addicted2wheels

Yes, well... I had gradually become fat and slow in the intervening 8 months. I hadn't been doing many miles, probably only 50-100km per week for the last year, so missing the entire "road season" in Australia was both a good thing - I'd have been left for dead on Blood Hill - and a bad thing - there was another 50kms of conditioning that I had left off my training diary.

So I hit this first criterium with little condition at all, bar some flat road ambling and some intervals on the indoor trainer. Ouch. My heart wasn't into it - or up to it - and I let the bunch go after 3 laps. You can see that I was consistent between numbered power peaks 1 to 5, and then it dropped off before i got going again whenever someone caught me, or I them. Power peak 8 shows me that (a) the ibike is exaggerating again - no way that was over 1600W - and (b) I had plenty in reserve. So I'm confident that by staying 'up front' throughout the race I can stay with them. Mind you, they were averaging over 34kmh, which is a bit of a stretch for me at the moment. I had anticipated averaging 33kmh at worst... or best, if you prefer. So I was hitting and exceeding my maximum by lap 3.

The yellow arrows are pointing out that the power peaks don't always align with maximum speed. Indeed it's on a slower part of the circuit - the uphill from the 90degree left turn that max Watts are generated. Whereas the top speed is downhill to the finish line.

The yellow lines show you where something was going wrong with the barometric readings - as these are laps of a circuit the altitude was fixed and should repeat, over and over. Not jump 10m or more! I'm guessing the battery was dying...

Slope is also a puzzle - 10% is possible but 20% is just not right. Battery? ibike head unit flexing? Me pulling the front wheel off the deck?

These small-medium errors add up to big - and inaccurate - power readings. You could safely halve these outrageous peaks!

Not so different from a 34 year old one really:
With Armstrong being 37 years-old, will Carmichael be monitoring any new or different parameters this time around? "It is basically the same thing as with any athlete, the most objective marker is power," said Carmichael. "Right now, it is just trying to see if we can get power to keep going up which we anticipate to happen. We also want to see that he is getting more efficient so his kilojoules will keep going down for similar types of workouts. "Now he is starting to get more specific with his training moving out of the foundation phase and doing a little more specific work for the bike; a little more threshold work; a little more speed work. He goes to the Astana camp in December then we are planning a camp right after that where he will get behind the motor a little bit and up the volume from basically doing 24-25 hours a week up to 28-30 hours a week of training. That's a big jump on just energy expenditure so everything just has to start simplifying," said Carmichael, who once served as the US National Coaching Director.

So that's:

1. Measure power (ie engine output)
   
2. Watch it go up (and do something if it doesn't)
   
3. Move from foundation to specifics (ie start long and slow and build workouts on top)
   
4. Become more efficient (ie run as far and as fast but on less)
   

Simple, really.

Labels: Armstrong, Carmichael, training

That's what I think I read: Armstrong is not necessarily looking for the position that will make the bike the fastest. "It has to be a perfect mix between position and power. If I am five percent slower due to the position, but have 25 percent more power, than that will be better."

Now he may be misquoted. He may be confused, or quoted out of context. Or he's being silly. Perhaps he meant that the 'fastest' position wasn't necessarily the most comfortable and sustainable, which is fine. Perhaps he meant that the most aerodynamic position wasn't necessarily the best overall, for whatever reason. But why the heck say that he'd compromise speed for 'more power'? Wouldn't less power and more speed be even better than the reverse? What use is the extra power if it doesn't increase his speed?

Please explain!

Labels: Armstrong, power meters, TT

Labels: Cyclovia

To get the ibike's trainer mode going I needed to add these rear-wheel and crank sensors. Makes sense. I chose a power output map that looked close to my Elite trainer and let it rip. Guess what - it works!

The ibike needs a 'trainer mode key' download, too, but that's pretty simple. The ibike software accepts the key on your PC and the ibike head unit is unlocked via USB connection. Bingo, new feature set.

Note the crank-mounted cadence magnet, too.

OK, so I ride a bike. Big deal - so do you, eh?

I have ridden bikes since about 1972 or so and have always used some method of calculating distance ridden, be it via a mechanical or electrical add-on or by simply estimating distance from a map. Electronic methods improved markedly from around 1980 and quickly became a fairly universal way to accurately measure distance, speed and some environmental variables like temperature. When heart rate monitors took off in the 1990s that became another useful data source for the bike racer or exercise enthusiast. More recently the ibike has put power measurement closer to a price point where serious club racers find it hard to say 'no'.

And now - finally! - here is my new wireless ibike mount. So I have ditched wires - another 'big deal', you say? But I have also gained a few other tricks in the process, like an inbuilt HRM, a cadence sensor and the ability to estimate Watts expended whilst riding on the indoor trainer. It makes my indoor training more quantifiable, more scientific (hopefully) and probably more fun.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Perhaps we should have queried a revitalised Kohl, riding better than ever before, grabbing mountain points and securing a fine 3rd overall. Perhaps riding 2 or 3, or even 5 places better than he should have been. OTOH he had previously shown promise. Maybe, just maybe, it's a mistake.

Bernhard Kohl of Gerolsteiner tested non-negative for CERA, French sports paper L'Equipe reported Monday. The French anti-doping agency AFLD had tested Kohl's blood samples. Kohl finished third in the Tour de France this summer and won the climber's jersey.

Well who gets 3rd now? Who takes the spotted jersey for 2008, after all?

Labels: CERA, EPO, Kohl, Le Tour

Take a chance on Lance? This comeback world tour for cancer is not all beer and roses y'know (in fact in may not involve beer or roses at all): Dr Michael Ashenden, whose analysis of Armstrong's urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France allegedly revealed that the cyclist used the blood-boosting drug EPO during the race, said too many people in Australia had been "dazzled" by Armstrong's "star power". "It surprises me that the Tour is willing to embrace such a controversial figure," Ashenden said.

Labels: Armstrong, Ashenden, EPO

Just what we all wanted to see, Web2.0 at its very best: Lance Armstrong's blood tests on the web. Catlin said that the actual program is still taking shape. "[Lance] has agreed to a couple of a few very fundamental points. One is his data, like T/E ratio and all that kind of stuff that a doping control is allowed to do will be on the web, so you can see it. 'Ah, your T/E ration changed today, what happened?' Like to see if he is taking EPO – all the actors to make it a very public campaign."

What about this enhancement to the website itself - some sliding controls that change the blood values, with respectively new maximum values for Wattage and VO2 max as you dial up the changes. And how about a new estimated time up L'Alpe d'Huez at those values... just so we can assess for ourselves what difference it makes to have higher haematocrit, for example.

Labels: Armstrong

I have that queasy, uneasy feeling again. The Lance A. comeback. His protege Contador winning 2 Grand Tours in a year, 3 in under 2 years; one with little preparation, straight off the beach. And Astana, back in the thick of things, loaded with talent.

25-year-old Alberto Contador carved his name into the annals of cycling history by becoming the first Spaniard to win all three Grand Tours on Sunday in his home town of Madrid. The Astana star who had been denied his opportunity to defend his 2007 Tour de France title when the race organiser refused to invite his team had vowed to get revenge at his home Tour, and he succeeded.

If I trusted these guys - and I must admit it's a leap of faith to do so - would it be good or bad for the sport? Lots of publicity, sure, but have we really finished with the laundry here? Hopefully the blood passports are doing the job, because we need some indication of where fair is fair.

OTOH, was it ever thus? When has life been fair?

Labels: Contador, Vuelta a Espana

Labels: sport on TV

No reason, just thought I'd brighten my day with a look at my front wheel. It's just a track hub. It's attached to a wheel (also 'just a wheel') which fits into the front forks of my Colnago Saronni track bike. OK, they are Velocity Aerohead rims, I think, but you can't see 'em here.

Pat McQuaid may wish to revise his words, or not, if they are correctly reported: "He'll probably never shut up the no-gooders but it might give him the opportunity to prove he can do it clean."

To me that suggests that Lance hasn't yet proved "he can do it clean". I'll say no more!

Labels: Armstrong, doping, McQuaid

Well it will kick up some dust, sure. Lance Armstrong's comeback is in the grand US tradition of retiring at the top yet seeking another "final" blaze of glory. Indeed it can't be easy to step out of the limelight and start a "normal" life, if cancer-survivor LA's life could ever be called normal. So a comeback - a well-planned, targeted one at that - could give LA another shot at proving whatever it is he's trying to prove. His innocence, perhaps?

He says he's clean and I take him at his word. He says it's for cancer-fighting publicity, but there must be something in it for him as well. Assuming he does come back, whatever the reasons, does he link with the cleaned-up residue that is Astana, banned from Le Tour 2008? Or does he seek a pure, clean break with the past? I hope the latter - but suspect he'll fall in with the "trusted" old Bruyneel team, irrespective. I'd like to be proven wrong on that.

Lastly, if he does join Astana and they get a berth at Le Tour (no guarantees there but probable), will he be top dog? One assumes so, but will it be the case if Contador has an edge in week 3? Contador's still young, so I suspect he'll roll over easily, but it won't necessarily be easy for him, either.

Labels: Armstrong, Contador, Le Tour