Saturday, February 6, 2010

A real 100% effort

The only good thing about Tackle the Tower is it's over. Here are the results. I managed to knock about 5 seconds off my time last year to 6:46. That equates to 385 Watts, about 3.8 W/kg. That number represents the absolute minimum power required to move my mass 500 feet straight up. The calculation is pretty simple:

Weight (in pounds) * 0.4536 kg/pounds * 152.4 meters * 9.81 m/s2 = Energy in Joules
Energy / Time (in seconds) = Power.

A couple caveats: I'm not sure that the climb is 500 feet. That's a number I measured with the altimeter in my old Polar HRM a couple of years ago, and those things can be pretty inaccurate. Also, it's not clear how that power output relates to power on the bike.

I followed my plan almost to the letter. I sprinted the first flight and a half, then settled right into my aerobic climb. I tried to switch on the afterburners with ten floors left to go, I did lift the pace, but just barely. I did "sprint" the last two floors. I got caught behind slower traffic a couple of times, so maybe I could have gone 5-10 seconds faster. But since the time is so similar to last season's I think it represents a physiological limit, a true 100% effort.

I'm pleased I beat last year's time even though it was just by a whisker. It's also pretty useful to get a benchmark like this early in the season. It tells me my main limiting factor is extra weight. I doubt I can really improve the power side of the power/weight ratio. I definitely need to work on the anaerobic power, though, especially making the jump from a high aerobic effort state, but I have to do that every season.

1 comment:

Charles said...

"it's not clear how that power output relates to power on the bike."

1. You should be able to find an effort of similar duration using WKO+.

2. In making any comparisons, bear in mind that with a bike you are hauling ~10 kg of equipment up the same vertical gain.

From personal experience, I find the values are pretty close, which means that the bike is considerably more efficient. No surprisethere, as the energy losses of wheels and drive mechanism are less than shoes and legs.

Post a Comment