Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Alex Simmons/RST wrote: Hoy decided best way for him to win was to become a human derny.

This here in simple terms is, you lead out from the front and kill the opposition and the other option is, are you best suited to chasing the opposition down.

Speed verses power. I have always said, that unless your legs are used to spinning at a good rate of knots the power will do siltch for you, it will just mean your a slugger!

Of course it is possible Irland!

The thing is being able to maintain these levels (in your case) for longer periods and with the same power out puts?

foo on patrol wrote:Speed verses power. I have always said, that unless your legs are used to spinning at a good rate of knots the power will do siltch for you, it will just mean your a slugger!

If you put out more power, you will go faster irrespective of the gear/cadence.

I think you will find that most top sprinters can attain very similar 200m fly times on very wide range of gears.

foo on patrol wrote:Of course it is possible Irland!

The thing is being able to maintain these levels (in your case) for longer periods and with the same power out puts?

Hehe. Piece of p1ss. I'll add one second to my current effort in only a few months of hard training.

I agree with you to a point Alex!

I have watched many sprinters through my time as a competitive cyclist and the one thing that has stood out is. The ones that can wind up at the latest point of the sprint if in control of the sprint, will beat the sprinter that is able to push a bigger gear. But if the sprinter that has the ability too push a bigger gear is able too control things from the outset, then he will win.

In saying that, both sprinters given the opportunity in a solo sprint, could do the same times over the 200mtrs in a one off sprint. Why I say this is, that both riders derive their power at different levels and times.

In my eyes, the sprinter that is able to be explosive from a lap and a half from home and maintain that advantage while pushing the biggest gear is the better sprinter but not necessarily the true sprinter!

foo on patrol wrote:I agree with you to a point Alex!

Sprinting is a unique blend of extreme power and subtlety at the same time.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:

foo on patrol wrote:Speed verses power. I have always said, that unless your legs are used to spinning at a good rate of knots the power will do siltch for you, it will just mean your a slugger!

If you put out more power, you will go faster irrespective of the gear/cadence.

I think you will find that most top sprinters can attain very similar 200m fly times on very wide range of gears.

Think we are nearing concensus (terminology seems the only stumbling block)

As you both know, top sprinters can attain very similar 200m fly times on very wide range of gears.
One can slug it out on a big gear, with power, and have a steady output of power, and achieve the time.
As Alex seems to point to Hoy's style, and the recent sprint style that has arrived,
with the loss of tactics.
But there is the Sprinter, who on a lower gear, maintaining higher cadence, with greater acceleration,
can also reach the same times, but this is in a solo TT example.
(I was this type of sprinter, as I trained for it... and for terminology let's call them a "Cadence Sprinter")
Both people have roughly the same speed and power, but apply it differently.
In real-world match-sprinting, in todays matches, the power/slugger, leads out...
and creates a derny effect, as Alex pointed out, and with timing a "Cadence Sprinter"
will just lay off the 1-1.5 lengths, but still gain a slipstream, and because of their style,
(and the conserving of energies, and ability to focus and direct it at the right time)
and be able to accelerate over the last 50m, and gain a speed and psychological advantage,
over a usually tiring lead rider. FME
Worked for me against a lot of world-class "Power Sprinters" on big gears.
In your training you tend to go one way or the other, as a sprinter.
Hope that clears it up, and explain my thoughts on the whole issue.
Cheers

brentono wrote:Hope that clears it up, and explain my thoughts on the whole issue.

What are your thoughts on the modern track designs and impact on type of sprinter they favour?

Here's an example of the human derny in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57jkDnXB ... re=related

I was hoping to find a video of Ryan Bayley's 2004 Olympic Keiren as that demonstrated phenomenal acceleration as a contrast to the Hoy style.

Alex,
Maybe this video was what you were after "Olympic Games 2004- Bayley vs Bos"
Some good examples of the closing finishes we are talking about.

As for who the Track Design (which has remained much the same) except for being
recently, predominantly indoors (which takes away any atmospheric interferences)
Gregory Bauge seems to have gone from strength to strength, and certainly taken
over from Chris Hoy (England with only Kenny) and the French, also having Bourgain.
The French have regained their strength, from the days of Daniel Morelon (in my time)
I personally think it will take another fast finisher like Bayley to unseat Bauge.
The indoor tracks would suit a "Cadence Sprinter" with a fast finish, though with
the strength and power of Gregory Bauge, it will be very hard.
The Gregory Bauge v's Chris Hoy in Copenhagen in 2010 showed that power,
to be able to sit outside Hoy for most of the Sprints and win, takes it. Remarkable. IMO.

The French are going great. Bauge is awesome.
The Brits have been denying their riders competition and it's showing. Sprinters need that more than anyone I reckon.

brentono wrote:Alex,
Maybe this video was what you were after "Olympic Games 2004- Bayley vs Bos"
Some good examples of the closing finishes we are talking about.

Yeah, was really hoping to find one of the 2004 keiren as the acceleration in that was something else.
gotta love Bayley's finish line wheelies

At the club level, I've observed that some riders are much more affected by cadence than others. Last year my club ran as part of its annual series an 80" (actually 81") gear restriction at one event and what was apparent was how much more some were affected than others. The impact on me was minor compared with the younger riders, all of a sudden I was almost as quick as them.

For the fun of it, I left the 81" gearing on the track bike and took it to RAW for a one lap screamer, to test acceleration vs top end. Unfortunately the rider next to me veered off line at the start and collided with me, causing me to back off and that killed the acceleration advantage, leaving me spinning up at the rear.

I've also tested out cadence on indoor fitness riders on spin bikes with 175 cranks, for 1 minute intervals. Normally I limit the cadence to 142. I did 148 and about 2/3 kept up. Next week I tried 153 and not a single one of them could match it. These people were use to doing 142 yet not one of them could increase that by 11.

Just to sum this one up, and I have probably said most of it before,
so this will be the last.

Gary made some great points and I will expand.
To get a good pedal action, smooth and powerful, with acceleration speed,
some of the points that worked for me, follow (that is if you wish to specialise).
Cranks shorter the better, as to you fit (mine were 165mm)
Training on fixed gears (that may require a separate bike set up for it, Go Gary )
Some points, with least beneficial to the best, but each step is required-
Roller training (free) with high candence for refining pedal action, and becoming smooth.
Downhill sprints are great (Spot on, Gary)
Sprinting up the hill (to work on your power for jumps)
A whole wack of motorpaced work on the road on fixed 72" with sprints, to beat the motor.
A whole wack of motorpaced work on the track on fixed 81" with sprints, to beat the motor.
Next a lot of windups, and sprints for 5 seconds over 100m on your race gear (around 92.6")
This will hopefully give you a smooth acceleration, in or out of the seat, at low, medium and
higher speeds. That smoothness will equate to gracefulness with power, and once you have
seen it, or have it, you will know it.

A common phrase on Ryan Bayley

Ryan Bayley may look like a monkey humping a tennis-ball
when he sprints but most of his power is getting onto the track

Most of the power
A great sprinter, with fantastic acceleration (natural) and one might wonder
if a more concentrated effort to gain a gracefulness might have seen
more power getting to the track. Just a thought.
Anyway back to those interested in gaining their own gracefulness. Good Luck.
A lot of hard work ahead.
Cheers

brentono wrote:Just to sum this one up

That was a great summary for me.

brentono wrote:Just to sum this one up,

Good summary from a sprinters perspective and a track one at that. We need a decent road time trialist on here to balance that short crank heresy though.

Parrott wrote:

brentono wrote:Just to sum this one up,

Good summary from a sprinters perspective and a track one at that. We need a decent road time trialist on here to balance that short crank heresy though.

For some, there are definite advantages for using short cranks in road TTing.

Principally as a means to improve aerodynamics. It's not like it will cost you much (if any) sustainable aerobic power.

I see the crank length thing a little differently to brentono. I'm not disagreeing with him as the end result is the same.

I see foot velocity as the end result of the combination of crank length and gearing.

165 + 48T is approximately the same as 170 + 49T. Cadence is different but foot velocity is approximately the same

Parrott wrote:

brentono wrote:Just to sum this one up,

Good summary from a sprinters perspective and a track one at that. We need a decent road time trialist on here to balance that short crank heresy though.

Thanks, Parrott.
True, my points are from a Track view, but as I mentioned earlier, good cadence, rhythm
or that "gracefulness", whatever the terminology, got me through many long road events,
with enough in store, to take the bunch finishes. It was only because I started off on 165mm,
from the start of my career, persevered that way, and became accustomed to it.
Your subconscious becomes atuned for higher cadence, and you are comfortable with it.
True, if you have started off, with opposed habits, and then try to change,
it will take a time to become accustomed to the higher cadence.
Would think 6' guys could try 167.5mm and taller could go to 170mm, it would depend on
your bike-fit (as I mention earlier) and achieve good results, with a lot of perseverance. IMO.
Fixed gear training/shorter cranks, is the key to better cadence. FME.

Mikesbytes, True, it's the end result, that counts.
Cheers

Alex Simmons/ wrote: For some, there are definite advantages for using short cranks in road TTing.

Principally as a means to improve aerodynamics. It's not like it will cost you much (if any) sustainable aerobic power.

From what I have able to find the best pro tt'ers use longer cranks. I can't see why they would do that apart from to increase their sustainable aerobic power. There may be studies saying it makes no difference, however in practice the fastest time trialists use long cranks.

I don't claim to be particularly good at any cycling discipline. Tt is my favorite though and longer cranks gave me an improvement in speed.

The other complication that I have with crank length is that most of my training is on indoor spin bikes (I'm a spin instructor) and these bikes have 175 cranks.

After destroying my track bike in Jan 2009, I brought a new one, which took me from 165 to 170 cranks. On the new track bike I was quicker, but as there are too many variables I can't point the finger at crank length but I do wonder if been closer the the crank length that I train on is part of that.

The bulk of my road K's are on my fixie which has 170 cranks and my road race bike has 172.5's

Personally, I had my Track/Road (built the same) and Fixie, all setup exactly the same.
Thereby becoming accustomed to all the same positions, and same pedal actions for good cadence.
Consistent Subliminal Reinforcement for "rhythm".
Cheers

Alex Simmons/RST wrote: If you put out more power, you will go faster irrespective of the gear/cadence.

I found for myself that my cadence is changing fairly often.
when i started 3 years ago my cad was on avergae 80.
Then graduatly it went up , to 100.
Now is is going down, and on one of my last 200km ride , I had an average cad of only 67.
O.k. there was a bit of climbing involved, but not that much.

The point is , the average speed in general has stayed consistendly the same.
So i agree with your statment.

Parrott wrote:

Alex Simmons/ wrote: For some, there are definite advantages for using short cranks in road TTing.

Principally as a means to improve aerodynamics. It's not like it will cost you much (if any) sustainable aerobic power.

From what I have able to find the best pro tt'ers use longer cranks. I can't see why they would do that apart from to increase their sustainable aerobic power. There may be studies saying it makes no difference, however in practice the fastest time trialists use long cranks.

I don't claim to be particularly good at any cycling discipline. Tt is my favorite though and longer cranks gave me an improvement in speed.

Again, what Pros do or don't do is often a mystery or determined by sponsor requirement. Pros are sometimes good despite what they do.

Crank length really doesn't matter an awful lot for regular road riding/racing, so I suggest people ride what they feel good on and is suited to their leg length.

As for more speed, sure, but maybe you were just fitter.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
As for more speed, sure, but maybe you were just fitter.

Could have been a bit fitter true. Think I'm on the slide down now though be 43 this year.

A bit of boring old math.
Crank length * Force applied = A Moment
175 * 120 newtons = 21000
165 * 120 newtons = 19800
The percentage decrease in moment from 21000 to 19800 is
(21000-19800) / 21000 * 100 = 5.7%
So 5.7% less moment, lets check
5.7% of 120 newtons = 6.86
120 newtons - 6.86 = 113.14 newtons
175 cranks * 113.14 = 19799.5 or 19800
So there you have it boys and girls a longer crank makes it is easier to push a gear but it is more difficult to maintain a higher cadence, not to mention it is also easier to scrap a pedal on the ground. Also less likely to maintain a flywheel or momentum effect which will assist with force applied.