Yesterday I was scheduled to ride for 3 + hours. Up here in the Bradshaw Mountains my training courses are limited to lots of climbing, descending and tight switchbacks.
We had continuous strong winds in the range of 25 - 30 mph. Funnel those winds into mountain cuts, cliffs and ravines and you get frequent gusts in the 40+ mph range. So I drove about 40 miles south and 3,500 feet lower in elevation to train on a flatter, less dangerous surface.
The plan was to do a 50 mile out and back on Eagle Eye Road from Aguila on US 60 to Salome Road. The road quality is excellent. And there is virtually no traffic. At worst, a vehicle comes by every 30 - 45 minutes.
I used my Bacchetta Ti Aero recumbent bike, as I typically do for training rides. As well, I recently bought a rear Zipp wheel with a Power Tap.
On the return leg of the training ride, with 12 miles to go, I noticed the rear tire getting `soft.' A very slow leak. I'm guessing it was a `pinch flat' as I crossed a particularly rough cattle guard early on.
Here is how I discovered what I had done wrong.
Zipp wheels are notorious for being hard for mounting tires. Worse, wire beaded tires are harder to mount on a wheel than `foldable' tires. Even worse, Conti wire bead Hard Shell Gatorskin tires mounted on a Zipp wheel ... you're lookin' for trouble if you get a flat.
It was a bitch getting the tire off the wheel. Because the rear wheel is a Zipp I use tubes with 80 mm valve stems. I carried two extra tubes. I punctured both tubes trying to get them on the Zipp wheel, under the Conti Gatorskin.
There I was. 4pm in the middle of the desolate Arizona desert with a flat that could not be fixed, 12 miles of empty desert from anybody or anything.
I wound up stuffing desert shrubbery (twicks, sticks, grass, dried out cattle dung) into the tire. That gave me sufficient `filler' in the tire to limp back at 9 - 10 mph.
The Lessons:
1. Don't ride the empty desert with fancy wheels;
2. Don't use fancy wire bead tires on the Zipp;
3. Think this stuff through before blithely heading off into a location with no resources.
While I was `limping' home on my spongey rear tire a total of 3 vehicles passed me. My life wasn't at risk but I placed myself in great risk of discomfort.
Part of the interest I have in cycling `out here' has to do with the challenge of difficult situations.
I'm fortunate to find meaning in adversity and problems. But I have to do more thinking.
Pages
▼
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
The `Almost' Perfect Course for DF / Recumbent Competition
DF (diamond frame) / upright / standard bikes are faster than recumbent bikes when climbing.
(Sellers of recumbent bikes will differ in the same way Pope Urban VIII differed with Galileo in the 17th century about whether or not the sun revolved around the earth. So be it.)
All things being equal (bike weight, cyclist weight and fitness) physics favors DF bikes in climbing.
DF cyclists are advantaged over recumbent cyclists in climbing for one simple reason: they can get out of the saddle, drop (dead weight plus gravity) their entire weight on each pedal stroke, pull up on the handlebar. This allows them to gain wattage / power at less physical cost.
Recumbent cyclists are disadvantaged over DF cyclists in climbing because they can't drop dead weight onto the pedal. All forward motion is generated exclusively by physical muscle, with no help from gravity.
---
On the `right' course a recumbent cyclist would be able to sustain continuous muscle power on a climb for a short enough time so that depletion, exhaustion and fatigue do not fully occur.
On the `right' course the steep climbs (5% +) are short in distance. (Without the advantage of dropping dead weight on a pedal the steeper the climb the slower the recumbent: fact).
On the `right' course the steep descents (6% +) are short enough so that simple aerodynamics don't favor recumbents, i.e., a skilled DF rider can descend as fast (or, almost as fast) as a recumbent. (The steeper the descent the more the recumbent is advantaged by simple aerodynamics).
On the `right' course there are limited `flat' miles where the aerodynamic advantage of recumbents is unquestioned. (`Unquestioned,' at least by those who are not 17th century `faith-based' cyclists or sellers of recumbent bikes).
---
This is the `almost' perfect course for DF / recumbent competition:
The Skull Valley Loop Challenge
But I doubt that there will ever be an apples to apples DF / recumbent competition on this course.
Why?
Why do I say `almost?'
(Sellers of recumbent bikes will differ in the same way Pope Urban VIII differed with Galileo in the 17th century about whether or not the sun revolved around the earth. So be it.)
All things being equal (bike weight, cyclist weight and fitness) physics favors DF bikes in climbing.
DF cyclists are advantaged over recumbent cyclists in climbing for one simple reason: they can get out of the saddle, drop (dead weight plus gravity) their entire weight on each pedal stroke, pull up on the handlebar. This allows them to gain wattage / power at less physical cost.
Recumbent cyclists are disadvantaged over DF cyclists in climbing because they can't drop dead weight onto the pedal. All forward motion is generated exclusively by physical muscle, with no help from gravity.
---
On the `right' course a recumbent cyclist would be able to sustain continuous muscle power on a climb for a short enough time so that depletion, exhaustion and fatigue do not fully occur.
On the `right' course the steep climbs (5% +) are short in distance. (Without the advantage of dropping dead weight on a pedal the steeper the climb the slower the recumbent: fact).
On the `right' course the steep descents (6% +) are short enough so that simple aerodynamics don't favor recumbents, i.e., a skilled DF rider can descend as fast (or, almost as fast) as a recumbent. (The steeper the descent the more the recumbent is advantaged by simple aerodynamics).
On the `right' course there are limited `flat' miles where the aerodynamic advantage of recumbents is unquestioned. (`Unquestioned,' at least by those who are not 17th century `faith-based' cyclists or sellers of recumbent bikes).
---
This is the `almost' perfect course for DF / recumbent competition:
The Skull Valley Loop Challenge
But I doubt that there will ever be an apples to apples DF / recumbent competition on this course.
Why?
- Because recumbent cyclists don't train for fast competition on hills.
- Because DF cyclists do train for fast competition on hills.
Why do I say `almost?'
- Because ... DF cyclists are advantaged over recumbent cyclists for one simple reason. (See above).
Sunday, March 23, 2014
My First `Double Century': Joshua Tree 2014
This was my first formal `double century’ and I was curious how this might be different from brevets and other ultra events. So far as I can tell the difference must be in the number of people (164 for the JTDC14) and the many, many SAG stops (9).
Anny Beck, the event organizer, warned us many times in emails to be prepared for anything. So: a 3-liter camelback under the seat; two 24 oz bottles of liquid fuel; spare foldable tire; two tubes; cartridges, pump, tools; arm warmers and wind vest. A veritable `ton’ of weight.
Also, typically recumbents don’t form pacelines or echelons … because there usually aren’t enough of us in any event to do so.
I don’t mind taking pulls on an upright paceline but, as most uprights admit, they don’t get much draft from a recumbent. And I refuse to draft behind a paceline if I can’t `pay my way’ with pulling.
So … I rode the JTDC14 entirely alone. Didn’t recognize a soul.
Brutal wind. So many times as I was cranking uphill (2-5% grade) for hour after mile after hour I recalled what a fellow cyclist said at dinner the night before: “The worst for me is long, straight, 2% grades without any letup.” And I was thinking: “Jim must be hating this!”
It is exactly 27 miles of unrelenting 2-5% uphill grades from Desert City to Sag 7, 144.7 miles into 200 mile ride. North into a stiff 15-20 mph headwind. Midday. Intense, cloudless sky, beating sun.
Climbing doesn’t bother me, living in Prescott, AZ, as I do. I had done an out and back 90 miles from Prescott to Congress and back two days earlier. About 8,500 feet of climbing. And the tame 3%’ers put me into my usual `grind and bear it’ mode. 650,000 feet of climbing on a recumbent every year has a way of preparing you for hills.
All the upright / standard cyclists had formed protective pacelines of 5 – 9 riders, reducing the intense force of the wind. I felt sorry for myself. And … ANGRY, too. That 27 mile section is where I wasted myself (“burned all my matches”), becoming empty and hopeless by the time I got to SAG 7.
I was ANGRY that I was being passed by so many packs of upright cyclists! Anger got the better part of me and I decided to chase down every rider ahead of me and watch them getting smaller and smaller behind me in my mirror.
There is a `wind’ advantage to the recumbents. And as long as the grade is in the 2-3% range a fairly fit bent rider can hold his/her own. By the time I got to SAG 7 … I was barely able to walk straight.
I wear sandals / SPDs so hotfoot hasn’t been an issue for me for years.
When I got to SAG 7 I tried to quit. There was a SAG van with several bikes on top and their riders inside. I asked: “Is there any room for me?” The driver (Andy) said he’d “drop off” this “load” and come back from 29 Palms to get me in about “2 hours.”
I am constitutionally unable to “wait” for anything. I told him that I’d just take off up that series of godawful hills, into the wind and into the setting sun, taking up each of the remaining 52 miles, one at a time. And if he saw me on his way back … well, honk or something.
Slow, painful grind. Mile after mile. Reaching the summit after ten miles only to find it to be a false flat, followed by another slow grind.
Started at 4:30am. Finished at 10:30pm. 18 hours at TwentyNine Palms, CA.
Unforgettable.
The final `finish’ report noted that 1 out of 4 riders starting didn’t finish.