Help me understand

[skippy254]

I've been riding seriously for a short time now and have been competing in longer distance mtb races. I am 5'8" tall and when in shape weigh about 145 lbs or so. I ride with some competitive guys who do both road and mtb equally well. For whatever reason I have really improved fitness/technique wise on the mtb but not nearly as much on the road bike.

When I first started out I suffered to keep up with the group but now I am equal to or better than all but one of them in speed on the mountain bike but I still suffer when I ride on the road with them. Most of our road rides are flatter than when we ride on the dirt and I am obviously a better climber than powering on the flats.

So my question is, that if power to weight is what makes me faster than others on the climbs, why doesn't that same power to weight transfer to the flats on the road? I can sustain the constant ups and downs on the mtb but the constant pace on the road wears me out quicker.

I also find it interesting that I might be able to ride 100 miles faster than rider "A" but tend to start fading on the 100 mile ride towards the end and rider "A" might be slower but can keep on going for another 100 miles at his same pace and grind me out. Even if I slowed down my overall pace I would eventually not be able to keep up.

Any thoughts or ideas on improving my riding or as to why this is?

Thanks..........

 

[scribe]

Do you think technical skills helps your off-road performance compared to your riding mates?

 

[Anonymous]

they are two very different things, just because you are suited to one, does not mean you are suited to another...

going back in the dark ages and remembering how i used to be, mileage, and stamina just comes with work, and practice... my first 50k run nearly killed me, my second i hung in there, the third i started to feel comfortable, and eventually my strength and stamina built up enough i could cope with it easily, then gradually it comes with longer distances.. theres also much more discipline with the road, as you can burn up energy more easily and get it very wrong...

mountain biking you are more on the technicall limit than the physical limit so it is in some ways easier to maintain it..

but they are both very very different disciplines with different skillsets, different requirements..

what do you want from riding, do you want to compete on both the road and off road, do you just want to do it for exercise and enjoyment.. which do you enjoy the most...

 

[Laszlo]

I think yours is the experience many pro riders have; some are climbers, some are not, they are flatlanders, they can TT and sprint but go backwards when the road turns up- and such is the opposite for the climbers. I think position and muscle grouping determine climbing/flat performance; it is more than a power-to-weight ratio. Smaller guys tend to climb much better than flatlanders.

 

[David Suro]

I am 6'7" and have a race weight of 188-192 lbs. I do pretty well on the flat roads since my power output is relatively high and I am experienced at using the draft to gain an advantage.

My weight makes climbing very difficult for me since my power : weight ratio is not that great.

I suffer in the trails since my techincal skills are poor and my size makes fitting through tight spaces difficult.

In response to your question, being heavy does not hinder flat road performance too much because there is no 'lifting' of the body weight up a hill or mountain. That's why riders who excel in the mountains are so light and time trialists tend to be heavier.

 

[Leopejo]

When I first started out I suffered to keep up with the group but now I am equal to or better than all but one of them in speed on the mountain bike but I still suffer when I ride on the road with them. Most of our road rides are flatter than when we ride on the dirt and I am obviously a better climber than powering on the flats.

Your weight is average, so I wouldn't say it's just power-to-weight as opposed to absolute power. I'd say it's more about technique. All the following are crucial on the flat, much less when climbing on the road or using your MTB:
- smooth pedaling with fast cadence, no grinding on the pedals
- aerodynamic (and comfortable) position on the bike
- taking full advantage of drafting, but trying to avoid the "rubberband" effect (having to accelerate and brake all the time)

There's a reason why racers train so often in groups (or pros using races as training). You don't improve as much if you train all the time alone. In addition, many pros and not pros draft behind a motorcycle for hours.

I also find it interesting that I might be able to ride 100 miles faster than rider "A" but tend to start fading on the 100 mile ride towards the end and rider "A" might be slower but can keep on going for another 100 miles at his same pace and grind me out. Even if I slowed down my overall pace I would eventually not be able to keep up.

You have some crazy cycling companions if they routinely ride those distances... Long, slow training rides would be my answer, with a special care for nutrition.

 

[skippy254]

You have some crazy cycling companions if they routinely ride those distances... Long, slow training rides would be my answer, with a special care for nutrition.

Yes, I do have some crazy cycling companions as they have completed super tough rides like the furnace creek 508 miler, RAAM qualified, and many 275 mile+ one day rides.

 

[skippy254]

Do you think technical skills helps your off-road performance compared to your riding mates?

Technique wise I am pretty decent on the MTB, and can be somewhat on the edge descending. I let it hang out. So I'm sure this plays somewhat of a roll but generally in my limited experience you seem to spend a lot more time climbing than descending so climbing is where I gain my advantage, if I have one.

 

[skippy254]

they are two very different things, just because you are suited to one, does not mean you are suited to another...

going back in the dark ages and remembering how i used to be, mileage, and stamina just comes with work, and practice... my first 50k run nearly killed me, my second i hung in there, the third i started to feel comfortable, and eventually my strength and stamina built up enough i could cope with it easily, then gradually it comes with longer distances.. theres also much more discipline with the road, as you can burn up energy more easily and get it very wrong...

mountain biking you are more on the technicall limit than the physical limit so it is in some ways easier to maintain it..

but they are both very very different disciplines with different skillsets, different requirements..

what do you want from riding, do you want to compete on both the road and off road, do you just want to do it for exercise and enjoyment.. which do you enjoy the most...

On the mountain biking technical limit/physical limit thing, I agree in some aspects with what you are saying but disagree in others if I get your meaning correctly. I believe that mountain biking requires more bike technical skills or handling ability than road biking. I believe that physically they can be just as demanding but mountain biking probably requires a more well rounded physical condition than road biking. I know that a 100 mile mountain bike ride/race is more physically demanding than road biking the same distance. But road biking skills might be fewer but more "refined".

My focus is on mountain biking but I really enjoy both. My goals are to keep doing 100 mile mtb races but to also do some long one day road rides. I would like to complete a 275 mile club ride in the next couple of years.

Interesting posts.......

 

[skippy254]

Your weight is average, so I wouldn't say it's just power-to-weight as opposed to absolute power. I'd say it's more about technique. All the following are crucial on the flat, much less when climbing on the road or using your MTB:
- smooth pedaling with fast cadence, no grinding on the pedals
- aerodynamic (and comfortable) position on the bike
- taking full advantage of drafting, but trying to avoid the "rubberband" effect (having to accelerate and brake all the time)

I probably do need to work on being more aero on the road bike as I would probably burn less energy and not fizzle out as easily.

 

[scribe]

Technique wise I am pretty decent on the MTB, and can be somewhat on the edge descending. I let it hang out. So I'm sure this plays somewhat of a roll but generally in my limited experience you seem to spend a lot more time climbing than descending so climbing is where I gain my advantage, if I have one.

I'd guess you might be more physically suited to a type of endurance that requires an erratic cadence with shorter bursts of speed. Road work is more of a continuous and grinding affair with fewer spikes of output.

 

[skippy254]

I'd guess you might be more physically suited to a type of endurance that requires an erratic cadence with shorter bursts of speed. Road work is more of a continuous and grinding affair with fewer spikes of output.

What you said seems to make a lot of sense. I'm starting to be able to wrap my wee little brain around this and the above quote seems to be very pertinent.

 

[skippy254]

I'm kind of curious how you guys discovered what your cycling niche was or is and how long it took before your lightbulb of discovery happened.

 

[cromagnon]

I am equal to or better than all but one of them in speed on the mountain bike but I still suffer when I ride on the road with them.

Most of our road rides are flatter than when we ride on the dirt and I am obviously a better climber than powering on the flats.

So my question is, that if power to weight is what makes me faster than others on the climbs, why doesn't that same power to weight transfer to the flats on the road?

Your answer is there in your question.

Your road rides are flatter, hence power to weight ratio is less of an issue.

Cyclist A

Absolute Power 300w
Weight 80 kg
Power to weight ratio 3.75 w/kg = 300/85

Cyclist B

Absolute Power 250w
Weight 60 kg
Power to weight ratio 4.1 w/kg = 250/60

Cyclist A goes faster on the flat due to a higher absolute power (given the same aerodynamics no headwind blah blah blah)

Cyclist B goes faster up hill due to a higher relative power/weight ratio.

Of course it's not just power to weight ratio for climbing and absolute power for the flat because if it's a full moon and you have gluten free bread stuffed down your shorts and you spent the off season doing nothing but ab crunches my coaches dogs breeders cousin said it makes you climb really fast.

 

[Leopejo]

Cyclist A goes faster on the flat due to a higher absolute power (given the same aerodynamics no headwind blah blah blah)

That's too much of an assumption. Rider B will have a lower frontal area and will therefore need less power to keep the same speed. This said, in comparison to climbing or MTB, a lighter rider will suffer more on the flats.

Still I'd say that it's also a matter of technique, from fluid pedaling with fast cadence to being able to draft without wasting energy. These are all factors that are crucial on the flat, while less evident while climbing.

 

[cromagnon]

People like you crack me the f*** up.

Those may be factors you mention but you throw them out without a clue how much of an effect they have. What's the expected drag coefficient at 30 mph from a frontal area difference caused by 25kg of bodyweight?

Do you have a shred of evidence about "fluid pedalling". No because the journal articles I have read state pros put most of their power down in a relatively short range of motion.

Watts per kilogram is the holy grail for the professionals but some clueless fool on some forum thinks other stuff is more important.

Ignoramus. Stop posting crap advice.

 

[Leopejo]

People like you crack me the f*** up.

Thank you.

Those may be factors you mention but you throw them out without a clue how much of an effect they have. What's the expected drag coefficient at 30 mph from a frontal area difference caused by 25kg of bodyweight?

That's easy to calculate. Go on the Wattage forum and ask them for numbers. But basically your frontal area is more or less directly proportional to your body surface area, that you can calculate from mass and height.
And tell me how Contador fared so well in time trials.

Do you have a shred of evidence about "fluid pedalling". No because the journal articles I have read state pros put most of their power down in a relatively short range of motion.

Yes. Instead of reading journal articles, ride with the pros. Ask them why they spend so many hours riding in group and using races as training.

Watts per kilogram is the holy grail for the professionals but some clueless fool on some forum thinks other stuff is more important

I take it you are referring to yourself, as you said it's absolute power that counts on the flat, while the truth is between watts and watts/kg.

Ignoramus. Stop posting crap advice.

Amen to that.

 

[skippy254]

Do you have a shred of evidence about "fluid pedalling". No because the journal articles I have read state pros put most of their power down in a relatively short range of motion.

Speaking of fluid pedaling I recently read somewhere (yes I know not being able to remember my source diminishes the info) that testing was performed on different types of cyclists to determine what group would have the most fluid/smooth/efficient (don't want to be berated for not saying it right) pedaling. The expected winner was track cyclists, but pro mountain bikers beat out everyone including roadies. The theory on why they were the smoothest pedalers was that when climbing a mountain biker has to be very smooth in applying power so that he doesn't spin out and lose traction. Food for thought.