Having crewed for the 500 this year the thought, of course, came to me as to whether or not I would consider entering the Hoodoo 500 for 2013 (mid-September).
The 500 is a `monster' race. And I mean `monster' and `race.' Forty-eight hours. Though the roads are fine there is an immense amount of (steep) and constant climbing (40,000 feet - give or take several thousand feed depending upon which device you use).
I concluded that though I could probably finish the 500 I couldn't do it as a race. I'd be very happy to consider it as a serious goal, and an exceptional accomplishment.
Just the other day my curiosity and interest has been renewed for this race, though. The race directors have announced that they will be offering two venues for the `Hoodoo.' The first option is just that, a 500 mile race (solo, team, unsupported voyageur). The second option is a 300 mile race (same categories) with a 24 hour limit. And on 300 miles of the same course as the 500 mile course.
There have NEVER been any recumbents registered for the Hoodoo 500. My conclusion is that this is the case due to the endless (many 13%ers) climbing.
I've currently ridden 4,700 miles with over 360,000 feet of climbing since Jan of 2012. I'll likely close out 2012 with over 500,000 feet of climbing (7,000 - 9,000 miles) out here in the AZ mountains. Many of these climbs have included non-stop 22+ miles of 6 - 8% (with a few 12 - 16%ers thrown in).
I'm thinking seriously about doing the Hoodoo 300 as a non-supported Voyageur. The 300 has a finish time limit of 24 hours (instead of the 48 hours for the 500). The race directors will have drop bags at 2 or 3 locations for voyageurs.
So, I'd encourage others of us to consider this otherwise frightening race for their 2013 calendar. Remember, it can be done with crew support, as a 2 - 4 person team, or as an unsupported `Voyageur.'
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Hills and Weight - ups and downs
I just finished crewing for a a friend in his solo effort to complete a 516 mile, 40,000 feet of climbing race (Hoodoo 500) in 48 hours. He is a veteran of two RAAM completions (finisher) and a finisher in two previous Hoodoo 500 races. So he had nothing to prove to anybody about his ability.
As all ultracyclists know there are `times' and then there are `times.' This year my friend experienced gastric problems that drastically reduced his ability to take in calories. As the hours of his racing wore on he took on fewer and fewer calories. Finally, after 17 hours, 247 miles and 20,000 feet of climbing he knew it was over for him. His strength and endurance were fatally impacted by the inability to consume `fuel.' (I mean, how many endlessly long 13% hills can you climb without eating?!)
It takes character and emotional resilience to be know when to stop. Even more so, it takes maturity and experience not to blame yourself for not achieving the near-impossible. And in this regard I found his wisdom and good cheer refreshing and ... motivating.
Anybody who has crewed on an ultracycling event and says that they enjoyed it gets three free psychotherapy sessions from me! Crewing is hard. It's uncomfortable. And it is extremely demanding.
My normal weight is 185. When I weighed myself after crewing it was up to 198.6 lbs. (Today, after a 55 mile 4,800 feet of climbing 4 hour training ride - very well hydrated - it was 182.6)
Why the dramatic weight gain? Water. Bowels fill up and peristalsis goes on strike. Lack of physical movement causes my body to just `absorb' to the max.
Crewing puts you in a car or van, following your racer, at an average speed of 13 mph. One of the crew is driving. Another is navigating and keeping in contact with the racer. And I was preparing the food, hydration, recording everything in 15 minute increments.
The racer doesn't stop. And neither did the crew vehicle (except to get gas, pick up ice for the cooler, some grim road food, use the facilities). And for this race (48 hour time limit) sleeping is something that may or may not happen as a crewmember.
The crew is always `alert' to the racer. If the racer tells us we're the best crew s/he's ever had a little bright light of sunshine enters our grim boring world. If the racer is vomiting, has diarrhea, is cramping ... we scour our experiences and knowledge to make it `go away.'
Me? I'd rather race than crew. Crewing is harder.
As all ultracyclists know there are `times' and then there are `times.' This year my friend experienced gastric problems that drastically reduced his ability to take in calories. As the hours of his racing wore on he took on fewer and fewer calories. Finally, after 17 hours, 247 miles and 20,000 feet of climbing he knew it was over for him. His strength and endurance were fatally impacted by the inability to consume `fuel.' (I mean, how many endlessly long 13% hills can you climb without eating?!)
It takes character and emotional resilience to be know when to stop. Even more so, it takes maturity and experience not to blame yourself for not achieving the near-impossible. And in this regard I found his wisdom and good cheer refreshing and ... motivating.
Anybody who has crewed on an ultracycling event and says that they enjoyed it gets three free psychotherapy sessions from me! Crewing is hard. It's uncomfortable. And it is extremely demanding.
My normal weight is 185. When I weighed myself after crewing it was up to 198.6 lbs. (Today, after a 55 mile 4,800 feet of climbing 4 hour training ride - very well hydrated - it was 182.6)
Why the dramatic weight gain? Water. Bowels fill up and peristalsis goes on strike. Lack of physical movement causes my body to just `absorb' to the max.
Crewing puts you in a car or van, following your racer, at an average speed of 13 mph. One of the crew is driving. Another is navigating and keeping in contact with the racer. And I was preparing the food, hydration, recording everything in 15 minute increments.
The racer doesn't stop. And neither did the crew vehicle (except to get gas, pick up ice for the cooler, some grim road food, use the facilities). And for this race (48 hour time limit) sleeping is something that may or may not happen as a crewmember.
The crew is always `alert' to the racer. If the racer tells us we're the best crew s/he's ever had a little bright light of sunshine enters our grim boring world. If the racer is vomiting, has diarrhea, is cramping ... we scour our experiences and knowledge to make it `go away.'
Me? I'd rather race than crew. Crewing is harder.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Difference between Bacchetta Ti Aero and CA2
July 31, 2012:
Saturday will see me riding from Prescott to Congress and back on the CA2. This will be the first real use of the bike through the mountain to desert and back terrain. The Ti Aero has been my steady-eddy for so long I'm wondering if there will be much sense of `difference.'
I know that there are many reading this who worship at the holy grail of the CA2 and anything Bacchetta, so I hope not to offend the true believers. It's a bike. A good one.
Aug 5, 2012:
I didn't quite get the CA2 dialed in in time for the Prescott-Congress-Prescott event yesterday. Since I swapped out the stock riser with a straight pipe riser and road stem I had some issues with securing the BFT. I contacted Bacchetta and they are sending me a certain fix. Assuming I get it (1 1/8 two bolt clamp) by the end of this week I should be able to ride the CA2 next Saturday.
So, I did the Prescott-Congress-Prescott training ride on the Ti Aero.
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/206596853
Aug 11, 2012:
I did the Prescott-Congress-Prescott circuit on the CA2 today.
The bike (CA2) is about 90% of where it should be. Had a few adjustment issues with the FD and RD at the outset but they were fixed in a few minutes. Given that the wheels are 700s the center of gravity is about 1.5" higher than on the Ti. That was interesting but I adjusted to it by the time I got to Peeples Valley.
Gearing inches. A 39/30 on a 700 wheel gets me about 13% more gear inches than on a 650. All through the course I found myself `learning' that `x' grade required not a 39/30 on the 700 but a 39/32. This was a hard lesson. On rapid ascents (after a rapid descent) I found myself over gearing, i.e., pushing too high a gear than on the 650. I think this will take some time.
Actually, with these exceptions, there isn't much difference between the ti and the carbon fiber. The `ride' is no less harsh. It goes as fast as the engine can make it. They weigh about the same.
I'm going to get a set of long reach handlebars for the new bike; just like on the ti. With a longer reach there is even better steering control; though there is no `effort' difference so far as I can tell.
I'll probably put a different set of wheels on the CA2. Lighter and more `true' than the ones I've got on it now.
So ... what is the ultimate and fundamental reason for having both the Ti Aero and the CA2? So that I can still train if one of the bikes is not operable.
Here's the Garmin for todays Prescott-Congress-Prescott on the CA2:
Saturday, Aug 11th: http://connect.garmin.com/activity/209320805
Aug 12, 2012:
Further thoughts about the difference between the Ti Aero and the CA2.
First, I'm glad I have both of them. Probably the only `bling thing' I've done in my entire life.
Then, because of my experience in both the midwest flatlands and the mountainous / desertic west I'm lucky to have something against which to compare each platform.
Next week I'm to do a 200K brevet (AZ Randonneurs - Show Low, AZ) with about 5,200 feet of climbing. Relative to my home training terrain I consider that course to be relatively sedate, though not flat. For the 200K Show Low brevet I'll use the CA2.
For terrain that includes lots of climbing I'll use the Ti Aero.
Why?
The larger 700 wheels on the CA2 give a small amount (5 - 10%) advantage on relatively even, flat terrain. Another way of putting it is that I don't need that gear inch advantage when lots of climbing is involved. The 650 Ti wheels and gearing match the demand of lower gearing, higher cadence, on the climbs. (The key, however, is to have the right climbing gearing in the first place; currently on the Ti I have a 55/39 up front and an 11/34 ten speed in back).
In mid-September I'll be doing the Skull Valley Loop Challenge (http://connect.garmin.com/activity/113716919) again. I've done this circuit many, many times since last September. I'll use the Ti Aero because of the climbing.
On November 2-3 I'll be doing a 24 hour race in Coachella, CA (http://24hrworlds.com/24/index.php?N_webcat_id=360). This is a dead-flat course where the 13% greater gear inch of the CA2 (and bike modifications to enhance aerodynamics) will be an advantage.
None of these events would amount to any fair use of either the Ti or the CA2 had it not been for the fact that I've lost 47+ lbs since July of 2011. I'm slowly losing weight (182 right now) as a consequence of not having a job and a fairly disciplined training regimen (4,400 miles and more than 350,000 feet of climbing since Jan 1 2012). Power to weight ratio rules.
Saturday will see me riding from Prescott to Congress and back on the CA2. This will be the first real use of the bike through the mountain to desert and back terrain. The Ti Aero has been my steady-eddy for so long I'm wondering if there will be much sense of `difference.'
I know that there are many reading this who worship at the holy grail of the CA2 and anything Bacchetta, so I hope not to offend the true believers. It's a bike. A good one.
Aug 5, 2012:
I didn't quite get the CA2 dialed in in time for the Prescott-Congress-Prescott event yesterday. Since I swapped out the stock riser with a straight pipe riser and road stem I had some issues with securing the BFT. I contacted Bacchetta and they are sending me a certain fix. Assuming I get it (1 1/8 two bolt clamp) by the end of this week I should be able to ride the CA2 next Saturday.
So, I did the Prescott-Congress-Prescott training ride on the Ti Aero.
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/206596853
Aug 11, 2012:
I did the Prescott-Congress-Prescott circuit on the CA2 today.
The bike (CA2) is about 90% of where it should be. Had a few adjustment issues with the FD and RD at the outset but they were fixed in a few minutes. Given that the wheels are 700s the center of gravity is about 1.5" higher than on the Ti. That was interesting but I adjusted to it by the time I got to Peeples Valley.
Gearing inches. A 39/30 on a 700 wheel gets me about 13% more gear inches than on a 650. All through the course I found myself `learning' that `x' grade required not a 39/30 on the 700 but a 39/32. This was a hard lesson. On rapid ascents (after a rapid descent) I found myself over gearing, i.e., pushing too high a gear than on the 650. I think this will take some time.
Actually, with these exceptions, there isn't much difference between the ti and the carbon fiber. The `ride' is no less harsh. It goes as fast as the engine can make it. They weigh about the same.
I'm going to get a set of long reach handlebars for the new bike; just like on the ti. With a longer reach there is even better steering control; though there is no `effort' difference so far as I can tell.
I'll probably put a different set of wheels on the CA2. Lighter and more `true' than the ones I've got on it now.
So ... what is the ultimate and fundamental reason for having both the Ti Aero and the CA2? So that I can still train if one of the bikes is not operable.
Here's the Garmin for todays Prescott-Congress-Prescott on the CA2:
Saturday, Aug 11th: http://connect.garmin.com/activity/209320805
Aug 12, 2012:
Further thoughts about the difference between the Ti Aero and the CA2.
First, I'm glad I have both of them. Probably the only `bling thing' I've done in my entire life.
Then, because of my experience in both the midwest flatlands and the mountainous / desertic west I'm lucky to have something against which to compare each platform.
Next week I'm to do a 200K brevet (AZ Randonneurs - Show Low, AZ) with about 5,200 feet of climbing. Relative to my home training terrain I consider that course to be relatively sedate, though not flat. For the 200K Show Low brevet I'll use the CA2.
For terrain that includes lots of climbing I'll use the Ti Aero.
Why?
The larger 700 wheels on the CA2 give a small amount (5 - 10%) advantage on relatively even, flat terrain. Another way of putting it is that I don't need that gear inch advantage when lots of climbing is involved. The 650 Ti wheels and gearing match the demand of lower gearing, higher cadence, on the climbs. (The key, however, is to have the right climbing gearing in the first place; currently on the Ti I have a 55/39 up front and an 11/34 ten speed in back).
In mid-September I'll be doing the Skull Valley Loop Challenge (http://connect.garmin.com/activity/113716919) again. I've done this circuit many, many times since last September. I'll use the Ti Aero because of the climbing.
On November 2-3 I'll be doing a 24 hour race in Coachella, CA (http://24hrworlds.com/24/index.php?N_webcat_id=360). This is a dead-flat course where the 13% greater gear inch of the CA2 (and bike modifications to enhance aerodynamics) will be an advantage.
None of these events would amount to any fair use of either the Ti or the CA2 had it not been for the fact that I've lost 47+ lbs since July of 2011. I'm slowly losing weight (182 right now) as a consequence of not having a job and a fairly disciplined training regimen (4,400 miles and more than 350,000 feet of climbing since Jan 1 2012). Power to weight ratio rules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)