Non-Conventional Philosophy

Coaching from Lionel Space, Phoenix AZ

It may seem that I strive to be contrarian, but I often smirk at many of the things I see put forth to help racers do better. For the uninitiated, the search for advice is exciting and too often one can get carried away and go farther than is practical to actually realize a benefit. Following are many of my ideas on conventions I see and why I don't follow them.

Equipment: Since cycling is a combination of man and machine, many try to find easy gains by sinking money into high end equipment. Granted, a minimum quality needs to be adhered to, but spending extreme amounts of money to realize better results is pretty fruitless for all that are not at the very top of the sport already. The basic premise is that aerodynamics are the primary force to overcome (except when climbing) and the rider creates about 80% of the drag. Thus small, marginal gains on equipment are only affecting that small 20%. The bigger results will arrive from better rider position to reduce drag and better power from the body. When one is not achieving great results, it's easier to blame the equipment, but that is hardly where the blame resides. I do pretty well on less than top-of-the-line equipment, and I've tried better equipment with little to show for it, so I'm using first hand knowledge for this conclusion.

Frame: Everyone says carbon is best and you'll see a large selection of carbon bikes available and fortunately some are not extremely expensive. The main benefits pushed for a carbon frame are weight and stiffness. Via my own experience, my preference is NOT for a stiffer frame. I raced on some very stiff steel frames in the 1970s and I've tried some of the newer carbon frames. Those pushing for a stiff frame say that less energy is lost from pedaling. However, simple physics will show that in order for energy to be lost, it must be transformed, usually in the form of heat. On a less stiff frame, there is no heat generated. So where does that energy go? It must be stored in the frame and then eventually released back, a spring action. If stiffer is always better, why does running sprinter Oscar Pistorius compete on his springy legs, rather than his stiffer everyday legs?
 

When I try to jump on a very stiff frame, it feels like my legs just met an immovable cement wall; the feedback is harsh and painful and thus not very productive. When using a less stiff bike, my legs smoothly wind up the frame and as my legs pass the point of most efficient transfer to the pedals (a little past 4 O'Clock), that spring comes into play to provide additional power when my legs are not positioned so well to do so. So my favorite frame materials to deliver this kind of behavior are steel or titanium. I have a very good jump, so a less stiff frame is not hindering that ability.

Although it is possible to manufacture a lighter weight carbon framed bike, the weight difference is not substantial when you compare that difference (around a pound) to the overall weight of rider plus machine. That benefit also comes with a penalty in that you are more likely to damage a carbon frame than any other material choice and often that damage is catastrophic requiring replacement or extensive repair. A more insidious problem is that carbon can be damaged internally without a visible sign, which could lead to an unexpected collapse at any time, whereas most other frame materials will give a visible warning that may cause you to replace or repair it before you suffer from a crash.

Tires: It seems the current trend is going to wider tires, the consensus being that they are faster and used often by the top pros. First, one should realize that the top pros are racing on horrible roads in Europe, sometimes dirt, gravel, or cobbles. All of my road racing in the U.S. has been predominantly on very smooth asphalt. I'd probably want fatter tires as well if I had such bad roads, but I don't; so what the pros use is inconsequential to my needs.

Given a similar profile, a smaller frontal area will always induce less drag than one that is larger. Thus skinnier tires can be (but not always will be) faster aerodynamically than their larger cousins. The industry has addressed this by making rims fatter as well to give the fatter tire/rim combination a more competitive aerodynamic profile.

Rolling resistance tests show bigger cross sectional tires to have lower rolling resistance on drum rollers. However, we don't often race on a round drum, we compete on flat roads. The contact patch of the fatter tires will show less advantage when you use a more real world example.

The fastest racers in the world race on Velodromes (bicycle tracks). If fatter tires were truly faster overall, you'd be seeing all the world champions going for 25, 28, 30, maybe 32 mm cross section tires. The fact is you don't. They generally race on tires of 18 to 22 mm. My general dislike of fatter tires is their feel in a fast turn or in an out of the saddle jump; the skinnier tires feel more solid and controllable, rather than a feeling like it's sloshing around.

Tubulars are considered faster. I've raced on all kinds of tubulars since 1970; stiff ones, small ones, large diameter ones, silk ones, nylon ones. Before the advent of good racing clinchers, tubulars were the only way to go. The bigger, stiffer, heavier, and poor rubber compounds of old clinchers were a poor choice for racing. But things have greatly improved, where you'll see many of the top pros riding clinchers as well. I have some old tubulars I bought a dozen years ago and race on them. I also switch to aluminum rimmed clinchers and have just as satisfactory performance and results. My favorite clincher for racing, both road and track, is a Veloflex Record 22mm cross-hatch tread tire; I can take corners at full sprint speed with confidence with them. I train on cheap Vittoria Rubino Pro 20mm clinchers; they wear well, have a nice solid feel with the narrow width, and corner well enough to use as a race spare.

My tire choices
Event Venue Type Model Width Tread Comment
Training Road Clincher Vittoria Rubino Pro 20 mm Cross hatch I'll often use a 23 on the back that I've won in races, but the Rubino would be my choice if I've burned those up.
Racing Road Clincher Veloflex Record 22 mm Cross hatch Great grip on corners, good rolling resitance, wears OK but is delicate for rough surfaces.
Racing Road Tubular Tufo Pro 22 mm Cross hatch Sold as a track training tire, it has tremendous grip and is very durable.
Training Track - Cement Clincher Vittoria Rubino Pro 20 mm Cross hatch Fast and durable.
Training Track - Wood Clincher Veloflex Record 22 mm Cross hatch The Rubino Pro can slip on wood when going slowly.
Racing Track - Cement Clincher Veloflex Record 22 mm Cross hatch Fast and durable.
Racing Track - Cement Tubular Tufo Pro 22 mm Cross hatch Fast and durable.
Racing Track - Wood Tubular Vittoria Pista EVO CS 20 mm Cross hatch Used only for championship type events where marginal gains may make a difference.
A slightly better grip than the smooth CL that can sometimes slip if dust is present on the track.
I've also raced with the Veloflex and Tufo tires mentioned above on wood tracks with little noticable impact.
Using an EVO CS on a cement track may last about 5 days of racing (e.g. a Nationals). Using an EVO CL on cement may last a few days.
Do not use EVO tires on typical trainers; you can burn a brand new tire down to the cords in about 45 minutes.

Wheels: It seems that manufacturers have found they can make a ton of money on wheels. I've raced with minimal oval-bladed spoked wheels, disk wheels, 32 spoke aluminum rim wheels and had great results no matter what. Sure the wheels are a great place to buy some speed, but the incremental benefits for the exorbitant costs are not needed by the majority of racers; wait until you're near winning that National Championship before making that minor gain investment. My regular race wheel is a 32 spoked 3-cross aluminum clincher, which can be laterally stiffer (more predictable) for full speed cornering than a radially spoked wheel with only 16 support points. I train on fully spoked (36 or 32) aluminum rimmed clinchers; no need to risk damaging expensive equipment just for training.

Carbon parts: Except for my fork, all the components on my racing bike are not carbon. Cranks, derailleur, handlebar, stem, seat post, hubs: all aluminum. The one exception is that my favorite Shimano Dura Ace pedals are no longer made with an aluminum body and when I wore out the front lip, new replacements were plastic (I didn't want to buy used that may have the same wear of those I was replacing). A friend recently brought his road bike over for us to do some fitting for him and it had all carbon parts and his carbon frame. I could not believe how easily I could twist his stem from the handle bars. My 26.0 aluminum counterpart felt like a rock to his noodle.

A similar problem with carbon parts is that they can be damaged more easily or without visibility of pending collapse. Plus they are generally more expensive than the aluminum equivalents.

Wide handle bars: I am still dumbfounded as to the popularity of wide handlbars. 40 to 46 cm wide (center to center) are all the norm. When I started racing in 1970, you couldn't find bars this wide. When I test ride a bike with these on them, I feel like I've gripped onto a wheel barrow and definitely can't find any way to get power through my hands. The fastest sprinters on the velodrome are using bars that are 33 cm wide (and those guys are massive). The most popular sprint track bar (TTT Scatto) comes in 35 and 37 cm wide. Since I win most of my races in a sprint, I want bars that I can transform the most power through and use ones that are about 35.5 cm wide. Narrower bars also present a smaller profile aerodynamically, so there is less drag from the body. Sprinting often involves squeezing through small openings between other riders in the dash for the line and a smaller width sure makes that easier. Getting out of the saddle, a wider bar puts more force outside the center-line, thus the bike tends to sway sideways more, scuffing off power and requiring more elbow room when tightly sprinting in a group.

I'll often have people try this: take two dumbbells with some good weight on them. Hold them parallel to each other and bend over so that your back is horizontal, like you're riding a bike. Let the dumbbells fall to where they feel like there is no resistance to keep them in place and slowly lower them to the floor and let go. Measure the distance between those hand grips and you'll see where you're body feels most powerful when wanting to put vertical forces on your handle bars.

Road bikes in Crit races: I am surprised that with all the criterium racing available in the U.S., that it is impossible to find a production criterium-specific bicycle. Everyone uses a road bike, which most likely has a 70 mm bottom bracket drop (the distance down to the BB from a line connecting the wheel centers) and about 145 mm of Q-Factor (the distance across the outside of the two cranks where the pedals attach). Thus a very tight corner or a corner that is taken at very high speed has a very high likelihood of hitting a pedal if that rider does not coast all the way through. I've seen many pedal hits and I've had riders crash immediately in front of me from this very event. It is entirely avoidable. I had my bike custom built with a 58 mm BB drop (which alone would give me 12 mm more clearance while pedaling through a corner). In addition to that, I use track cranks with a single chain ring (rarely is a small chain ring needed during a crit) and even use a shorter than standard spindle, resulting in a Q-Factor of 127. During a 45 degree lean, this effectively gives me an additional 9 mm of clearance for a total of 21 mm more clearance than everyone I'm racing. It is impossible for me to clip a pedal in a corner, thus I can begin pedalling much sooner than everyone else while coming out of a corner in a sprint and start gaining lengths before they can get back to applying power.

Meters: I don't utilize power meters or heart rate meters. The primary goal during my intensity is speed (or time if a short time trial), which can be accomplished with the simplest of bicycle computers. The main meter I use is Perceived Effort, where I want to feel strong and fast over the duration of my effort.

Power will give you some interesting numbers, but it can be largly ancedotal. For instance, you could change your position on the bike such that you get higher power numbers, but in the process create a less aerodynamic profile, which has the net effect of you going slower. Tracking power over several sessions may be interesting, but does it really matter what power numbers you produce if your results demonstrate an increase in speed? Since speed is the real objective, that is a much better yardstick and less complicated to monitor.

Heart rate can also be interesting, but can vary quite a bit depending on various internal and external circumstances. Your threshold rate my vary depending on how much sleep you got, what and when you last ate, stress factors in your life, atmospheric pressure, outside temperature, and how good a day you may be having depending on all the preperation leading up to that day. So the numbers primarily become ancillary to your real goals of achieving speed. My primary use of a heart rate monitor back when I used one was to reduce my effort if I was doing a recovery ride and did not want to put in excessive exertion.

Proper hydration: I am amazed when I start a 30 minute criterium and see other racers with a water bottle or two on their bike. It should be physically impossible to require re-hydration in that short amount of time, even in much more severe heat than races are often conducted in. If you feel that you need water for any ride that is an hour or less, most likely you've conditioned yourself to believe that. Consider this: for those that hold a regular 9 to 5 job with a lunch hour every day at noon, it's very typical for the stomach to start acting up with 15 minutes to go. By noon, your body is telling you that you'll be collapsing in near death if you don't quickly re-establish some nutrition. We respond to the body's demand by nourishing, when in fact you could most likely survive not consuming any food for 48 hours without physical detriment (if you're not used to fasting, you'd be in mental torment for a while). So why is the body giving us this dire, but false signal: habit, and a habit we've perpetuated where our sub-conscious has caused us to believe that very bad things will happen if we don't continue that habit.

For the most part, we've succumbed to similar habits regarding hydration. I never drink when I train, thus my body has not fallen into a habit of demanding water all the time. I've done races exceeding 2 hours without fluids without consequence. I've taken back control of that bodily response, where I can afford to not concern myself with hydrating during riding. I live in Phoenix and often my summer rides will occur in the afternoon, where temperatures will often exceed 110; still no problem.

Warming up: I see riders on their trainers sweating away for sometimes 45 minutes prior to a 30 minute race. I tell them that if I did that, I'd have nothing left for the race (and I was not kidding). Lots of people tell me they need 20 to 40 minutes to warm up before a race or before they can do any intensity in their training. This is a truth for them and my thinking is that they've conditioned themselves to require that. Every time they begin a ride, they believe they need that time and don't put in any intensity until that time has passed, thus strengthening the belief. After thousands of times practicing this, the sub-conscious has come to accept this to be an absolute truth and will punish the rider if they try to circumvent this ritual. It's a bit like the hydration habit above; they've trained themselves that this is absolutely necessary.

Each time I start a training ride, I immediately bring it up to at least 20 mph. It takes me about 90 seconds before I feel everything open up in the blood and at that time I could go 100% if need be. Since this is my ritual, I can go to a race, ride from the parked car to the start line, and be attacking from the start line, making everyone else suffer that thinks they can't yet perform.

Pedaling technique: Many articles state that it's useless to try to get power through the up stroke. I laugh every time I read this as I reminice on the many occasions where a rider in front of me is mashing the pedals to accelerate and I use my turbo mode with a good dose of upstroke to easily meet or exceed their effort. The theory is often supported by clinical trials where it was shown that the upstroke had no benefit. My counter is that those trials were performed by riders that most likely did not know how to properly apply upstroke power and additionally had not yet developed the muscles that could take advantage of that technique.

I liken it to a scenario where 2 hikers encounter a pond and have the choice to swim 100 feet across or walk an extra half mile around. The hiker that takes to the water does not know how to swim, flails to the point of almost drowning while their partner finally completes the hike around and recues the water logged hiker with a rope. Conclusion, swimming never works.

The strongest pedal stroke starts with a toe down down stroke. The ankle is the weak link, so the less angle that is put on it, the better the larger muscles can do their job and not be limited by the smaller strength trying to hold the ankle in place. I suggest thinking of trying to shear the cleats off of the pedals with the toes extremely pointed down. This is followed through the 5 to 7 O'Clock positions with a "duck paddle" stroke, pushing back through the ball of the foot with the toes down, in a similar position to running that our legs have evolved to employ. This sets up the up stroke which is done by relaxing the ankles and pulling through the ball of the foot, still with some pressure on it towards the pedal axle (not pulling up through the top of the shoe). With this toe down stroke, it is nearly impossible to develop power through the top of the stroke, so I ignore trying to do so.

This same technique works well for out of the saddle efforts. I often think of my upstroke power as my turbo mode as it's great for in-the-saddle quick accelerations.

Racing page     Bike page