Best Bike Split Projecting
With the growing interest in BBS, and specifically the Garmin Power Course feature after @Coach Patrick nailed it at IMMT. It seems like Power Course provides the opportunity to become much more accountable on the ride, getting as close to ERG mode on a trainer as we have ever been - seems like a perfect way to "paint by zone numbers" as @Dave Tallo recommended in his IMC course guide.
There also appears to be a contingent that feels BBS is a great way to get a personal best bike split, but not necessarily a "best race" bike split, per @tim cronk. I am not sure I fully understand this since BBS allows one to predict TSS, which seems to be the current gold standard in estimating amount of work/overwork on the bike.
I am racing IMWI next week and plan to experiment myself. The below picture shows what BBS recommended (IF 0.69, TSS 267) on the left, and to the right I have increased the power to get the TSS closer to 300 without going over:
I do not believe there is a way to change BBS to allow for a JRA period during the first 30-60 minutes of the bike. So I am thinking of loading up the more aggressive TSS with the expectation that I will purposely under perform to get the HR in order and fed. Also, keeping a goal of under performing on the steepest uphills (as much as possible), in hopes that I will ride the flats.
I am curious any other thoughts out there about this tech. I will plan to post my post-race thoughts.
There also appears to be a contingent that feels BBS is a great way to get a personal best bike split, but not necessarily a "best race" bike split, per @tim cronk. I am not sure I fully understand this since BBS allows one to predict TSS, which seems to be the current gold standard in estimating amount of work/overwork on the bike.
I am racing IMWI next week and plan to experiment myself. The below picture shows what BBS recommended (IF 0.69, TSS 267) on the left, and to the right I have increased the power to get the TSS closer to 300 without going over:
I do not believe there is a way to change BBS to allow for a JRA period during the first 30-60 minutes of the bike. So I am thinking of loading up the more aggressive TSS with the expectation that I will purposely under perform to get the HR in order and fed. Also, keeping a goal of under performing on the steepest uphills (as much as possible), in hopes that I will ride the flats.
I am curious any other thoughts out there about this tech. I will plan to post my post-race thoughts.
0
Comments
But then, I believe two interrelated things very strongly. First, racing by RPE is the gold standard for achieving the best possible time. However, that assumes one has garnered enough experience at the race distance in question to make intuitive choices properly on a moment by moment basis. And maybe having a tool like BBS is a good way to shorten that learning curve. Second, I also believe that we are not race cars. Meaning, we are way more complex than simply an engine, fuel and speed/power. There are a gazillion things happening in our body at all times, mediated by and communicated about through systems such as endocrine and neurological. Our brain (NOT our conscious mind) has been designed over eons to manage this complex system. A big part of athletic training is to help wire the brain to do that job without much outside interference. I think the human brain/body system is way more complex and smarter than any simplistic algorithm, no matter how many variables it purports to incorporate.
Like Juan, I've compared BBS to my race times the past two LD races, and they were within 3-4 minutes. So it's a good tool to help me plan my race execution strategy, and keep me honest during the race. But I wouldn't want to give my decision-making over to it on race day.
(I've also got some thoughts on what appears to be a plan to jump from 0.69 IF - too low, IMO - to 0.74 - too high! I post those over in your race plan thread.
X2 Al, thank you thank you thank you.... Its good to look at but you cannot model real life... and the biggest thing that cannot be modeled is the CDA when fatigue sets in.... IM courses are huge and the wind is variable through out....and so on...
Yep its Best Bike Split , NOT Best Bike Split for your Best Run Split... I too have compared many IM bike splits in BBS, some were right on within seconds and others off more than 10 minutes..... In a nutshell BBS will always tell you to ride a higher wattage uphill and into a wind, and a lower wattage downhill and with a wind...
-Mike Tyson
Really great topic, Doug, and thanks for surfacing it.
I have mixed feelings about BBS. When I saw they came on as a sponsor, I actually had a sense of dread, if only because I figured I would have to sort out those mixed feelings one way or another. So, sorry Mariah, our getter of sponsors ... but I'm with Tim and Al on this.
What cre atesthe conflict is ... it's pretty darn good. I've run it pre-race to model what might be possible (emphasis added) in my last three IMs in Muskoka, Kona and Canada, and it has been within a minute of my actual bike execution*. But that's the rub, because what used to be secret EN execution intel now seems to be available to the masses and a competitive advantage is there for the downloading, and painting by numbers. So I don't like that.
On the other hand, although it was eerily prescient with my bike splits, I executed the actual rides using the "EN Power Calculator," which is almost quaint and old-timey in comparison. Memorize four numbers, know when to use them in different terrain features, and execute. And despite the spot-on accuracy of the models, and Patrick's success, and TJ's success with BBS on Tremblant the year before, I will keep using the EN Power Calculator.
But Tim and Al have got it right on this one. Executing smart means making decisions all day, all the time, and there's a lot of stuff that happens that just idn't going to be part of the BBS model. In races, I've had flats, a dead powermeter, a dead Garmin, bugs fly into my gaping piehole, crashes and concussions,m wind where there shouldn't be, wind where there shold be hut not in the direction it should be, heavy rain ... in other words, stuff that demanded decision making on the fly. I think the higher principle of a framework from the EN Calculator gets at that stuff that does arise.
In addition (and this might be a tactical mistake), I eschew anything that puts me in a place of chasing a number or moving outside of my physical and mental safety zone at any time during the day (except mi 18 ->). I say this about the swim and early run, too, but I think it's really dangerous to have mid-point time goals that, if missed, have you racing outside of what and were I should based on RPE, etc.
Finally, with the experiences to date, the whole "Trust BBS but verify with EN execution" has given me even greater faith / certainty in how good of a model the EN Power Calculator is. It tells you this is 'should, not could.' It tells you what to do if you want to chase a certain TSS or a certain IF. It tells you what you should be doing for pretty much any terrain or ride feature you'll encounter. And it does so with the single premise of being able to run off the bike. So, I'm still with the classic.
(Note the author owns a steel bicycle, a H3 with skinny tires and other technologically heretical gear)
Oh - to @Doug Sutherland - this is where the EN Power Calculator really shines ... where BBS models tells you the the difference between .69 and .75 is 10 minutes, the EN calc tells it like is is, as in "you're walking ... try again next year ... too hot for most AG and pros" and so forth. That jump in IF would me massive, and unless you had about 10 brick rides / runs in your legs to prove me otherwise, I would say stay with the original. Maybe if you were talking IM FL or AZ, and you had put in a year on the traininer riding only those efforts ... but throw it at a course like WI where you are making a decision every 10-15 seconds, and it would be extremely inadvisable.
* Interesting note - two of these three have actually been my worst IM runs. Just an observation.
My error was maybe never did a full RR at that IF, something I will try again 2X in the next weeks before IMLOU
For IMLOU, I am starting to use it to play around to use it on Zwift so I can focus on execution only.
Can you get that 10' by being more aero ?
We are all very different. I'm more of a sprinter by nature, so I can ride pretty high wattage for an hour. Can I ride 75% of that wattage for 5 hours straight and walk afterwards? Nope. Trust me, I've tried. But that's fine, because as I close in on race day, neither my FTP nor my race-day IF mean squat. Instead, I focus on riding smoothly the 5hr power I've proven during the build. Just a single number. I adjust on race day (lower) based on conditions and how I feel, and I micro-adjust (up and down) per the EN Power Calculator. And if I can only remember two numbers, it's my goal wattage and max wattage. Until I gain confidence that the Garmin Power Course can be adjusted to match my race approach, I'll continue to KISS. But that's just me.
@Doug Sutherland, sorry if I caused you to jump down this rabbit hole. My point about TSS was that you need to execute very efficiently and expertly on courses like Moo. Like LP, CA and a few others, Moo is a slow course. Probably 15-20 minutes slower than an "easy" course for most solid athletes (I did Moo when I was young/stupid, with an 11-23, with mediocre training and went 1:10 slower than I did AZ and 1:35 slower than I did FL - proving that this course is particularly cruel to the clueless and ill-prepared in the MOP and back). So, if you're in the same ballpark of fitness you were when you went 5:38 at AZ last year, you're probably looking at a 5:5x in Madison. And the closer we get to 6 hours, the harder it is finish with a sub-300 TSS. That was the reasoning behind my TSS comment. Hone in on your safe 5-hr power and execute like a ninja. The result will be the result. Oh, and FWIW, if I were to ride Moo at 5:25 like one of your models above suggests, I would definitely be applying reflective tape to my kit before the race.
In addition to the benefits outlined above (projecting possible finish times, etc) I think there is real value to the course downloads and 'riding' the course profile in training as part of your race rehearsal protocol. I have done this many time and it's worked well. You can modify the % as you go through on TR so if you want to go easy to start and then dial it up in the middle, etc you have that flexibility. You then run your normal hour-ish run so you can see how the fatigue of the actual course dynamics affects you. Again...not perfect as race conditions may be different, etc but IMO it's better than riding for 5-6 hours at a steady power and VI of 1.0 that is never feasible on race day.
The other thing to keep in mind is that @Coach Patrick is not normal. The dude is a) a beast on the bike b) almost as much of a beast on the run and c) incredibly experienced with 20 IMs and i think 9 Konas now. This affords him the luxury of pushing the envelope and trying new things like he did in Placid on the bike. The EN approach is appropriate for 99% of folks newer to the sport and for those that have many years of racing and training (and the mental discipline to know when they are intentionally approaching 'the line' and taking an educated risk to do so you afford yourself more flexibility in using non-traditional approaches or tools.
Ok, with 6 KQers weighing in, it is difficult to argue with the totality of knowledge here, which appears to put BBS into the fun/interesting/cool but not useful on race day. Roger.
Couple of residual questions then
1) For @Coach Patrick I generally assume TeamEN is recommending a product by bringing it in as a sponsor, though I understand there could be alternative reasons to do so (business deals and making popular toys more accessible to the team). Business deals aside, I am curious if you could weigh in on the relative benefits of the EN power calculator vs BBS on the course, and specifically if EN official recommendations on the matter?
2) What are the chances that the opinions posted here are heavily biased by your collective excellence and experience? Per Al: "...that assumes one has garnered enough experience at the race distance in question to make intuitive choices properly on a moment by moment basis." Do the WSMs sense a difference in the value of BBS predictions for newbies and WSM alike?
3) I may not have been very clear about my goals, which should be restated: I am definitely not trying to push myself to the limits here. Far from it. I tend to generate VIs of 1.07-1.12 with some regularity, so a little computer tip might improve that. Also, I do believe the mind goes foggy between mile 56-90, where I suspect I lose power that I could safely spend. I would like a tool to help keep me honest during that period of time. **My rationale for looking at the data at 0.74 was twofold a) to see what the NP looks like at a TSS close to but not surpassing 300 b) because I am not aware of a way to change the prediction to allow for a JRA portion up front (say 0.66-0.68 for 30-60 minutes). So, if one uses 0.74, and totally ignores the prompts for an hour before following the prompts, the average IF for the entire ride might be closer to 0.72.
Funny thing is, I cannot seem to get that damn power course file on my Garmin 820! So, probably to whole thing will be a moot point. I am going into this race time agnostic, to be super honest.
https://m.box.com/shared_item/https://www.box.net/shared/vpfjymxbffyzq6tkji5x
EVERYONE will have some point(s) during the bike leg when attention sags. That should be a trigger to re-assess your nutrition, and current effort level.
@Doug Sutherland - One of the initial reasons for caution here is that for every question like this there are 100 people watching who will now go do exactly what you're saying because they think it's the way to do it versus what the stated Endurance Nation methodology is. Don't get me wrong, it's a great question but there are consequences for having a conversation about what the 1% should do and I think everyone is trying to be mindful of that.
The second key element of the conversation is put into perspective the type of athletes inside the team who have raced close to the best bike split predictions with success… Almost without exception they are in the top 10% of their age group on race day. If you aren't there, dear reader, please refer to current EN race execution guidance under resources.
The third key element is how much of an outlier I am relative to the average triathlete. My race history aside, I entered tremblant with an FTP and body composition that gave me 4.2 Watts / Kg. Anything over 3.5 W per kilogram is in the pointy end of the race, anything north of four and you are simply on another planet. If your watts per kilogram is not above 3.5, dear reader, please refer to the basic endurance nation race execution guidance under resources.
^^That said^^ we are all adults here, and if you want to ride your bike blindfolded while drinking Heineken I can't stop you.
Before I answer your specific questions, let me talk about why we raced the bike the way we do. Our goal is to have you be as fast as possible within the constraints that enable you to run well. Until you have run an Ironman marathon within 15 minutes of your open marathon time, dear reader, please refer to the basic endurance Nation race execution guidance under resources.
Our approach to Racing the bike is as simple as it is straightforward. Using something like best bike split on race day significantly raises the complexity quotient of your day, which would overwhelm 98% of people on the course. Mainly because they don't have the experience to balance what they're trying to do with how their body is reacting to it....per @Al Truscott
So, to Question 1 on Why BbS?
The reason I used best bike split myself, as your fearless leader, is to test alternate approaches in to see what's possible if we don't simply follow the status quo. Of course, I have all of the status quo for 15 Iron Man races before I made this decision.
Over time I would like to be able to give athletes more course specific guidance based off of their ability level. I think the best bike split has a formula for doing that, and regardless, our athletes are buying and spending money there and saving them some cash is always a top priority.
Yes that's always the potential factor. But I understand to that amidst our successes as a cohort, we have each had many failures as well. We understand the fine line between those two and part of our job is to nurture people towards a space or they can be as successful as possible across the whole day, not simply the bike.
I think I'm more savvy and experience racer would be able to take the best bike split guidance with a grain of salt and use it to make an informed decision on race day. For the beginner who's worried about aid stations, and what goes inside the special-needs bag, this level of specificity would effectively shut down their ability to make decisions. Even the best tool is ineffective if not utilized properly.
As for part three…
Finally, if Best Buy split did not exist, I would be working with you to reduce that VI. Anything north of 106 on that course means you are not paddling enough on the down hills for your momentum. I would encourage you to really focus on the back half of the course and the final 20 miles into town.
P.S., I think you cleaned this up nicely, Mr. McCrann.
I take full responsibility for letting the monkey out, but I had nothing to do with the paint... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I ran the BBS power plan for Louisville, 160 changes in power. I am not playing that video game all day, I suspect the segments on a course like MT or LP with longer hills would be much lower. At the end of the day, it seems to me that BBS states(or in some cases, overstates) what the EN calculator does that @Dave Tallo articulated so well. Ride a little stronger on the hills if you are at the pointy end.
Interesting note is that I was within 2' of my BBS predicted split at IMLP..
I tried the early version of the Garmin Power Course and it was a disaster - that did force you into riding in "erg" mode and not in race mode.
I could ride without BBS, but I do enjoy playing the game of seeing how well I'm doing based on the numbers....
What was more helpful was the BBS cheat sheet which gives ~6 different power numbers to target based on terrain steepness and wind (similar to the EN calculator). Much easier to remember, and I taped a copy to my aerobar pads as a reminder.
I also found BBS to be pretty accurate once I had the settings dialed in. I don't think my position is all that aero, but I had to set BBS between "midpack triathlete" and "advanced triathlete" to get the BBS time to line up.
On BBS there is a weather calculator for race day. Just how accurate is that? Thank you all you WSM's for insight.
I ended up taking a GPX of my outdoor real world training route and loading that into BBS and converting to a Garmin Course. For one of my race rehearsals, I followed what BBS was telling me on my Garmin. that gave me a better feel for what BBS thought my limits were on hills etc.... I found that BBS had me going up hills too hard and down hills to easy compared to what EN philosophy says, but it gave me an idea of how to ride to get my goal time. I think this may be worth considering if your outdoor training route is similar to what you may see on the course.
At the end, I came in slower than my BBS predicted time, but I think that had more to do with a flat out T1, a massive head wind for the last 30 miles, and nutrition.
Also, for weather, I know @Paul Curtin adjusted his the morning of the race, and his changed to take the wind into account.
So.... I'd say experiment with it in training, but race day do what @Dave Tallo says...
Good luck!
So, with this info, lemme see ... an 808 instead of a disk cover, a BTA instead of a aero bottle on the bars, a 60 instead of a 90/h3 front, etc etc add up to a lot.
Overall, I found it more engaging than TrainerRoad. However, I did have Netflix on the TV in my pain cave with action shows playing. In the past, I was never able to ride the trainer more than 2 hours. The 3 hour ride with warm up and cool down went by like nothing. It was frustrating when you're climbing in Zwift world but the power profile drops to low wattage for a descent on the power plan, causing you to slowly inch up the climb.
Here is one bonus: BBS generated 93 segments for the Zwift workout and I got 70 something of the stars. This was almost a full level of experience points. I went from level 13 at about 40% to level 14 at about 25%. I'm surprised people aren't using this to game the levels in Zwift. Just create a workout that is hundreds of 1-2 minute segments and you'll rack up serious XPs.
But - I did like that Zwift gave me a new level and the segments were super motivating to get those little stars.
The .80 IF felt harder.