aero position: flat vs. arched?
cog...@grecc1.ab.umd.edu
came across on the Hed website - I'd seen it before, but not in quite a
while...
Many times I hear people state that the ideal aero position is one with a
flat back, and this is sometimes used as a justification for e.g., raising
the elbow pads or moving the saddle forward (thus allowing a lower position
w/o arching the back to avoid hitting your chest w/ your thighs). Now, I'm a
firm believer in using a forward seat position to avoid a too acute hip-torso
angle, but I'm also an advocate of a very *low* position, w/ shoulders down
close to hip level, to try to minimize drag. What I'm curious about,
therefore, is where this notion that one's back should be *flat*, instead of
arched, arises. Three examples of cyclists with known low drag are Colby
Pearce, Eric Wolhberg, and Chris Boardman, and from what I've seen all three
tend to arch their backs to gain room to pedal (esp. interesting to me was to
compare the picture of Pearce on the Hed website with the one of Wohlberg on
the Cervelo website - aside from a little more forward reach for the latter,
their positions are nearly identical, as were their drag measurements). I can
also make the argument that your overall shape or form is unimportant, since
even for these fellows their Cd is quite high (closer to that of a flat board
than a missle), meaning that they achieve their low drags mostly by reducing
their frontal area. So, can anybody marshall any evidence (even anecdotal
would be interesting) to support the idea that one's back should be flat, vs.
simply having your torso (flat or arched) parallel to the ground?
FWIW, my back happens to be pretty flat, but I view that as being simply a
side-effect of using a low position and having a long torso, and it is not
something I've strived for...
--
Andrew Coggan
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jason MacDonald
Sorry I can't bring up any evidence for or against flat or arched backs, but
I can comment on you finding that a very low position doesn't tend to arch the
back. Don't have the pictures scanned at the moment, but I've been fooling
around with different positions for my time trialing.
Luckily I do a 15k itt each week from Easter Weekend till mid September and have
lots of chance to mess with my positioning. I'm finding with my standard 73d
road bike and clip ons, stem down all the way i have a very flat back. Same if I
move my saddle forward. however it's a flat back which isn't parallel to the
ground. I've also been fooling with the same equipment (hardware and rear disk
wheel, front wheels are both 28 spoke, 700c is a Mavic cpx30, the 26" is box
rim, track bike uses bull horn bars, same clip on aerobars with the same elbow
position), but on a 76d track bike with 700c rear and 26"front. Both frames
carry a water bottle on the downtube, the track bike is standard Columbus round
steel, curved non-aero fork, road bike is round steel, a Columbus mega-tube
shaped downtube and a Profile BRC fork. <equipment details added cause i also
want to say the approx. time differences i'm finding> The track bike puts my
hips and shoulders on the same plane, parallel to the ground. To achieve this
position my back no longer can stay flat and gets a little arch. I've messed
with saddles, stem height to try an achieve the flat back, but can't do it. I'd
consider myself fairly flexible at least I am when doing flexibility testing
with my x-c ski team.
So no evidence, but I too get the arch in the back. As for my times I won't draw
conclusions on what might part of my setup is the cause, but I'm getting about
10 seconds on the track bike unless winds are favorable with the road bike. This
is a rough estimate and hold true for my friend who has ridden the same track
frame vs. his road bike( with equipment swapping as I have done) and has gotten
20 seconds out of it (I'd say his road bike position 'looks' less are and his
torso is much thicker and wider than my long and skinny one).
Just throwing out my own field results. It's nice to be able to mess with these
things. I now have a road frame with dual 700c wheels which should give me the
same body position as the track bike. It'll be fun to compare. I'll probably
show up at the start line this year against Eric at nationals, but I'll be 5
minutes back :-)
--
Jason MacDonald in Ottawa, Nova Scotian at heart.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<mbu...@OzEmail.com.au> writes:
>
>To add some fuel to your argument...
>
>There was an article in CycleSports a few months ago, dealing with the
>wind-tunnel testing both Cannondale and Bianchi were doing for their
new
>bikes. Putting aside what Cannondale came up with in terms of a bike,
>one of the things that they found was that they got improved flow when
>they made their rider wear a Camel-Back under his jersey, while in the
>tunnel ! Go figure...
>
>
The US hour record was set by a rider with a Camelbak.
JT
Mike Bundy
There was an article in CycleSports a few months ago, dealing with the
wind-tunnel testing both Cannondale and Bianchi were doing for their new
bikes. Putting aside what Cannondale came up with in terms of a bike,
one of the things that they found was that they got improved flow when
they made their rider wear a Camel-Back under his jersey, while in the
tunnel ! Go figure...
-- MB.
cog...@grecc1.ab.umd.edu wrote in message
<7751o9$c7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Brian Skinner
Sault Ste. Marie, Canada and I saw him use that Kestrel at the
1989 CNE triathlon where he demolished the field. (including
Richard Browne and Stephen Fleck) The name of Nick's
bike builder was/is Hans Metzen.
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Dan Empfield wrote:
> In article <7751o9$c7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cog...@grecc1.ab.umd.edu wrote:
>
> > Many times I hear people state that the ideal aero position is one with a
> > flat back, and this is sometimes used as a justification for e.g., raising
> > the elbow pads or moving the saddle forward (thus allowing a lower position
> > w/o arching the back to avoid hitting your chest w/ your thighs). Now, I'm a
> > firm believer in using a forward seat position to avoid a too acute hip-torso
> > angle, but I'm also an advocate of a very *low* position, w/ shoulders down
> > close to hip level, to try to minimize drag. What I'm curious about,
> > therefore, is where this notion that one's back should be *flat*, instead of
> > arched, arises. Three examples of cyclists with known low drag are Colby
> > Pearce, Eric Wolhberg, and Chris Boardman, and from what I've seen all three
> > tend to arch their backs to gain room to pedal
>
> i think when people say a flat back is good they usually use the term as a
> symbol for the notion that a back pointing up in the air (from the hips
> forward) is not as good as a back that is more parallel to the ground.
> the question of whether the spine gets from the hips to the shoulders in a
> straight line or via a curve has been batted around as both a biomechanic
> and aerodynamic question.
>
> cobb and others have speculated that this is a personal thing, that some,
> like zack or spencer smith, for example, are better off with a curved back
> while others, like pauli kiuri and scott tinley, ride well with a flatter
> back. the aerodynamic issue is measurable i guess, but i think it's hard
> to measure. cobb relates the two positions as entire entities, where a
> curved back goes with a specific thing you do to your shoulders and
> elbows, you "adopt" this position en toto, and you either are or aren't
> the kind of person who's made to ride this way. i don't know if he's
> right or not.
>
> the other question is biomechanical, i've heard a lot of people over the
> years (again, cobb is one) talk about rotating your hips, if you do rotate
> them back your back will certainly be flatter. as to whether that has a
> biomechanical advantage for some people, you're more qualified to answer
> that than i.
>
> personally i don't know the answer to any of that. but i do feel that the
> reason boardman, pierce, et al, ride with a more arched back is not one of
> choice but because of an anatomical necessity. because their armrests are
> much lower relative to their saddles than any triathlete i've ever seen
> (with the exception of nick taylor, a very good mid-'80's pro who nobody
> on this NG is likely to remember, but who rode a kestrel with a custom
> stem that placed the aero bars not far above the top of the front wheel),
> i don't think they have any choice but to have a curve in their back.
> your back can't make a B-line to an ultra low frontal position because,
> you know, your boys get in the way, as well as other problems like your
> knees hitting your chest. also, i think your back only has so much
> flexibility, and depending on whose back it is and how much work the back
> has to do to get the elbows down to the armrests.
>
> in other words, i think most triathletes may be able to make a conscious
> choice of how to ride, but i don't think boardman could, given his armrest
> position.
>
> qrman
>
>
cog...@grecc1.ab.umd.edu
> > i think when people say a flat back is good they usually use the term as a
> > symbol for the notion that a back pointing up in the air (from the hips
> > forward) is not as good as a back that is more parallel to the ground.
Well, that's exactly how I think of it, but at least in the circles I travel
in it seems that people have mutated this into a focus on the actual form of
the back, and not just the angle from hip to shoulders. In other words, there
seems to be a misconception (at least as I understand things it is a
misconception) that the shape of your back has a significant effect on drag.
I will confess, though, that in the past when people have espoused such views
I have kept my opinions to myself (surprise!), and haven't specifically
questioned them on what they meant and/or why they thought the way they
apparently did. Next time somebody mentions it I'll have to go into Kenneth
Starr mode...
As an aside, I think one thing that *visually* influences how a particular
person looks (e.g., flat vs hunched, super-aero or not) is just how forward
they position their arms/elbows. I look at side-on photos of myself, and I
don't look much like Boardman, Pearce, Wohlberg, et al., who are curled up
into little balls. However, my hip/shoulder angle is similar to their's, and
if I pull my arms in (and thus down), at the top of the pedal stroke my knee
nearly hits the middle/back of my upper arm, just like it does for them.
Which position is aerodynamically better is hard to say - my drag is ~10%
higher than their's, but I'm also quite a bit taller...
Stewart Blake
might not be the same bike) on the cover of Triathlon Today (or maybe it
was the Great Lakes Triathlete) back in '86 or '87 (any old GLT
collectors still out there). I remember because Nick was from the Sault
and I was going to be transfered there in a few years. I got transfered
and met Nick the year after he finished top 10 in the worlds (at
Disneyland ... pre drafting Worlds) but that's another story. I think
that he holds the record (sub 20 min ?) on the old AirWays time trial
course. Larry can correct me.
Enough rambling. Who's next with a Nick Taylor story ?
Stew
Swmrbikrnr
I crossed pathes with Nick a couple of times. I had seen him at a couple of
races, and then a race director put us rooming together at a pro race once in
Florida (Daytona beach I think). Nick was always a radical when it came to
bikes. he always had something very different on his bike. When I first saw
him, he was racing on a Rad (?) bike, it had 24" wheels. One thing is for sure,
he was always very fast on the bike.
The last time I had contact with Nick, he called me to try to get me to move to
Austin to get involved in some multi level marketing thing he was into, about 7
years ago. Needless to say, I stayed here in Mobile and never made my millions.
Mike Plumb
Stephen Fleck
>Brian Skinner wrote:
> > I remember Nick because he is from my home town of
> > Sault Ste. Marie, Canada and I saw him use that Kestrel at the
> > 1989 CNE triathlon where he demolished the field. (including
> > Richard Browne and Stephen Fleck) The name of Nick's
> > bike builder was/is Hans Metzen.
> >
We're really dragging up the "good old days" here
Nick was indeed ahead of his time in terms of bike positioning. When I saw him
on his bike I often wondered how he could ride in that position. However, he
would dust everyone on the bike.No argueing with success
The big factor in that race at the CNE was the water temp. As I recall it was in
the low to mid 50's. They cut the swim back to 1000m from 1500m, but we were all
still frozen getting out of the water even wearing wetsuits.I recall some
crazies did not even bother with wetsuits.
Steve Fleck
b...@amlibs.ca
Nick and his position was extreme. Some of his setups had the handlebars
mounted on the fork BELOW the headset.
The CNE race was also notable for me because it was the first time I saw a
Kestrel 4000 (Nick's bike at the time)and it impressed the heck out of me.
Come to think of it, I still like the look of it.
bhk
Dan Empfield
<jcma...@sph.sc.edu> wrote:
> Nick was largely responsible for the Austin Saturday ride, greatest
> training ride in the US (better even than the San Diego Wednesday ride!).
wednesday ride isn't even the best ride in socal. como st. has it way beat.
qrman
Jim Martin
Stewart Blake <ns.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<369AB8...@sympatico.ca>...
Enough rambling. Who's next with a Nick Taylor story ?
I'll have a go:
Nick was largely responsible for the Austin Saturday ride, greatest
training ride in the US (better even than the San Diego Wednesday ride!).
In it's heyday in the late 80's early 90's the front group would often
include Nick (always in a Speedo), Rip Essleton, Chris Torrigino, Scott
Trainer, Will Visser, Andy Heekin, David Sing, Shawn McCloud, and one
stocky ex-match sprinter ;-). It would always start with a well mannered 5
mile warm-up and then the hammering would start at the Garfield water
tower. The ride would go single file faster'n snot out to Bastrop and back.
It was all single file and everyone stayed on elbows the whole ride. To sit
up on the back or stand up to climb was simply to be dropped. Originally
the turn around was across the bridge and up the BIG hill to Bastrop State
Park but the traffic was simply too ugly for that later on and turn around
was moved back to the Texaco station.
What made this ride SO GREAT was that there was a general agreement not to
attack. Instead, the etiquette was this: Pull through at the speed of the
person that was just pulling and hold that speed long enough for him to get
to the back. Then you were free to ramp it up. You never wanted to gap the
guy on your wheel, rather you wanted to inflict pain on the entire group. I
cannot tell you how profoundly the lack of attacks affected this ride. If
you ride with a bunch of bikies and you take a big manly pull what do you
get? Attacked of course. This ride encouraged hard pulls because you knew
you could 'hang it out' and then still be given the chance to get on.
The ride finally died out a couple of years ago for a number of reasons,
but it will always represent a standard for what a hammer ride should be.
Also, with the demise of that ride I suspect that you will see the end of
the dominance of the Austin Triathletes because it was largely that ride
that made them so fit. Well, that and the Town Lake running trail and the
Longhorn Masters swim program and the....okay, maybe not.
One of the names I mentioned, Chris Torrigino is quite a story. He was sort
of a regular guy, moderately active frisbee player type. He volunteered for
a study in Ivy's lab at UT and low and behold had a VO2 max of 80 ml/kg. He
took up triathlon and was Texas no. 1 then he just quit. Ahh to have all
that talent...
Anyway, back to Nick. I have clear memories of being on his wheel and
having a clear and unobstructed view of the road ahead. Man he was low, and
keep in mind that I have some pretty fancy bikes and radical positioning
myself! 'couse I only had the view till I got dropped :-( Andy Heekin was
just as bad to draft. He rode a Hooker and always trained with a disc, skin
suit, and aero helmet. He was so tall and thin (6'3" 140 lbs) that I could
see the rode ahead by looking through his legs under his seat. It was
actually better to pull than to 'draft' him.
The most impressive display of fitness I saw out there was by Rip. One day
he rode the entire ride BESIDE the line, sometimes talking to us. Give me a
break!
Thanks for letting me talk about the good ole days.
Cheers and hello to all you Austinites,
Jimbo
cog...@grecc1.ab.umd.edu
> I'll have a go:
(Long, sentimental tale about the Saturday Austin tri-guy-ride snipped)
Okay, Jim, as a newly-minted Ph.D. exercise physiologist, answer me this: how
can a stocky, ex-national champion MATCH SPRINTER (!!!) with a self-professed
VO2max of 55 mL/min/kg repeatedly swap pulls w/ a bunch of hot-shot multisport
athletes, some of whom have VO2max values of 80 mL/min/kg? Please limit your
answer to one page, and provide appropriate literature references.
(And you thought I was done with you after your defense!)
Andrew Coggan
jee...@dolfijn.nl
> > the other question is biomechanical, i've heard a lot of people over the
> > years (again, cobb is one) talk about rotating your hips, if you do rotate
> > them back your back will certainly be flatter. as to whether that has a
> > biomechanical advantage for some people, you're more qualified to answer
> > that than i.
>
more ideas on biomechanics: when compare two different time trial
specialists, Alex Zulle (unfortunately retired) and Jan Ullrich
(unfortunately not yet retired), what do we see? two extremely good time
trialists with a very dissimilar position on the bike, curved back an
straight back respectively. why? Zulle generates his power using his upper
legs (forgive me, my knowledge of english terms for muscles is limited). he
therefore has a curved back to 'make room foor his pedaling movement' as
someone already stated before. Ullrich has a fairly straigh (and horizontal
;) ) back. this difference originates from the fact that Ullrich makes his
power using the muscles in his butt (forgive me again) instead of his upper
legs. by taking a straight-back position, he puts a tad more stress on his
butt, enabling him to generate more power, but sacraficing a little room for
pedaling movement.
cheers
JeeWee ' I look just like Zulle, even the glasses' Donkers
Rick Denney
>Trainer, Will Visser, Andy Heekin, David Sing, Shawn McCloud, and one
Name No. 2: Will Visser? Could this be the Willem Visser that raced
bikes for Texas A&M in about 1980? I remember him showing up for a
team photo wearing baggy shorts, and riding (fast) a Schwinn Le Tour
or some such. Got that team pic lying around here somewhere.
Sounds like he moved considerably higher up the Texas cycling food
chain than I ever managed.
Rick "I was the team truck driver" Denney
drma...@my-dejanews.com
proxy.airnews.net>,
r...@odetics.com wrote:
> On 13 Jan 1999 00:25:01 GMT, "Jim Martin" <jcma...@sph.sc.edu> wrote:
>
> >Trainer, Will Visser, Andy Heekin, David Sing, Shawn McCloud, and one
>
> Name No. 2: Will Visser? Could this be the Willem Visser that raced
> bikes for Texas A&M in about 1980? I remember him showing up for a
> team photo wearing baggy shorts, and riding (fast) a Schwinn Le Tour
> or some such. Got that team pic lying around here somewhere.
Yep, Rick, one and the same. I arrived at A&M in 1985, but had the pleasure to
train/race with Will through the late 80's/early 90's. I've lost track of Will
since I headed off to grad and med school, but as far as I know he is still
living in Austin. A very nice fella he is.
Bryan
datar...@ic.gc.ca
>Andy Heekin was just as bad to draft. He rode a Hooker and always trained with
>I could see the rode ahead by looking through his legs under his seat. It was
>actually better to pull than to 'draft' him.
Cool story Jim, but I gotta ask about this; there was a guy from Texas named
Andy, he was tall and skinny, he was fast, he rode a Hooker, AND HIS LAST NAME
WASN'T COGGAN??? Hmmmm.
Rick Denney
>In article <A867318C7B5C246B.7051DF4089742B50.4DADCEFE9A924048@library-
>proxy.airnews.net>,
> r...@odetics.com wrote:
>> On 13 Jan 1999 00:25:01 GMT, "Jim Martin" <jcma...@sph.sc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Trainer, Will Visser, Andy Heekin, David Sing, Shawn McCloud, and one
>>
>> Name No. 2: Will Visser? Could this be the Willem Visser that raced
>> bikes for Texas A&M in about 1980? I remember him showing up for a
>> team photo wearing baggy shorts, and riding (fast) a Schwinn Le Tour
>> or some such. Got that team pic lying around here somewhere.
>
>Yep, Rick, one and the same. I arrived at A&M in 1985, but had the pleasure to
>train/race with Will through the late 80's/early 90's. I've lost track of Will
>since I headed off to grad and med school, but as far as I know he is still
>living in Austin. A very nice fella he is.
>
For those of you who want to see Will before he achieved fame and
fortune, I have the photo of the '79 A&M Cycling Team on my web page
at
http://home.earthlink.net/~rdenney/aggieteam79.htm
Will is second from the right, looking like a triathlete, and I'm next
to him, looking like a fat match sprinter.
Rick "And my VO2 Max sucks, too" Denney
Mosi
tell us which side of him you were standing. His right or our right
looking???
D.J. "our right--nice beard, his right--nice ponytail;-)" (IRONKID)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Coggan
>
> >Andy Heekin was just as bad to draft. He rode a Hooker and always trained with
> >a disc, skinsuit, and aero helmet. He was so tall and thin (6'3" 140 lbs) that
> >I could see the rode ahead by looking through his legs under his seat. It was
> >actually better to pull than to 'draft' him.
>
> Cool story Jim, but I gotta ask about this; there was a guy from Texas named
> Andy, he was tall and skinny, he was fast, he rode a Hooker, AND HIS LAST NAME
> WASN'T COGGAN??? Hmmmm.
Paul,
Yeah, there are a few coincidences there:
1) at one time both Andy Heekin and I lived in Austin (I think he still
lives there)
2) we both have/had Hooker bikes (his was a 24"/700C funny bike, though)
3) we both raced duathlons
4) we're both tall and thin
5) we both know Jim Martin
The coincidence isn't quite what it seems, though, because I didn't
start doing duathlons or get the Hooker until after I'd been gone from
Austin for a number of years, by which time Andy was starting to drift
out of the sport. So, while we did race against each other on a couple
of occasions, it's not like we lined up side-by-side all the time...
Rick Denney
>Nice picture, you say he is the second from the right? You forgot to
>tell us which side of him you were standing. His right or our right
>looking???
>
>D.J. "our right--nice beard, his right--nice ponytail;-)" (IRONKID)
I know which image I prefer, but that has nothing to do with which is
me. Of course, for those who can read, the caption does the
explaining. At the time, Laura would have considered it utterly
unacceptable to be me. I suspect her feelings on the matter have not
changed in the 20 years since then.
Rick "No ponytail" Denney
Richard Eustace
> with a
> > flat back,
What the ideal areo position is doesn't matter to much, and looking at
what boardman
ect do is a bit irrelevant; they don't have to run after getting of the
bike. I used to
read Triathlete, but it just goes on and on with the same cycling
areo-BS all the time;
"longest part of a triathlon is the cycle, and the easist way to improve
your cycle time
is by being aero..."
Don't forget to make sure you can run after the ride ....
Have fun, Cheers, Richard
http://www.vicnet.net.au/~trivic
cog...@grecc1.ab.umd.edu
> Don't forget to make sure you can run after the ride ....
Well, when doing duathlons I never had any problems running 5-15k after
cycling hard for 30-60k in a "boardmanesque" position. However, I'm such a
poor runner (open 5k PR 17:15) that maybe it wouldn't make any difference
anyway - perhaps if you're one of these highly efficient types who can float
through a 15:00 5k then it would have a bigger impact.
Andrew Coggan
Rick Denney
>Well, when doing duathlons I never had any problems running 5-15k after
>cycling hard for 30-60k in a "boardmanesque" position. However, I'm such a
>poor runner (open 5k PR 17:15) that maybe it wouldn't make any difference
>anyway - perhaps if you're one of these highly efficient types who can float
>through a 15:00 5k then it would have a bigger impact.
17:15 is poor?
Rick "That's the most depressing thing I've ever heard" Denney
Chuck Hull
I competed in a few Duathlons with Andy, and compared to his
27+MPH bike splits yes, the 17:15 5K is indeed not the same level.
I could get out in front on the first run, but when he'd inevetivably
pass me on the bike, I had to check to make sure my brake
wasn't dragging or something. I'd just see this small, compact,
aero looking blur disappear into the distance in front of me, never
ending up close enough to catch on the last run,although his running
style made it LOOK like there'd be no problem! (I'm sure he could say
tha same for my poor excuse of cycling form.)
Regards,
Chuck
Rick Denney (Rick Denney) wrote in message
<1EC272324E78D4B0.F49EB071...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
Anik Mercure
Titanik
cog...@grecc1.ab.umd.edu wrote:
>
> Richard Eustace <reus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't forget to make sure you can run after the ride ....
>
> Well, when doing duathlons I never had any problems running 5-15k after
> cycling hard for 30-60k in a "boardmanesque" position. However, I'm such a
> poor runner (open 5k PR 17:15) that maybe it wouldn't make any difference
> anyway - perhaps if you're one of these highly efficient types who can float
> through a 15:00 5k then it would have a bigger impact.
>
cog...@grecc1.ab.umd.edu
*average* running economy. It was once I realized that I couldn't make myself
into a decent runner that I decided to get out of duathlons and back into
cycling...it's no fun falling way behind your competiton on the first run,
killing yourself to hopefully overtake them on the bike, and then watch them
whizz by you on the second run knowing that there's nothing in the world you
can do about it. As an example: Vince Dietsch (top-ranked duathlete in
Tri-Fed SMW region and the one I was always "gunning for" when I was racing
duathlons there) used to run his *2nd* 5k in about 16 min, i.e., about 1-1.5
min faster than I could even when fully rested...
Rick Denney wrote:
>
> 17:15 is poor?
cog...@grecc1.ab.umd.edu
I promise I won't say anything about your cycling form if you promise not to
say anything more about my running form! <grin> (Actually, I don't recall
anything unusual about the way you look on the bike, so I'm the winner in
this deal...)
Andy ("can you say, duck-footed?") Coggan
"Chuck Hull" <hu...@fbnet.net> wrote:
> Rick,
> I competed in a few Duathlons with Andy, and compared to his
> 27+MPH bike splits yes, the 17:15 5K is indeed not the same level.
>
> I could get out in front on the first run, but when he'd inevetivably
> pass me on the bike, I had to check to make sure my brake
> wasn't dragging or something. I'd just see this small, compact,
> aero looking blur disappear into the distance in front of me, never
> ending up close enough to catch on the last run,although his running
> style made it LOOK like there'd be no problem! (I'm sure he could say
> tha same for my poor excuse of cycling form.)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Stephen Adams
In 1998 my goal was to break 20:00 for a 5k. On july 4, I ran a 5k at
Thomas Edison's winter home in Ft Myers FL, and I did 20:00.24, I
thought it would be a sure thing with almost 1/2 the year left. Then I
got heel spurs, and Plantar Faciitis and had to cut way back on my
running.
I ran a 5k at Mantasota Key on saturday in around 21:30 (didn't get
official results yet). and that was good for 21st over all (out of 115)
and 2nd in my division (40-44).
I think a 17:15 would have been 2nd or 3rd.
Steve "my goal is to break 19 in '99' " Adams
Stephen Fleck
> Well, it is, at least relative to what I should be able to do if I had even
> *average* running economy. It was once I realized that I couldn't make myself
> into a decent runner that I decided to get out of duathlons and back into
> cycling...it's no fun falling way behind your competiton on the first run,
> killing yourself to hopefully overtake them on the bike, and then watch them
> whizz by you on the second run knowing that there's nothing in the world you
> can do about it. As an example: Vince Dietsch (top-ranked duathlete in
> Tri-Fed SMW region and the one I was always "gunning for" when I was racing
> duathlons there) used to run his *2nd* 5k in about 16 min, i.e., about 1-1.5
> min faster than I could even when fully rested...
>
>
> Rick Denney wrote:
> >
> > 17:15 is poor?
>
> Andrew Coggan
>
Andy is right - it's the context and the relevance if what is fast that is
really important here. Some may think that a 17:15 5K time is "fast", some may
not. 16:00 is probably considered to be what is fast on a local basis and may
put you in the top 5 to 10 of local 5k's. 14 - 15 min. times would be for the
stand out athlete in an area. Under 14 min would put one into the realm of
national level competition and getting down close to 13 min into international
level and world the class level.
Steve Fleck
Stephen Adams
I believe what Andrew said was "however I'm such a poor runner ....."
Even "relatively speaking" It's hard to describe 17:15 as "Such a poor
runner", if that's the case then I completely suck.
Steve "I think I could do a 17:15 5k on my Moutain bike" Adams
Rick Denney
>Andy ("can you say, duck-footed?") Coggan
So, what the hell does that make me?
>
>"Chuck Hull" <hu...@fbnet.net> wrote:
>> Rick,
>> I competed in a few Duathlons with Andy, and compared to his
>> 27+MPH bike splits yes, the 17:15 5K is indeed not the same level.
>>
No solace here. Now, in addition to telling me that a "duck-footed"
runner with "no hint of economy" runs a 5k 6 minutes faster than my
best time, you are telling me that he also averages 4 or 5 mph faster
speeds on the bike.
Rick "Groan" Denney
Rick Denney
wrote:
>Andy is right - it's the context and the relevance if what is fast that is
>really important here. Some may think that a 17:15 5K time is "fast", some may
>not. 16:00 is probably considered to be what is fast on a local basis and may
>put you in the top 5 to 10 of local 5k's. 14 - 15 min. times would be for the
>stand out athlete in an area. Under 14 min would put one into the realm of
>national level competition and getting down close to 13 min into international
>level and world the class level.
>
Andy is NOT right. Relativity, Schmellativity. 17:15 is fast, I tell
you, fast. The last 5-30-5 du I did that would have been a fast time.
Ask anyone in the crowd, "Is 17:15 fast for a 5k?" and, to a man (or
woman), they would have said "Yes, Rick, 17:15 for a 5k is indeed
fast." So, to hell with your pretended seriousness. You are really
laughing at me. I can hear you. I can hear all of you, laughing,
laughing. AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!
Rick "'Round the bend" Denney