The_Break

Hehe I can see why you cramped so badly and took so long to do the race. You crazy man!

No worries man! I like how humble you are by the way. It is nice to see and not often seen that someone will change their minds publically. So, cool, we are all still learning as it is a sport that is actually a lifestyle.

I do not suggest you start doing hill or interval sessions for at least the first 3-4 months. Sorry if I offend but this is very unwise above and definitely not a good way to train other than to be a mucho athlete. This is the wrong advice for anew athlete as you must definitely build your aerobic base properly to give you a good standing into your cycling. This can only be done at the lower 50--70% heart rates as I mentioned earlier. Teach your body the basics, build it up slowly and then worry about maximizing performance at a later stage. Take care of your body now through wise training and it will take care of you.

I am a roadie. I rode for a couple of years fulltime overseas and was doing as much as 30hours per week at times of the season. I would say there is a definite truth in the more hours in the saddle the better your results will be, however it comes with deminishing gains from about 20 hours up. You do still gain over 20 hours however it is like the difference between a Ferrari vs a Lambo, not much in it. But yeah, the more you can train the better so for the average Jo who has a job there is no real limit to how much one should train other than how much rest can you get in and how well structured is your program from a recovery point of view. The question you should ask yourself though, and trust me because I have been in almost all scenarios, is: What are the most important things in your life to you. Spend time on those things in quantities in the same order.

If you have only started training 8 weeks ago and most of your rides are 20km rides then I suggest your next race is a 20km race. I really suggest you rather try upping your training km toward the 40km mark before you attempt to do this in a race, especially as you will be pushing harder in a race. The main reason for this is purely that if you are new to cycling and endurance sports you will need to teach your body as well as your mind in terms of discipline about feeding and hydration over the 90min mark. Your body handles exercise well up to about 90min without any special feeding or drinking but take this over two hours (or in a 40km race at your pace 3 hours plus) and you run a very very high risk of bonking like you will never believe you could. I suggest you rather work this all out during training than during a race. Also, if you are new to endurance sports doubling your time in the saddle from 90min to 3 hours is just not good for your body. All training and racing should be from a gradual increase in mileage over a period of time with the correct amounts of rest inbetween. Good rule of thumb for cycling is to up your mileage between 10-20% per week and do as much long slow distance as possible at heart rates at about 50-70% of your max as this is the intensity where you build yor fitness. Higher and you do not build fitness effectivley enough. Lot and lots to learn, but do these few simple things and they will take you a long way at the start. Good luck! Remember, there is no rush to the top.

Check your cables are not busy breaking inside your shifters. This is a common problem with the 7800, 6600, 5600 shifters. You dont notice till the cable snaps. Your shifter gears will not simply break as they are made of metal and are pretty corrosion resistant. If you are having to apply forces big enough to break your internal gears then your cables are probably all jammed up inside the housing. Clean/replace them and try again. You can open up the shifters. They had to be assembled and thus can also be dis-assembled, I had done it on a 7800 myself. But be carefully to note how you took it apart and do it very carefully. Bike shops will not do this for you, they want to sell you a new set. Good luck!

Hehe it is funny, my first bike cost me 6500 with extras in 2003, I think my tyres cost me more on the wheelsets I now have. But yeah, each wheelset has (or at least did have) it own specific purpose and I could justify each and every one of them. Actually, I can probably justify everything I have cycing related and the wife wil not be able to argue. Funny thing is, I even had to justify why I wanted to buy her the equipment I did.

I am back down to 2 road bike after having sold my training bike and rain bike and still have the following wheels training wheels for rain nicer training wheels for good weather racing clinchers for climbing 48mm deep section carbon tubulars 80mm deep section carbon tubulars disc wheel powertap training wheel Tell you wife to please go and count her shoes and ad up the value of them all. She may never mention it again. Luckily the wife has 3 bikes including a tt bike, deep section wheels and ceramic racing wheels for climbing.

Best 40km TT at officially timed Provincial Champs. 55min41sec. Best OFM 2h37min21 But, there are still loads of hubbers much faster than that. I got 95km/h behind a truck once!

Road bike tool box: Torque wrench 1-5Nm Torque wrench 5-30Nm Torque wrench 30-120Nm Socket,allen set Chain whip Cassette tool BB tool Pedal tool (if not allen key) Fine tooth hack say (to cut forks and seat posts) Chain cutter Purpose made cable cutter Long nose pliers Good quality bearing grease Good quality grease for threads Measuring tape Chain ring nut tool

No, but you get good and bad science. Good science is usually when you use exacts or you use very good assumptions. Bad science is when you use poor assumptions. If you start out with bad assumptions you will mostly get bad results. I do not mind getting more info on this product, but at the moment it seems like a product that is not based on good training principles and that could lead to many people being either under or overtrained because they do not fall within the generalized dataset. Like I said, I still believe pure heart rate training will be better than this. All this seems to do is make you think you are training with power. It is far from proper power based training.

My wife and I are down in PE on holiday with our new 1.2TSI jetta. The brother in law drove it without me telling him capacity. He guessed at least a 2l. Hehe he also wanted to look under the hood when I told him 1.2TSI. Could not believe it. Kept talking about it to the family. I guess the 1.2 and 1.4TSI engines are as impressive when one thinks of the GTI and BMW M models as compared to the then normal sized engines. I.e. they are small but pack the punch with the turbo chargers to boost them up with some nice muscle.

90kW is a load of power in combination with the torque you get. It is very much enough. But go drive one, really, that is the best way. Power is very much over rated these days and in my opinion has gotten out of hand in peoples minds as the muscle cars take the limelight. Just looking t the progression from model to model you will see a steady rise in power of the decades, which is not stopping because of marketing. Guys dont know how to put a new model with same power as old on the market yet because people want progression. Reality is, vehicles had plenty of power back then even with their heavy bodies. How much more now. Within 7-10 seconds most vehicles on market can go from 0-120 and then you hit the speed limit. There are very very few situations where you really need more than 75kW in any passenger vehicle 7 seater and less. For me, an engine needs to be efficient first of all, then just have enough power to pass a truck on the long road safely and that is dependent on your patience. Impatient, then get your 186kW engine, patient then 75kW and up is enough, especially with 150Nm and up of torque. 90kW and 200 odd Nm and you have a very nice vehicle that is efficient and you wont think it is under powered. In any case, go drive one, and read the reviews of the TSI engines. That should help you make your decision.

Yes, very safe bet, the 1.4TSI and all current TSIs will not give you these problems. The 96kW TDI was as a say as a result of an on the edge turbo design that was only a problem from one turbo supplier. Reason I know, well lets just say I am as close as you will get to the actual engineers who designed this, in Germany nogals. TSI engines are solid, I worked on some of the projects and with the brains themselves. Just look at the engine of the year results list, especially since 2006 with the dual charger 1.4. I was a powertrain development.engineer.

The problem was actually the turbo which would break apart as it was on the edge of its design. It spun slightly faster on reef and hence the failure. Rest of world had same problem at altitude. When VW changed the turbo supplier (slightly different design) the problem went away.

The only real reason why TDIs may stay around will be for the torque and pulling ability, but from a fuel consumption point of view the additional cost no longer makes sense so when people figure this out, they will opt for the cheaper TSI engines which will be as reliable as the TDI ones. My take on it at least.

The only major problems with the TSI engines will be the same as with the TDI if any, probably with the turbo charger. That is technology that is still not perfected. Are you on the reef by any chance? That is where most turbo failures occur. Like with the 96kW TDi engines in polos a few years back.

Mmmmm debate questions go unanswered.

Correct, you need a spacer and also check your lock ring has not come loose. It happens.

Sorry Powertap, but any product is only as strong as the science behind it so if you can convince me otherwise I would be very interested in learning.

That is exactly it. I bought my Powertap for that very single reason. Shorter interval training and instantaneous power values that where constant irrespective of how my heart rate drift. I think it is a very interesting marekting strategy, however it goes against all the principles of basic power training, i.e. accuracy and instant readings. In my opinion, rather save for the real thing or train on heart rate because both are more accurate. If you take HR which already drifts and then apply it to a generalized set of data that is not specific to you, you end up with a set of drifting data that is generally less accurate than what you started with. Bad science!

Are you in the Cape?

Then the engine will be perfect for you. My Jetta often gets under 5l/100km on my trip to work. About 90km/h average with a few stops. The 5th and 6th gears are also long gears so low revs at high speeds to further reduce consumption. The TDI engines I believe are going to become a thing of the past as if you look at the price difference and what you would save on fuel between petrol and diesel with the TSi vs TDI engines, it makes financial sense to go for t TSI. Good luck and enjoy the vehicle!

I hope he uses a choke chain.

My colleague has one. More than enough of an engine as it has a lot of low down torque from 1500RPM because of the turbo charger and then pllenty of power up from 3500. All in all a fantastic little car. If I recall it was engine of the year was it not? I have the 1.2 TSI in my Jetta and even that is enough. VW's strategy was to downsize engine capcities in order to reduce CO2 emissions, but then turbocharge to give the power and torque when needed. During normal driving the engines are exceptionally efficient, but when you put the pedal down the little turbine works wonders.