Home Races & Places 🏁⛺

Rich Stanbaugh - IMMT 2017 Race Report

Stanbaugh – IMMT 2017 RR

  

Results

Swim:

1:26:31

154th in AG

T1

5:54

114th in AG

Bike

5:39:58

46th in AG

T2

3:37

43rd in AG

Run

4:23:36

35th in AG

Overall

11:39:36

35th in AG               Course PR

  

This was my 9th Ironman and my 3rd time racing Mont Tremblant. My race plan was very simple. Swim steady, bike at 185w and run by HR, starting at 145 and growing to 150+. 

While I was finishing the bike leg, I was writing the draft of my race report in my head. It went like this… “Screwed up the swim, biked like an idiot suffered through the run.” Having slept on it a couple times, my perspective has mellowed a little.

 

Swim

Screwed up the swim. I had a lot more contact than expected on a rolling start and had my goggles kicked off in the first 500 yards. From that point onwards, my right lens was filled with water. I should have stopped and fixed it… the minute that would have cost me would have at least made the swim more comfortable. Pace was ok in the first third of the swim by degraded from there. My right rotator cuff has been angry and it impacted the pace. I was 5-10 minutes slower than expected out of the water. Swam an extra 200 yards.


Bike

Biked like an idiot. I got on the bike (one eye opaque from the filled goggle - lol) and told myself “it’s only 10 minutes… don’t be an idiot.” I repeated that mantra all the way through the descent from Lac Superior on loop 1, at which point, I recognized that I had been an idiot. I was at 195w and 153 TSS. I promptly dropped my wattage to save the run and mentally started writing the race report mentioned above. Finished the bike as reasonable as I could. I rode 100% by HR and by feel and tried to keep it easy; got off at 184w and 276 TSS – a pretty reasonable number, but I had gotten there the wrong way and would pay for it. As a side note – it seemed like a head wind from every direction on the second half of the bike!


Run

Suffered through the run. I had planned to start my run at HR of 145 and then let it build to 150-155 bpm. Because I had trashed my legs on the bike, I decided to hold my HR at 145 (apart from letting it raise a little on climbs).  About 6 miles in, HR was dropping to around 140 so I took a gel and started managing calories better. HR responded and was fine the rest of the day. Given all the challenges of the day, I felt like I executed the run as best I could. The pace was slower than I wanted, but I earned that on the bike.


 

Nutrition & hydration

I had a range of foods over the course of the day. Super hydrated from the day before and about 800 calories for early breakfast. I averaged about 16oz and 325 calories per hour on the bike. The bike calories were closer to 400 the first our and 275 the last hour; I typically bias my bike calories towards the front of the bike so that I’m getting my stomach ready to run towards the end.

 

Bike Execution

I had spent a lot of time thinking about how to get the best bang for the buck on this course. I intentionally did not ride this course targeting low VI. My approach was to push the hills, push harder on short hills and over the top of hills, back off and soft pedal slight descents and to coast any time I was going more than the upper 20s. My approach was:

-       While pedaling – very steady and not spiking the power

-       Steady “over-power” up the hills

-       Steady “under-power” down the hills

-       Bigger pushes over small hills and over the top of climbs

As a result, I coasted for 28 minutes at an average speed of 28mph, my VI was 1.11, but my VI while I was pedaling was 1.02. If I could coast the whole way… I would!

 I believe that the TSS invested with slightly over-powering at lower speeds has a better ROI than the TSS needed at high wind speeds where drag is increasing at the square of wind speed. I do not think this approach is why I over biked the first half of the ride – I over-biked the first portion of the ride because I pedaled too hard all the time and didn't pay attention to the 200w lap notifications that kept showing up on the Garmin. A mental mistake.


Summary

Not my best race. Not my worst – it was a PR on the course, but it didn’t leave me feeling very good. It has been a tough season with surgery and injuries etc. resulting in several re-starts. Mentally, the re-starts took a toll on the fun factor.  I’m not sure what is next. I may sign up for a redemption race in a few weeks or I may spend the rest of the year on my mountain bike.

 

 Thanks for reading and I’ll appreciate any thoughts / guidance!

Tagged:

Comments

  • Great insights and well done!
  • Congrats on the PR! Even though you may have not gotten there the way you wanted it still was a PR for the course. Thanks for sharing as I learn from each of these reports. I've never looked at tss as I ride (maybe I should). I just look at power and HR and still don't push hard enough on the bike as I should.

    Just curious on whether your HR was higher than you expected on the first lap. It looks like you kept it fairly constant. Your run HR looks great!  I know how hard it is to keep it up at the level you want. 

    Get some rest, have some fun and come back strong next season. Thanks again for sharing.
  • I know this wasn't the race you wanted, that said, it takes a true veteran to recognize the things you did, triage them and adjust the plan to maintain a reasonable outcome. Congrats on the finish, heal up and plan your #revengerace, hopeully I'll be riding with you again soon!
  • edited August 24, 2017 3:37PM
    For the graphically minded... here is the data that I looked to understand the race.

    Nothing to say about this...


    Before the race, my gearing was 50-34 chain rings and 12-28 cassette. I changed to an 11-28 cassette three days before the race. That was a good decision. I spent the most time in the biggest gears. I need to consider moving to a bigger chain ring.


    As mentioned in my race report, I intentionally did not ride towards a VI of 1.00. I had lots of coasting…

    But… while I was coasting, I was going very fast...


    And while I was I pedaling… I was (for the most part) pedaling smoothly


    My ride was not as bad as I thought (while I was on the bike)… just lost my head for about 45 minutes. The big red spikes (FRC) are not really the problem... It is the bright green (FTP/FRC). A lot of the red came from standing on the pedals and the metabolic cost for that isn’t as big as the power would imply (gravity helped apply the pedal force). The bright green came from sitting and hammering (all energy from legs). 


    But HR was very steady… I overshot the power, but I kept the nutrition good and to some degree mitigated the fatigue by lowering the power.


    EN report card for the bike… 


    And the run - very steady HR, but slower pace due to tired legs.


    With the EN report card...


    It doesn't change the outcome... I just like graphics.
  • Jeff Kane - Thank you

    Tim Sullivan - HR was about where I expected. without the swim, it quickly goes to upper 130s and is in lower 140s after about 30-45 minutes of IM-pace riding. With the swim, starting around mid 140s was not a surprise. It leveled off around lower 150s (except for some of the short, harder pushes) and was where I wanted it when I got off the bike (down a little from the descent). Regarding TSS - it isn't something I focus on so much as it is a 'cross check' to see if I am where I should be. Riding at IT 70%, one should accumulate about 50 tss/hour. 5.5hr bike = 275... easy math to see if one is coloring within the lines.

    Scott Dinhofer - Thanks. We'll see where this leads.
  • Rich, Congratulations on a course PR!   Considering the surgeries and injuries you've been through I believe you had a great result and still managed to learn a bit.  As Scott said, heal up and I hope to ride with you soon!
  • @Rich Stanbaugh

    Thanks for your always-great race report.  Very interesting and intriguing discussion about bike power output on a hilly course.  On flat courses, it's primarily picking a number and staying there all day.  But on a 2-mile climb, the difference between a steady 200-watt effort and a 300-watt effort is a lot of speed and time gained (or lost). Truly measuring the cost of that and similar extra efforts, however, is the hard part.  I suspect if you swap your first and last 90 minutes on the bike, it might have made a world of difference.  The only IM run I was truly disappointed with just happened to follow a bike ride where Dumb Me pushed the opening 10 miles of the bike uphill before settling in.  Until someone proves to me otherwise, I still consider the opening 30 minutes of the bike and run to be crucial.  We live, learn, have some fun, repeat.  

    Congrats on a solid race.  Looking forward to your next adventure.

    MR
  • Awesome job getting it done out there!!! Despite it all! Congrats!!
  • @Rich Stanbaugh
    Many congrats on the race!  Although it wasn't 100% what you wanted, you have clearly learned some key things through it all that will only make you sharper and faster next time around.  Even despite the the issues you had, you still set a course PR which shows just how strong you are.

    Fantastic job and look forward to seeing what's next on tap!
  • Congratulations on your finish Rich!  You mentioned surgery and injuries...to deal with that and starting the race kicked in the face and get a course PR shows how mentally tough and resilient you are.  I think you did a great job adjusting your bike strategy on the fly and getting focused to turn things around and have a good race!  Your HR profile on the run looks like text book execution.  Nice work out there!
  • Rich, I'm glad to see your recoveries are going well... In your summary you are obviously your worst critic... Congrats on the IMMT PR... I always enjoy your thoughts and analytics.... Really gotta tap your knowledge on WKO4 one of these days soon... Expect a PM :-)
  • Great write-up Rich, and excellent data analysis.   The FRC chart is particularly interesting ... it would be very cool to have that on the bike in real-time
  • Rich, congrats on a hard earned PR.  You are one of the smartest racers I know, and while Frustrated Rich was in charge for a while there, Analytical Rich saved the day.  Not many can recover their race after a bike booger, let alone PR it!  Rest up and thanks as always for sharing it all with us!
  • Rich, grats on your race ! you are coming back from surgery which is huge progress. The data you can get from wko4 gives a lot of indications of what went bad and what went good ! that will help you make adjustments.

    Was also nice to meet you in person =)
  • Thanks everyone! I appreciate the feedback!
  • @Rich Stanbaugh - Great race, and great to see you again!  Your comeback from injuries is impressive and noteworthy.  However, I have to say that I am always blown away with your mathematical prowess of analytical discourse!  You are a master mathlete and have got some serious calculus going on in your noggin.  Great for after the race, and planning training builds...  but it can be double edged sword during the race though...   Keep up the good work, and I'm sure our paths will cross again soon, if not before BRC '18!  Good luck at IMCabo!
  • Rich - As noted, a course PR is always a positive outcome. especially one which provides the opportunity for learning and subsequent improvement.

    One thing you should think about DURING your training rides and runs, while you build for the next race: STAY IN YOUR BOX. Your success in life has come from your strategic and long-range thinking, and from your ability to take data, analyze and take action based on your assessment. Thinking about what your race report will say WHILE YOU ARE BIKING THE RACE is the opposite of staying in your box. Plan your workouts meticulously in advance, seeing how they fit into the overall training plan. Analyze the heck out of them after the fact, and make adjustments to upcoming training. But while you are actually DOING them, make it a point of emphasis to pay less attention to the overall picture, and more attention to what is happening RIGHT NOW, starting with RPE. Don't think about the end of the ride or run. Don't even think about what you'll be doing five miles down the road on the bike, or a mile down the road on the run. Pay attention to what needs to be done in the moment, how it is feeling in the moment. Practice this in all your key workouts, and it will be second nature on race day.
  • @Ian Kurth  / @Al Truscott  - I think you guys are both making the same very valid point. I definitely let the start of that race get under my skin and mentally drifted during the middle of the bike. I realized it after it happened and I can see it when I look at the ride. I like Al's idea of specifically practicing the focus during key training sessions and will implement during the ramp to IMLC. Thanks!
  • @Rich Stanbaugh
    Sorry it took me so long to say HI and congratulations!

    Really enjoyed seeing you guys out there fighting through it on race day!  5:39 is a great bike time on that course.

    FWIW - and IMO, a lower VI will take the same NP as a higher VI and get you to the bike finish line faster.  A 184 NP with a 1.02 vs. a 1.11 will be both a faster split and lower TSS, why, because you are not coasting for those 28 minutes but moving through there faster and the additional matches you are burning while you spike on the uphill are not giving you an equal amount of ROI or speed for the effort being spent.  Test my theory, ride that course again with the same NP but lower VI.....

    Burning less TSS, coming in faster means more matches for the run.....

    I know you and I have debated this many times and I love those debates.  I also consider you a very smart, hard working and progressive leader in our group!

    Look forward to racing with you guys again, soon!

    SS
  • @Shaughn Simmons - thanks for the feedback! It was really good to see you too... wish I was a couple minutes faster so that we could have ran (suffered) together on the run course.

    I agree with your comments wrt VI if the course was flat. Riding at a VI of 1.00 is the absolutely fastest way around a flat course on a windless day.

    The issue on a hilly course is one of how to best 'invest' your TSS budget. Because drag related to wind goes up as the square of the speed (and the power to overcome that drag goes up as the cube of power that needs to be applied to the pedals), the ROI on the TSS invested while pedaling at high speeds is less than the ROI of the TSS invested at lower speeds. I do not believe that VI=1.0 is the fastest way around a hilly course.

    The net-net is that applying slightly more power on a climb and less power on a descent if a more efficient investment of TSS. This is why models that optimize time on a course (like the BestBikeSplit model that CoachP rode) have you applying power unevenly across the course. The "EN Gears" recognize this to some extent by having you climb at +5% and +10% on short hills and to stop pedaling when spun out.

    The real questions are: 1.) Is there a more efficient set of numbers than the EN Gears, and becomes 2.) If there is, how can you simplify them so that they are executable on the bike but still leave you in a good position to run.

    The 28min that I was not pedaling had an average speed of 28mph. This number includes the time through the towns, going around the turn-arounds, etc. so there are some low speed numbers averaged into that 28mph. I believe that any power invested to try to gain a little speed during these 28min would have been a bad investment of TSS relative to applying a little extra power at times when my speed was below 19.5mph (my average for the course).

    Having slept on it a lot now, I believe that I hurt myself in a several ways on this ride:
    1. I didn't manage the first 30min as well as I should have. The swim was longer than I expected. I was more fatigued than I was accustomed to being as I started the ride. Having had a better focus on letting my body adapt and getting more hydration / calories in the first 30min would have helped substantially.

    2. There was a 45min stretch around the first ride up Lac Superior that I mis-managed. I showed the power data above, but the chart below is probably better evidence. I typically ride at HRs that begin in the low-mid 140s and work their way to low 150s. This ride had me averaging 145 over the first hour, 148 over the last hour but averaging 157 and peaking at 167 during the 45min period that I was 'out of control.' Notwithstanding any 'theories' on how to apply the power, I think this was a rookie mistake. @Al Truscott was right when eh said I was not in my box. I should have managed the effort to stay within my HR targets (I still do not have the skill to go by RPE - but HR is a pretty good indicator of RPE for me).


    3. After a couple in-depth discussions with @Coach Patrick, I would add that I need to target a lower TSS. I have been targeting/ achieving TSS≈275 based on the Green Zone of the race planning Excel. I believe now that 275 is too big for my current abilities. Hence, for IMLC, I am going to pump the FTP up slightly and target TSS≈260 for that race.

    I really appreciate the feedback and the discussion. I am 100% in agreement that riding at VI=1.00 is a a riding skill that we all need to master, and that it is the fastest way around a flat, windless course. The rest makes for interesting discussion/debate and for good learning opportunities!
  • edited September 8, 2017 5:57PM
    Great thread!

    Just remember that BBS (Best Bike Split) does not translate into Best Run Split for an Ironman.  At the end of the day we are biking in order to run a marathon well....hence the term staying in your box, which really does translate into a lower VI, lower than the BBS VI but results in more matches for the run.

    Gonna be hard to convince me that 28 minutes of pure coasting is the most efficient trade off to spiking watts on the climbs.....

    Keep the fire burning Stanbaugh!

    SS
    1. ...This ride had me averaging 145 over the first hour, 148 over the last hour but averaging 157 and peaking at 167 during the 45min period that I was 'out of control.' Notwithstanding any 'theories' on how to apply the power, I think this was a rookie mistake. @Al Truscott was right when eh said I was not in my box. I should have managed the effort to stay within my HR targets (I still do not have the skill to go by RPE - but HR is a pretty good indicator of RPE for me)....
    It's not just rookies. I've done that twice, once in 2009, in Kona after I got a penalty @ mile 20 or so...I rode the next 15 miles @ HIM effort thinking I could rest in the penalty tent, and that was all she wrote. My day ended @ mile 10 of the run, passed out on the median of Palani Dr. Then, in Lake Tahoe in 2013, when it was 34F coming out of T1, I rode for 45 minutes at a higher effort level (0.79 IF instead of 0.67) because I was simply trying to stay warm, despite having four layers of clothing on. Same thing - I sat down in an aid station @ mile 12, and got a ride back to the village. Humility IMO is the number one trait necessary for a successful Ironman effort.

    Part of my point is...coasting does not give you the ability to avoid burning matches when you work harder because you have been "resting". A match is a match, not matter how rested you are. I remember our conversation about FRC; I was skeptical then, and I still am...
  • I just wanted to throw this out there into the VI discussion...  Its AP average power that actually moves you around the course NOT NP Normalized power.... We all know the difference being NP is a mathematical average of what the metabolic cost may have been to your body by the way you rode the course... But I view it as a fictitious number when AP is a true known that cannot be debated....Just something to think about... The closer the AP is to NP the lower the VI and "most probably" will equate to the  the fastest , most efficient, and lowest metabolic cost to the rider... I pay more attention to trying to get higher NP in training and a higher AP in racing if that makes any sense ?
  • edited September 9, 2017 3:42PM
    This is a great conversation!

    We can all agree that the only good strategy for the bike is the one that leaves one in a position to have a great run. 

    The thought that I am pushing forward is simply that VI=1.00 is only optimal on a flat course. The reason is simple: one spends more time going uphill at a lower speed (and lower wind resistance) than they spend going downhill at a higher speed (and a higher wind resistance). Here (below) is a simple chart I build using bike calculator:  http://bikecalculator.com/what.html.  Two simple scenarios. An 3% grade out-and-back course with a rider weighing 160 pounds, FTP 270 and no wind. Consider two rides:
    1. Target TSS = 270 by riding with VI=1.000 at a level 175w uphill and downhill.
    2. Target TSS = 270 by riding uphill at 195w (IF 72%) and downhill at 132w.


    I know that this is an extreme example... there are no courses designed like this. These rides are long because of the crazy course design with over 8,000' of climbing. I'm just using them to illustrate a point about the VI.

    The second ride is at the same effort budget (TSS 270) and the power was never spiked @IF 72%.The VI ≈1.03 and the ride is 24min faster than the VI=1.00 ride.

    Riding a hilly course at IF > 1.00 is faster.

    @Shaughn Simmons If I could coast 112 miles at 28mph - I would do it in a minute.

    As you know, VI=Pnorm/Pavg. As @tim cronk points out, Pnorm is a model of metabolic cost. It is a calculated number, not a measured number. It is a 4th order weighted average. It is really designed to measure the cost of spiking your power, not of coasting. However, when you put the zeros into the calculation, it causes Pnorm to drift away from Pavg, and the result is VI increases above 1.00. In a sense, this is not a real impact, because your metabolic cost does not increase by coasting. 

    @Al Truscott, I fully agree that coasting does not give you the ability to spike your power. We all have a finite number of matches to burn. I would argue that, relative to VI, I am not advocating spiking one's power. I am suggesting that riding above the target on climbs and below the target on descents offers a more efficient use of energy than riding a constant V=1.00. Done correctly, it will not burn matches.

    When we were discussing FRC, I was attempting to make a different point (probably not very clearly). FRC is an anaerobic energy source above FTP. There are times that many of us are forced well above our targets because of weight, gearing and incline. Or - getting outside our boxes like I did at MT. Having a higher FRC and doing workouts to improve FRC does (at least) two things for us:
    1. It puts more matches in our match book, and
    2. The workouts help raise our VO2max, which gives us more space to raise our FTP.
    FRC is finite and it doesn't recharge quickly... certainly not in the timespan of coasting. But having a large FRC gives us more room for the sometimes necessary push and more room for error.

    I think that the EN Gears (3rd = GW+5%, 4th=GW+10%) address this point... I think than rather choosing 5% & 10% that the targets for 3rd & 4th gear may be course specific.
  • @Rich Stanbaugh Congrats on the PR, this is a great race report which has developed into a great thread and discussion.  I think I learned a few things about how the pointy end evaluates things.

    How did you accumulate the chainring data?  It seems like riding a race rehearsal using TR and the course data
     on a hilly course, would help solidify any gearing changes prior to the race.



  • Thanks @Gary Lewis.  I get shifting data from my Di2. If you have Di2 and you add a D-Fly (link below), the shifting data gets logged to your Garmin in its own data channel. You can view that data in WKO4 or in https://di2stats.com/.

    D-Fly Link:
    http://bike.shimano.com/content/sac-bike/en/home/news-and-info/news/d-fly.html  
  • ... I am suggesting that riding above the target on climbs and below the target on descents offers a more efficient use of energy than riding a constant V=1.00. Done correctly, it will not burn matches....
    ...
    I think that the EN Gears (3rd = GW+5%, 4th=GW+10%) address this point... I think than rather choosing 5% & 10% that the targets for 3rd & 4th gear may be course specific.
    I agree with this. It's the way I race. No question working a bit harder uphill is a good strategy. Personally, I try as hard as I can to hit my targets going downhill, coasting only when I run out of gears (real ones, not the EN ones noted above).

    As to FRC, I see it now as another measure of training effect, like one's FTP or five-hour power or threshold here rate.  I think, however, that burning any matches , which I define as going over those EN "gear" recommendations for any extended period, like more than 15 seconds, is never a good choice during an IM. Back in the day before power meters, an old saw about IM racing was: "You lose 3 minutes on the run for every one minute you spend anaerobic on the bike."

    IMO, the only time in an IM for burning matches is the last 90 minutes of the run. Hopefully, we'll have saved enough glycogen during the preceding 8-12 hours for that.

    None of this applies to shorter races - they are a different sport.
Sign In or Register to comment.