# Respectable time for a 20km TT?



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

hi all,
now be nice. I'm a fairly new rider (over a year now) but serious when it comes to my training and annual mileage (about 3000mi last year) and will start racing this spring. The first is a 20km TT , flat, out and back...and was wondering what a respectable time would be. I've worked on the bike to get it ready, TT bars, shorter carbon cranks, all the usual and I'm in descent shape..
can anyone help?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bahueh said:


> hi all,
> now be nice. I'm a fairly new rider (over a year now) but serious when it comes to my training and annual mileage (about 3000mi last year) and will start racing this spring. The first is a 20km TT , flat, out and back...and was wondering what a respectable time would be. I've worked on the bike to get it ready, TT bars, shorter carbon cranks, all the usual and I'm in descent shape..
> can anyone help?


The time trial here was 20K.
http://www.wmrc.org/Vos04/results/idxresults.html


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Good reference...*



asgelle said:


> The time trial here was 20K.
> http://www.wmrc.org/Vos04/results/idxresults.html


I think that's a good reference TT as it is fairly flat and fast. 

For you, go out and try your 20k TT as a training ride. Warm up, measure out 20k from one spot to another, and then go full bore. See what you get for a time. Then when you're race comes up, you know sort of what to expect for a time. But as most will tell you, it's really not about times, it's about beating the time of the person who wins the race. Lots of things could factor in that could make a course slower or faster. So set a goal for yourself, because a lot of times in a TT the only markers you have is your cycling computer, and pace yourself for your ride.


----------



## triple shot espresso (Aug 27, 2002)

*Yeah*

The VOS course was flat out and back as well. Not perfectlly flat, it's a bit of a dome but not significant. If I remember correctly there was a bit of headwind going out.

Why are you going with shorter carbon cranks? Most people use their standard length or longer.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

triple shot espresso said:


> The VOS course was flat out and back as well. Not perfectlly flat, it's a bit of a dome but not significant. If I remember correctly there was a bit of headwind going out.
> 
> Why are you going with shorter carbon cranks? Most people use their standard length or longer.


i'm trying for a faster cadence with a 55t big ring, see what it brings me. I have paced out 12.5 mile flat loops with my bike and can sustain about 24-26 mph with a 53T standard ring. i know this will all depend on the comp. and wind and a whole host of other factors..just curious as to what info. others couple provide. new rider = lots of questions.


----------



## crestlinefarm (May 6, 2003)

*I feel like a turtle!*

Our "season opener" time trial is only 10 miles (16k) and the times look remarkably similar!


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*must be..*



crestlinefarm said:


> Our "season opener" time trial is only 10 miles (16k) and the times look remarkably similar!


a strong tailwind. actually, from all the TT 20K's i'm looking at, right under 30 minutes is about the standard. of course slightly faster for CAT 1/2. 
could be the wind...or uphill? just trying to be nice. 
where's your opener?


----------



## crestlinefarm (May 6, 2003)

*Pacific NW*

Western Washington state, southside Seattle. It's scheduled for March 6...we'll see how I do in my first Masters race!



bahueh said:


> a strong tailwind. actually, from all the TT 20K's i'm looking at, right under 30 minutes is about the standard. of course slightly faster for CAT 1/2.
> could be the wind...or uphill? just trying to be nice.
> where's your opener?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

*why the 55?*



bahueh said:


> i'm trying for a faster cadence with a 55t big ring, see what it brings me. I have paced out 12.5 mile flat loops with my bike and can sustain about 24-26 mph with a 53T standard ring. i know this will all depend on the comp. and wind and a whole host of other factors..just curious as to what info. others couple provide. new rider = lots of questions.


26mph is just cruising in a criterium, using the 17, maybe the 16 at a decent cadence. i personally don't see the need for a 55 there( in a crit ), why would you need a 55 for a tt where you'll be going slower than you would be most of the time in a criterium? seems like you're making extra work for yourself installing the 55, re-adjusting the derailleur...you're certainly not spinning out the 53...


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Didn't you know?*

It's an article of faith among many riders (on and off the Internet) that bigger rings and smaller cogs = faster. It's as simple as that. Wrong, but simple.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Little rules to live by*



cxwrench said:


> 26mph is just cruising in a criterium, using the 17, maybe the 16 at a decent cadence. i personally don't see the need for a 55 there( in a crit ), why would you need a 55 for a tt where you'll be going slower than you would be most of the time in a criterium? seems like you're making extra work for yourself installing the 55, re-adjusting the derailleur...you're certainly not spinning out the 53...


1) NOBODY "spins" a 55. As a bad, and I do mean BAD example Marty Nothstein used a 54. marty could spin a 54, but he also had over 25 National Jerseys, Olympic Gold, World Champion etc etc on the track. Unless you have a freakish gift, sorry the 55 ring is at best an ornament.

2)New equipment and riding event means failure.Go with what you know.

3)Ride the best for youi.A TT is a contest against the clock and you set goal. Try it out and you will get better. However, they also make a 56 tooth ring and you guessed it,nobody spins one of those either.

Good luck and ride sane and safe.


----------



## triple shot espresso (Aug 27, 2002)

*I've used 54s and 55s*

The courses that I do normally have some kind of hill and because of that I went with the larger ring, HUH!?? If you go uphill you have to go down hill and last year I had trouble generating power at cadences above 100 rpms, back issues and bad set up were the cause and I think I have them fixed for this season. So I was getting spun out going over like 32-33 mph DOWNHILL. I can't sustain that speed on the flats. I think I like the 54 the best cause it matches my torque curve, if there is such a thing, the best. The 53 requires a little to much spin for me. I do have a 56T in the garage. 

It sucks but the best way to train and compare efforts that remove a lot of variable is to watts. Your watts at your Lactate Threshold will provide the INDICATOR of performance. 

I haven't compared TT avg speeds with TTs but in TTs you can get away with using a larger chain ring as there is a lot less accelarating out of corners. I would guess my avg TT speed is higher than crits because of corners and the whims of the pack.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*what watts what?*



triple shot espresso said:


> The courses that I do normally have some kind of hill and because of that I went with the larger ring, HUH!?? If you go uphill you have to go down hill and last year I had trouble generating power at cadences above 100 rpms, back issues and bad set up were the cause and I think I have them fixed for this season. So I was getting spun out going over like 32-33 mph DOWNHILL. I can't sustain that speed on the flats. I think I like the 54 the best cause it matches my torque curve, if there is such a thing, the best. The 53 requires a little to much spin for me. I do have a 56T in the garage.
> 
> It sucks but the best way to train and compare efforts that remove a lot of variable is to watts. Your watts at your Lactate Threshold will provide the INDICATOR of performance.
> 
> I haven't compared TT avg speeds with TTs but in TTs you can get away with using a larger chain ring as there is a lot less accelarating out of corners. I would guess my avg TT speed is higher than crits because of corners and the whims of the pack.


There are aolot of other variable besides watts. Terrain, heat,humidity, recovery rate etc etc etc 

Otherwise, if watts was THE INDICATOR the TT scene would be dominated by trackies and last I checked, that aint so.

Any TT is really a question of time anddistance and what you can sustain in that total distance.If you shoot your nut in the first 10K attempting to sping some freakish gear (55x11), odds are and unless you are a Pancake flat course, you will lose Minutes recovering from hills that in reality could be sprinted in a rational gear choice that allows for a steady output.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

*c'mon guys,*

unless you're pros that nobody has ever heard of because you're training in complete seclusion, there is NO need for anything bigger than a 53 for a time trial. i'm sorry, but you cannot tell me in any way that you are "spun out" in a 53 at 32mph. if you have back problems that limit you to 90-100rpm how can you make enough power to sustain that speed anyway? downhills are one thing, but there is no way you can maintain that on the flats and not have a contract. admit it, the 55 is something you bought so you can look cool, right?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*thats what I just said*



cxwrench said:


> unless you're pros that nobody has ever heard of because you're training in complete seclusion, there is NO need for anything bigger than a 53 for a time trial. i'm sorry, but you cannot tell me in any way that you are "spun out" in a 53 at 32mph. if you have back problems that limit you to 90-100rpm how can you make enough power to sustain that speed anyway? downhills are one thing, but there is no way you can maintain that on the flats and not have a contract. admit it, the 55 is something you bought so you can look cool, right?


Yes, I would have to agree 100%. 

Not a soul of average ability, or above average or for that matter great could spin a 55 tooth ring. It aint so. 

Kind of like the folks who claim they averaged 40mph because their bike computer said so. Despite the fact that it took them 1 hour to go 18 miles..............Hey its new math and time travel wooo weee


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*Good Luck*



crestlinefarm said:


> Western Washington state, southside Seattle. It's scheduled for March 6...we'll see how I do in my first Masters race!


mine is just outside Porltand..OBRA event. flat out and back course with new pavement!


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

*I Don't Understand*

I don't understand this impulse to dictate to others what equipment they should or shouldn"t use. It's one thing to direct them to something like Sheldon's site so they can figure out what gearing they need based on their anticipated speed and preferred cadence, but how can anyone tell someone they never, or always, need a 55 chainring or whatever. The fact is, for me, I know I TT best in a narrow cadence range around 95 rpm. I also know there are at least three TT's I do with sustained speeds over 40 mph (and yes ttug, my computer is calibrated well enough that I know these numbers are accurate). So for me to run a 55/42 with a 12-23 puts me at the upper range of what I can spin on the downhills and gives me low enough gears on the climbs to get up the hills. So cxwrench, tell me I'm wrong and "there is NO need for anything bigger than a 53 for a time trial." The day you ride my race is the day you can tell me what equipment I need.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

asgelle said:


> I don't understand this impulse to dictate to others what equipment they should or shouldn"t use. It's one thing to direct them to something like Sheldon's site so they can figure out what gearing they need based on their anticipated speed and preferred cadence, but how can anyone tell someone they never, or always, need a 55 chainring or whatever. The fact is, for me, I know I TT best in a narrow cadence range around 95 rpm. I also know there are at least three TT's I do with sustained speeds over 40 mph (and yes ttug, my computer is calibrated well enough that I know these numbers are accurate). So for me to run a 55/42 with a 12-23 puts me at the upper range of what I can spin on the downhills and gives me low enough gears on the climbs to get up the hills. So cxwrench, tell me I'm wrong and "there is NO need for anything bigger than a 53 for a time trial." The day you ride my race is the day you can tell me what equipment I need.


well, i agree. no one else knows what works best for an individual's bike setup vs. leg strength vs. physical prowess. I may be new at this and if i don't like the ring ,i'll take it off for the next race. for now, i'm training with it just fine. besides, the original question was "what is a respectable time on a flat course" NOT "what gear ratio should i use?"


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*come again please?????*

Lets cut to the issue please? I could care less what a person chooses to ride in a TT or in their mothers driveway, its pointless at best.

However, gear ratios and cadence tend to work together woderfully in an event that is dictated by the ability to cover a certain distance in the shortest amount of time possible. We will call this a TT.

Gear ratios that allow greater efficiency while generating a higher sustained output tend to win the day in a TT. My opinion was that using a massive ratio as described, which even some of the best riders in the world have a hard time with, does not seem to gel in the context of this specific question. Sort of the equivalent of "hey I have to get me one of those"..... That was all.

If you think that the reply was meant to say "hey, you svck because you use a too big of a ring", then you might want to think about the need on your part to interpret some sort of dictation by me to other riders. 

Go nuts. Get a custom ring and see if you can go 60x10?!?!?!?Hey the skies the limit.


----------



## bimini (Jul 2, 2003)

*There is only one race around here where a 55/11*

would be helpful (if you have the legs to use it). It is a flat race with a half mile slightly downhill finish. Some of the pros use the 55/11 and are hitting 55+ MPH at the finish line. 

Unless your trying for a 55 MPH TT the 55 does not make a lot of sense. (I wasn't fully on top of my 53/12 in the above Cat 4/5 race and I hit 45 MPH at the line)



cxwrench said:


> 26mph is just cruising in a criterium, using the 17, maybe the 16 at a decent cadence. i personally don't see the need for a 55 there( in a crit ), why would you need a 55 for a tt where you'll be going slower than you would be most of the time in a criterium? seems like you're making extra work for yourself installing the 55, re-adjusting the derailleur...you're certainly not spinning out the 53...


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*ok dokey*



bimini said:


> would be helpful (if you have the legs to use it). It is a flat race with a half mile slightly downhill finish. Some of the pros use the 55/11 and are hitting 55+ MPH at the finish line.
> 
> Unless your trying for a 55 MPH TT the 55 does not make a lot of sense. (I wasn't fully on top of my 53/12 in the above Cat 4/5 race and I hit 45 MPH at the line)


You got it.

If you train real hard, and prepare really well, you will still drop dead from the exertion because very few folks in the world can push that kind of ratio. BUT, that does not mean anybody should not try it.


----------



## hrv (Dec 9, 2001)

*Jack Frost, huh?*

I've done that the last 3 years, not going to do it this year since I'll be doing Cherry Pie the next day, 2 different races.

If you've never raced 24 - 26 is quite good; most of the times I've seen for beginners are on average 34 - 40 minutes , not 30 and below.

The last 2 years the weather was perfect while warming up and the wind slowly picked up, gusting to almost 40 by the time I went off. Usually start out with a tailwind / slight downhill so make sure to smoke this first section, but not too much!

And remember to have fun!
hrv


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

hrv said:


> I've done that the last 3 years, not going to do it this year since I'll be doing Cherry Pie the next day, 2 different races.
> 
> If you've never raced 24 - 26 is quite good; most of the times I've seen for beginners are on average 34 - 40 minutes , not 30 and below.
> 
> ...


I train out on Sauvie's island a lot for paced laps. good to hear from a local in here. I was a little worried about the Gorge wind but we'll see what the day brings. thanks for the advice on the start..


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

bimini said:


> would be helpful (if you have the legs to use it). It is a flat race with a half mile slightly downhill finish. Some of the pros use the 55/11 and are hitting 55+ MPH at the finish line.
> 
> Unless your trying for a 55 MPH TT the 55 does not make a lot of sense. (I wasn't fully on top of my 53/12 in the above Cat 4/5 race and I hit 45 MPH at the line)


45MPH in a CAT 4/5 race? not bad.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bimini said:


> Unless your trying for a 55 MPH TT the 55 does not make a lot of sense.


How do you figure? 55x12 @100 rpm is 36 mph it would take a 150 rpm cadence to reach 55 mph. Since the original subject was time trials where people ride at a steady, lower cadence (the average cadence in a crit isn't much different but the distribution is wider) it would seem that the 55x12 makes sense for anticipated speeds of 35 and above. As I mentioned before, such conditions are not rare in time trials here.

Also, the biggest gears are rarely needed for a finish sprint. They're usually used to chase back solo to a group on a steep descent after cresting a climb.


----------



## bimini (Jul 2, 2003)

*Slight Downhill!*

I normally get into the mid 30's in the sprints at the stock car track races (flat). Upper 30's on a very good day. I'm a minuteman, I've got good speed for up to a minute and then I'm toast. 

I like to sprint, for a quarter to half mile I do good. I can't TT worth a damn and avoid them unless it is part of a series.




bahueh said:


> 45MPH in a CAT 4/5 race? not bad.


----------



## OJack (May 22, 2003)

I guess I'll jump in as this is a pretty good discussion. It was always my understanding the reason for the bigger gears, 55 or 56 was not so much to use the 11 on the back, but more for using your middle gears thus a straighter chain. Am I off my rocker on this one?


----------



## triple shot espresso (Aug 27, 2002)

*Which part of DOWNHILL didn't you get.*



cxwrench said:


> unless you're pros that nobody has ever heard of because you're training in complete seclusion, there is NO need for anything bigger than a 53 for a time trial. i'm sorry, but you cannot tell me in any way that you are "spun out" in a 53 at 32mph. if you have back problems that limit you to 90-100rpm how can you make enough power to sustain that speed anyway? downhills are one thing, but there is no way you can maintain that on the flats and not have a contract. admit it, the 55 is something you bought so you can look cool, right?


Believe me, I've done my share of TTs and training with a powermeter. When I start spinning about 95-100 rpm I can't sustain my TT wattage and therefore I go slower than if I was spinning, with a larger gear, at a lower cadence. That's why I like a 54. It keeps my cadence lower 80-85 rpms is where I work best. You are correct. I can not maintain 32 mph on the flats and if you reread the post you will discover that I never claimed to. I am a pack meat Cat 3 at best and when I'm on form I usually only avg. around 27 on the flats. 

I bought my TT bike from a pro and it came with a 55 on it and he was nice enough to throw in a 54 for me. I tried the 55 for 2 races and didn't think it was right for me. I did think I was pretty cool with it though.

And as for the watts question for TTUG, your watts produced at LT (sustained power) is the best indicator of performance for a TT, actually watts per kg. All things being equal aerodynamics, wind, course, desire, motivation, everything, generally the person with the better watts per kg will cover the distance in a shorter time. That's GENERALLY and that's why it's an indicator.


----------



## triple shot espresso (Aug 27, 2002)

*Funny*



ttug said:


> Go nuts. Get a custom ring and see if you can go 60x10?!?!?!?Hey the skies the limit.


My buddy has this huge 64 and raced it in one of the local TT series. He went pretty slow and didn't look so good when was done.


----------



## hrv (Dec 9, 2001)

*That's what I heard too (nm)*

.nm.nm.nm.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*ok the good ship lollipop is in port*

1)There are DIV1 riders who barely muster 27mph avg in the flats, sorry, but avid cyclists and club riders DONT DO THAT. So thats not a realistic pic here. Sorry

2)The rule of thumb that has at last been stated is that ugly watts per kg thing. Yeah, thats true, but sorry, spinning a 55+ratio is a)a fantasy and b)not done by club riders sorry.

3) For aloll those folks talking about spinning 120+ in a 54 or above ring, UNLESS ITS DOWNHILL, you are a liar. Yuh, I said it

4)I can can ride a sub hour 40K in a 52 big ring, fantasy stories of the 33+mph miracle or how I awed everybody with 55+ is not real








0


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

*I need to move*



ttug said:


> 1)There are DIV1 riders who barely muster 27mph avg in the flats, sorry, but avid cyclists and club riders DONT DO THAT. So thats not a realistic pic here. Sorry


27 mph translates to a 55:33 40k. That would have been only the 8th fastest time at this years state TT championships (all categories). Last year, on the same course with less wind it would have been good for only 14th place. There were no Division 1 (or any other pro) riders there. In fact three of the riders were over 40 and some of the others were Cat 3. You can look up the results for yourself at http://www.nmcycling.org/results/2004/results/RCTT.pdf and 
http://www.nmcycling.org/results/2003/results/RecChal.txt


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*What about the 55/25? j/k*



OJack said:


> I guess I'll jump in as this is a pretty good discussion. It was always my understanding the reason for the bigger gears, 55 or 56 was not so much to use the 11 on the back, but more for using your middle gears thus a straighter chain. Am I off my rocker on this one?


that's pretty much where i use it...and pretty much why i decided to put it on. I don't have the legs to turn a 55/12...never planned to. i started quite the sh&*storm with a mention of a 55 ring, eh? straight chains are good...i've never been one for that rubbing sound...


----------



## mjbmx5 (Jun 13, 2002)

*You do not a 54 or 55 to avg 27 mph*

Last summer at Junior Nationals a 16 year old did a 20k TT in 26.50.99 with a 99 inch gear (max gearing for juniors) which works out to a 52/14 or 45/12. This was not flat course and had a good headwind on the return leg.
.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

*pay attention...*



asgelle said:


> I don't understand this impulse to dictate to others what equipment they should or shouldn"t use. It's one thing to direct them to something like Sheldon's site so they can figure out what gearing they need based on their anticipated speed and preferred cadence, but how can anyone tell someone they never, or always, need a 55 chainring or whatever. The fact is, for me, I know I TT best in a narrow cadence range around 95 rpm. I also know there are at least three TT's I do with sustained speeds over 40 mph (and yes ttug, my computer is calibrated well enough that I know these numbers are accurate). So for me to run a 55/42 with a 12-23 puts me at the upper range of what I can spin on the downhills and gives me low enough gears on the climbs to get up the hills. So cxwrench, tell me I'm wrong and "there is NO need for anything bigger than a 53 for a time trial." The day you ride my race is the day you can tell me what equipment I need.


the original poster said "flat" time trial. that's what we're talking about. it's fine by me if you want to throw on a 55 for an event w/ a different profile that has hills. but, i am quite sure that no amateur, anywhere, needs a 55 ring for a FLAT time trial. christ, he said he was maintaining an average of 26mph. that's no lance armstrong ripping a tt in the tour at 32mph. and, correct me if i'm wrong (again) he posted here looking for OPINIONS concerning his plans, and that's just what we're giving him...


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

*Pay Attention*



cxwrench said:


> the original poster said "flat" time trial. that's what we're talking about.


Really? Then why did you write,


cxwrench said:


> unless you're pros that nobody has ever heard of because you're training in complete seclusion, there is NO need for anything bigger than a 53 for a time trial.


I didn't make this up. You, yourself, wrote this. I don't see anything about here about flat time trials.


cxwrench said:


> correct me if i'm wrong (again) he posted here looking for OPINIONS concerning his plans, and that's just what we're giving him...


You're wrong again. He posted asking for representative 20k TT times. People just took it on themselves to jump in with unsolicited advice. I know this because he wrote,


bahueh said:


> besides, the original question was "what is a respectable time on a flat course" NOT "what gear ratio should i use?"


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

mjbmx5 said:


> Last summer at Junior Nationals a 16 year old did a 20k TT in 26.50.99 with a 99 inch gear (max gearing for juniors) which works out to a 52/14 or 45/12. This was not flat course and had a good headwind on the return leg.
> .


Really, what size frame did he use. I'm sure that's the best size for me too. After all, one size fits all. Not to mention he used the 99 inch gear not because he thought it optimal, but because he was restricted by the rules. Let him ride whatever gear he wants and see what his time is then.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*this was fun*



asgelle said:


> 27 mph translates to a 55:33 40k. That would have been only the 8th fastest time at this years state TT championships (all categories). Last year, on the same course with less wind it would have been good for only 14th place. There were no Division 1 (or any other pro) riders there. In fact three of the riders were over 40 and some of the others were Cat 3. You can look up the results for yourself at http://www.nmcycling.org/results/2004/results/RCTT.pdf and
> http://www.nmcycling.org/results/2003/results/RecChal.txt


Yes, in a TT thats very real. Thats very good that you were able to use the internet and find that information. Again, in a TT. There was this foggy notion of actually training and trying the event for their first shot etc etc So their first shot puts them in the top 10 states finish cataegory and you find that realistic? 

The winning time of 50:40 in the 40k is still just under 30 mph. I do recall seeing numbers exceeding 30mph in this thread?????? The issue is very simple again. A masters rider in their physical prime in the ages between 19 and 29 years cant break 30 mph in a 40K TT.The time is incredible, no doubt. BUT, NO you will not see the average of 32mph and NO in the flats in a training ride, NOT A TT the averahge club guy or gal is NOT going to hang in there solo at 27mph. 

I assume you won states that year or possible some recent time  ? Otherwise, team: "Talking out your a55" has an application waiting.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

*I have no idea what you're talking about.*



ttug said:


> Yes, in a TT thats very real. Thats very good that you were able to use the internet and find that information. Again, in a TT. There was this foggy notion of actually training and trying the event for their first shot etc etc So their first shot puts them in the top 10 states finish cataegory and you find that realistic?
> 
> I assume you won states that year or possible some recent time  ?


I'm trying to stay on point here. Earlier you claimed 27 mph is a speed achievable on the flats only by Div. 1 riders. The exact quote was


ttug said:


> 1)There are DIV1 riders who barely muster 27mph avg in the flats, sorry, but avid cyclists and club riders DONT DO THAT. So thats not a realistic pic here. Sorry


I merely pointed out based on data at hand that there are any number of club riders who can surpass that. I have no idea what other point you're trying to make here.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*apples and oranges*



asgelle said:


> I'm trying to stay on point here. Earlier you claimed 27 mph is a speed achievable on the flats only by Div. 1 riders. The exact quote was
> 
> I merely pointed out based on data at hand that there are any number of club riders who can surpass that. I have no idea what other point you're trying to make here.


The data you provided were times at a TT.The TT was a state level event with Masters riders. Doubtless some were average club riders. The majority barley maintained 23+ mph. You do recall the top 10 usually means thetop 10 out of the entire field. I do doubt there were 11 riders that day. You did not provide data on any number of club riders

Could you please provide the location of the regular guys and gals who train solo on the average ~27mph? Here on the earth, its very rare.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

ttug said:


> The data you provided were times at a TT.The TT was a state level event with Masters riders. Doubtless some were average club riders. The majority barley maintained 23+ mph. You do recall the top 10 usually means thetop 10 out of the entire field. I do doubt there were 11 riders that day. You did not provide data on any number of club riders
> 
> Could you please provide the location of the regular guys and gals who train solo on the average ~27mph? Here on the earth, its very rare.


Except to disprove your contention that NO avid cyclist or club rider achieves 27 mph, it isn't necessary for me to show all avid cyclists or club riders reach that level, I only have to show 1 does. I think I've shown there are many who do. Where does training solo come into it? Do I have to quote your statement to you a third time?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*me speak good too*



asgelle said:


> Except to disprove your contention that NO avid cyclist or club rider achieves 27 mph, it isn't necessary for me to show all avid cyclists or club riders reach that level, I only have to show 1 does. I think I've shown there are many who do. Where does training solo come into it? Do I have to quote your statement to you a third time?


When you quote my statement andnot what you think it is, great. You have yet to show that any of the riders results were those of the average you know that word right? club rider. Might be handy if there was a mutual definition for that term. Otherwise, we are talking past each other and its kind of pointless. 

Besides: I am building a 88 tooth chain ring and need to "spin it out" right now     

This will prepare me for the catapult of fame I crave as I exit the garage door....


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*52x14 is magic*



mjbmx5 said:


> Last summer at Junior Nationals a 16 year old did a 20k TT in 26.50.99 with a 99 inch gear (max gearing for juniors) which works out to a 52/14 or 45/12. This was not flat course and had a good headwind on the return leg.
> .


Merckx set the hour record in a 52x14. BIG RATIOS ARE A WASTE unless you have HUGE TALENT TO PUSH THE HUGE RATIO its sort of cute to watch


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*stock car flats?*



bimini said:


> I normally get into the mid 30's in the sprints at the stock car track races (flat). Upper 30's on a very good day. I'm a minuteman, I've got good speed for up to a minute and then I'm toast.
> 
> I like to sprint, for a quarter to half mile I do good. I can't TT worth a damn and avoid them unless it is part of a series.


are you racing the PIR series in Porltand? if so, what are the times on those criteriums?
I am tent. planning on doing those if my grad. school schedule allows...


----------



## triple shot espresso (Aug 27, 2002)

*I think it has a lot to do with cadence*



ttug said:


> Merckx set the hour record in a 52x14. BIG RATIOS ARE A WASTE unless you have HUGE TALENT TO PUSH THE HUGE RATIO its sort of cute to watch


Spinners like lance or mashers like Jan. You're throwing your opinion around like it's a fact but I haven't heard anything that would suggest you have anything to back up your opinion. Are you really trying to relate a track ride 25 years ago to anything that's done now on the road. Before Merckx did that people thought 52 was huge.

Here's some pretty good numbers for you to crunch. When you're done you can tell me what's possible and impossiible for "club" riders and masters. BTW I think the winner of the 35+ race is like 42. I was 3rd in the 3s. Before you really freak out the course was not 40k it was 37k and rolling like everything around here. And another thing, you picked up on the 32 mph from me when I clearly stated, twice, that it's not an average but when I'm going DOWNHILL. It was pretty windy in 04. My 03 time was 51:26, conditions were better. Must be the thin air. ;-)
http://www.americancycling.org/results/2004/jun/state-TT.htm


----------



## bimini (Jul 2, 2003)

*No, in the Midwest*

We do a series of 4-7 races in and evening of different types. A couple of straight scratch races of 5 to 20 laps (1/2 mile paved oval). Often a points race. A hit and out or miss and out. And then a couple of creative races. Things like team time trails, Super Mario Leadout race, or spiral of death.

Average speeds don't have a lot of meaning in this type of racing. A lot of track stratagy going on so you don't blast it until someone else jumps. A lot of cat and mouse action. One race may average 22 MPH the next one 30 MPH. Depends on who makes a run for it, how early they attempt the break and the length of the race. It also depends on who shows up. When the top riders in the state show up you can count on times in the upper 20's. They either take off from the gun or use their teams to wear the field out by taking turns making runs off the front. Within the same race you can do one lap below 20 MPH and the next lap above 30 MPH. It's common to turn in sub one minute laps.

Even with the speeds they are safe races. I go to about 10 of these races each year and yet to see a wreck. I'm okay at the sprinting and really enjoy these races. At the end of the evening it's common to have done at least 20 sprints and sometimes it's over 30. It makes for a fun evening of racing. The great thing is that if you make a mistake in one race, no big deal, there is the next one. I learn a lot about stratagy and what to to do and what not to do every time I go. I am often racing against the best Cat 1 racers in the state and I learn a lot from them. I graduated to the A group last year, so I'm often against a field that is way over my head. 

I recommend the stock car track to anyone. If you your strong suit is the sprint you can do well at them, even if it isn't you learn a lot about stratagy. The sprinters are often beaten by the breakaway artist, or a good team that wears the sprinters out so they don't have nothing left to sprint with at the end.


bahueh said:


> are you racing the PIR series in Porltand? if so, what are the times on those criteriums?
> I am tent. planning on doing those if my grad. school schedule allows...


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*long long ago*



triple shot espresso said:


> Spinners like lance or mashers like Jan. You're throwing your opinion around like it's a fact but I haven't heard anything that would suggest you have anything to back up your opinion. Are you really trying to relate a track ride 25 years ago to anything that's done now on the road. Before Merckx did that people thought 52 was huge.
> 
> Here's some pretty good numbers for you to crunch. When you're done you can tell me what's possible and impossiible for "club" riders and masters. BTW I think the winner of the 35+ race is like 42. I was 3rd in the 3s. Before you really freak out the course was not 40k it was 37k and rolling like everything around here. And another thing, you picked up on the 32 mph from me when I clearly stated, twice, that it's not an average but when I'm going DOWNHILL. It was pretty windy in 04. My 03 time was 51:26, conditions were better. Must be the thin air. ;-)
> http://www.americancycling.org/results/2004/jun/state-TT.htm


The point of mentioning Merckx was to show that you do not need a huge gear to get a great time. While the tech and materials have certainly chnaged, I do recall the idea is still the same. Here is a distance, here is your time, here is the bike you ride real real fast to cover that distance in a hopefully smaller amount of time.

I know that its an old idea, but it does seem a bit obvious that the time goal is the point of the TT. Kind of fits huh? Even, all that time ago. weird huh?  

as far as my opinion and fact, they are not the same. However, the fact is that Eddy had a record for years with that old bike of his.


----------



## hrv (Dec 9, 2001)

*Now to go totally OT*

Lance is supposedly serious about attacking the hour record this year, and I for one would like to see him do it on the same equipment/track Eddy did it on. Now that would start to be a good comparison on who is the better rider. Not throw money and technology at the task, like designing a new climate controlled velodrome, etc. Just get on your f*$%ing bike and ride 'til you bleed, dog! 

hrv,
just got a 55 ring from Chucks;pondering getting a 56 for pursuit , to be used with a 16 in the rear...


----------



## EazyBe (Nov 9, 2004)

*think of it in terms of average speed*



bahueh said:


> hi all,
> now be nice. I'm a fairly new rider (over a year now) but serious when it comes to my training and annual mileage (about 3000mi last year) and will start racing this spring. The first is a 20km TT , flat, out and back...and was wondering what a respectable time would be. I've worked on the bike to get it ready, TT bars, shorter carbon cranks, all the usual and I'm in descent shape..
> can anyone help?


I race a TT series out here in the Denver area that's just short of 20k (10.5M). Since I race Cat4, it seems to me that someone who can crank out an average speed of 25mph or better ususally gets top 10 or so.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*see, now thats.*



EazyBe said:


> I race a TT series out here in the Denver area that's just short of 20k (10.5M). Since I race Cat4, it seems to me that someone who can crank out an average speed of 25mph or better ususally gets top 10 or so.


the kind of info. i was asking about. 
thank you. encouraging news..


----------



## triple shot espresso (Aug 27, 2002)

*Geez*



bahueh said:


> the kind of info. i was asking about.
> thank you. encouraging news..


Why didn't you just ask? ;-) I agree. An avg of 25 mph your first time out is an admirable goal.


----------

