IMC RR 1: On physics, .IF, and Using W/KG Wisely
This weekend I did my first race rehearsal for IM Canada. I rode a mostly flat course (Encanto, SGRT, PCH, Santa Ana trail, flip) and was able to be in the aero bars for 95% of the ride. Based upon a TT FTP of ~240w (as opposed to a climbing FTP of 268), my goal watts for the ride was 170w.
I rode the first 40 miles conservatively (NP of 160) and covered the first 56mi in 2:48. My plan was to trend closer to 170np for the remainder of the ride. However, I was finding that at 22-23mph it was difficult to hold 170-175w on the flats (as opposed to climbing). My legs were feeling a bit heavy around 80 miles and my normalized power for the ride was 160w (.67 IF, 250 TSS, 5:45 ride time).
My main question is, for Canada which has two long-ish climbs at miles 40 & 80, whether to ride at the prescribed 190w off of my TT FTP for those climbs, or, given that there is a higher ROI for increasing power on hills, to ride off of my Climbing FTP which would put me around 205w for the climbs? My thinking is that I have a few TSS points “to spend” and I might as well use them on the climbs where there is the most linear return for a given increase in power.
A side question for the physics majors out there, is 200w at 24 mph the same as 200w at 9mph climbing? Ive always found that it is much more difficult to keep the watts up at higher speeds.
0
Comments
i am interested in hearing what power oficionados say, but i'd go with the climbing power numbers you know for the climbs and go with the aero FTP numbers for everywhere else, especially considering the fact that you don't bomb the descents, right? (i think i remember you being a sensible descender).
i have found success recently (finally!) by having a climbing FTP and an 'in the aerobars FTP' and using both when indicated in a race. now i just to need to raise the FTP in both.
also, i am not a physics major, but the power is the same at both speeds. harder to hold on the flats because you have less (gravity) pushing against you, which usually helps to keep your effort steady when climbing. there are other variables that make holding power on flats 'harder', but that's one of the main ones. the solution is to ride in all positions and get powerful and efficient in all positions. then the variation in watts across riding positions and terrain narrows.
gh
I'm doing Canada as well, so I have some of the same thoughts. My suggestion would be to ride the Richter climb at aero/conservative watts, as it's early in the ride. Yellow Lake comes at 90 miles or so, and I'd say if you feel good at that point, bump it a bit...we have a lot of downhill to follow.
I can tell you that my plan will be to ride very conservatively until Yellow Lake climb...shooting for .73-.75 overall, probably will target a bit less until the climb.
Look forward to meeting you out there.
Bill
oh by the way, i meant to recommend that you ride .67 to .70 of your climbing FTP up the climbs (see caveat below). in other words, conservative for sure, as william recommends, BUT conservative as per your climbing FTP.
also, for me, i lacked 80-85% IF in my training. so for IMCdA, "conservative" on the climbs ended up being much lower than .67-.70 of my climbing FTP. i test rode the course a month prior and could only muster .60-.65 IF of my climbing FTP for the hills due to the lack training at higher IFs. you have to define what your conservative range is for you based on your training so far.
i rode the flats at .60-.65IF of my flat FTP and i rode the climbs at .60-.65IF of my climbing FTP. i negative split the ride and my VI was 1.08.
hope this is more clear.
gh
Along with that, the reason people recommend a higher cadence is that the force exerted (not just the power) seems to have an effect on your ability to run afterwards. Most of us don't have the gears to TRULY flatten out the hills so we are spinning at 90 rpm on a 5% grade.
Similarly, if you don't have the gearing to be spinning at "only" 95 rpm (or whatever) at high speed, you might find it hard to maintain power.
Your point about spending a few extra watts going uphill is entirely rational. It's just a matter of not overdoing it.
Brenan (and everyone else):
Where have we recommended you use a "flat FTP" for calculating watts for certain parts of the race and a "climbing FTP" for other parts of the race? This is all new to me...
.
Don't overthink it. This is your first Ironman. You've never been to/seen/experienced the last 10 miles of the run. You have enough very long climbs out here similar to CA and you've identified the ability to hold higher watts on those climbs than you would on the flats. This, for the power training athlete, starts a slippery slope I've seen before, and am going through myself: "I've been working my ass off to push this friggin' number up. This number (watts on a climb) is higher than this other number (watts on a flat). I want someone to give me the answer I want to hear so I can use the number I want to use, the higher one, cuz I've been working my ass off to push that number up and my final watts at IMCA is in large part a validation of all of the hard work I've been doing on the bike."
Instead:
IF this were like your 6th IM and IF you'd been IM training for several years and IF you had put up a couple very good IM runs and IF you knew the IMCA course inside and out the, maybe, we might whisper in your ear, where no one else can hear it, some guidance that might be similar to what you're proposing. But you're not that guy, not yet
.
That guy, however, is Chris Whyte. Find him on the forum and ask him for his advice. He has IMCA 100% dialed in.
Rich:
so here's a phenomenon i have noticed:
1) i establish a flat FTP sitting up on the tri bike. it is very accurate.
2) i race by following the recommended 0.67-0.72 gears for flats and hils AND stay aero wherever possible.
the result for 3 IM races by doing the above for me has been that i start great and then fade at the end. this occurs despite proper fueling and in all types of weather.
for my most recent race, IMCdA, i did the following:
1) established a flat FTP sitting up and, once again, made sure it was accurate. Noted those gears.
2) did a lot of climbing and got a really good idea of 'my gears' while climbing, sitting up. Noted those gears.
3) test rode the CdA course for RR1 and then did RR2 on the course Brendan used for his RR 100% in aero position. sutdied my performances in each.
i noticed a few things:
-i have to ride 0.62IF of my flat sitting up FTP to be able to sustain goal watts when riding 100% in aero where appropriate. that is on the flat parts of CdA or during the entire SGRB course.
-my sustainable climbing watts correlates to 0.69IF of my flat sitting up FTP.
At IMCdA: i rode with gears correlating to the 0.62IF when on Flats and 0.69IF when on the hills. Had I just went by the 0.67-0.70IF gears of my sitting up flat FTP, i would have once again started strong and just hung on at the end.
Brendan's question implied that he was noticing the same phenomenon: he was having difficulty holding his goal watts on the flats.
am i an outlier or does this pattern i have been observing make some sense?
My fix is to ride more aggressively in training from here on in, in all positions and shoot for 80-85% as much as possible.
Thanks!!!!!!!
GH
jennifer: it's actually rather confusing to tell you the truth!
2009: for awhile in the forums, everyone was saying that they did their tests sitting up or that it didn't matter. so i started doing tests sitting up. however, in races i REALLY do stay in the aerobars and when i did so, i simply couldn't hold 67-70% of the sitting up FTP.
2010: i tried doing an OS only in the aerobars, but that kept my watts really low and i still had that problem of not being able to hold 67-70% in a race. however, i did develop the ability to stay aero ALL THE TIME
(except on climbs).
i concluded from this, that i needed to train more on the bike AND that riding in aero all the time, limits my ability to get my FTP up in the OS.
2011: this time around i got a road bike to basically build power in the OS and then jumped on the tribike 12 weeks out from my A race.
by doing what i described in my prior post, i was able to finally finish the bike in an IM in control, getting slightly faster each split, and with a VI of 1.08.
my plan henceforth is to ride the tri bike as much as possible and in aerobars. test in aerobars. ride the road bike when i get bored or if the climbing is extreme (mostly for better control on the descents) AND ride at 80-85% when not instructed to ride FTP. i am pretty sure once i start doing this, i will be able to follow the standard EN guidelines.
i have a hunch (i hope!) that most people do not ride strictly in aero during a race and thus:
-either their aerobar FTP undershoots their goal watts = once sitting up in the race they can hold the "70%" OR
-they test sitting up and then race sitting up OR
-their are lots of others who experience the same thing as me and just never say anything or have not experienced this phenomenon yet (i.e. first timers at IM!!!
which is why i offered Brendan this suggestion.
gh
Ok....gotta box up my bike, pack for the camp, etc so don't have time to really hit this but....
EN is 4yrs old, the power webinar is 3yrs old, we have a gillion how to race with power posts in this forum. I can never recall a conversation where we explicitly told someone to race these parts of the race with this FTP and these parts of the race with another FTP. So the intent of this post to plead with you to all just STOP that line of discussion before we confuse the shit out of people
.
We can circle back around to climbing vs flat, hoods vs aerobars, indoors vs out, tastes great vs less filling later.
These types of discussions are very, very, very dangerous to have this time of year because there are many people (Brendan) who probably don't pay enough attention to the forums as they should, wake up to their EN membership 6-8wks out from their race, start asking questions they should have asked a few months ago (Brendan
). Someone gives them not-quite-right advice, it starts a debate/discussion about something that should be fundamental and just serves to confuse other people.
In short, June-September is not the best time for tangental discussions because it can really confuse people.
That is, carry on...but please stop confusing people until I find time to fix it and confuse them myself
Thanks!
@Bill: I'll see you in Canada!
@brendan: your welcome! good luck on your race!! sorry if i confused you.
@everyone: so, looks like my experiences are that of an outlier! ignore everything i said! sorry, Rich.
Since I've been in EN (2009), this is the first time I can recall reading anything about two different FTPs (a flat and a climbing one) as #s that you determine from 2 different tests. (Are people confusing the alternate FTP test for those who live in hilly areas to just ride a TT on those and then subtract 5-10% for a normal FTP? Maybe this should be clarified in the alternate FTP wiki?)
There are different target numbers (from the IM Power Calculator) that EN prescribes for steep and steeper hills during an IM race (with gear 1 being your JRA first 60-90' target, gear 2 being your target power #, gear 3 being steep hills, and gear 4 being the steepest hills). Don't make it more complicated than an IM race already is. Download the Power Calculator, print out that little box with the four gear #s and stick to it. It will work. Overachieving on the hills will only make the IM run suffer which is not the gameplan in the haus. You "spend" your TSS points passing people on the run, not gaining 15 seconds on a pointless climb midway through the race.
yikes! what a mess i have caused.
way to get in good with the coaches, GH!!!
anyway, for those of you who understood my suggestion, great. For those of you who didn't understand: just pretend this never happened.
i am now backing away slowly from this discussion and will keep my observations to myself from here on in.
gh