The Audio-Talk Cycling thread.

[IslandPink]

Very good - nice find.

I've been out again today , just an hour and 10mins, but I'm putting into action the new training info I've been reading.
There seems to be a lot of really significant and useful research that's been done in the last 5 years.

I've mainly concentrated on doing ( or trying to do ) purely aerobic training in recent years - keeping pulse around 130bpm if possible. Firstly, this has been clarified recently by Inigo san Millan's work and the 'Zone 2' definition that he's worked out ( 1.5 to 2.0mmol/L ) which is reckoned to give the most benefit vs. time, for aerobic fibres.
However, I keep wondering if I could somehow bring in some high-intensity training again, given the amount of publicity given to 'HIIT' training, including Michael Mosely's experiences with it. It does seem to boost both anaerobic and aerobic power.
Trouble was, I know from bitter experience that I can't do those sort of long ( 1 min ) painful intervals, or convention interval training with short rests, both of which generate a very high pulse and too much lactate - they would quickly give me fatigue and sleep problems.

Recently I read about a concept called 'Miracle Intervals', with only short sprints and longer rest periods. It was in a book on fat loss, promoted by Gale Bernhardt. This seemed do-able, if it had benefit.
In the last couple of days, I found some real research back up on this - this paper is fascinating. Table 3 is the key info from this, and is a real game-changer for me. The 'Max' section is at VO2max, the 'AT' is at anaerobic threshold ( 4mmol/L ). It shows that adding in training with just a few 10s sprint efforts, even with full recovery ( 4 min ) can give an increase of over 15% in power at AT - without doing ANY training at AT.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00392/full

[Dave the bass]

This is my newest bike acquisition;

Shiney!

Is it '13' or 'EI' Ray?

[Ray P]

Is it '13' or 'EI' Ray?

It's 13 Mr. B, the bike is a Halfords 13 Intuition Alpha

https://www.bikeradar.com/news/halfords ... kes-brand/

[Ray P]

I watched the full 1hr version of this on GCN last evening, fascinating stuff.



Basically they set out to compare a recreation of Eddy Merckx's 1969 bike with a modern carbon framed Canyon.

The Merckx bike recreation exercise was a really good watch covering traditional frame building and amazingly there's a guy down on the South Coast with a stash of NOS Campagnolo groupsets, so the Merckx bike got brand new stuff bolted to the frame.

Anyway, the conclusion was that the carbon bike is, overall, something like 23% 'faster' than the steel framed retro - that doesn't mean that over a given segment you could ride it in 23% less time because 80% of the time taken is down to the power plant, i.e. the rider, and 20% down to the bike. Over the course they used the carbon bike time was just under 5% quicker than the retro bike (same rider, same conditions etc.).

[IslandPink]

I'll take a look.

[IslandPink]

Ok so that was a disappointment - but reading more carefully, I guess that's a trailer for what you watched.
So what does the 23% mean - is it the reduction in aerodynamic drag ?
That's what I would expect.

[Ray P]

Ok so that was a disappointment - but reading more carefully, I guess that's a trailer for what you watched.
So what does the 23% mean - is it the reduction in aerodynamic drag ?
That's what I would expect.

Yes Mark, just a trailer - I did say i watched the full 1hr edition.

The improvement accrues from

• better aerodynamics

• reduced weight

• improved stiffness (power transfer)

• gearing/shifting (retro bike had 2x5, no indexing, down tube levers)

• rolling resistance(the move away from really narrow tyres)

• clip in pedals (power transfer/efficiency)

Other topics featured were

• rider position/geometry - the nature of carbon bike construction means that frames come in standard sizes because the cost would currently be excessive to do made-to-measure

• just how poor retro brakes are compared with modern ones, be they caliper or disc

• the close ratios of the gearing used, which meant riders had to grind up climbs (IIRC it was mentioned hat retro cadence on the climb featured was 40rpm vs 80rpm for the modern bike)

As said though, although there have been big improvements in bikes the time gaps aren't enormous because the biggest factor remains how good the rider is. But, even someone like me can tell the difference - I have two carbon road bikes, essentially the same with respect to groupset components (Shimano 105) but the one that is very slightly lighter and has a more aero frame and deeper aero wheels is noticably 'easier' to ride - not big margins but noticable in terms of effort.

[Dave the bass]

It's 13 Mr. B, the bike is a Halfords 13 Intuition Alpha

https://www.bikeradar.com/news/halfords ... kes-brand/

Aaaaaah! Ta Ray, they've certainly stepped up their game. My Halfords 'Apollo' Mounting Bike from ~28 years ago weighed a ton and a half at least!

[IslandPink]

Yes Mark, just a trailer - I did say i watched the full 1hr edition.

The improvement accrues from

• improved stiffness (power transfer)

• clip in pedals (power transfer/efficiency)

Other topics featured were

• rider position/geometry - the nature of carbon bike construction means that frames come in standard sizes because the cost would currently be excessive to do made-to-measure

As said though, although there have been big improvements in bikes the time gaps aren't enormous because the biggest factor remains how good the rider is.

Interesting topic of course. The bike chosen was pretty early, which is fair enough. Myself, I prefer a sort of intermediate step in terms of development. I'm not willing to trade the custom aspect and the feel ( particularly forks ) of a steel frame, for aerodynamics.

On the improved stiffness, I'm surprised this is still seen as necessary for power transfer. Have you read Jan Heine's thoughts on 'give' in frames, and the concept of 'planing'. He believes that rider power output at a given effort level is actually improved with a frame that has a certain amount of elastic 'give'. Was this discussed ?

Clip-in pedals - what were they using on the 70's bike ?
I can't see there was much wrong with a good shoe/shoeplate/clip/strap system in terms of coupling to the drivetrain - although modern shoes and look-style pedals are less faff, and better aerodynamically.

Definitely the rider is still by far the biggest factor - and I think this is one of the biggest things that is improving currently - better understanding of physiology and how to train most effectively, despite decades of previous 'development'. Hence my post above ...

[IslandPink]

On the improved stiffness, I'm surprised this is still seen as necessary for power transfer. Have you read Jan Heine's thoughts on 'give' in frames, and the concept of 'planing'. He believes that rider power output at a given effort level is actually improved with a frame that has a certain amount of elastic 'give'. Was this discussed ?

I should just clarify that Jan agrees that for most racing, a stiff frame makes sense, because it will give more 'jump' to a sprint, or an attack in the mountains. His gripe about stiff frames and the experiments with power meters came about from trying various bikes as a tester, and conferring with other testers, where they found themselves going faster on some frames , for the same effort, and it wasn't typically on the stiffest frames. He also cites conversation with one or two of the older pro riders, who say that eg. in the early 70's, the riders and mechanics specced 531SL for time trials , not so much because it was lighter, but it was felt to give a smoother delivery of power.

[Ray P]

Interesting indeed Mark and i can appreciate both the bikes discussed. Wish i still had my beautiful lugged 531 Bob Jackson from that time - bought new after many paper rounds and saturday jobs! I may need to watch the programme again. Incidentally, if you have Amazon prime, GCN is available as an App and is wealth worth the subscription - they're currently showing the Giro live and there are lots of cycling features on offer, like the one we're discussing.

Interesting topic of course. The bike chosen was pretty early, which is fair enough. Myself, I prefer a sort of intermediate step in terms of development. I'm not willing to trade the custom aspect and the feel ( particularly forks ) of a steel frame, for aerodynamics.

Yes, they had to choose a bike to recreate so chose Merckx's from 1969 - I didn't read that much into it. I get the personal choice for a steel frame, I work with a guy who thinks the same way, though he's never actually experienced riding a carbon bike. He has recently bought a new stell frame bike with carbon forks and has been surprised at the ride quality, but that's not really about aerodynamics. BTW, I find the ride comfort of my carbon bikes much better than my aluminium road bike - can't comment on steel as I have no recent experience to relate to as my only steel framed bike is a hardtail MTB with 38mm tyres.

On the improved stiffness, I'm surprised this is still seen as necessary for power transfer. Have you read Jan Heine's thoughts on 'give' in frames, and the concept of 'planing'. He believes that rider power output at a given effort level is actually improved with a frame that has a certain amount of elastic 'give'. Was this discussed ?

No, I've not read that. Does he believe that or know that? It wasn't discussed specifically in those terms and of course carbon bikes do flex, i think maybe the point is that the nature of carbon allows the frame designers to optimise stiffness where it's needed.

Clip-in pedals - what were they using on the 70's bike ?
I can't see there was much wrong with a good shoe/shoeplate/clip/strap system in terms of coupling to the drivetrain - although modern shoes and look-style pedals are less faff, and better aerodynamically.

The retro bike had toe-clips and straps when built, however for the actual test both bikes were equiped with power meter cli in pedals. My personal experience is that spd pedals give a much better feel of power transfer when i ride. Have you tried cleats for any length of time, sufficient for them to be sub-conscious?

Definitely the rider is still by far the biggest factor - and I think this is one of the biggest things that is improving currently - better understanding of physiology and how to train most effectively, despite decades of previous 'development'. Hence my post above ...

To me the telling facts were that with the same rider on the same route in the same conditions was the segment time was almost 5% quicker on the modern carbon bike and that the ex-pro from the recreated bike period (Sid Barras) would take the modern bike every time.

[IslandPink]

No, I've not read that. Does he believe that or know that? It wasn't discussed specifically in those terms and of course carbon bikes do flex, i think maybe the point is that the nature of carbon allows the frame designers to optimise stiffness where it's needed.

See above on that. As I say, he did experiments.
They may have a tailored amount of stiffness in the modern carbon frames, as you suggest.

The retro bike had toe-clips and straps when built, however for the actual test both bikes were equipped with power meter clip in pedals. My personal experience is that spd pedals give a much better feel of power transfer when i ride. Have you tried cleats for any length of time, sufficient for them to be sub-conscious?

I've used cleats my whole cycling life, Ray. At the start it was hand-me-down perforated leather shoes with toe-clips and straps, the shoeplates were nailed on to the leather soles once you'd ridden for a few days without the plates, to get a good ref. mark in the leather for the correct angle. They were a faff, i had trouble several times with the nails coming out !
Later I used more modern shoes with plastic shoeplates, also clips & straps.
I tried Look pedals in the early 90's but had some knee trouble, so kept with toeclips/straps for a while
Shortly before I got the new frame in 2016, i tried the Look system again, and got better results. I still prefer the 'black' shoeplates with minimal float though.

To me the telling facts were that with the same rider on the same route in the same conditions was the segment time was almost 5% quicker on the modern carbon bike and that the ex-pro from the recreated bike period (Sid Barras) would take the modern bike every time.

Yes, 5% is not to be sneezed at.
Good they got Sid Barras - a big name. I noticed the other day that he won the London Holyhead one year.

[Ray P]

My bad Mark, I assued you were a toe-clips and straps guy.

I remember using the leather shoes and metal plates - I could never go back to that arrangement!

Not unrelated, it looks as though the use of tubs is peetering out now, from a recent article in Cycling Weekly.

[IslandPink]

Interesting.... though we've had a few false starts on that one !
A year or two back I was watching some cycling maybe on ITV4, and they had a brief discussion about equipment after the stage review. Rob Hayles was in the studio. The question was whether all modern equipment was better than 30 or 40 years ago. Rob Hayles said 'Yes , apart from tyres'.
He reckoned that there was nothing available currently that compared to the best tubulars from the 70's and 80's.

[IslandPink]

It's all go here, ready for a 2 hour ride tomorrow
Just been checking the weather forecast, full sun between 1pm and 4pm. Around 17°C, so shorts will be possible. Wind has dropped. Slight breeze from the North which will help me cruise down the main road.
Yesterday also good news - I scored two original Campag chainrings on EBay, for my c.1990 Centaur MTB chainset - a 48T outer and a 30T inner.