In the Pipeline ...

When trying to express my exasperation with compact gearing not supporting half-step gearing, or maybe "banded" half-step, because only the middle of the range half-steps, I realized I wasn't being very clear or persuasive with a new rider the other day.

Neither 50/34 nor 50/36 chainrings make very nice gearing. 50/38 makes BEAUTIFUL gearing, but the shit-heads at Shimano just don't seem to get it. The current gearing strategy seems to be "here's a gaggle of gears, and here's another gaggle of gears, and they have nothing to do with each other". Pathetic. The speed chart below is for a cadence of 80, despite it being labeled gear ratio, although the latter is irrespective of cadence, this, paired with the RWGPS speed histogram, is a better intro to gearing, so I rather hastily adapted it.

Note how 13 of 20 usable gears here  participate in 1/2-step gearing

If you choose a slightly different set of chainrings, and to a lessor extent cassettes, you have almost exactly the same range and granularity, BUT, when you get into the gearing range where you spend most of your time, between every gear on your big ring there's a gear on your small ring.

IMHO, choosing between 80 & 88 rpms for any length of time is unacceptable. You should be able to find a gear that will make the speed, and consume the power that makes your legs happy at, in my case, 84-85 RPMs by shifting a bit, making full use of Shimano's 3-gear change on a full cable pull in back. Also, the design goal of Shimano's HG system, circa 1989, was to support simultaneous front & rear shifting, so no surprise, this is now easy-peasy.

How do you find out which gears you spend the most time in? RWGPS makes that easy with their speed-time histogram. Here's mine for a recent ride.

The intricacies of good gearing is kind of a black art, but I wrote the spreadsheet that made the above  gear-chart 10+ years ago, and it's very helpful in rooting out good gear combos. Once you catch on the question becomes "why NOT use half-step gearing". It costs you nothing, or very close to it, reduces fatigue and harvests more power and speed from the same effort. Bottom line, I will be buying a new 52/39 crank (yes, I had to buy the 39T stand-alone and put the 36 on top of the stack of other useless rings already in the drawer, but that's only about $35, so very cheap) I'm buying a whole new crank for $209 because the chainrings alone cost that much, and I'll keep the 50/34 set up for climbing. Swapping cranks is a 20 minute chore, tops,  these days.

Handlebar Setups

Next, I've been intimately involved in the subtleties of handlebars in a way I really never paid much attention to before. My old carbon bars are now in the bin in preference to a better fit. Turns out the stem, stack height, bar, shape of the shifters and aerobars all come into play when trying to get a really good fit.

Sorry for the tease, but these are both pretty involved subjects, and if not for nursing a bum left knee the last week, I wouldn't have time to work on writing, so I hope you'll bear with me as I gather my thoughts and exhibits.

Cheers!

Techie Tuesday

I was reviewing an old post about what to wear in cooler weather, as we are getting close to that season again. This got me to thinking about an online conversation I had with a fellow member in one of my bike clubs.

She was offering advice on all-weather shells, and I realized I would roast, dehydrate, and collapse in less than an hour in her favorite shell, so started trying to devise some kind of framework within which to discuss winter clothing.

I came up with something that is rather succinct, comprised of only two factors, your BMI, and power output. To get your 'heat' number, multiply your BMI times your power output. As explained below, mine is 28x250, which equals 7,000. A 6' rider weighing 170 lbs making 250 watts has a heat index of 5,775 so they'd need 20% more protection. A 5'3" rider weighing 130lbs would have the same BMI, but making 175 watts her heat index would be 4,025, so she'd need almost double the protection. (74% more).

BMI is a pretty good estimate of "stuff that traps heat" divided by the surface area available to get rid of that heat. The only thing missing then is an estimate for how much heat you are making to be trapped. The calculator at the upper-left hand corner of my blog will calculate this for you if you provide it speed, grade and weight inputs. You can also get watts generated on your rides from the RideWithGPS metrics tab if you upload your ride data to their website.

As a reference, my BMI is 28, and I'm usually making 250-275 watts when not coasting. Yes, that means I am 'overweight' by this metric, but if you read the list of caveats, guys who spend 20 yrs in the gym lifting weights will always have a high BMI because they have more muscle at any given height, and muscle is heavier than fat. For the purposes of my framework here, that muscle retains heat, so the BMI still works quite well.

Now when you have a conversation about winter clothing you can ask someone making recommendations about their BMI (or inputs so you can calc it), how many watts they generate, and have some idea if you are going to freeze, be nice and comfortable, or swelter inside your own clothing until you cook from the inside out. Let me know how accurate this estimator is. Winter clothing is expensive enough it's worth coming up with a good estimator.

Would it surprise you to find that this same metric is useful in estimating your hydration and electrolyte requirements in summer?
.

Coach's Challenge

A friend was tasked with meeting this goal by her coach, and this simple challenge is turning out to be quite a good one. The challenge is to ride for 1 hr at an average HR at or above 86% of max, defined as ( 100 * (HR / 220-age)), with no stops, on a trainer (or outdoors), at a cadence of at least 100 rpms.

I have come close to the HR goal on several occasions, but would not even attempt it at the goal cadence, as mine has slowed from the mid-80s to the mid-70s since my calf tear. However, I have exceeded the goal HR for 30-40 minutes, which Friel's Cyclist's Training Bible forecasts should be at a HR of 102% of a 1hr/40km HR.

42 minutes at 92% of max HR implying 90% for 1 hr

Using these two traces, I should be able to meet the HR goal with a little cushion, but it will not be easy, as my LT is ~ 145 BPM. I often ride in the 148-152 range on 2 hr rides, but don't average that.

Obviously, speed, nor terrain nor wind conditions have much of an impact on this test, which is entirely focused on your 'engine', not it's effects. However, it is much easier to manage your body's resources on a flat, straight course or a trainer. To that end I have some advice. Listen to your body, and ride your own race.

While it's best to peg your HR right at the target rate and not change it, as that makes max use of slow-twitch muscles and minimizes fatigue, your body makes insulin on a 3-6 min cycle, so when you are sagging a bit, take it in stride. If you have some gas in the tank you can push a little harder the last km or two, and recover off the clock. I did this at the end of the first trace above, cranking out about 95% of max for the last 2km.

I am using the very cool feature of RideWithGPS that allows you to drag your mouse inside the ride profile box at the bottom and pick off any segment you want, with full stats. (except the Avg Watts is always for the entire ride)

That said, I am going to try to meet this goal by extending a ride with the SBH to one 1 hr leg from Gold Country, past Guy West Bridge, terminating somewhere along the golf course.

10 mi/30min ride at 90% implying 89% 1hr/40km possible

On the ARPT the section from Hazel down to Del Paso Blvd can usually be done without having to stop for traffic, and that should be enough to get 1 hr in at the prescribed pace for me. Let me know how you do!