA down a tad more.

Carbon Hydration system by fishboy, with help from Raoul Luescher (my mold, his carbon work). That's an Oz 50 cent piece if you can't tell.

Xlab sticker to put people on the wrong trail

How it gets mounted... sorry ;-).

I will say this ... with a little patience, and some applied thought, you can produce stuff way better than a lot of the commercial crap floating around (and I do mean crap from an aero point of view). Bit more exxy... (like twice the price) but it works about 500% better, and a lot more satisfying.

The blue mold is shaping foam that can be bought commercially - about $50 for a 1.5 x 0.5 x 0.05 m slab.
Cardboard profiles sketched, then knife away the large chunks and 2 hrs of hand sanding to reach final shape.

Does no one believe tubulars are faster?

2009-11-24T19:53:00.001+11:00

Maybe not a guru - just keen on testing stuff. No-one else I know of, including manufacturers, have this data available in an unbiased way.

On Google wattage there has been a lot of talk about poor performing tires and the wattage increases required to power the wheel:

* Group member Stuart Lynne reported 25-30 watts more power required to average 40kmh with Zipp 404 front/rear with Tufo S33's compared with clinchers on Bontrager aero rims
and 1-2 minutes slower in 3 TT performances than expected.
[url="http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/browse_thread/thread/6fb5493f2cfe9b0d/664eaa16273767d1"]http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/bro...64eaa16273767d1[/url]
* Mr. E reported Tufos slower than clinchers
[url="http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/browse_thread/thread/85173088b1fbbde/8e2dddb7f5c22984"]http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/bro...e2dddb7f5c22984[/url]
* Gary Zyriek reported similar findings
[url="http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/browse_thread/thread/3864131868d2a891"]http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/bro...864131868d2a891[/url]
* Opie OsCO reported similar findings (same thread above).
* Gene Fowler reported 225 watts to roll at 25 MPH @ 85 cadence on rollers with Tufos, 145 watts with clinchers, same speed/cadence
[url="http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/browse_thread/thread/c4cdef5f3d1683ed/242f0b0526b099b5"]http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/bro...42f0b0526b099b5[/url]

Some further information: [url="http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/12493.0.html"]http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/12493.0.html[/url]

Feel free to use whatever you like, but if there are ways to make things faster with relatively little effort, I'll take those gains thanks.

The value of Wind tunnel testing

2009-11-24T14:47:00.014+11:00

After recently completing my second trip to the tunnel, I was inspired to see if I could have gotten a better result simply by throwing money at the problem. (Not that there is that much cash to outlay on bling in this neck of the woods.)

It's taken 2 years and a lot of trial and error to get to this point - while I'm not as aero as the Zabriskie's and Landis' of the world, for a non shrinking violet with swim specific shoulders it's getting there. My first round of tunnel testing over 12 months ago scored CdA values in excess of 0.285, with values around 0.275 being as good as it got at that point. Since then I'd done a lot of field testing to try and find ways of snipping off drag, and I was pretty keen to see how the tunnel stacked up with my field tests.

This round of tunnel testing was completed at Monash University, Melbourne, and I can't divulge the real data (such as what wheelsets resulted in what CdA) due to legal agreements, but here is a reduced summary of the data:

The results show a variety of positions and how many dollars it took to find that position (including the time in the tunnel). So closer to the left side of the graph is more aero, and closer to the bottom of the graph is less spent. Obviously we want the least drag for the least spent, which is the direction of the blue arrow. What's interesting here is that it challenges the notion that blinging up is the way to achieve faster speeds, in fact by running out and spending as much as possible you are pretty much guaranteed of achieving very little unless that spend includes some tunnel time.

All of these tests where conducted on the same TT frame, by the same person (TT frame not included in cost). Point 4 is the default starting point, having spent nothing.

By adding just a time trial helmet drag drops from 0.265 to 0.253 (Point 3) which pretty much confirms that the most effective thing you can do for time trialling or triathlon is add an aero lid, if you don't already have one. Not only that, you may spend more than $6000 on aero wheels and still not derive as much advantage as using the aero lid (Point 6). Despite this, I regularly speak to people who remain convinced that blinging up with wheels is their next big thing, while in fact they are still using a road helmet.

By adding some tunnel test time to our aero helmet we managed to drop drag from 0.253 to 0.243 (Point 2) which was better than almost all the expensive aero wheels we tried, at roughly 1/7th the cost.

Finally the three best price for drag positions (adjacent to point 1) were all achieved with the same wheelset, at roughly 2/3 the cost of the more expensive wheels. Kinda lucky really since these are my default race wheels.

Best position achieved (point 1) was using a custom hydration system, designed/shaped by lil ol me, and brought into its full carbon glory by Raoul Luescher from http://www.luescherteknik.com.au/ - a top bloke and there is nothing that he can't do with carbon. (Raoul is also the bloke responsible for organising the tunnel testing - thanks mate).

So just how significant is going from 0.265 to 0.230 ish? Well if you use a modest 200w of power over a 40 km TT, a CdA of 0.265 will net 1:05:37, while 0.230 will be almost 3 min quicker (2:51) stopping the clock at 1:02:46. If the power rises to 270w, the difference drops to 2:35, but this is still a very significant time saving. (These figures assume a flat, straight line course with no turn arounds).

So the moral of this story is if you're competitive enough to care about going fast, then less than a grand invested in tunnel time might be a very wise investment, and probably much better than four to six times as much thrown into aero wheels.

In terms of which positions you'd choose, they're numbered 1 through to 6, 1 being the most desireable, and 5-6 the least desireable. Doing nothing (point 4) is probably better than spending $6+k and getting a marginal improvement (point 6 blue dots) - you need tunnel time to refine a position to extract more drag saving. There are a lot of things you can do with 6k!

As a final aside, how did my field tests compare with the tunnel? Best estimate from repeated field tests for my number 1 position (point 1) were 0.233 compared with the tunnel measured value of 0.233 - can't be too upset about that, and it means I'm pretty confident that when I see something in field testing that is repeatable, I need to pay attention to it.

I could tell you which of these would be faster, but then I'd have to kill you ...

Big thanks to:

Cyclespeed, TCR, Raoul Luescher, and David Burton and the folks at the Monash Wind tunnel.

3 hrs runnin

2009-03-30T20:43:00.000+11:00

Urg. 2 hrs running easy this morning, including quite a bit of walking - old body takes a bit to get going after stiffening up overnight. Another 1:15 running later in the day easy - you have to love the Botanical gardens scenery at the tan. 28km total.

New SRM maiden voyage

2009-03-28T16:46:00.002+11:00

Managed to get the new SRM on the bike and head out today for a ride this arvo.
Nice, fine calm day, but a bit of traffic around (Grand prix weekend). SRM and Garmin behaved nicely, but think I set the offset incorrectly in the Calibrate power section, was 449, and should have been set to 719 - maybe. The offset process works like this:

On the Garmin 705 to set the offset:
Menu button: select Settings: Ant+Sport:Accessories
Spin the SRM crank backwards 5 or 6 revolutions (or maybe a few more) to activate the power meter.
Finish with the crank horizontally, and put no pressure on the crank.
The power meter should be detected, and the Calibrate Power screen should activate.
The offset number should stabilise.
At this point, press Enter (by clicking the joystick down in the central position) to save the offset value.
Press Enter again to leave the config screen.
For best results, you should leave the bike at the same ambient temperature for 30 mins or so before doing the offset. The offset shouldn't vary more than a few points generally.

Note: This is with firmware 2.60 - at least Garmin has an easy way to update the firmware on the Edge, as with all their devices. Check Web updater on the garmin website.

The other thing to have calibrated is the slope of the power meter. Each SRM has a slope value in Hz, which varies as a result of the manufacturing process... over time the resins used for the strain gauges can settle in a little more, leading to changes in slope. SRM recommend checking slope every month or so when new - problem is that you can set the slope in the Edge 705, but not read the calibration values - you need a Powercontrol SRM head unit for that.

To set the slope in the Garmin Edge 705:

Have look on the back plate of the SRM. The slope value will be listed in Hz (mine is 21.3).
Menu button: select Settings: Ant+Sport:Accessories
Now use the joystick and press left-right-left (intuitive eh?)
A new screen appears with the SRM serial number (mine is #14999, missed by 1)
and the slope field.
Use the joystick to enter your slope value.
Select mode to exit these screens.

The other interesting issue is the refresh rate - there must be a 3 sec or so averaging of power, so when you eyeball the current power output it isn't actually showing what your effort is (unless you've been constant power for 3 sec). In reality not really an issue for steady state riding, but might make some difference if you want to see what you are actually produding right now. Doesn't appear to be a setting for this either in the Garmin 705.

SRM arrived.

2009-03-22T16:58:00.000+11:00

Yay! It arrived. Will hopefully have some time to get on bike.

SRM arriving Monday or Tuesday

2009-03-13T22:38:00.002+11:00

Hmmn. SRM is in the country and has local taxes paid, should arrive at work on Tuesday or Wed next week... only 4 or 5 more sleeps! Might have to do the grand unboxing video on YouTube ... stay tuned.

It has been a bit of a tough first week - around 10 hrs of running including 3 hrs of hard stuff. Luckily, last Monday was a holiday and swimming wasn't on, so one less session to try to have to fit in (and one less morning up at 4:45 am).

Running in the hills tomorrow... inc 40 mins hard.

And officiating on Sunday at a local race - hope I get to get draftbusting duty - might take the video camera out on the motor bike to get some (hopefully cool) footage.

Urk. No rest for the wikid.

2009-03-10T17:51:00.002+11:00

Well after last weeks end-of-season rest week (wow a whole 7 days off) (facebook status: Mmmn. Beer.) back on the wagon.
2 days in 2.5 hours of running done, including 50 minutes of threshold this morning.

Amazing how a week off can make you feel crap when you start again ... or maybe it was the beer.

New toy: status update

2009-03-03T13:20:00.004+11:00

SRM has been manufactured and is awaiting export clearance from Deutschland... should be here towards end of next week.

New toy ordered: SRM wireless and Garmin 705

2009-03-01T10:21:00.003+11:00

Well after the demise of the ol Ergomo, ponied up today for a new SRM wireless with a Garmin head unit. The Garmin 705 is the only head unit of all the power meters (besides now defunct Ergomo) that actually has a backlight so you can see what is going on in the depths of Melbourne winter. As an added bonus, its $350USD cheaper than the SRM PCVI head unit... seems like there are a lot of SRMs getting out there with a G head now!

Can't wait to get it installed on the TT machine and finally get some accurate readings on power output. Interesting fact about calibration: it is possible to use a series of known weights to check the slope at various forces and arrive at a better estimate. Most calibration attempts I've seen only work off a single weight, good for calibrating that amount of force only, but not so good for checking the slope over a range of forces. Have enlisted the help of an AIS specialist to check this out.

Should also mean I can resume aero testing, which has taken a back seat while power readings have been less than repeatable.