# 58 tooth chainring?



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

Would I be mad to move from a 53 to a 58 or 60 tooth outer chainring rather than swap the rear from a 14-28 to 11-24 or so. Am after better flat and downhill speed.


----------



## Simba (14 Aug 2011)

How fast are you planning to go? 

I have a 52/42/31 crankset and 26/13 sprocket and I have gone to 42mph downhill so far and I can go faster if I want.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

Simba said:


> How fast are you planning to go?
> 
> I have a 52/42/31 crankset and 26/13 sprocket and I have gone to 42mph downhill so far and I can go faster if I want.


I spin out at around 45.7mph and struggle to get above 30mph on the flat.


----------



## fossyant (14 Aug 2011)

Not being funny, but anything bigger than 53 isn't necessary. By the time you spin out, you should be aero tucking for more speed. I've done 55 and 60 with a 53 - can't pedal any bike at that speed.

As for 30 on the flat - learn to spin more and get fitter - that's the limiting factor. I don't use more than a 53 x 13 - don't need smaller on the descents.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

fossyant said:


> Not being funny, but anything bigger than 53 isn't necessary. By the time you spin out, you should be aero tucking for more speed. I've done 55 and 60 with a 53 - can't pedal any bike at that speed.
> 
> As for 30 on the flat - learn to spin more and get fitter - that's the limiting factor. I don't use more than a 53 x 13 - don't need smaller on the descents.


Not taken as being funny I assure you. Certainly need to learn to aerotuck and will practise spinning. My rational was to take advantage of my strong legs to circumvent bad technique.


----------



## fossyant (14 Aug 2011)

Nope - learn good technique. You'll find you will ride faster as it's more efficient. Remember 80-100 rpm is ideal. You'll get fitter as road cycling is very fitness/cardio intensive.

I've just been out for a quick 26 miles on one of the road bikes, and it ended up a training run as the wind was gusty. Found I was rolling at mid to high 80's rpm on 53 x 17 and punching in some good speed at 21-23mph into the wind. That rpm is a little low for me as I usually ride fixed on a smaller gear and spin at 90-110, but the benefits of practising spinning help when faced with some resistance - wind and hills.

Stick with it as it's different to MTB'ing - you'll also benefit on the MTB with fitness !


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

fossyant said:


> Nope - learn good technique. You'll find you will ride faster as it's more efficient. Remember 80-100 rpm is ideal. You'll get fitter as road cycling is very fitness/cardio intensive.
> 
> I've just been out for a quick 26 miles on one of the road bikes, and it ended up a training run as the wind was gusty. Found I was rolling at mid to high 80's rpm on 53 x 17 and punching in some good speed at 21-23mph into the wind. That rpm is a little low for me as I usually ride fixed on a smaller gear and spin at 90-110, but the benefits of practising spinning help when faced with some resistance - wind and hills.
> 
> Stick with it as it's different to MTB'ing - you'll also benefit on the MTB with fitness !


Cheers for that. I am happy to learn and enjoy. Roll on Sunday


----------



## fossyant (14 Aug 2011)

Psst it is Sunday !


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

fossyant said:


> Psst it is Sunday !


Sorry next Sunday


----------



## colly (14 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I spin out at around 45.7mph and struggle to get* above 30mph on the flat.*



I wish ! I can do it downhill.............with the wind behind me.


----------



## gaz (14 Aug 2011)

Getting above 30 on the flat is not easy. It's a lot more about body position than gearing.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Getting above 30 on the flat is not easy. It's a lot more about body position than gearing.


Ok, thanks for that mate.


----------



## GrasB (14 Aug 2011)

When you talk about power production even the best grinders are only starting to put out their big wattages properly at around 100-110rpm marker.

This is going to sound odd but big chainrings with 700c wheels are only really useful on rolling to moderately hill terrain. If you're on flat terrain or hilly terrain then large chainrings give gears that are either too high for flat road usage or the speeds are is too high for the rider to add any useful power in a sustained manner. There's a small range in the top end of the rolling to moderately hilly where the descents are short enough to be able to meaningfully use the top end of large chainrings. At 45mph down a 7.5% hill you're looking at putting out around 650-700w by the time you're going down a 10% hill it's into negative numbers. Once you've hit 50mph full on sprint wattages are producing 2 or 3 mph gains!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

GrasB said:


> When you talk about power production even the best grinders are only starting to put out their big wattages properly at around 100-110rpm marker.
> 
> This is going to sound odd but big chainrings with 700c wheels are only really useful on rolling to moderately hill terrain. If you're on flat terrain or hilly terrain then large chainrings give gears that are either too high for flat road usage or the speeds are is too high for the rider to add any useful power in a sustained manner. There's a small range in the top end of the rolling to moderately hilly where the descents are short enough to be able to meaningfully use the top end of large chainrings. At 45mph down a 7.5% hill you're looking at putting out around 650-700w by the time you're going down a 10% hill it's into negative numbers. Once you've hit 50mph full on sprint wattages are producing 2 or 3 mph gains!



That actually makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Would I be better off going for a smaller than 39 inner ring and a 11-24 or such rear instead?


----------



## gb155 (14 Aug 2011)

I can hit 50-55Mph on a down hill with a 53/11

Happy to sit at 25-30 on the flat and can knock out a 40-45Mph sprint

Wouldn't really want anything bigger (ohhh errrr misses) spin spin spin


----------



## gaz (14 Aug 2011)

I don't think you can go any smaller on the inner ring with a 53 tooth front ring. Going to have difficulties getting the chain between the two.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I don't think you can go any smaller on the inner ring with a 53 tooth front ring. Going to have difficulties getting the chain between the two.


I had a feeling that might be the case. Not a problem . Technique. Technique, technique it is then.


----------



## Rapples (14 Aug 2011)

Angelfish your front mech will only handle a certain maximum difference in teeth, 53-39 is probably close to it. The rear mech also will have a maximum but that can depend on whether it's long medium or short cage, and what spread you have on the cassette. Whatever it's set up with is probabaly close to the maximum it can cope with.

you've got quite a wide spread on that cassette which covers most things unless you change to a compact chainset which won't help your topspeed. I'd leave things as they are, it's better to spin out downhilll, that walk to the top from the other side


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

Rapples said:


> Angelfish your front mech will only handle a certain maximum difference in teeth, 53-39 is probably close to it. The rear mech also will have a maximum but that can depend on whether it's long medium or short cage, and what spread you have on the cassette. Whatever it's set up with is probabaly close to the maximum it can cope with.
> 
> you've got quite a wide spread on that cassette which covers most things unless you change to a compact chainset which won't help your topspeed. I'd leave things as they are, it's better to spin out downhilll, that walk to the top from the other side


Chees one and all. Will leave bike the way it is


----------



## MacB (14 Aug 2011)

Yep, with a 39/53 and 14-28, assuming a 700x23 tyre, you're getting:-

39t - 37 to 73 gear inches
53t - 50 to 100 gear inches

The cogs at the back make much more difference than at the front, for example a 26/42 setup with 11-23 gives:-

26t - 30 to 62 gear inches
42t - 48 to 100 gear inches

It does depend on how you ride, grind/spin, how much you like to change gear to keep a cadence or if you don't mind altering cadence to suit terrain. I've just switched things around again and have:-

MTB 56mm tyres 24/34/46 with 11-34 giving me:-

24t - 20 to 63 gear inches - this is for serious hills or tricky stuff
34t - 29 to 90 gear inches - general riding
46t - 40 to 121 gear inches - fast stuff

Road 32mm tyres 24/40 with 11-28:-

24t - 23 to 59 inches
40t - 39 to 98 inches

like you I'd probably max out at 30mph on the flat, I can get above but 30mph is about the 100rpm mark, I struggle to maintain a spin above that level at present. When fitter I found that I could spin around 110 quite well, above that things got a bit ragged


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Aug 2011)

Buy some rollers and learn to spin smoothly. Probly be able to pick some up on ebay for not a bad price.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

I just need to get out on one of the few flat stretches of road and practice I think


----------



## montage (14 Aug 2011)

You're constantly spinning out on a 53-14 gear on the flat?
What pro team do you cycle for?

​


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

montage said:


> You're constantly spinning out on a 53-14 gear on the flat?
> What pro team do you cycle for?
> 
> ​


No spinning out down hill


----------



## MacB (14 Aug 2011)

by the way, to give you an idea of reference a jump to a 58t ring would give you a top of 58/14 which is the same as 46/11, 50/12, 53/13, roughly.


----------



## Rapples (14 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> No spinning out down hill



My top gear coming down Mont Ventoux was 50/13 I felt no desire to pedal at any time


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> by the way, to give you an idea of reference a jump to a 58t ring would give you a top of 58/14 which is the same as 46/11, 50/12, 53/13, roughly.


That is very interesting indeed. Nice one


----------



## gds58 (14 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Would I be mad to move from a 53 to a 58 or 60 tooth outer chainring rather than swap the rear from a 14-28 to 11-24 or so. Am after better flat and downhill speed.



Chainrings of this size (58 - 60) are only ever really used on racing Tandems where the speeds are much higher than a solo. Even the pro's only generally use a 53 ring or in a Time Trial they may use a 54 0r 55 and they regularly ride at a constant 30 - 40 mph on the flat. It is by far more efficient to train yourself to spin faster. You can do this very effectively by riding a fixed gear bike for some of the time or simply making yourself ride in a lower gear than you would normally. 

When Chris Boardman first broke the 25 mile Competition Record in a time of 46 mins 17 secs he rode a 108" fixed gear which is 52 x 13 which equates to an *average* speed of approximately 32.6 mph!!! Whilst I accept that he was an exceptional athlete it shows that with the ability to spin a gear at around 110 to 120 rpm this is what can be achieved *without* the need for ridiculously high gears.

All of your riding will improve if you can condition yourself to spinning lower gears at a high cadence, it's why a lot of road racers will ride a fixed gear through the winter time.

Hope this helps, Graham

Oh sorry.. in answer to your question.. YES you would be mad!!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

gds58 said:


> Chainrings of this size (58 - 60) are only ever really used on racing Tandems where the speeds are much higher than a solo. Even the pro's only generally use a 53 ring or in a Time Trial they may use a 54 0r 55 and they regularly ride at a constant 30 - 40 mph on the flat. It is by far more efficient to train yourself to spin faster. You can do this very effectively by riding a fixed gear bike for some of the time or simply making yourself ride in a lower gear than you would normally.
> 
> When Chris Boardman first broke the 25 mile Competition Record in a time of 46 mins 17 secs he rode a 108" fixed gear which is 52 x 13 which equates to an *average* speed of approximately 32.6 mph!!! Whilst I accept that he was an exceptional athlete it shows that with the ability to spin a gear at around 110 to 120 rpm this is what can be achieved *without* the need for ridiculously high gears.
> 
> ...



Thank you very much indeed.

So in summary - Body Aerodynamics, Technique and Cadence.	All good stuff to work on


----------



## SportMonkey (14 Aug 2011)

gb155 said:


> I can hit 50-55Mph on a down hill with a 53/11
> 
> Happy to sit at 25-30 on the flat and can knock out a 40-45Mph sprint
> 
> Wouldn't really want anything bigger (ohhh errrr misses) spin spin spin



Have you been competing, those kind of speeds and a bit of training you'd be knocking on selection pace.


----------



## 02GF74 (14 Aug 2011)

Sorry but I don't belive you can push a 58/11 gear on the flat at a reasonable cadence e.g. 90 rpm.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

02GF74 said:


> Sorry but I don't belive you can push a 58/11 gear on the flat at a reasonable cadence e.g. 90 rpm.


Who said they could?


----------



## HLaB (14 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Would I be mad to move from a 53 to a 58 or 60 tooth outer chainring rather than swap the rear from a 14-28 to 11-24 or so. Am after better flat and downhill speed.



Its probably already been said but that would give you an unpractical gear range and whilst you might be faster on the occasional downhill you'd be slower over all and the jump from inner to outer chainring would be enormous and unsatisfactory if it even worked.
I'm a pretty terrible descender but I made the small change from a 12-25 cassette to a 11-25 cassette and seen my max speeds going from 38-39mph to +40mph. If you are going to change anything change the rear but don't change it too much and lose too many gears as overall that will affect you more


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

HLaB said:


> Its probably already been said but that would give you an practical gear range and whilst you might be faster on the occasional downhill you'd be slower over all and the jump from inner to outer chainring would be enormous and unsatisfactory if it even worked.
> I'm a pretty terrible descender but I made the small change from a 12-25 cassette to a 11-25 cassette and seen my max speeds going from 38-39mph to +40mph. If you are going to change anything change the rear but don't change it too much and lose too many gears as overall that will affect you more


That is what I am gathering. Would love a MTB type rear 11-34 but realise that without changing a lot I can not do that much. I have had some great advice thus far and much to work with.


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2011)

Some people make a big chain ring work.

www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/galleries/photos/12285/5/5/cycling-weekly-photo-gallery-national-25-mile-time-trial-2009-photos-by-andy-jones.html


----------



## gaz (15 Aug 2011)

screenman said:


> Some people make a big chain ring work.
> 
> www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/galleries/photos/12285/5/5/cycling-weekly-photo-gallery-national-25-mile-time-trial-2009-photos-by-andy-jones.html




On a time trial, probably a very flat one looking at the cassette he was using.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> On a time trial, probably a very flat one looking at the cassette he was using.



Gaz don't panic - I won't be going for one of those


----------



## gb155 (15 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> Have you been competing, those kind of speeds and a bit of training you'd be knocking on selection pace.




No I don't compete - it's done over a 10 mile commute 

Selection for ???


----------



## Rob3rt (15 Aug 2011)

gb155 said:


> No I don't compete - it's done over a 10 mile commute
> 
> Selection for ???



What he is getting at is that with speeds like that, you would be competative.

If you can sit on 25mph for 10 miles thats a 25 mins 10 mile TT, which is a respectabel time. Moreover if you can sit on 30mph then thats a 20 min 10 mile TT. Somewhere between, say 27.5mph would put you at a 22.5 min 10 mile TT.

If you have this sort of sheer speed and sprinting ability you would be good in crits.


----------



## gb155 (15 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> What he is getting at is that with speeds like that, you would be competative.
> 
> If you can sit on 25mph for 10 miles thats a 25 mins 10 mile TT, which is a respectabel time. Moreover if you can sit on 30mph then thats a 20 min 10 mile TT. Somewhere between, say 27.5mph would put you at a 22.5 min 10 mile TT.
> 
> If you have this sort of sheer speed and sprinting ability you would be good in crits.




10 miles in 25 mins was around my pb, it's difficult with traffic / lights of course, not sure if TT's avoid this situation tho ?

Anything over 10 miles at that sort of pace and I tend to blow up


----------



## Rob3rt (15 Aug 2011)

gb155 said:


> 10 miles in 25 mins was around my pb, it's difficult with traffic / lights of course, not sure if TT's avoid this situation tho ?
> 
> Anything over 10 miles at that sort of pace and I tend to blow up



TT's tend to be based on quiet roads, and run over roundabouts etc rather than lights. They dont take place on places like oxford road. Why not do one of the local ones? There's a few local clubs that have open TT's. You dont need tri bars or disc wheels or any of that jazz before you get the buyers itch  A decent road bike will serve you well.


----------



## gb155 (15 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> TT's tend to be based on quiet roads, and run over roundabouts etc rather than lights. They dont take place on places like oxford road. Why not do one of the local ones? There's a few local clubs that have open TT's. You dont need tri bars or disc wheels or any of that jazz before you get the buyers itch A decent road bike will serve you well.




If only I had a decent road bike eh ???? 

Club TT do tend to be during the week in the evenings making then really difficult for me - I do want to do one ( maybe more ) tho


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2011)

Gaz, Do you know who the guy with the big ring is? I do.


----------



## gb155 (15 Aug 2011)

screenman said:


> Gaz, Do you know who the guy with the big ring is? I do.



Sorry I got no idea what you are talking about


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2011)

It was aimed at the Gaz above who commented on Nik Bowdler's chain ring.


----------



## gb155 (15 Aug 2011)

screenman said:


> It was aimed at the Gaz above who commented on Nik Bowdler's chain ring.



That why I dunno then


----------



## gaz (15 Aug 2011)

screenman said:


> Gaz, Do you know who the guy with the big ring is? I do.



Do i know him personally? no


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2011)

If you did you would know he gets that big ring around quite quick, well quick enough to win a BBAR.

I must add that I do not ride bigger than a 53 on any of my bikes.


----------



## gaz (15 Aug 2011)

screenman said:


> If you did you would know he gets that big ring around quite quick, well quick enough to win a BBAR.
> 
> I must add that I do not ride bigger than a 53 on any of my bikes.



His riding style is very unique though. I recall him saying his average cadence was 65rpm.
It's funny watching him start, first gear for the past few seasons was around 110 gear inches 
It's clearly working though, as you say won the BBAR and posted some very good times, including a sub19min 10


----------



## fossyant (15 Aug 2011)

To STOP this crap - look at my posts in the first 5 posts on this thread. ?????????

No-one needs anymore than a 53 x 11 (neither Campag or Shimano make much bigger) - TT riding, then yes you will get a bigger ring - but it will be course specific and you need to be Big Mig, or Cadel Evans ??? Or our UK best Mr Hutchinson.

Looking at what pro's use climbing, I use a stupid big gear in 39 x 24 with my shoulder problems now - this lot use a bit more easier gears, and they are MUCH faster......

My post about riding with a good cadence. *READ IT ALL*. 

I swear by Berhard Hinault's 'Riding and Training Techniques' - still applies. 

For a fast TT, you need a straight through block, in a gear range you can use !. I don't think many know what a straight through block is ?

*It's all about "souplese" !* VERY SIMPLE - I KNOW WHY NOW ! _* IE NO FUGGIN BIG GEARS !*_


----------



## Smokin Joe (15 Aug 2011)

58 and even 60t chainrings were common among top time trialists during the sixties and seventies. Alf Engers was one of many who broke competition records using monster gears, and the one time I saw Beryl Burton in a time trial I couldn't believe how slowly she was pedaling. Not the best idea for us mere mortals though.


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2011)

I know what a straight through is! but there again I did time trial for many years and no doubt will again. I think Shimano went up to 56 on one range, not sure wheer you would find one though.

90rpm and above for me, like most the internal bits start wobbling at 120 and then smooth out again the other side of that.


----------



## fossyant (15 Aug 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> 58 and even 60t chainrings were common among top time trialists during the sixties and seventies. Alf Engers was one of many who broke competition records using monster gears, and the one time I saw Beryl Burton in a time trial I couldn't believe how slowly she was pedaling. Not the best idea for us mere mortals though.




ALF did FIXED. And he was a one off- I was just about round competing that did remember him, and he did it on a road bike..! I did road bikes, but with aero bars.


----------



## fossyant (15 Aug 2011)

screenman said:


> I know what a straight through is! but there again I did time trial for many years and no doubt will again. I think Shimano went up to 56 on one range, not sure wheer you would find one though.
> 
> 90rpm and above for me, like most the internal bits start wobbling at 120 and then smooth out again the other side of that.




You do, but not many on here know what a straight through block is ? (Or can get one these days.)


----------



## zizou (15 Aug 2011)

gb155 said:


> I can hit 50-55Mph on a down hill with a 53/11
> 
> Happy to sit at 25-30 on the flat and can knock out a 40-45Mph sprint



In the Tour de France the sprinters (with their lead outs) "only" get a max speed of about 45mph.

So unless you were drafting, had a huge tailwind or were gravity assisted i call bs!


----------



## iAmiAdam (15 Aug 2011)

fossyant said:


> To STOP this crap - look at my posts in the first 5 posts on this thread. ?????????
> 
> No-one needs anymore than a 53 x 11 (neither Campag or Shimano make much bigger) - TT riding, then yes you will get a bigger ring - but it will be course specific and you need to be Big Mig, or Cadel Evans ??? Or our UK best Mr Hutchinson.
> 
> ...




Quite frankly, souplese is a load of crap. Cancellara, massive gear, massive cadence, completely screws the theory.


----------



## screenman (16 Aug 2011)

Well if Cancellera has massive cadence the surely he also has *souplese. Just bigger volumes of it.*


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

zizou said:


> In the Tour de France the sprinters (with their lead outs) "only" get a max speed of about 45mph.
> 
> So unless you were drafting, had a huge tailwind or were gravity assisted i call bs!



It's true, Cavendish just about exceeds 70 km/h in the final 200 metres.

Track Kilo specialists typically average just under 40 mph over 1 km (from a standing start). Track sprinters typically hit high 30's to low 40's mph, without a lead out train!

A mere mortal isnt going to be knocking out 40-45 mph/h sprints. If you are using gps to calc speed, get a wheel sensor as gps can glitch and be misleading, or double check the speed using your cadence and known gearing. If you are using a wheel sensor, I'd be making sure it is set up right with correct parameters put into the Garmin if it told me I did 45mph.



Also TT chainrings are not normal road affair, they are specialist equipment so I dont know why people are talking about them, AFS doesnt ride TT's right now, he rides a normal road bike in a non-race environment. So talk about normal roadbike gearing.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> It's true, Cavendish just about exceeds 70 km/h in the final 200 metres.
> 
> Track Kilo specialists typically average just under 40 mph over 1 km (from a standing start).
> 
> ...



I like your confidence in me


----------



## gb155 (16 Aug 2011)

HappyBunny said:


> Pro cycling teams that compete in the tours.




Do pro teams do 10 mile races then ?


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I like your confidence in me



There's time yet!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> There's time yet!



Is there as Fat Bastard Category?


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Is there as Fat Bastard Category?



Speaking truthfully, you probly wouldnt be the fattest (no idea how fat you are! hah) or slowest entrant!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Speaking truthfully, you probly wouldnt be the fattest (no idea how fat you are! hah) or slowest entrant!



6 foot 15 stone (was 18 at start of year)


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

gb155 said:


> Do pro teams do 10 mile races then ?



Track teams do races under 10 mile, so if you can easily sit on 30 mph, and sprint at 45 mph you would dominate scratch and points categories assuming you can also TT it to bridge a gap or hold a breakaway.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

This thread has become something rather interesting  When Gaz is a famous TT rider we can say we knew him when he was just GB155


----------



## iAmiAdam (16 Aug 2011)

screenman said:


> Well if Cancellera has massive cadence the surely he also has *souplese. Just bigger volumes of it.*



No because souplese is meant to be aided by fixed riding which means lower gears, not massive gears. Souplese is about technique mainly and as long as you're not pedalling like an idiot then you don't need to train souplese.


----------



## gb155 (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This thread has become something rather interesting When Gaz is a famous TT rider we can say we knew him when he was just GB155



At least one person isn't accusing me of being full of BS


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

gb155 said:


> At least one person isn't accusing me of being full of BS



Why would I. If you were posting fake time and speeds you would only be a fool to yourself.


----------



## gb155 (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Why would I. If you were posting fake time and speeds you would only be a fool to yourself.



Agreed 110% dude


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

gb155 said:


> Agreed 110% dude


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

I dont think its a case of proving these numbers to the forum, but about not misleading yourself if there is something off with your measurements.


----------



## zizou (16 Aug 2011)

There is massaging speed figures on a forum which isnt exactly unusual as alot of people do it and then there is claiming sprint speeds that are comparable to what the fastest riders in the world achieve on sprint finishes with lead out trains. It is faster than the speeds reached by the best sprinters in the world doing the kilo and comparable to what they can manage in a flying 200m. These speeds would be in a velodrome with a faster surface than road, skin suits, track bikes, aero helmets, aero wheels and no wind by guys that are specialist sprinters who put in very specific training to get to these speeds.

It is nothing personal - if Mark Cavendish, Tyler Farrar or Thor Hushovd were claiming to be able to match them in a solo sprint i'd be calling BS too!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

zizou said:


> There is massaging speed figures on a forum which isnt exactly unusual as alot of people do it and then there is claiming sprint speeds that are comparable to what the fastest riders in the world achieve on sprint finishes with lead out trains. It is faster than the speeds reached by the best sprinters in the world doing the kilo and comparable to what they can manage in a flying 200m. These speeds would be in a velodrome with a faster surface than road, skin suits, track bikes, aero helmets, aero wheels and no wind by guys that are specialist sprinters who put in very specific training to get to these speeds.
> 
> It is nothing personal - if Mark Cavendish, Tyler Farrar or Thor Hushovd were claiming to be able to match them in a solo sprint i'd be calling BS too!



Who is (are) claiming these speed?


----------



## Wankelschrauben (16 Aug 2011)

I don't think he is lying at all, these speeds are possible.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

I have no doubt about the HD speed or anything else TBH. Most measuring apparatus are accurate to a few MPH and if you know a routes distance you can easily tell if the calibration is out. 

Anyway bottom line is you are calling Gaz a Bull Shitter. Correct? I take it that this is because you can not attain those speeds.


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> I don't think he is lying at all, these speeds are possible.



Go look at the times of the fastest riders in the world on the track and in the tour. They only just touch these speeds.



Angelfishsolo said:


> I have no doubt about the HD speed or anything else TBH. Most measuring apparatus are accurate to a few MPH and if you know a routes distance you can easily tell if the calibration is out.
> 
> Anyway bottom line is you are calling Gaz a Bull Shitter. Correct? * I take it that this is because you can not attain those speeds.*



None of us can hit a 45mph flat sprint.


----------



## MacB (16 Aug 2011)

Well if I go flat out and almost blind myself with pain I can hit 30mph, on the flat, for about 10 yards


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Go look at the times of the fastest riders in the world on the track and in the tour. They only just touch these speeds.
> 
> 
> 
> None of us can hit a 45mph flat sprint.



He doesn't say a 45mph FLAT sprint to be fair!


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> Well if I go flat out and almost blind myself with pain I can hit 30mph, on the flat, for about 10 yards



MacB, your not alone in your inadequacy, I can only hit low 30's (<35mph) and cant hold that for long.


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> He doesn't say a 45mph FLAT sprint to be fair!



True, he didnt. But since he had already seperated downhill speeds from flat speeds, and the sprint comment was attached to the flat speed comment then its sort of implied.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> True, he didnt. But since he had already seperated downhill speeds from flat speeds, and the sprint comment was attached to the flat speed comment.



So do you think it is more likely to be computer error of genuine bullshitting?


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So do you think it is more likely to be computer error of genuine bullshitting?



Computer error. Wrong wheel size entered, using gps for speed, etc. All contributers.

Even with a wheel sensor and correct data entered, data cannot be trusted blindly, one example would be when I am riding fixed and I trackstand with the magnet in the right place the readings will go nutty (I trackstand with the non-drive side crank facing backwards so it will be around the cadence sensor, hence why even though I may stop at 20 sets of lights, cadence will only hit zero on maybe 5-6 occasions). The wheel will also sometimes be tripping the sensor.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> He does, there, he says hills are bad.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was in IT and I do know how inaccurate any computing device can be. It is easy to validate however. Start time, finish time and distance covered. Schoolboy maths.


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I was in IT and I do know how inaccurate any computing device can be. It is easy to validate however. Start time, finish time and distance covered. Schoolboy maths.



That only gives average speed, not instantanious speed, which is what a flat out sprint measurement calls for.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Computer error. Wrong wheel size entered, using gps for speed, etc. All contributers.
> 
> Even with a wheel sensor and correct data entered, data cannot be trusted blindly, one example would be when I am riding fixed and I trackstand with the magenet in the right place the readings will go nutty.



Possible I agree. However as I said previously it is pretty easy to verify if the readings are accurate. Start time, finish time and known distance covered will give you an average speed.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> That only gives average speed, not instantanious speed, which is what a flat out sprint measurement calls for.



Granted. However if the average speeds tally then it is a fair indicator that the other readings are also valid.


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Granted. However if the average speeds tally then it is a fair indicator that the other readings are also valid.



Depends how the device works, a garmin measures distance by gps, time as a timer, and speed, from the rear wheel if there is a sensor present (at least i THINK this is the case because to measure distance on a turbo, you have to turn gps off for it to calc distance from the wheel, at least on my unit your do, maybe with gps on it does some sort of correction based on wheel distance to gps distance but not wheel distance directly?), as Gaz is measuring cadence, them I'm assuming he is using the garmin cadence/spd sensor, like the one I use. 

So given the above its probly fairly easy to confuse them.


----------



## zizou (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Anyway bottom line is you are calling Gaz a Bull Shitter. Correct? I take it that this is because you can not attain those speeds.




That makes it sound like an insult, i didnt mean it that way!

Anyway i cant attain these speeds - if i could i would be hoping to get a place in Team GB alongside Chris Hoy and Jason Kenny.





Angelfishsolo said:


> He doesn't say a 45mph FLAT sprint to be fair!




And to be fair my first post was "so unless you were drafting, had a huge tailwind or were gravity assisted i call bs"

Everyone of us could claim sprints of speeds in the 40s if we were to include ones going down nice big hills


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Depends how the device works, a garmin measures distance by gps, time as a timer, and speed, from the rear wheel if there is a sensor present (I know this because to measure distance on a turbo, you have to turn gps off for it to calc distance form the wheel, at least on my unit your do), as Gaz is measuing cadence, them I'm assuming he is using the garmin cadence/spd sensor, like the one I use.
> 
> So given the above its fairly easy to confuse them.



Ok Robert fair enough that is a valid point. To my knowledge I have not seen devices that use a mixture of GPS and "standard" cycle computer technology. As you me explain it I can see where issues may arise.


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Ok Robert fair enough that is a valid point. To my knowledge I have not seen devices that use a mixture of GPS and "standard" cycle computer technology. As you me explain it I can see where issues may arise.



Im open for input to how the Garmin works, because I dont KNOW for certain (I edited my post to reflect this, its propriety techology, its unlikely any standard consumer will know the exact algorithms used) I can only deduce so much from my unit and my usage terms. I'm just trying to put across an arguement that Garmin's arent foolproof and that average speed might not (it might, depending on how they do work) indicate the accuracy of instantanious speed.

I'm not posting to insult!


----------



## Wankelschrauben (16 Aug 2011)

I've been pulled over for speeding in a 40mph zone on a not quite flat, not quite hilly road

I reset my computer this weekend just gone and it currently shows a reading of 40.23mph on it which was done on the same road I was pulled over on.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Im open for input to how the Garmin works, because I dont KNOW for certain (I edited my post to reflect this, its propriety techology, its unlikely any standard consumer will know the exact algorithms used) I can only deduce so much from my unit and my usage terms. I'm just trying to put across an arguement that Garmin's arent foolproof and that average speed might not (it might, depending on how they do work) indicate the accuracy of instantanious speed.
> 
> I'm not posting to insult!



Rob I know you are not posting to insult. You have a valid argument here.


----------



## MacB (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> MacB, your not alone in your *inadequacy*, I can only hit low 30's (<35mph) and cant hold that for long.



Wow, steady there cowboy, I'm actually quite proud of that


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> Wow, steady there cowboy, I'm actually quite proud of that


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

Trickydicky said:


> What they are saying is they read a lot of post on here and have noticed a trend or u congratulating him for his achievement which probably isnt as good as it sounds!



Well that is as clear as mud. Thanks for that.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> This is not about one thread, but your behaviour in general.
> 
> Also, notably, running and telling someone with an eating condition whenever anyone says anything bad about him in chat isn't going to do him any favours. Sometimes it's better to not tell your friends things and argue their point for them - that said when someone last mentioned his chronic undereating to you in chat you left in a huff. People actually really care about Gaz(gb155) and are amazed at what he has achieved, but want him to stay healthy, I am in this camp, he's done amazingly well and is a poster boy for what fitness can do - he just needs a little help readjusting and stabilising his weight and eating practice.
> 
> I know how much I suffered going from training 40hours a week to less than 10 on diet alone.



Wow you know a lot for somebody with 27 posts. If you notice I have encouraged him to eat more but know that just saying it will achieve nothing at all. He has to want to change and I believe he does.


----------



## JonnyBlade (16 Aug 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> I've been pulled over for speeding in a 40mph zone on a not quite flat, not quite hilly road
> 
> I reset my computer this weekend just gone and it currently shows a reading of 40.23mph on it which was done on the same road I was pulled over on.



I thought it was quite difficult to be pulled up for speeding because of the uncertain and diverse calibrations of the equipment we use?
I know Chris Boardman tried it a fefw times as a publicity thing but got no where. I seem to remember someone being 'done' for riding furiously!!!

On the flat I've never managed more than 34 although I have passed that on the down hills


----------



## JonnyBlade (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If you could actually type using the English language I would be most appreciative.



You are actually in a very dark place


----------



## MacB (16 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> This is not about one thread, but your behaviour in general.
> 
> Also, notably, running and telling someone with an eating condition whenever anyone says anything bad about him in chat isn't going to do him any favours. Sometimes it's better to not tell your friends things and argue their point for them - that said when someone last mentioned his chronic undereating to you in chat you left in a huff. People actually really care about Gaz(gb155) and are amazed at what he has achieved, but want him to stay healthy, I am in this camp, he's done amazingly well and is a poster boy for what fitness can do - he just needs a little help readjusting and stabilising his weight and eating practice.
> 
> I know how much I suffered going from training 40hours a week to less than 10 on diet alone.



But there are ways and then there are ways, I would agree, and have posted as much to him, that Gaz does need to get continued support to organise his dietary requirements. But folks are different, there will be some appalled at the openness shown on a public forum by people like Gaz and AFS, others will recognise that it's another form of a coping mechanism. It may not be your cup of tea but this level of honesty is often advocated when trying to overcome addictive issues. 

Some of the stuff on here just descends into plain nastiness and empathy isn't even getting a look in. Yes it can be frustrating when you see/read someone struggling with behaviours that your gut reaction to is, MTFU and get over yourself. But if you find it frustrating then leave it alone.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> But there are ways and then there are ways, I would agree, and have posted as much to him, that Gaz does need to get continued support to organise his dietary requirements. But folks are different, there will be some appalled at the openness shown on a public forum by people like Gaz and AFS, others will recognise that it's another form of a coping mechanism. It may not be your cup of tea but this level of honesty is often advocated when trying to overcome addictive issues.
> 
> Some of the stuff on here just descends into plain nastiness and empathy isn't even getting a look in. Yes it can be frustrating when you see/read someone struggling with behaviours that your gut reaction to is, MTFU and get over yourself. But if you find it frustrating then leave it alone.



Well said that man!


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

Man up you bunch of blow hards! STFU about feelings and all that cobblers, this is about SPEED (or lack of in MacB's case )


----------



## 02GF74 (16 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> I thought it was quite difficult to be pulled up for speeding because of the uncertain and diverse calibrations of the equipment we use?




I got pulled over by the police for doing 46 in a 30 mph. And no, unlike some poelple, it was not on the flat but a steep hill (A404 Marlow Hill down into High Wycombe if anyone wants to try it). I didn't see the police car behind me but should have realiesed something was amiss as I was overtaking all the cars who obviously had slowed down for the police.

Pretty sure my speedo was correct.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

02GF74 said:


> I got pulled over by the police for doing 46 in a 30 mph. And no, unlike some poelple, it was not on the flat but a steep hill (A404 Marlow Hill down into High Wycombe if anyone wants to try it). I didn't see the police car behind me but should have realiesed something was amiss as I was overtaking all the cars who obviously had slowed down for the police.
> 
> Pretty sure my speedo was correct.



What happened after you were pulled over?


----------



## JonnyBlade (16 Aug 2011)

02GF74 said:


> I got pulled over by the police for doing 46 in a 30 mph. And no, unlike some poelple, it was not on the flat but a steep hill (A404 Marlow Hill down into High Wycombe if anyone wants to try it). I didn't see the police car behind me but should have realiesed something was amiss as I was overtaking all the cars who obviously had slowed down for the police.
> 
> Pretty sure my speedo was correct.




Well that's 2 of you that go against what I've heard and no need to distruct your words. Looks like I'll have to be a little more vigilant on those mph roads  

*distrust*


----------



## JonnyBlade (16 Aug 2011)

,quote name='gaftaz' timestamp='1313498910' post='1800453']
Well I have GPS proof of 125mph. Next year I shall own Cav on the TdF sprints.
[/quote]

I should ride for Team UK. My Garmin says I have reached 9,800.01 MPH  


http://connect.garmin.com/reports 

You'll need tocustom the dates to last August


----------



## gaz (16 Aug 2011)

Speeds from the garmin are logged via gps but you can cross reference them if you use a cadence sensor. The distance value is recorded by it but not used in the speed calculation.

I've gone + 35mph in the inner ring with plenty left in the tank. I think I could go +40mph from a standing start on the flat if the conditions are right.


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Speeds from the garmin are logged via gps but you can cross reference them if you use a cadence sensor. The distance value is recorded by it but not used in the speed calculation.
> 
> I've gone + 35mph in the inner ring with plenty left in the tank. I think I could go +40mph from a standing start on the flat if the conditions are right.



I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

My experience suggests that speed is calculated from the rear wheel speed, sit on a turbo and spin with gps turned on, speed will be displayed but no distance information. Unles you turn gps off, then you get speed and distance.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.
> 
> My experience suggests that speed is calculated from the rear wheel speed, sit on a turbo and spin with gps turned on, speed will be displayed but no distance information. Unles you turn gps off, then you get speed and distance.



Interesting. Mainly for the fact that rear wheel speed is measure and not front.


----------



## iAmiAdam (16 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Speeds from the garmin are logged via gps but you can cross reference them if you use a cadence sensor. The distance value is recorded by it but not used in the speed calculation.
> 
> I've gone + 35mph in the inner ring with plenty left in the tank. I think I could go +40mph from a standing start on the flat if the conditions are right.






gaftaz said:


> What cadence?!





With a 39 T inner ring and 15T rear sprocket, it's 170 RPM cadence.

With a 34 T inner ring and the same sprocket it's 195 RPM.


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Interesting. Mainly for the fact that rear wheel speed is measure and not front.



Its because the sensor is located on the non-drive side seat stay within scope of crank passing (to log cadence as a crank arm magnet passes) and then a little arm sticking out of it sits near wheel to log wheel magnet. Two measurements with one unit


----------



## Wankelschrauben (16 Aug 2011)

@ Jhonnyblade,

I was given a producer for ID and any insurance or other documents I had for it. They examined the bike in the station, I assume they logged it and checked if it was recorded as stolen.

They were actually quite nice.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Its because the sensor is located on the non-drive side seat stay within scope of crank passing (to log cadence as a crank arm magnet passes) and then a little arm sits near wheel to log wheel magnet. Two measurements with one unit



Very clever. What will they think of next


----------



## JonnyBlade (16 Aug 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> @ Jhonnyblade,
> 
> I was given a producer for ID and any insurance or other documents I had for it. They examined the bike in the station, I assume they logged it and checked if it was recorded as stolen.
> 
> They were actually quite nice.



You definitely met the wrong copper that day


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Very clever. What will they think of next



Wireless interface to the head unit........ oh, it already does that too  Just to top it off, if you use an ANT+ power meter it will also interface with the Garmin head unit.


----------



## Moderators (16 Aug 2011)

OK. The personal attacks and digs stop now or people will be banned from the thread and/or the thread will be closed.


----------



## gaz (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.
> 
> My experience suggests that speed is calculated from the rear wheel speed, sit on a turbo and spin with gps turned on, speed will be displayed but no distance information. Unles you turn gps off, then you get speed and distance.


Ah yes, I'll have to double check. Garmin don't make this easy eh.




gaftaz said:


> What cadence?!


A very fast cadence. But the way that people have dismissed that +40mph is not possible because they can't do it and pro's can. Must mean I can't spin that fast.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Wireless interface to the head unit........ oh, it already does that too



I would quite like a form of heads up display built into glasses. Self adjusting tread would be great as well.


----------



## JonnyBlade (16 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> He was riding it like he stole it.



Good point !!!!!

What gear was he wearing as a matter of interest?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> You could probably do that yourself if you dismantled the head unit of one of the wireless sensors. Split out the screen, put the unit in your helmet with a small plug to connect the helmet to your sunglasses. The LCD films (LCD and polarizer) are pretty thin.



I will be completely honest. I would like it done by someone who wouldn't risk blinding or electrocuting me


----------



## Wankelschrauben (16 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Good point !!!!!
> 
> What gear was he wearing as a matter of interest?




I was wearing a tight fitting black T-Shirt, brightly coloured patterened shorts and clipless shoes.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> You won't. Voltage is too low, and you'd be adhereing an LCD screen to a set of sunglasses. Just requires a little skill, a magnifying glass and some finesse.



I lack the latter


----------



## JonnyBlade (16 Aug 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> I was wearing a tight fitting black T-Shirt, brightly coloured patterened shorts and clipless shoes.




So you probably just looked like a cyclist giving it stink!!!! Great speed Buddy, would you have gone faster if you hadn't been stopped?
​


----------



## gaz (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.
> 
> My experience suggests that speed is calculated from the rear wheel speed, sit on a turbo and spin with gps turned on, speed will be displayed but no distance information. Unles you turn gps off, then you get speed and distance.


Ok done a little bit of reading and I confirmed what I thought. Although I didn't write it very well 

The max speeds on garmin connect are not quite right. Where it gets the data from I don't know. If you find that you have a ride which says you did a max speed of 100mph and then put that tcx file into another price of software (e.g. Ascent) it shows you a different max speed. 
So looking at the data and checking it with another piece of software should verify if it was a glitch.

I don't think I have had an issue with max speed whilst using the gsc10. I suspect the issue is down to the errors you sometimes get with gps readings and it jumping out of place.


----------



## JonnyBlade (16 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Ok done a little bit of reading and I confirmed what I thought. Although I didn't write it very well
> 
> The max speeds on garmin connect are not quite right. Where it gets the data from I don't know. If you find that you have a ride which says you did a max speed of 100mph and then put that tcx file into another price of software (e.g. Ascent) it shows you a different max speed.
> So looking at the data and checking it with another piece of software should verify if it was a glitch.



I liked travelling at 9800 mph so I'm leaving it as it is


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Ok done a little bit of reading and I confirmed what I thought. Although I didn't write it very well
> 
> The max speeds on garmin connect are not quite right. Where it gets the data from I don't know. If you find that you have a ride which says you did a max speed of 100mph and then put that tcx file into another price of software (e.g. Ascent) it shows you a different max speed.
> So looking at the data and checking it with another piece of software should verify if it was a glitch.



Does it say by how much the garmin will be out (on average?). Also isn't the implication there is an inherent problem with the Garmin?


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Ok done a little bit of reading and I confirmed what I thought. Although I didn't write it very well
> 
> The max speeds on garmin connect are not quite right. Where it gets the data from I don't know. If you find that you have a ride which says you did a max speed of 100mph and then put that tcx file into another price of software (e.g. Ascent) it shows you a different max speed.
> So looking at the data and checking it with another piece of software should verify if it was a glitch.
> ...



Yes you can use Excel to review the data, it would appear that Garmin software doesnt appear to filter out gps glitches well. You could process your own data using Octave (basically GNU MATLAB) and a custom (albeit very simple) search and destroy algorithm and then review using Garmins software if you wanted.

I'm pretty convinced that the garmin uses the gsc-10 for speed if it is detected, if its not present then it will proceed with gps. If this wasnt the case, what is the point in logging rear wheel speeds? Unless they have some algorithm to test cross correlation.


----------



## iAmiAdam (16 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Ah yes, I'll have to double check. Garmin don't make this easy eh.
> 
> 
> 
> A very fast cadence. But the way that people have dismissed that +40mph is not possible because they can't do it and pro's can. Must mean I can't spin that fast.



Gearing you were in please, 170 RPM is something that sprinters do in the closing metres.


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Does it say by how much the garmin will be out (on average?). Also isn't the implication there is an inherent problem with the Garmin?



Not neccessarily, just their post-processing software. Its been long established there are better 3rd party software suites out there for reviewing the data they log.


----------



## gaz (16 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Does it say by how much the garmin will be out (on average?). Also isn't the implication there is an inherent problem with the Garmin?


As far as im aware it's only a problem with garmin connect and the max speed. And it's only an issue if you had a gps blimp whilst cycling and you are not using the gsc10 unit.


----------



## gaz (16 Aug 2011)

iAmiAdam said:


> Gearing you were in please, 170 RPM is something that sprinters do in the closing metres.


34-11. And I did do this in a bit of racing


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> As far as im aware it's only a problem with garmin connect and the max speed. And it's only an issue if you had a gps blimp whilst cycling and you are not using the gsc10 unit.



OK so this seems to suggest that unless GB155 has been very unlucky his reported figures are in the main correct.


----------



## JonnyBlade (16 Aug 2011)

Spinning at 40 mph. Is that the pedals whilst on the lower gears are spinning at 40 mph or the bike is being propelled forward at 40mph because that is wicked fast and way out of my league


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Not neccessarily, just their post-processing software. Its been long established there are better 3rd party software suites out there for reviewing the data they log.



OK thanks for that


----------



## iAmiAdam (16 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> 34-11. And I did do this in a bit of racing



Around 150 cadence then, why were you sprinting in the little ring?


----------



## gaz (16 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Spinning at 40 mph. Is that the pedals whilst on the lower gears are spinning at 40 mph or the bike is being propelled forward at 40mph because that is wicked fast and way out of my league


The bike moving at 40mph.


----------



## gaz (16 Aug 2011)

iAmiAdam said:


> Around 150 cadence then, why were you sprinting in the little ring?



I got caught of guard and it was a bit of commuting fun with MrOrigamist.

That isn't this one but here i get to 34mph at 140rpm without getting out of the saddle or being in the drops. When i'm back in a fit state I will do some runs to prove that it is possible for someone that isn't a pro and who doesn't race to do this sort of speed.
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCyThgM_55I[/media]


----------



## iAmiAdam (16 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I got caught of guard and it was a bit of commuting fun with MrOrigamist.
> 
> That isn't this one but here i get to 34mph at 140rpm without getting out of the saddle or being in the drops. When i'm back in a fit state I will do some runs to prove that it is possible for someone that isn't a pro and who doesn't race to do this sort of speed.
> [media]
> ]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCyThgM_55I[/media]




Oh, when you said racing I thought you meant official racing, that's why I asked.


----------



## gaz (16 Aug 2011)

iAmiAdam said:


> Oh, when you said racing I thought you meant official racing, that's why I asked.



oooooh no that would be nuts.


----------



## JonnyBlade (16 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I got caught of guard and it was a bit of commuting fun with MrOrigamist.
> 
> That isn't this one but here i get to 34mph at 140rpm without getting out of the saddle or being in the drops. When i'm back in a fit state I will do some runs to prove that it is possible for someone that isn't a pro and who doesn't race to do this sort of speed.
> [media]
> ]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCyThgM_55I[/media]




Nice riding Gaz


----------



## HLaB (16 Aug 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> I'm pretty convinced that the garmin uses the gsc-10 for speed if it is detected, if its not present then it will proceed with gps. If this wasnt the case, what is the point in logging rear wheel speeds? Unless they have some algorithm to test cross correlation.



I'm not 100% sure but I think I read here (so it could be garbage ) that the garmin only uses the sensor when the gps signal isn't there.


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Aug 2011)

HLaB said:


> I'm not 100% sure but I think I read here (so it could be garbage ) that the garmin only uses the sensor when the gps signal isn't there.



I'll test it when I get a chance (I'll pick my bike up with the wheel stationary) whilst I have gps signal and run with the bike.  Seems like a pointless addition/poor implementation if that is the case.


----------



## Wankelschrauben (16 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> So you probably just looked like a cyclist giving it stink!!!! Great speed Buddy, would you have gone faster if you hadn't been stopped?
> ​




I think I'd pretty much given it eveything I had by that point, I was running out of road also. I had built up the speed to get up a sharp incline at the end of the road.


----------



## zizou (16 Aug 2011)

If garmin data is involved then easy enough to post a link to the rides with the sprint speed and average speeds and it will also show elevation etc. Wont show tailwinds and getting a slipstream but we'll take your word on that 



gaz said:


> I got caught of guard and it was a bit of commuting fun with MrOrigamist.
> 
> That isn't this one but here i get to 34mph at 140rpm without getting out of the saddle or being in the drops. When i'm back in a fit state I will do some runs to prove that it is possible for someone that isn't a pro and who doesn't race to do this sort of speed.
> [media]
> ]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCyThgM_55I[/media]





To go from 34 mph to 45 mph you need to more than double the watts produced so you aren't going to get there by just being a bit fitter. The range that gb155 gave was that he was able to sprint between 40 mph and 45 mph. That is a pretty huge range considering the necessary watts needed to make that difference so is as vague as someone saying their sprint was between 5 mph and 30 mph. Slipstreaming, tailwinds, downhill (or coming from a downhill) can of course allow higher speeds. But getting up to 40 on the flat with no help is a extremely difficult and getting to 45 mph is out of the reaches of most pro cyclists never mind guys like me!


Anyway pretty cool video how do you get the speedometer etc on it?


----------



## zexel (16 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> That isn't this one but here i get to 34mph at 140rpm without getting out of the saddle or being in the drops. When i'm back in a fit state I will do some runs to prove that it is possible for someone that isn't a pro and who doesn't race to do this sort of speed.
> [media]
> ]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCyThgM_55I[/media]




gaz. What tyres have you got on your bike?


----------



## JonnyBlade (16 Aug 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> I think I'd pretty much given it eveything I had by that point, I was running out of road also. I had built up the speed to get up a sharp incline at the end of the road.



Shame, those hills are a sod on the slow climb


----------



## gaz (16 Aug 2011)

zizou said:


> Anyway pretty cool video how do you get the speedometer etc on it?


You need some sort of GPS data and then you can use an application like Dashware to overlay the data on the video.




zexel said:


> gaz. What tyres have you got on your bike?



The tyres in that video are Vitorria Rubino.


----------



## barongreenback (19 Aug 2011)

Mark Cavendish just posted this on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/markcavendish/status/104482036483489792


----------



## e-rider (19 Aug 2011)

I make good use of 53x12 on the rollers


----------



## HLaB (19 Aug 2011)

barongreenback said:


> Mark Cavendish just posted this on Twitter:
> 
> https://twitter.com/...482036483489792



70 rph LOL


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

barongreenback said:


> Mark Cavendish just posted this on Twitter:
> 
> https://twitter.com/...482036483489792



On a shiv though, so TT specific.


----------



## Saundie (20 Aug 2011)

How about a 96t chainring?


----------



## JonnyBlade (20 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> The bike moving at 40mph.



Just seen the tour of Spain time trials on ITV and noticed the winning average of around 30mph. How long can you hold your speeds Gaz and can I be your agent


----------



## gaz (20 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Just seen the tour of Spain time trials on ITV and noticed the winning average of around 30mph. How long can you hold your speeds Gaz and can I be your agent



Give me 8 other guys I can work with and i'll try and hold it out for 17mins


----------



## GrasB (21 Aug 2011)

iAmiAdam said:


> Around 150 cadence then, why were you sprinting in the little ring?


Not gaz's reason but cause it's psychologically fun?.. If the guy is behind & sees your rear mech go to the bigger sprockets as your cadence drops they realise you've got most of the top chainring in the bag... bag one massive phycological win.


----------

