Danger to yourself and others
Mike Willcox
Posts: 1,770
According to Rob Sallnow if you ride your bike and focus on training you are a danger to yourself and others.
What do you think?
What do you think?
0
Comments
-
:?0
-
Did he just mean you, Mike, or in general?
A ridiculous statement, but then again what do you expect from a guy who says "I'd rather walk than use Shimano"? Well, I'd rather ride my bike than worry about what fking groupset I've got on my bike, but there you go.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I don't understand what he means - what does 'focus on training' mean ?
Does he mean placing most of the emphasis on training, rather than other types of riding like leisure, fun, commuting, etc ?
- surely not.
Or does he mean riding so hard that you're oblivious to your surroundings, other road users, etc ?
- if he means this, then self-evidently it's dangerous.
But that's true whether training, or competing in a race/TT/whatever.
It might be safe on a turbo, but not on any road.0 -
andy_wrx wrote:- if he means this, then self-evidently it's dangerous.
But that's true whether training, or competing in a race/TT/whatever.
Sounds like justification for banning road racing and time trialling from public roads. I haven't done many TTs myself but I've seen quite a few risks taken by racers, especially at roundabouts.0 -
No, I wouldn't say that, just that you mustn't be so absorbed/focussed/pumped-up that you are completely oblivious to whatever's going on.
TT'ing is dangerous - I thought so when that tractor with a metal spikey harrowy-type thing on the back pulled-out right in front of me when I was doing 25-30mph on the 'bars : limited steering and no brakes, oo-err :shock:0 -
It's ridiculous since riding a bike under any circumstances is dangerous (hell I know!), but then so is driving a car, being a pedestrian, flying in a space shuttle....
If you are dumb and take dumb risks, anything is dangerous.
I don't think that is confined to those who are training. It could be equally argued that those who train are more likely to be experienced and less likely to be a danger.
Let's all wrap ourselves up in cotton wool and go back to bed - except we might self ignite!0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:I
[snip]
except we might self ignite!
I've often worried that Mike might do exactly that ;-)0 -
I believe in these cases, the appropriate response is "ROTFL"... Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote: I believe in these cases, the appropriate response is "ROTFL"...
I'm still laughing at the power calculator and basking in the glory of power comparisons rather than the aero bike produced fast times of today.
I've worked out that for my best times the power outage was as follows: -
10 miles 525 watts
25 miles 435 watts
50 miles 390 watts
100 miles 330 watts.
It makes the 300 watt club for 20 minutes look a bit tame don't you think? You're so right that with that sort of power self combust is very likely.
What do you think DaveyL and Andrew Turnbull?0 -
I think you're a slave to Watts.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
Whats all this wattage waffle? And how can you measure your output without spending millions of pounds on power meters?!
My girlfriend is getting concerned about me as she walked in on me doing one legged turbo training with a rather confused look on her face! :roll:It's all good.0 -
Mike is talking about this calculator:Adamskii wrote:Whats all this wattage waffle? And how can you measure your output without spending millions of pounds on power meters?!
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
You can estimate average power based on time trial times, BUT it's accuracy is a bit suspect.0 -
Interesting. I've had a quick look and I would agree that accuracy of results may be a bit suspect but I'm sure it's already been discussed.It's all good.0
-
Bronzie wrote:
Mike is talking about this calculator:Adamskii wrote:Whats all this wattage waffle? And how can you measure your output without spending millions of pounds on power meters?!
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
You can estimate average power based on time trial times, BUT it's accuracy is a bit suspect.
I thought that.
I think that if you used basic 32 spoke wheels you could probably add up to 5% more power on to my figures. 0 -
Mike Willcox wrote:DaveyL wrote: I believe in these cases, the appropriate response is "ROTFL"...
I'm still laughing at the power calculator and basking in the glory of power comparisons rather than the aero bike produced fast times of today.
I've worked out that for my best times the power outage was as follows: -
10 miles 525 watts
25 miles 435 watts
50 miles 390 watts
100 miles 330 watts.
It makes the 300 watt club for 20 minutes look a bit tame don't you think? You're so right that with that sort of power self combust is very likely.
What do you think DaveyL and Andrew Turnbull?
Hi Mike.
How you doing these days? Are you back racing?
I think the kreuzotter calculator overestimates cda values. Especially if you were a triallist in the 80s. I'm guessing you spent a lot of time working on holding a low position on the drops. I've seen photos of Dave Lloyd from that era, and his position looked very painful!
If you could hold a good low position with a flat back on the drops then your drag figures would be a good deal lower than what kreuzotter estimates for the average joe riding around on the drops.
Even using the 'Triathlon Bicycle' position settings it over-estimates. The only time I borrowed a power meter for a time trial I averaged 320w for a mid-21 10m TT. The kreuzotter calculator would have me doing 350w, and thats assuming it was a completely calm day - which it wasn't.
Thanks for asking!
Cheers, Andy
ps In answer to the original post, yes I believe I am a danger to myself! I have eventually figured out that I am a compulsive/obsessive... My obsession needs to have a focus and for the last 10 years it's been sport. When I was younger I was into less healthy obsessions and compulsions, so I guess this is the lesser of available evils!0 -
Mike Willcox wrote:DaveyL wrote: I believe in these cases, the appropriate response is "ROTFL"...
I'm still laughing at the power calculator and basking in the glory of power comparisons rather than the aero bike produced fast times of today.
I've worked out that for my best times the power outage was as follows: -
10 miles 525 watts
25 miles 435 watts
50 miles 390 watts
100 miles 330 watts.
It makes the 300 watt club for 20 minutes look a bit tame don't you think? You're so right that with that sort of power self combust is very likely.
What do you think DaveyL and Andrew Turnbull?
Not from where I'm sat....300 watts for a 25 is as good as Ive got, and a pathetic 217 for the 100!
OK I'm giving up and selling my bike now....then again I've managed about 720w flat out for a lap of the velodrome, does that win any prizes?
0 -
Hi Andy
If I remain on track I'll start racing late April or early May. There is a small matter of 300 miles a week target to get through by the end of March. Then some speed training then some racing.
I've lost all my old cycling photos through 2 divorces and many house moves but funnily enough my daughter gave me a photo album filled with photos that she had scanned from her mother's collection for my birthday the other day. There is one (blurred) photo of me racing and I'll try and get it available for you all to look at.
You'll be able to judge for yourself how aerodynamic my position is.0 -
andy_wrx wrote:No, I wouldn't say that, just that you mustn't be so absorbed/focussed/pumped-up that you are completely oblivious to whatever's going on.
TT'ing is dangerous - I thought so when that tractor with a metal spikey harrowy-type thing on the back pulled-out right in front of me when I was doing 25-30mph on the 'bars : limited steering and no brakes, oo-err :shock:
I've always been a little bit surprised that TT'ing is allowed on a public road.
Riding with due care and attention seems to me to be a reasonable burden on cyclists whatever the purpose of their ride. So if they're willing to TT with due care and attention, great. If not, not so great.0 -
For those that may be interested here is an old (blurred) photo of me racing in around 1980. You can judge for yourself how aero my position is.0 -
And your point is? (Other than - beards are always a bad idea...)Le Blaireau (1)0
-
DaveyL wrote:
And your point is? (Other than - beards are always a bad idea...)andrewgturnbull wrote:I think the kreuzotter calculator overestimates cda values. Especially if you were a triallist in the 80s. I'm guessing you spent a lot of time working on holding a low position on the drops. I've seen photos of Dave Lloyd from that era, and his position looked very painful!
If you could hold a good low position with a flat back on the drops then your drag figures would be a good deal lower than what kreuzotter estimates for the average joe riding around on the drops.
I think you can see that my position is a bog standard drop handle bars racing position. My chin isn't exactly on the handlebar stem. In any event to maintain an extreme very low racing position for events of 25 miles + is let's say difficult.
IMO it puts the whole thing into a TRUE perpsective. Riders of my era, without the benefit of modern training methods, produced just as much power if not more than current riders. Those on this forum who find it stomach churningly tough to accept this have come up with a whole catalogue of pathetic reasons to explain away what is obvious to everyone else.
As far as I am concerned it proves conclusively that if we had the TT bikes of today in when I was racing then the winning times would be the equivalent of approx 2 miph faster.0 -
You were lucky. When I were lad, we 'ad it tough..... 0
-
I'm just interested, Mike, how does a photo of you from 1980 prove that training methods have not improved in the passing years? If you still train in the same way it would be intersting to see your times now versus then to see how technology has helped or hindered your times, but if you still train in the same way you can't really know that another way is better or worse, or am I missing the point?
I think you look pretty good on the bike FWIW0 -
Training methods are probably better today. Whether they make you faster is another matter but in the past riders would go out for long rides and was all about quantity. Now people can train for a 25 by doing short sessions. This is a great benefit to many.
Every generation has its crop of brilliant riders. Mr Wilcox in his glory days would no doubt be competitive against today's top riders. The difference between riders at the top of their form is always small, a few watts here and there. But the best riders have alway been innovators.
I think new training methods can help, they might not make everyone faster but can help to make improvements and can offer sound advice, and help riders not to waste their time with empty miles.
Much of sports science is woeful, it has testing standards that would make most other scientists laugh. Controls, sample sizes and variable factors etc, a lot of sports medicine and science is flaky. But knowledge is useful and the current theories help, but like all science, it is only tentative, hypothesis based.
So perhaps it's up to us, and a maybe good coach, to interpret it all!0 -
Nature vs nurture?Le Blaireau (1)0
-
inseine wrote:I'm just interested, Mike, how does a photo of you from 1980 prove that training methods have not improved in the passing years? If you still train in the same way it would be intersting to see your times now versus then to see how technology has helped or hindered your times, but if you still train in the same way you can't really know that another way is better or worse, or am I missing the point?
I think you look pretty good on the bike FWIW
I'm 59 and had a heart attack in April 2004 and another one in June 2007. I've suffered from statin poisoning which caused muscle wastage, liver damage and severe fatigue and a number of nasty crashes. I started to ride again in August 2004 aftera break of 22 years. Before the statin poisoning manifested and my first crash in April 2005 I did 1.00.09 in my first 25 mile TT.
I've yet to reach the stage in my various come backs where I've managed to get to do any serious speed training. I'm hoping this year I will succeed to at least get that far.
You tell me. Under the circumstances what do you think would be a good time for me to achieve for a 10 mile TT and a 25 mile TT to endorse and vindicate my old skool methods.
The point of the photo is to show that my position is not an extremely low one and therefore it is reasonable to take the figures in the calculator at face value. With Andrew Turnbull's calculation no account was taken of a rear disc wheel or aero front wheel which would account for the overestimate (slight) of his power.0 -
Personally I never really went a lot faster with all the gizmos, though I was able to do good rides more often. I was never at your level, Mike, but I was also racing when you were and did 59s and 22's on 92'' fixed on a normal track bike. Years later I was doing 58's and 22's with a disc wheel, areo bars, helmet etc, so what does that prove? My best ride was a 1.58 50mile, but I've always been more of a road racer.
One thing is sure, that is that now I can still ride as a 2nd cat, better than ever I think, on half the hours I used to do and I believe it's because I do more sessions that count, but on 7 hours a week I haven't the luxury of 'gatting the miles in'.0 -
Mike Willcox wrote:DaveyL wrote: I believe in these cases, the appropriate response is "ROTFL"...
I'm still laughing at the power calculator and basking in the glory of power comparisons rather than the aero bike produced fast times of today.
I've worked out that for my best times the power outage was as follows: -
10 miles 525 watts
25 miles 435 watts
50 miles 390 watts
100 miles 330 watts.
It makes the 300 watt club for 20 minutes look a bit tame don't you think? You're so right that with that sort of power self combust is very likely.
What do you think DaveyL and Andrew Turnbull?
LOL, brilliant. Given Cancellara managed 600W for 4mins in the TOC Prologue that is some good going.
as a side note can anyone suggest a forum where i can compare my power outputs with similar riders (65Kg)? Just so i can find out if i am doing ok and what i should be aiming for. Thanks
ps. Is this the source of offence MW?0 -
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t310978.htmlMorpeth wrote:as a side note can anyone suggest a forum where i can compare my power outputs with similar riders (65Kg)? Just so i can find out if i am doing ok and what i should be aiming for. Thanks0 -
thanks. 0
