Ralph:

Interesting that you've decided to get back into cycling as well as applying the WP to cycling training. I am considering buying a Tacx Fortius setup for indoor cycling training after (about) a 27 year haitus from racing, time trails, and long touring rides. Once my high school buddies (who I ran with three competitive seasons each year and cycled with during summers) and I all took to the four corners of the world to chase our careers, the cycling stopped.

Now seems a great time for us (you and me that is) to get re-started, no?

The Tacx hardware and software looks pretty slick, and come recommended from the UK C2 forum. Have you seen it in action, or know of anyone who has? I'm interested, but the investment is not insignificant, because I'd be buying a road bike and the Tacx hardware/software all at one time. See:

www.tacx.com

Please do let me know if you have any skinny on it.

Thanks Ralph!

-- Mark

Mark,
I hope you don't mind me chipping in here.

I believe the Rolls Royce of all stationary bike systems is the Computrainer system.

It is far superior to the Tacx.

It is more expensive (bit like Concept2) but has a real "road feel'.

You can download any course from around the world and the inbuilt program options are excellent.

My wife trains exclusively on the system for her summer bike/triathlon season.

I believe there are great cross training benefits if you don't want to only erg.

Her 2nd at the WIRC have shown that to be the case.

Good Luck,
Chris

Chris:

Don't mind at all ... in fact, I appreciate it very much ... thanks ... I'll certainly check it out.

Did she check out the other systems? How did she settle on the Computrainer? Looking for her thought process and the pros and cons.

Chris, who's your wife? I want to check out her WIRC performance.

Regards -- Mark

I really chose the system rather than Tessa. The system is calibrated to replicate the change in course terrain. So if you want to ride the Tour de France you actually experience the same degree of difficulty as the actual mountain course.

It has heart rate, watts, pacer and pre selected courses that you can ride. You can also download any course you want from the internet.

I hated "Wind Trainers" because they had no road feel and were so boring.

It is also very dangerous doing hard time trials on most roads outside unless you are lucky enough to live somewhere really quiet. No issues about sun, rain, heat or cold either!

Looked at tracx but thought it was fairly limited.

The great thing about the computrainer is that you are able to continually monitor your performance.
If you can ride a 40k T/T on the CT at a given pace that is the pace you should expect to ride outside in calm conditions.

You calibrate your tyre pressure before each ride. Each ride is comparable because there are no variables. Bit like the Concept2 and a great point for comparison as to your improvement. In this case you kill yourself doing a 16k TT rather than a 2k erg!

Tess competed in the 50-54 LW against JVB.

Regards,
Chris

I checked out the website and the model you noted. Personally I really am not a great fan of watching cycling video while training or even competing against a video.

What I do like about the trainer is the feed back of watts, cadence and Heart rate as well as the ability to alter the resistance (slope). I think that the model you have chosen is an excellent choice. Personally I would opt for the Tacx Flow trainer:

http://www.nashbar.com/results.cfm?brand=5052&init=y
Tacx Flow Trainer
The science of home training …at your fingertips. Cyclists with ... more TX-FT Tacx $449.95
now $399.95

Tacx T1900 I-Magic Virtual Trainer
Take your indoor training to the next level with interactive resp ... more TX-MGC Tacx $724.95
now $599.95

I think you are spending an extra $300.00 for some extra bells and whistles. I would consider using that $300 plus some extra to have the ability to have watts meter for the road bike you are about to purchase

Most serious cyclists are using Watts as well as heart rate as a gauge of training both on their trainers as well as on their road bikes. The watts feedback is the most important along with the cadence. I also find the HR monitor extremely useful.

The model I purchase is a generic marketed by a Online Bike outlet (Nashbar)(http://www.nashbar.com) It cost me $230.00 and has the above functions except for the Heart rate (I have my own Heart rate monitor) and the video software.

When I row I generally use watts instead of av/500 as a gauge. av watt 203= av/500 2:00 av watt 243= 1:52.0 av watt 263 = 1:50.0.

As I mentioned previously I have set up a cycling training program following the WP workout. So for I have set up Level 4 workouts and level 3 workouts. I have been experimenting with it for the past several days now and I am convinced that it will give me the same benefits in cycling that the WP gave me for rowing. I would be willing share my experience with you or anyone interested.

When I was actively racing I also coached junior cyclists two of whom went to be Category I racers and one even went on to win several national silver medals as a junior and also became a coach for Junior cyclists at the Olympic Training center in Colorado.


Ralph Giarnella MD
Southington, CT

Chris:

Very interesting ... I agree on the wind trainer comment. I hated that thing (still have it stowed away in the basement). I'll need to spend some time at the web site for Computrainer.

Tess kicked some tail yesterday ... congratulate her for me. PB for her?

-- Mark

Hello everyone, (my actual intended post vs. new thread I accidentally started)
I've been a guest viewer of this great forum for the last couple months as I prepped for CRASH-Bs. A colleague of mine rowed lt wt for Harvard, and we pushed each other into this. I'm an all-around endurance athlete whose daughter joined crew, so I bought her a C2 for training last summer. At the end of my cycling and running seasons last fall I started to use the erg and thought it was pretty cool (lots of pain, constant performance info in my face, etc.) I trolled through the various threads and thought this one had the most useful and proven training principles. I combined several of the WP workouts with my cycling training and squeezed a few pounds off.

To make a long story short, I had a really successful row at CRASH-Bs - 6:47.4 in the 40+ lightweights, and I would not have been able to do it without reading all of the great postings from Mike and all of you regular contributors. I had the chance to introduce myself to Mike after the race and thank him in person. I'm looking forward to competing next year, and I'll be part of this thread - learning much more than I'm contributing, I'm sure.

But I do know a bit about cycling, and I'll be training for my third participation in the Boston-Montreal-Boston 1200km in August. I'm sure that the rowing has given me a great leg up on my prep for that event. So on the indoor trainer debate...your legs and your mental focus will matter much more than Tacx vs. Computrainer vs. Cyclops vs. whatever. They will all work really well - as with all things, you get what you pay for. My own solution is using a basic fluid trainer with a power meter on the bike (I use a Powertap), instead of on the trainer so that you don't have to change anything when you head outdoors. I'm not interested in simulating a road cross on the trainer - it will never be the same. Give me the interval times, power ranges and I'm set. But that's just me, everyone is different, and anything will work great if you are disciplined. Remember, the Soviet bloc countries dominated amateur cycling using junk equipment.

Thanks for all the help so far, and I'm looking forward to training with you!

John:

All I can say is:

1) awesome CRASH-B time (and did you really have to go LW to give me even more tall competition)?

2) thanks for the cycling training input

3) welcome to the WP forum!

Regards ... Mark

Hey Mark.

Us tall types wish we could have the lats and deltoids of the less tall types We got to make the most of what we've got!

Now if I could have Mike's upper body on my leg length, but I guess that would rule out making 165...

John

Hey Mark:

7:19.0 ! Congratulations !

Also, congratulations to Mike! His 6:27.1 time would have won in 2005 but Paul Seibach dropped his time from 6:27.6 to 6:26.8. Wish I could have been there.

If I can get below 7:05 by December of this year, I will. I've finally gotten my average for the 4x1K to just about 1:50.2, so it's time to go for another try at "whittlin' away". It's starting to seem like a really long process. Especially when you read some of these posts of guys saying "thought I'd start erging. Is 6:56 a good time?" Just have to keep at it, I guess. I'm not up to your numbers, but I'm over 80,000 a week. Did get a recent PB on the 6K at 23:30. My younger son finally getting below 21:00 inspired me.

Looking forward to seeing both sons out on the water again. Daughter is rowing now also. Fortunately 2 of them are both on Sundays on the Schuylkill and the other is on Saturdays.

Regards,
Jeff

I want to thank Mike for putting the Wolverine Plan on line. And thanks to the other forum members for their postings. The plan worked really well for me and it helped a lot to hear what others were doing. I had a good Crash-b. Not a PB, but close- 6:34 and change. There always next year. It was a lot tougher to perform in the arena than I thought it would be. I got caught up in the race, went out too fast and paid the price at the end. Live and learn. All in all it was a very well run event. I'm definitely doing it again next year.

Ralph- I'm starting my cycling training. I'm going to use some of your workouts, that you posted a while back. I think the rowing is going to help my cycling a lot. Thanks for posting.

Mark- The best cycling training is on the road.

Good luck,

Neil

Neil:

Agreed, but sometimes weather and life's priorities get in the way of that ... not to mention having roads that are safe to ride. The "next best thing", for me, would be a trainer that's just as sophisticated with a marketing program as successful as C2's program -- rankings, races, Internet message boards, forums, etc. That would be the best of an imperfect situation.

I am amazed at how much better drivers elsewhere in the world are about making way for cyclists ... and keeping them safe. In te US, you often become a target ... rather than something or someone to take caution over. So, the safety factor in putting in lots of klicks is not insignificant either, sadly.

Regards -- Mark

Mark,
I'm coached in cycling by CTS (www.trainright.com). They might have at least part of what you are looking for - the message board is very active, very supportive and none of the nonsense that I've seen from the non-valued added contributors (for lack of a better term) who like to drag down discussions on C2. Of course, CTS isn't free, but as with your indoor trainer for cycling, you get what you pay for...

John

Neil,
If you are in Acton, I'm right around the corner - what type of cycling do you do? And next fall, I'll be looking for erg partners as well...

John:

Thanks ... for the cycling training information. I'll take a look.

Also, I started rowing for the same reason you did, although my pip-squeak is a cox ... less than 95 pounds, 5' 3", and LOUD. Just like Dad ... short and loud.



Regards ... Mark

I’d like to take a moment to congratulate all those who competed at the 2006 CRASH-Bs and to thank all the CRASH-B officials, Concept2 personnel, volunteers and spectators for making the event a truly enjoyable experience. And a big thank you to the many former strangers who took time to introduce themselves, talk about the Wolverine Plan, or wish me good luck for my race. The feedback about my comments on this thread was very helpful and motivational to me. I expect to continue making occasional WP remarks as time and ambition allow, and I hope I’ll be able to help some of you reach your training and racing goals.

All the best,

Mike Caviston

Mike:

And there are many of us, some that went to CRASH-Bs, some that raced elsewhere this season, and some who never raced at all, who owe you lots of credit and thanks for helping us establish a training plan and execute it to get better. You're a real credit to the sport, and asset to us and many others.

As always, thanks! It works!

-- Mark

I caught Mike's race, and he definitely practices what he preaches. After rowing a neat negative-split 6:27, he jumped off the erg, slung his kit bag over his shoulder and jogged off up the arena steps like a man who'd just finished warming up. If the race had been 25m longer he'd have won it, as the other guy was in bits. Maybe just left the kick too late?

[/quote]
Also, I started rowing for the same reason you did, although my pip-squeak is a cox ... less than 95 pounds, 5' 3", and LOUD. Just like Dad ... short and loud.



Regards ... Mark
[/quote]

We should get our daughters in a shell together - Jane is on the other end of the size spectrum, but also LOUD. She just ended her hockey season - first year goalie - she thinks one of her jobs is to cheer constantly for her teammates at 100+ decibels! Now if my younger daughters get into rowing as well...

John

I second what Mark has written.
Thanks Mike, and congratulations for your performance at CRASH-Bs!

Regards,

Francois

Mike

It was great to meet you at the CRASH-Bs after reading all your informative posts. thanks for taking time after the race to talk with me. It was a really great event and lots of fun. very motivating.

Adam Balogh

Using the Wolverine Plan as a guide for training in cycling:

Since a number of readers of this WP share the common interest in cycling and rowing I thought you might be interested on how I have adapted the WP as outlined in these discussion to cycling on a wind trainer. As I mentioned in an earlier post I have only worked on level 4 and Level 3 so far.

Conversion of WP to cycling
Level 4- in the WP for rowing is basically a series of 2 minute intervals of alternating spm with the goal of continuous rowing 1 hr and over time increasing intensity and increasing spm.
The objective is to slowly increase the amount of work done per session (baby steps) from week to week over the entire training session.

I start my Level 4 session with a 10-12 minute warm up.
Warm up:

I set the resistance at elevation of 0%.
I start in a low gear ratio of 42/24 and increase my cadence until I reach 90+rpm- When I reach 90 rpm I go to the next gear ratio for one minute and every minute I increase the gear ratio to the next cog until I a reach my desired warm up condition- all the time maintaining a 90 rpm.
It takes me about 10 minutes to get warmed up enough to begin sweating.

Level 4 workout_

set resistance level ( elevation)
-at present I have set my elevation leve at .7%- My wind trainer has 5 settings 0% .7% 1.5% 2.3% and 3.1%

set gearing
- at present I am doing my workouts in a gear ratio of 42/13

I start my work out at a cadence of 90 rpm (190+/- watts) for 2 minutes, 80 rpm (165 watts +/-) for 2 min then 70 rpm (145 watts +/-) for 2 minutes then back to 90 rpm etc and continue for the sequences for the entire workout.

I started at low levels and and presently at 30 minutes for this workout. I plan to increase by 2-4 minutes each workout until I reach 60 minutes.

At the end of my workout I do a 5 minute cool down.

Once I can do this workout for 60 minutes I will either increase the gear ratio or the elevation. Either way my watts will increase. Eventually I will also add in sequences with cadence as high as 100 and 110 and as low as 60

If the gear ratio and the elevation or resistance are kept constant then the higher the cadence the higher the wattage will be.

In competitive cycling the average rpm is in the 85-95 rpm range. In sprints the rpms can reach as high as 120-130. On the hills the cadence may drop as low as 60 rpm.


Level 3

I start with a 10-12 minute warm as above and and end with a 5 minute cool down as above.

Level 3 workout

at present I set my resistance and gear ratio at the same level as my Level 4 workout. I do the entire workout at a cadence between 80-90.
At present I am doing a 30 minute workout at 85-90 rpm and and average watt of 170.

When I can do this workout for 60 minutes continuously at this intensity I plan to either increase the resistance (elevation) or the gear ratio.


In my workout diary I keep track of the following:

gear ratio
total training time (minus warm up and cool down)
Avg watt,
Max watt,
Avg MPH,
Distance,
elevation in feet,
elevation %
Av HR, MaxHR, Time HR spent in training zone

If you are interested in finding out the work equivalent of cycling to rowing you can covert watts to av/500m times in rowing by going to:

http://www.machars.net/spi.php

I did a 30 min level 3 workout this am with an avg of 170 watt. This is equiv to 2:07.22- Avg/500m- or 7086.6m for 30 min.

For the other levels of workouts you could set up 2 minute intervals roughly equiv to 500m, 3 min equiv 750,, 4 min int equiv to 1k, 6 min int equiv 1500 m, and 8 min int equiv to 2k

I think that these variatons would ease the boredom of indoor training while pushing fitness to a higher level. More importantly it will be easy to judge improvements from week to week by having set standards for comparison.

Heart rate monitoring is also a good tool if used properly. Over time you should be able to do the same intensity at a lower heart rate.

Any other ideas of using theWP as a training tool for cycling?

Ralph Giarnella MD
Southington, CT

Ralph,
You are way ahead of me in thinking about this! I've got a couple of quick observations about rowing and cycling.

I'm coached through Carmichael Training Systems, and the language is different, but at some fundamental level, training is training. L4 has been the toughest for me to grasp (small brain and new to rowing concepts), but WP Level 4 seems conceptually similar to "Endurance Miles"(EM) at CTS, which is the foundation of their training program. Because I wrestled with the L4 conceptually, I found myself doing more base work on the bike. For next season, I commit to mastering the L4 concept.

Vs. CTS EM, WP L4 has the added structure of closely defined rpm and power bands, with higher "torque" required at the lower SPM. The higher torque, lower rpm equates to CTS "Muscle Tension" intervals, which is added into their program as you build your aerobic foundation. The L2 and L1 workouts don't really enter the program until later in the season, vs. WP where they are included the whole year. Interestingly, I just read a really good cycling book by Dr. Michael Ross (Boston based) who presents research that shows that higher intensity work, in the appropriate doses, is actually better at building foundation aerobic fitness than traditional base miles - so score one for WP!

The Level 2 workouts are analogous to CTS Steady State - 8 min blocks around threshold intensity. My favorite workout. One threshold level workout from Ross' book that I found worked very well for me was 2-3 sets of 8*2 min on, 2 min easy, with the on block at your LT (~30 min pace). I found that I can do more total volume at the higher intensity (on erg or bike) with an easier recovery than 4*2k. But once I had become comfortable at that intensity, I really focused on the 4*2k, which I think really helped me at CRASH-Bs.

I can already see that the 3 months of high intensity rowing that I did this winter has had a very positive impact on my cycling. Looking back through some old workouts using CyclingPeaks software (use a Powertap hub on my bike), I was at about 205 watts @130 bpm in the middle of last season, after a lot of miles. Now I'm at 230, with very little cycling this year. And I'm 7 pounds lighter (at least for now - not sure I like being a lightweight!)

Those are my thoughts for now - interested in exploring this one some more!

Now THIS is getting interesting ... might have to move up the road bike procurement process ...

That being said, the technology in bikes has changed so much ... either (or any) of you have someplace I can go to get a good read on what to look for and how to spec out something for myself? A checklist or configurator of sorts? Whether to buy a complete bike, or put together components?

HELP!

Oh yes, now all I ride is a Specialized Sort-of-Hybrid (very low end), so I'm clueless as to the range of what's reasonable for a return to road cycling and touring.

Thanks!

Thanks Ralph for your input.

I have also used some ideas from the WP on the bike trainer. In particular the L4 workouts to build power.
I use a Kurt Kinetics fluid trainer (the road machine model). Its power curve is given by the formula P = (5.244820) * S + (0.019168) * S^3, where S is the speed in miles/hour. I am using gears 53/15, which can be thought of as my current reference pace.

I associate 65 rpm (213 Watts) with 16 spm, 70 rpm (250 watts) with 18 spm, 75 rpm (291 Watts) with 20 spm, etc.

My latest L4 workout was 40 minutes consisting of the sequences 180,184,180,184 ( transposed into the corresponding rpm, of course!). The one minute at 80 rpm (337 watts) was hard!

Regards,

Francois

Mark,

I have a the model "NEWSTEEL" made by Guru, with Ultegra components. Those bikes are very well made and the paint job is exceptional. They will also make the frame to fit you exactly. The gold medalist Simon Whitfield was riding a Guru tri bike at the Olympics in Sydney in 2000. If money is of little concern to you, take a look at the Carbonio'Ti model with Dura Ace components.

Francois

For folks looking for a concise reference to bikes, cycling training, and riding fast, I suggest Smart Cycling by Arnie Baker, MD.

My copy is a few years old, so the information on bike tech is a little dated, but the principals in it are spot on. He writes about making the choices to get a good bike for the money rather than paying for the best (lightest?) bike available.

The 12-week trainer program he has in the book is highly regarded. Note it's actually a little late to start it for the upcoming North American season.

Ed

OK, now I find out all you guys have been holding back on me ... all this cycling knowledge, cross training, etc. Grrrrrr ....

(just kidding, this is great)

We might have to start another thread: Wolverine Plan: Cycling Adaptation

Now Mark, I just got here! I'll hold back nothing!

In terms of looking for a bike, first question to ask is "What are you looking to do?" Just go long and have fun? Race? If race, road races, crits, or TT? Loaded touring or just day trips? Commuting? Etc. Everyone should have a bike for every possible purpose - I'll not share how many I own (why my wife wants to throw me out).

Too many bikes are designed for racing and sold to people who will never race. Unless you are young and really flexible, they can be a pain after an hour of riding. So I would start with defining what you want to do - then we can focus on some paths. I wouldn't worry about brands - there are lots of really good frame brands, and at least two really good component manufacturers who have great gear - just pick your price point. But I would start with defining the kind of riding you want to do, that will determine the right frame geometry, and then frame material and components become a function of budget and terrain.

Smart Cycling is a great book, covers everything. I've just purchased the new book on power training by Allen and Coggan - extremely good. For long distances, Simon Doughty's Long Distance Cyclists Handbook is the best.

John makes a good point. Bikes are like cars, before you buy you need to determine what are you using the bike for. You wouldn't buy a race car unless you planned on racing ( or would you).
Racing bikes are not designed for comfort.

In looking for a bike I would first try to find a good local bike store. The most important component of a good bike store is a good bike mechanic and an honest salesman.

Bikes should be considered as 3 major parts-
The first is the frame- The frames are made by many different builders from small shops that make only a few hundred a year and on special order to major manufacturers like Trek and Cannondale. The most important thing to look for in a bike frame is the geometry. There is a racing geometry which is very stiff, tight and unforgiving. It is designed to maker sure that every ounce of effort is transferred directly to the wheel with very little flex- in the frame that might dissipate the effort. You feel every little bump in the road. There is the touring geometry which is more relaxed and giving and helps smooth out the ride.

Frames can cost from a few hundred dollars to 5k or more depending on the material and who makes the frame.

The second are the the components- the add on parts, brakes, shifters, rear and front derailers, cranks- also known as gruppo- There only a few major component makers- The most notable are Campagnolo (Italian) and Shimano (Japanese).
These gruppos can be found on most high end bikes- The cost of these gruppos can vary from several hundred dollars to thousands for the very best. A good gruppo can last you a lifetime and if you ever get tired of your bike can take the components off the frame and put them on another frame to make a new bike.

The third part are the wheels- again these are made by many manufacturers and cost from $50-60 to hundreds of dollars. The more expensive wheels are generally racing wheels. Wheels are readily interchangeable and many cyclists have several sets of wheels depending on whether they are training, racing or touring.

I purchased a racing bike in 1987 from Richard Sachs a well known bike builder in Connecticut. At that time the frame alone cost me $700, I had Campagnolo components put on the bike as well as racing wheels. the bike cost me between $1500-2000. When I was racing I would train 200+ miles weekly 8 months out the year. The bike and I have had several crashes during races and the bike always came out better than I did.
I still have the bike and as a matter of fact I am presently using it on my wind trainer.

Last year I purchased a Specialized Roubaix with Shimano compnents and it cost me $1700. The Specialized is more of a touring bike than a racing bike (a concession to my aging bones). I would have liked to upgrade my Sachs to the new components available but the upgrade would have cost almost as much a purchasing a new bike.

As a first bike I would recommend the Specialized Roubaix and unless you are very serious about racing stay away from racing bikes. Bikes are like cars- you can buy a Ford, Buick, Cadillac, Mercedes or even a Ferrari. They will all get you from point A to point B.

good luck in finding a bike
Ralph Giarnella MD
Southington, CT

Ralph:

Thanks.

Assuming I'm doing it for cross training, and long day tours, not races (unless they were some kind of distance event and only for fun, not too serious) ... would the Roubaix be a good choice? As well, would it be the kind of bike I could use if I got up the ambition to do a cross country ride? With packs? Without? For indoor training?

(sorry about all the questions)

Just trying to get a sense for the utility of the Roubaix. As well, what other makes/models would be similar?

Thanks again ... regards ... Mark

Without a doubt the Roubaix would be the ideal bike for long distance rides. It comes in several formations with double or triple crank. I purchased the triple crank- with a triple crank you can have super low gears for the Rocky mountains or the alps and the high gears for fast riding.
Check out the website

[email]http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?sid=06Roubaix [/email]

I purchased the Roubaix triple elite. The difference in the models is the components- The higher priced models have Dura Ace components which are the top of the line components. The model I purchased was in stock and the bike shop gave me a club discount. I am perfectly happy with my purchase .

Ralph Giarnella MD
Southington, CT

Thanks Ralph ... great information (as usual).

Ralph:

Another question ... sorry ...

I bought some rather pricey Dura Ace pedals, along with carbon fiber shoes, for my current "ride". I know I can move them ... but do most higher-end bikes come with pedals, or without?

Guess I'd just move the pedals from these to my old ride. Should I assume they'll provide new plates for the shoes with the new bike, or is that something I need to remember to procure as an add-on? I sense that the various pedals available do not have a standard connection mechanism ... or do they?

Does this question make sense?

-- Mark

Hi Mark,
Most higher-end bikes come without pedals.
Good luck for your race tomorrow!

Francois

To get more on topic , I have a question for you.

Now that the racing season is over for most of you, what do you plan to do with the WP? Are you contemplating any shift in emphasis among the four levels? What do you do with the L4 now that you have reached the higher sequences? Would you advocate cross-training?

If I remember right, Mike mentioned that he would do pretty much the same training but with less intensity. What do you think?

Francois

I'm going to try some "different" training, just for some variety. Strapless ... S10PS ... etc.

Also going to add cycling and some weight training to the mix, for variety, and to add some strength, keeping weight between 160 and 165, and hopefully reduce BF%.

I agree that the Roubaix would be ideal for long distance day rides. I looked very seriously at the Roubaix, and what made me ultimately decide against it is that it doesn't have eyelets for mounting racks and fenders, which I really like for ultrarides, and would really be a necessity if you wanted to do extended touring with panniers and all that. Also, I wouldn't do a long tour on carbon - I know they hardly ever fail, but when they do, they do it big time - steel can be repaired - not sure that anyone makes a carbon touring bike, but there's always the "Franken-bike" converted to do something the make had not intended. But the Roubaix is a very comfortable bike. I would probably put on bigger tires (25 or 28 mm wide) - it makes a big difference in comfort, no real difference in rolling resistance, and the weight and aero penalties don't really matter if you aren't racing. Note that frame material is steel for the base model, but still w/carbon forks and stays.

If you are seriously interested in touring, you should check out Rivendell, Bruce Gordon and Heron, and if you want something really neat and special, check out Hetchins and Bob Jackson at Worldclasscycles.com (I have a Bruce Gordon and a Hetchins). But if touring is a future maybe, you won't go wrong getting a Roubaix today.

Note: Yukon John has just created a cycling thread, so we can all move this discussion over there.

I am shifting my training focus to cycling while trying to maintain my rowing endurance. The one thing I learned when I hurt my back and could not row for two weeks is how quickly high intensity endurance is lost.

For now I plan to row 3-4 times weekly with emphasis on levles 3&4 and occasionally do a 2 or 1. As the weather improves and I can shift my cycle training outdoors I will increase my time in the saddle, especially on the weekends.

On my indoor cycle trainer I have finished my first full week of serious training and I am presently doing the equivalent of level 3&4 workouts on the bike for 50 minutes- Once I reach 60 minutes I will just increase the intensity. I can only take so much on the bike indoor training. I will extend my endurance when I can go outdoors and ride for 3-5 hrs at a time. Time goes by much faster when outdoors especially if you can ride with others of comparable goals.

My primary forcus for all training is #1 fitness, #2 fun #3 racing. Training for racing just gives me impetus to train harder rather than just putting in the time.

Ralph Giarnella MD
Southington, CT

OK, so maybe this should be on the "Brag About" thread, but it's Mike and the WP who get the credit every time I get a little faster.

Old 2K 7:27.4 Jan 09, 06
New 2K 7:22.1 Mar 10, 06

This is particularly satisfying since 7 days ago, going for 7:20 I simply gave up with 600 meters to go when I was shifting from 1:50 to 1:49. I just didn't have it in me. So I figured since I was doing my 500's at 1:50.5 I should be able to do 7:22. The easiest way I figured was instead of shifting at 1200 600 and 200, I planned to shift on the 500's.

Goal Actual
1:52.0 1:51.8
1:51.0 1:51.2
1:50.0 1:50.1
1:49.0 1:49.0

Feel really good after also setting my 1K two days ago. That good feeling lasted a day until my younger son said "That's kind of sad that I can hold a second better split time on my 6K than your new 1K PB, isn't it." He was just needling me, but it made me think what a long way still to go. Fortunately my goal is not sub 21:00 on my 6K but sub 7:00 on my 2K.

Thanks Mike.

Jeff

Jeff,
Nice improvement and amazing pacing!

And re: mouthing off son, didn't Yoda say something to Luke Skywalker like "When old as me you are, row as fast you will not." I'm lucky it's my daughter who rows - on pure height I should be able to hold her off for a while.

First, congratulations on the new PBs ... they took some work, I know.

Second, I actually feel good that I'm as slow as I am, because I know there are YEARS of training ahead that will lead to improvement of my times ... EVEN AS I AGE. Thus, there will always be something to shoot for in terms of raw improvement of my times ... at least for a reasonable period of time.

I feel for guys like Mike, who are older, yet at the top of the rankings ... he's said it before ... it's got to be tough to train hard knowing that all you're trying to do is get slower as slowly as possible.

That will be an interesting bridge to cross, assuming I ever get there. I know I was a bit "flat" with my training for a few weeks after reaching my first million meters, which was a big goal for me. That's why you'll see me encourage people who post their accomplishing their first million to set a new goal ASAP ... to hopefully skip the down cycle that can occur. I've heard this from a number of people, so I feel it's a common occurance that people need to be aware of and try to proactively combat.

The anticlimax syndrome can be a real problem. After reaching a major goal, I find that my mind is just not ready to pick up on a new one. The 80+ sub 8' that had been my goal even as long as ten years ago was a major peak for me and I was left with a void afterwards. I literally "crashed at the B's" three weeks later - mostly for lack of incentive. Since then, I have reduced my erging time to about 20% of what I had been doing for the previous 7 months. Fortunately, some of that time has been well spent boosting up my weak records in the non 2k rankable events. I am probably coasting on the conditioning that I had done in the 7 months and I assume that it is going to run out on me soon, but it was nice to pick up some PB's this month (especially since they seem to be WR's as well). Now it is time to look for non-erging goals that will get me outdoors to enjoy the coming spring weather.

Bob S.

Great way to describe it Bob ...

There is a nice discussion going on regarding Paul Smith's s10ps (strapless, 10 meters per stroke) training on this thread.
I, for one, don't remember Mike ever mentioning it was relevant to the WP.

Would it be beneficial to do some of the L2 or L3 workouts at 10 mps ?

Thanks

Francois