Options
Pro women power
Interesting race report from Tara Norton www.xtri.com/features_display.aspx
Sounds like the cold swim really got to her. The most interesting comment to me was that her typical "IM race power" is 225 watts. That means that her FTP is no less than 280, and probably closer to 300. Wonder what Chrissie's FTP is...
Mike
0
Comments
I realize that all PMs don't read equally but I would be very surprised if her true IM power is 225w. I've seen her bike times and I've also seen a lot of power files from top women. 225w is too high, imho. Either that or she has the worst bike position known to mankind. ;-)
Thanks, Chris
It ain't great...
No doubt, I'd artificially inflate my numbers if I was a pro posting numbers online...
Considering Jordan Rapp's comment "pretty much everybody races at 75% of FTP" in IM races, 225 would peg her at an FTP of 300. Seems huge...
MG
Just like when you ask a runner how many miles per week they average, but they tell you the number from their biggest week of the year. Triathletes think they have to have a big FTP or average power number for people to think they are fast....just look at slowtwitch where everyone has an FTP over 300 and can run a sub 3 marathon.
Steady power and a good position can get you a good bit of speed of very little power. Chris, myself and countless other EN folks proved that this last season.
Good points, Matt and Chris. I'm thinking about your comment on steady power, as well as race reports from you, Chris, and others. Seems that steady power implies two things:
Seems like we spend a lot of time talking about #1, and very little time talking about #2. If you don't spike power much, but periodically are coasting a hill, standing to stretch, etc, how much speed are you leaving on course? More of a race execution question, but it's what came to mind reading this post, and thinking back over race reports.
Thanks!
Mike
I can only hope everyone outside of the EN space reads rappstar's comment about 75% thing and takes it to heart that they too can ride @ 75% and still run well.
WERD...our entire TSS budget dealio is precisely because the above is 100% not true. You guys need to spread a disinformation campaign that EN bike pacing guidance is full of shit. We it too complicated, with IF, TSS, wattage gears, etc. Just figure out your FTP, calc .75 IF and ride that, regardless of you are a 5:15 or 7:15 bike split. Game over
Especially when most of the tri world is listening to Coach "I read it in Triathlete Magazine, so it must be true", and calculating their FTP by doing a 20' test, and knocking off 5%. Don't know if anyone else here has ever done that, but it's WAY off from the 2x20' (2'). I did both within a week of each other last year (long story), and my EN FTP test was significantly lower. In fact, it took me almost the whole OS to get the EN test up to the 20' Trimag FTP test...
If I did an IM on 75% of the Trimag FTP, I think it would be closer to 80% in our world (ie. totally cooked). Definitely need to work on the disinformation campaign...
Mike
20' Power - 5% is the method described in the Coggan/Hunter book. As you know, we include several complimentary ways to calc FTP and, more importantly, you have a much deeper understanding of the issues involved. An error of 15w anywhere can totally ruin your day. There is a HUGE difference between 220w and 235w on race day.
The other thing to remember about Jordan Rapp's 75% comment is that, for the pro men, they are out on the course for shorter amounts of time so they can run at higher power/pace percentages than us ordinary mortals.
Guys,
Thank you for the discussion. I am very new to training and racing with power. This is really good stuff.
I know it is pretty basic to you but ever little bit 'ups' my knowledge meter. -Thanks
Why would we want to change the public disinformation campaign? it gives those of us here in the haus an advantage.
I meant step up the disinformation campaign...
All of you with blogs should start posting about the "new" EN way of racing with power, toss out some numbers, etc.
Rich-
I had to totally bite my tongue a couple weeks ago when I was having some beers at a tri club season end party chatting with a local coach. He kept talking about how he'd been reading to get a kona slot you gotta pace the IM bike leg like you do a half, and you'll have segments in the race where you are riding up around your threshold power. I just listened to him, nodded my head, and sipped my beer. I'm not trying to pick on him but he is doing LP this year, we'll see how this strategy works out for him. This is the same guy who told me he won't use his PT in an IM because he wants to race with his legs and not be so tuned into numbers on his PT. I almost felt bad for the guy.
P.g.
I actually spend a fair amount of time trying to talk about #2. The downside of doing #2 certainly isn't as damaging as #1 but I'm a big believer that you basically apply a certain amount of power until you run out of gears (at a reasonably high cadence) on the descents.
A chart that I like is the one that shows optimal power based on gradient. Goal power is at 0% gradient. As the gradient increases, optimal power obviously increases. However, as the gradient reaches around 5%, optimal power starts to level off at around 85 - 90% of FTP. Flip it around and optimal power decreases at the exact same rate as it increases which means we should never coast, in theory at least. Obviously that's not practical in real life which is where some of the modelling breaks down in how we apply it to real-life execution.
Point being: We have a power target or gear for short climbs and long climbs, we should also have a power target or gear for descents. As I'm sure many of us have noticed, we'll get passed by guys going uphill but we fly by them going downhill. They just climbed at a much higher physiological cost with the expectation or the need to get it back by coasting the downhill. Unfortunately, if you know how this works, you just don't get back what you put in.
One note: I find that descending is a bit more of an art than climbing so I don't think it's as easy as having a power target or specific gear to use for the descents but I think you get the point.
Thanks, Chris
Good points, Chris. I'm wondering, do you think that this is a big reason why some people are able to "get so much speed out of their watts" like yourself and Matt? Clearly there's also an aero component to it, but It always seems to me like the gaps that open up when you're pushing while others are coasting are immense...
Mike
100% yes. I'll give you just an example. At IMAZ I tried my hardest to legally draft during the headwind section. If I saw someone going around the speed that I felt was desirable then I'd do my best to sit right around 20' behind them. It was a challenge in the beginning because I'm so used to sitting on target watts with very few bikes around me but I felt it was the smartest thing to do even if I was sitting below target watts.
However, on the tailwind section I had zero opportunity to do that because I was flying by everyone even though power was slightly less than the outbound section.
And this becomes even more evident on rolling courses like IMWI.
Thanks, Chris
I wouldn't be surprised to hear she's in the 280-300 range: she is, plain and simple, strong. She's knocked out a few podium finishes at Lanzarote, and even though a strong cyclist does not an Ironman make, being able to put together a solid bike on that, of all, courses, proves you've got a pretty big engine.
(disclosure: Tara is actually a friend. During IMAZ race week, she invited me to join her and anoer rider for an 'easy' spin a few days before the race. Doing the math and figuring her 'spin' is probably my '40' max power,' I politely declined.)
Wellington's bike power is actually measured in Chrissie Units, not FTP. Hers is 1.0; all other f riders are a fraction of that.
Seriously? I've seen her bike times. Let's just take IMC for example. She rode 5:14 this year. I can confidently tell you that ~225w goal watts (even if she's uses an SRM) should put her around 5:00 easily. I can tell you wth 100% confidence that I would be sub-5:00 at IMC if my goals watts were 225w and I'm quite certain I weigh more than she does.
Thanks, Chris
Dave,
I am pretty sure that she was headed up whiteface when we were on our way back down last year. Any chance you can get her power file from that day? That will give a pretty good indication of the kind of power she generates for an hour. It was Thursday the first week of June if that matters.
Chris G - I'll ask, for sure.
Chris W - I'll also ask, for sure.
But whats I knows is she could tear my legs off.
Talking to her coach pre-season, one of your (USA) MTB XC stars, Georgia Gould, was holding 266w for 30mins comfortably - be interesting to compare with triathletes......