Route: 萬隆->烘爐地Dist: 32.3km
Time: 2hr
wait........
星期六, 4月 25, 2009
星期六, 4月 18, 2009
星期日, 4月 12, 2009
[裝備]Nike Free試穿心得
Free EveryDay
Free 3.0知道Nike有試跑鞋的活動,
而且可以"試跑"後.
我挑了一場在台大的試鞋會參加.
到會場時已經有不少人穿著Nike新鞋繞著操場體驗.
詢問工作人員之後,
我也換上了第一雙Free系列(Everyday)開始我的體驗之旅.
早上才剛跑完三重半馬,
這時候大小腿的疲勞尚未恢復.
正是測量一雙跑鞋的雙腳疲累時的最佳時機阿!
從工作人員口之得知,
EveryDay 與 3.0 5.0最大不同在於Everyday特別加強後腳掌的避震性能.
以及Everyday在鞋身上布料的選擇也有不同,
3.0 5.0 有較大的無接縫布料, 自然能營造出十分服貼雙腳的環境
Everyday 則多了幾片合成布料幫助雙腳在運動時的穩定性.
Free 系列原本即是強調"強量".
這兩雙在重量上絕對可以與他牌的馬拉松鞋抗衡的.
wait.....
[競賽]Recovery三重半馬
Craig alexander King of Kona 2009Time: 1hr 45min
對於跑河堤這種路線我一直都興趣缺缺,
畢竟河堤的鋪面都沒有經過設計,
水泥,磁磚都超級硬的.
跑快的的話我那脆弱的腳實在不堪負荷.
不過實在太久沒參加路跑賽,
總是要看看現在大家的程度到哪(知己知彼咩!)
六點的起跑時間有點早,
不過目前太陽開始發威的時間越來越早了,
早點跑完也比較輕鬆.
我跟paco說今天只是輕鬆跑,
昨天真的太操了,
感覺肌肉還蠻僵硬的.
前10.5km就完全順順慢慢跑,
心跳也押在160以下.
途中還加入了百馬陪跑團跟著一起吶喊!
折返點前看到越來越多人,
心裡就有點癢了.
一過折返,
馬上跟paco說準備加速了.
心跳直接拉到180bmp左右.
一路輾啊輾,
paco在某個水站後就不知道掉到哪去了.
而我仗著心跳還可以負荷,
腳也熱開了.
繼續加速.
直到進入了最後5km,
日照,缺水,乳酸.
這三項一起進攻.
不得不將速度慢了下來,
看到手錶的時間100min已經不可能了.
索性就慢一點吧.
最後500m也沒什麼力氣衝刺.
以105min收場.
會後還遇到了大學的同學"紅毛".
昨天剛比完國防大學鐵人二項.
今天又跑來跑半馬,
實在太操了!
這次的半馬,
讓我感到自己的配速很弱,
跑步不比騎車,
騎車隨時可以看到目前的速度心率.
所以跑步配速反而變的很難,
有經驗的跑者在多年的練習下可以準確知道目前的配速,
但我目前對配速還是十分陌生.
這是我在慢跑這項還需要加強的點.
星期六, 4月 11, 2009
[練車]爆很大,爆不用錢!
Route : 中和->石碇->106->雙溪->福隆->舊草嶺隧道->頭城->北宜->中和Dist： 161km
Time： 5hr57min
今年隊上報花東的人不少,
但也許大家自主訓練慣了.
比賽前夕到沒有任何團騎?
索性發起這路線讓大家陪陪我練習.
報名的人不少,
嘴砲沒出現的也有(casati, paco, icq).
開拔沒多久小葉就慢慢默默的離我們遠去.
而我們後面四個則不亦樂乎的討論licker新歡.
上姑娘廟之後我也拉點速度往前試圖追小葉,
這一路就是到了柑腳才遇到他.
之後小葉就爆走了,
一路拉速度,
我的心跳也慢慢,慢慢,慢慢的升到170bpm up(平路耶!)
不一會兒就到了福隆7-11.
等了一根半餅乾的時間,
油貓三人也到了.
嘻嘻哈哈一下,
我跟小葉繼續往前,
licker急著回家見新歡所以也拋下我們跟油貓德明跑了.
太陽總算露臉,不過我們兩人馬上鑽進舊草嶺隧道.
涼爽的空氣,配合上陣陣的舊火車音樂,
不時還會有"丟丟銅"的歌曲傳來.
早上九點的隧道可以不用擔心其他單車孜意的前進.
又可以避開濱海的熱氣跟砂石車廢氣.
好地方!
接回濱海後,
小葉趁著順風
又爆走了起來.
這次爆更大,
因為高溫,
心跳一舉拉到接近180bmp.
看著小葉始終在我前方20m處,
我就是沒有勇氣追上去.
深怕會激起小葉更大的鬥志,
速度又拉更高了,
這種無限循環我可受不了.
頭城7-11稍作休息,
九點半的太陽炙熱的曬著我們.
不過看到北宜上方的雲氣,
我可以很肯定的說,
撐到頂後,
絕對是陰天,
但是不會下雨,
上北宜前看到了幾輛法拉利,
還有一台上掀式的,
隨後又跟著一台野馬(美式肌肉車阿!)
小葉這時候說了"剛剛似乎衝太猛,感覺等下爬坡會爆掉"
這傢伙總算說點人話了.
話一結束,
他隨即拉高迴轉將速度拉到20以上.
這!這!這! 老師沒說不能講騙話嗎?
好在過幾個彎後,
小葉似乎是太久沒來北宜,
太留戀沿途的景色,
所以速度就慢了下來.
我當然是趁人之危(?)的趁機拉大我們之前的距離,
要風光只能趁現在囉!
前段的平路果然造成了傷害,
左股四頭在不斷的出力後,
有越來越緊,越來越硬的感覺.
這可不能兒戲阿,
趕緊降檔拉回轉.
撐啊撐的攻頂.
滑啊滑的到坪林.
這邊果然是車友急散地,
一團一團的人都在這裡休息補給,
突然間,
一位登山車騎士停了下來,
好面熟阿,
這不是我元旦南下取暖時遇到的桃園車友阿B嗎?
打個招呼後知道他是來陪騎環島的,
陪到礁溪後就快快樂樂的坐車回家.
兩人敘了點舊,元旦那種鬼天氣一起南下的革命情懷可不是那麼容易割捨的阿.
(阿B,今天的照片記得寄給我啊!簡介裡有信箱!)
簡單道別後轉往最後的爬坡.
沒力!真的沒力了!
不想太多,
就順順騎完吧,
不過騎一騎看到一個人超車,
超車不打緊,
居然後是用那種快我們一些的速度,
擺明就是欺負我們沒力.
受不了啦,
追上去,
不過身體很誠實的就是踩不太動.
追擊的途中經過某個大坡,
那時我正在抽車,
一台小綿羊從對象要殺彎,
不知道是我抽車姿勢太醜嚇到人家還是怎樣?
那太機車跟我交會之後,
咖拉咖啦的就摔了,
好在兩個人看起來都沒事.
繼續追擊,
仍然沒力.
接近風漏嘴時才發現原來他只差我不到100m了.
整個北宜都在疲軟的小葉,
也許是打定主意要搭捷運回家.
下坡衝的跟什麼一樣.
技巧不如人的我只好眼睜睜的又看他離我遠去.
其實也小葉目前的狀況,
在M25拿前十我覺得很有機會,
但配速這點可以更精進,
才不會像今天這樣提早爆掉.
回家後做了簡易的轉換練習,
太陽真是烈啊,
夏天, 真的要來了!
星期六, 4月 04, 2009
[練習]三月桂花香
一早輕鬆的爬完北宜坪林折返,原先是打定主意原路下市區,
但掃墓的車潮,
讓我和licker都頗擔心交通狀況.
索性從北47下滑,
北47下滑約2km處,
整條路上充滿著桂花香氣.
令人心曠神怡.
雖然只有短短一段,
卻將北47點綴的更臻完美.
=============================
植物名稱:桂花樹
科別:木犀屬科
學名:Osmanthus fragrans
英文名:Osmanthus
別稱:木犀.銀桂.九里香.巖桂
原產地:亞洲.太平洋諸島.中國.北美洲
花期:全年,秋季最盛開
=============================
接近2/3時迎面而來的正是新婚的Mark&Elsa.
匆匆(衝衝)的擦車(身)而過.
來不及向他們祝賀只能大喊名字以示祝福囉!!
在這祝福MarK&Elsa"白頭偕老,婚姻美滿"
回到家後,
簡單換裝,
跑向操場.
進行二鐵轉換練習,
九點多的高溫,
剛起跑心跳就拉到180以上.
腳傷還不確定好了沒.
只敢慢慢的前進.
遮陽帽拉到最低.
以躲避艷陽直射.
同時還有一位身穿繡著國旗運動外套的跑者在練跑.
穩定的速度加上不時看錶.
明顯的是個練家子.
我手上那包Energy-in,
每800m就小吸一口.
以前都沒發現,
原來Energy-in的化學味這麼重.
草草跑完既定行程趕緊回家休息.
星期三, 4月 01, 2009
Crank arm lengths for tri
One question I do not get in the never-ending quest by readers to wrest every scintilla of speed out of themselves and their machines is what length crank should I ride?
At first blush, the answer seems to be it doesn't much matter. But let's look a little further, because I think it does matter. Further, the answer is counterintuitive, as is often the case in this milieu.
Jim Martin is a cycliing enthusiast, a bicycle racer, holds a PhD in exercise science and an undergrad degree in mechanical engineering. He's a professor at the University of Utah and is as august an academic on the subject of crank length as anyone. The conclusion of his investigations is that it's hard to quantify a difference in efficiency between cranks lengths of 145mm and 195mm, regardless of a rider's heights. So why sweat it?
Crank lengths have been a topic of investigation for Velo News' tech editor Lennard Zinn for 15 years, and he's written, rewritten, recast and self-edited many times over the years, probably most notably in a long reply to a Velo News letter to the editor in 2003.
At first blush, the answer seems to be it doesn't much matter. But let's look a little further, because I think it does matter. Further, the answer is counterintuitive, as is often the case in this milieu.
Jim Martin is a cycliing enthusiast, a bicycle racer, holds a PhD in exercise science and an undergrad degree in mechanical engineering. He's a professor at the University of Utah and is as august an academic on the subject of crank length as anyone. The conclusion of his investigations is that it's hard to quantify a difference in efficiency between cranks lengths of 145mm and 195mm, regardless of a rider's heights. So why sweat it?
Crank lengths have been a topic of investigation for Velo News' tech editor Lennard Zinn for 15 years, and he's written, rewritten, recast and self-edited many times over the years, probably most notably in a long reply to a Velo News letter to the editor in 2003.
Therein he references an elegant formula for crank length published by Kirby Palm in which .216 X inseam is posited. So, if you have an inseam of 32", that's 813mm X .216 = 175mm crank arms. Lennard himself, at least as of 2003, prefers .21 X inseam, yielding in the case above 170mm cranks.
These are two of several such formulae. Others are Bernard Hinault's 28.4% of knee to trunk, and then just 10% of your height.
You'll notice a large variance in crankarm lengths if you use formulae built strictly on the notion of proportionality. Crankarms from 150mm to 195mm appear appropriate for riders ranging between 28" and 36" inseams. A formula like this intuitively flows from the notion of proportionality, and the fact that these cranks are not spec'd on bikes is probably more a result of fear of SKUs-run-amok by crank and bike manufacturers than by anything more rational. Anyone who's spectated bike makers trying to explain why they don't use 650c wheels on their smaller-sized bikes understand the mindset.
But there are detractors, notably Edward Zimmerman, who moderates proportionality based on factors such as the knee stress at the top of the stoke just when power is applied.
These are two of several such formulae. Others are Bernard Hinault's 28.4% of knee to trunk, and then just 10% of your height.
You'll notice a large variance in crankarm lengths if you use formulae built strictly on the notion of proportionality. Crankarms from 150mm to 195mm appear appropriate for riders ranging between 28" and 36" inseams. A formula like this intuitively flows from the notion of proportionality, and the fact that these cranks are not spec'd on bikes is probably more a result of fear of SKUs-run-amok by crank and bike manufacturers than by anything more rational. Anyone who's spectated bike makers trying to explain why they don't use 650c wheels on their smaller-sized bikes understand the mindset.
But there are detractors, notably Edward Zimmerman, who moderates proportionality based on factors such as the knee stress at the top of the stoke just when power is applied.
You'll note while reading most of these folks that they make mention of the use of longer cranks during timed race events. Zimmerman relates that, for time-trials and mountain stages it is not uncommon for elite cyclists to adopt longer cranks. Indurian, for example used 180mm cranks in time trials instead of his 175mm. Kirby Palm offers this: In time trialing, a slightly longer crank may also be beneficial. It allows optimum performance at a lower cadence, which by itself may seem helpful.
What I have failed to see, from the analysis of those listed above, is anything above a cursory sentence on the importance of the hip angle at top dead center, and how this question impacts the choice of crank length. More and more TT/Tri fitters—whose jobs are finding the appropriate bike positions of their charges—are focusing on this particular ergonomic metric: acute hip angle.
Kirby Palm may be onto something with his crank length formula, but he falls prey to two urban myths in the same sentence: that time trialing with a longer crank, and with a lower cadence, are each desirable things. Zimmerman notes, without refutation or commentary, that longer cranks are chosen in both mountain and time trial events, as if these specialties have a kinship requiring parallel technologies or techniques.
What I have failed to see, from the analysis of those listed above, is anything above a cursory sentence on the importance of the hip angle at top dead center, and how this question impacts the choice of crank length. More and more TT/Tri fitters—whose jobs are finding the appropriate bike positions of their charges—are focusing on this particular ergonomic metric: acute hip angle.
Kirby Palm may be onto something with his crank length formula, but he falls prey to two urban myths in the same sentence: that time trialing with a longer crank, and with a lower cadence, are each desirable things. Zimmerman notes, without refutation or commentary, that longer cranks are chosen in both mountain and time trial events, as if these specialties have a kinship requiring parallel technologies or techniques.
Most cyclists, whether road or tri, are cognizant of that pinched feeling at the top of the pedal stroke, if the back is too flat, or the saddle too far arears. Just as a half-squat is easier than a full-squat, commencing hip and knee extension is hard when levers are not allowed to function at a mechanical advantage. For this reason, aerobars that are too low create an environment in which power is lost.
Lengthening a crankarm creates problems for a timed racer. If you add 2.5mm to a crank's length, you lower your saddle that same 2.5mm to preserve your knee angle at bottom dead center, roughly 145° of included angle. At top dead center, then, that pedal axle is now 2.5mm closer to the torso, plus another 2.5mm, because that crank now sits 2.5mm higher above the BB axle. So, for every increment you lengthen the crank, your knee is double that increment closer to your torso as you start to apply power to the pedals at top dead center.
Your "closed hip angle," that is, your hip angle at top dead center, is probably between 46° and 52°, depending on your chosen landmarks, but this range is what you'll get using the trochanter as the angle's fulcrum, extending to the center of the knee, and to the acromion (shoulder bone). Our F.I.S.T. protocol measures open hip angle, or more precisely a proxy of it, and centers around 100°. In either case, in order to perserve these hip angles, the armrest drop—that vertical measure between the top of the saddle and the top of the armrest—must be increased by 5mm if the crank is lengthened by 2.5mm. This works against the athlete if he's trying to choose the most aerodynamic position available to him.
Lengthening a crankarm creates problems for a timed racer. If you add 2.5mm to a crank's length, you lower your saddle that same 2.5mm to preserve your knee angle at bottom dead center, roughly 145° of included angle. At top dead center, then, that pedal axle is now 2.5mm closer to the torso, plus another 2.5mm, because that crank now sits 2.5mm higher above the BB axle. So, for every increment you lengthen the crank, your knee is double that increment closer to your torso as you start to apply power to the pedals at top dead center.
Your "closed hip angle," that is, your hip angle at top dead center, is probably between 46° and 52°, depending on your chosen landmarks, but this range is what you'll get using the trochanter as the angle's fulcrum, extending to the center of the knee, and to the acromion (shoulder bone). Our F.I.S.T. protocol measures open hip angle, or more precisely a proxy of it, and centers around 100°. In either case, in order to perserve these hip angles, the armrest drop—that vertical measure between the top of the saddle and the top of the armrest—must be increased by 5mm if the crank is lengthened by 2.5mm. This works against the athlete if he's trying to choose the most aerodynamic position available to him.
Furthermore, if events over the last decade are instructional, cadences are not trending lower in timed events, rather in the other direction. Perhaps a starting point for a discussion on cadence might be to posit the following: ride with a cadence equal to your functional threshold power + 5 beats. So, an Ironman ride at 80% of FTP might be ridden at 85bpm (beats per minute), and a 40k TT might be ridden at 98% FTP, or 103bpm. If you think this a high cadence, remember that only once since the 1960s has a world hour record been set at a cadence below 100.
But this would be just a starting point for what might be a further analysis into your perfect cadence, taking into consideration your morphology, your height, conditioning, fiber type, and so forth. My hope is not to segue into a discussion of perfect cadence, rather my points are two: that cadences in the timed events, at the highest levels of bike racing (where efforts rarely last more than an hour), are rarely observed below 90rpm and are often above 100rpm; and that cadences trend higher as the event grows shorter or, to put it another way, cadences go up as effort goes up.
You might add a third element that tracks up or down with cadence and effort: seat angle. If you consider just flat terrain, whether in a mass start event or in a timed event, as the effort goes up, the trunk moves forward—when Phil and Paul are describing the rider as "on the rivet" they're not talking about the rear rivet.
But this would be just a starting point for what might be a further analysis into your perfect cadence, taking into consideration your morphology, your height, conditioning, fiber type, and so forth. My hope is not to segue into a discussion of perfect cadence, rather my points are two: that cadences in the timed events, at the highest levels of bike racing (where efforts rarely last more than an hour), are rarely observed below 90rpm and are often above 100rpm; and that cadences trend higher as the event grows shorter or, to put it another way, cadences go up as effort goes up.
You might add a third element that tracks up or down with cadence and effort: seat angle. If you consider just flat terrain, whether in a mass start event or in a timed event, as the effort goes up, the trunk moves forward—when Phil and Paul are describing the rider as "on the rivet" they're not talking about the rear rivet.
Why is this important? Because timed events, and triathlons, are not ridden with intervals of sitting up, riding easily—at least not by those who're in contention. Accordingly, saddles are forward, trunks are forward, backs are flat, and cadences are elevated. If you keep or make a crank arm short, an incrementally higher cadence is required to offset the lower torque generated by the shorter lever. But a higher cadence seems not only justified, but required, by timed racing. Alternatively, a longer crank arm is incrementally harder to spin at that higher cadence, all things equal. In other words, there is an elegant confluence with shorter cranks and higher cadences in timed racing; these elements are not in conflict, rather they complement each other.
This is not to suggest longer crank arms are not desirable, rather to say that longer crank arms do not dovetail nicely with the notion of flat backs; small frontal profiles; and closed hip angles that allow for appropriate leverage at the beginning of the power phase of the pedal stroke—especially if riding a faster cadence is a required element.
What both Jordan Rapp (my F.I.S.T. workshop "lieutenant" and one of triathlon's top cyclists) and I, in our n=2 experiment, have discovered is that we pair of 6'2" riders have found that 172.5mm cranks seem most appropriate for our own timed racing efforts. What I don't know is what my best crank arm length is for road riding. I rather think it depends on the specialty. For example, criterium riding is a lot more like timed racing than like, say, long ascents. My flat-back, on-the-rivet, hands-in-the-drops try like hell to keep the elastic from snapping seated sprint out of a corner is pretty much identical to my TT position, just that I don't have amrests under my elbows. Indeed, my closed hip angle in this position is 48°, identical to this angle in my TT position, as determined by a Retul motion capture analysis.
This is not to suggest longer crank arms are not desirable, rather to say that longer crank arms do not dovetail nicely with the notion of flat backs; small frontal profiles; and closed hip angles that allow for appropriate leverage at the beginning of the power phase of the pedal stroke—especially if riding a faster cadence is a required element.
What both Jordan Rapp (my F.I.S.T. workshop "lieutenant" and one of triathlon's top cyclists) and I, in our n=2 experiment, have discovered is that we pair of 6'2" riders have found that 172.5mm cranks seem most appropriate for our own timed racing efforts. What I don't know is what my best crank arm length is for road riding. I rather think it depends on the specialty. For example, criterium riding is a lot more like timed racing than like, say, long ascents. My flat-back, on-the-rivet, hands-in-the-drops try like hell to keep the elastic from snapping seated sprint out of a corner is pretty much identical to my TT position, just that I don't have amrests under my elbows. Indeed, my closed hip angle in this position is 48°, identical to this angle in my TT position, as determined by a Retul motion capture analysis.
But while seated climbing my closed hip angle is about 5° more open, if it's a 6% or 7% climb we're talking about. And, during out-of-the-saddle climbing I've long thought a much longer crank would be more appropriate, both for the lower cadences most of us use out of the saddle, and for the sake of best balance aboard the bike.
So I cannot give you, as of this writing, an amount triathletes and time trialists should shorten their cranks versus what they'd use on their road race bikes because, even though I've been riding and occasionally racing road race bikes for 30 years, I've only just begun to think about whether my best crank length while climbing is really 175mm.
But what I can at least tell you is, regardless of what crank you ride on your road race bikes, and irrespective of the nature of your typical road riding session, your best time trial or triathlon crank length is certainly not longer—rather it's shorter—than what you'll use on your road bike.
Were I a product manager spec'ing cranks on my size run of TT/Tri bikes, I'd certainly start with cranks no longer than 165mm, and these would go on everything 50cm and below. I'd then add 2.5mm, which means finding the elusive 167.5mm lengths, every 3cm or 4cm worth of bike size increase, ending with 172.5mm on sizes 60cm down to 57cm, and 175mm arms on bikes only above 60cm in height.
This would dovetail with the smaller gears on these bikes required to ride the faster cadences, which advocates for 110mm bolt pattern cranks spec'd OE with 34x50 and 36x50 chain rings. Sadly, none of this sort of drive train spec is very often found on OE tri bikes these days.
So I cannot give you, as of this writing, an amount triathletes and time trialists should shorten their cranks versus what they'd use on their road race bikes because, even though I've been riding and occasionally racing road race bikes for 30 years, I've only just begun to think about whether my best crank length while climbing is really 175mm.
But what I can at least tell you is, regardless of what crank you ride on your road race bikes, and irrespective of the nature of your typical road riding session, your best time trial or triathlon crank length is certainly not longer—rather it's shorter—than what you'll use on your road bike.
Were I a product manager spec'ing cranks on my size run of TT/Tri bikes, I'd certainly start with cranks no longer than 165mm, and these would go on everything 50cm and below. I'd then add 2.5mm, which means finding the elusive 167.5mm lengths, every 3cm or 4cm worth of bike size increase, ending with 172.5mm on sizes 60cm down to 57cm, and 175mm arms on bikes only above 60cm in height.
This would dovetail with the smaller gears on these bikes required to ride the faster cadences, which advocates for 110mm bolt pattern cranks spec'd OE with 34x50 and 36x50 chain rings. Sadly, none of this sort of drive train spec is very often found on OE tri bikes these days.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
