Are IF and TSS applied across a workout/race the same, by time
...not sure if that's the best title 
I've been playing around with Matt's TSS calc spreadsheet posted to this thread here. We, as a Team, have the tools to extract an overall IF for an HIM or IM bike (the TSS tables in the Race with Power Kit) and then apply that number to the course (wattage gears, taped to the stem).
But Matt's spreadsheet, combined with the Joule or a smart PM user, gives us another tool: how exactly to dose those watts across a bike to give us the final IF we're looking for, and the result Pnorm and Pavg given your goal or historic VI on similar courses.
For example:
- I'll likely pace IMWI to an IF of .72 or .73. Let's call it .72
- I se Matt's spreadsheet to lay out the bike like a series of intervals, using the interval and real-time IF and Pnorm features of the Joule to record each segment as an interval and manage the race 30-60' at a time.
- I model all the different ways to create .72, what Pnorm that gives me given my FTP, the resultant Pavg given my goal VI of 1.035 or 1.04 (gotta win beers from Dave Tallo!!), and compare this to the 208w = 5:11 split I rode in '04.
- More importantly, I can see how this tool can be used to model out different scenarios and add a significant mental-conservation component to the day. See below:
FTP = 300w (need to dial this in, number I'm using for now)
Goal IF (when I dismount the bike in T2) = .72
- Hours 1-2: 69% = 206w
- Hours 2-3, 3-4, 4-5: 74% = 221w
- Last 10-15': 68% = <200w</li>
- Finish:
NP= 215.55 IF= 0.72 TSS = 268.06 Pavg = 210.16
Note that I added the cell to give me Pavg, which is Pnorm / VI and I just enter my goal of 1.035 (Mancona said he's done it...so that's my goal :-)
Play around with the numbers and you can see there are many ways to skin the cat. Could ride 2 x 1hr @ 68% then 3 x 1hr @ 75%, then shut it back down to 68% for the last 10-15'. Or do something else. The notes/observations I'm having are:
- Very powerful tool to see the...power...of, no kidding, hanging out on the bike for a full two hours, then going to work and seeing how the numbers end up.
- I see a strong mental piece here: you're committed to riding easy for a full two hours. HR is low so you can eat and drink a bit more. People passing you so you can use legal drafting opportunities and, probably most importantly, gain confidence in your plan by watching so many other people screw up, just biding your time until you can finally get to work.
- Then, when you do get to work...you have a plan and confidence in the plan. You're strong, and getting stronger, while those around you suffer and come back to you.
- Shutting it down in the last 10' to drink a bit more, stretch, get your mind right...it's all part of the plan and built into the numbers.
Questions:
- We know that not all TSS points are created equal, ie 1 TSS point accrued at 72% is not exactly equal to 1 TSS point accrued at 74%...but pretty damn close? What is your experience with this?
- What are the physical (fueling/hydration) and mental benefits to totally mailing it in for a full 2hrs?
- What are the then not insignificant legal drafting opportunities of purposely putting a couple hundred people in front of you...and then swimming through them, from draft to draft, in the second half of the bike?
- Am I making any sense?
At a minimum, I think it helps us all add more detail to our respective plans and gain the confidence that your plan is the best for you.
Back in the day, in 2002, before I got smart -- but also before I maybe got a little too confident -- I totally mailed in the first 40 miles of the IMWI bike course. I wasn't confident in my run, was sure that my training partner was going to catch me and had, I thought, no hopes of a Kona slot. In my head was "I want to warm up for 40 miles before riding my bike the last 72 miles." I wanted the first 40 miles to basically be at a zero cost and I did just that. Didn't have power on the bike but I was at a solid, do no harm Z1 heart rate. When I did start to go to work at after mile 40 it was as if I only just then started to actually ride the bike. Then somewhere on the course, maybe around mile 65 or 70, a spectator told me I was ~35th overall...uhhh...I'm now in a race. I picked it up a bit (probably a good bit), started racing more tactically, and I could tell in the last 12 miles of the bike that I was no definitely rolling the dice a bit, for the run. Got off the bike 15th OA and it was my podium/Kona slot to lose.
Looking back, though I didn't know it at the time, that performance was enabled by humility and patience: I had the patience and humility to sit back and watch the race go by me...and then get to work, finish strong, and carry that momemtum into the run.
I think Matt's spreadsheet puts numbers to that experience and perhaps can build your confidence to do the same?
Comments
• Yes, what you've written is understandable
• Too bad you're not a slower swimmer; then you wouldn't have to let so many people go by to get all those drafting chances.
• Bottom line, 9 years later, I wonder if you have that level of patience to wait two hours (almost the whole first loop?) before you start to work even a little.
• Don't you have more confidence in your run off the bke now, compared to '02?
• My suspicion is that you should lollygag until the hills start, then settle in to evenly ratchet up the effort from 0.70 through to 0.73 by the end of the second loop,
then race along the 'stick". >>>>
Using 30 minute intervals, aim for as low a VI as possible within each interval, and don't worry about what the overall VI is, despite any beer bets.
Each 30 minute interval should be, like, 0.005 IF harder than the previous. Until you get to the stick, then race.
Sorry about the double spacing; I figure that was preferable to going all the way past the end of my screen with my comments.
Rich - your thoughts are spot on! Have done the same modeling for IMLOU coming up. I agree it gives me a solid metal anchor to support the go slow at the start. Get hydrated and nutrition in, then build. For IM LOU in my model I have factored in the impact of a big climb in temps as the ride goes progresses.
I have updated the spread sheet to add Avg W , VI and the ride time show in HR and MIN.
I like actual ride data more than calculators and I also want to show Rich that VI 1.03 is possible as I did it last weekend :-)
Anyway, here are two loops on the IMWI course last weekend back to back with a 2' stop to refill bottles in the middle. The wind was maybe a few mph stronger on the second loop and the temp went up, but not enough to skrew the data much. First loop was at about target watts and steady effort, second had some intervals thrown in hence the higher VI and NP.
In summary - an increase of 21 watts normalized gave me .9 mph more and saved me about 4:30 over a loop (~42.35 miles). So we can estimate that 21 watts would have saved me about 11 minutes over the full course.
Of course the faster you are the more watts it takes to make gains, so I would assume that someone riding 17mph would see more of a gain from 21 watts than I did at 20mph
Not perfect by any means, but is is actual data from the course:
Loop 1:
Duration: 2:02:45
Work: 1470 kJ
TSS: 109.1 (intensity factor 0.734)
Norm Power: 206
VI: 1.03
Pw:HR: -0.71%
Pa:HR: -4%
Distance: 42.315 mi
Elevation Gain: 1659 ft
Elevation Loss: 1655 ft
Grade: 0.0 % (5 ft)
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 489 200 watts
Heart Rate: 98 244 159 bpm
Cadence: 20 130 88 rpm
Speed: 0 45.9 20.4 mph
Pace 1:18 0:00 2:56 min/mi
Altitude: 868 1246 1034 ft
Crank Torque: 0 566 196 lb-in
Temperature: 69.8 77 71.1 Fahrenheit
Loop 2:
Duration: 1:58:12 (1:58:56)
Work: 1532 kJ
TSS: 127.9 (intensity factor 0.81)
Norm Power: 227
VI: 1.05
Pw:HR: 8.13%
Pa:HR: -0.7%
Distance: 42.418 mi
Elevation Gain: 1657 ft
Elevation Loss: 1650 ft
Grade: 0.0 % (5 ft)
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 574 216 watts
Heart Rate: 106 211 169 bpm
Cadence: 22 125 83 rpm
Speed: 0 46 21.3 mph
Pace 1:18 0:00 2:49 min/mi
Altitude: 880 1249 1038 ft
Crank Torque: 0 738 223 lb-in
Temperature: 78.8 89.6 83.5 Fahrenheit
Mo' data = mo' betta!
However, what we want to look at is the change in your average watts that between loops and the resultant speed difference, as average watts is what's moving your bike around the course.
In that case, 16w Pavg bought you .9mph on the loop. Add aero toys, closed course, legal drafting and I'm sure it would be more?
If you were to actually ride easy for 2 hours, crank it up 25 watts for 2 and then go easy for one wouldn't your VI be more than 1.03 even if you were perfectly steady for those periods?
While you may have the experience and time in the saddle to pull of that plan I am not sure how realistic it is for the majority of folks. I tend to think of it as water seeking its own level but it seems like when people settle into a given effort for a period of time it becomes difficult to increase the effort later on. Meaning that once you ride for 2 hours at X watts it is goign to start to feel pretty hard even though the number is low making the increased number feel even harder on the RPE scale at 4 hours. Feel like i have read a ton of race reports that say something to the effect that "I started on my easy settle in target and then after x time when I planned to go harder I did not/ could not/thought it was a bad plan because of how I felt, it was hot, windy whatever" It is the same thing that we read over and over in terms of run pace, started easy but when it came time to go faster later it did not happen.
Also, do you really think it is significantly easier to get in calories and hydrate at .70 than .74?
I do not know the Moo course but how does the terrain set up for this plan? Seems like the terrain should dictate the effort at certain times in the loop?
Chris,
My plan is roughly:
VI is a function of spiking watts and/or coming way off the gas, not riding at 65% for x hours and something else for y.
Yes terrain will dictate, but the terrain on the WI course is much different from LP. At LP you can very clearly see that you're going to be doing one thing for a long time so you can have an IF for out of town, one down to Keene, another along the river, etc. WI "sorta" has some sections like that but they are much less identifiable. The method that I used at the camp was:
I did this and rode a very low VI and I got, I felt, a lot of speed for the watts I put out.
One of the things tht you are quietly learning is that TSS is an imperfect model of physiological work.
Roughly speaking, you have stated in several contextx that TSS points earned at low intensity are less than ones earned at higher intensity.
This is another way of stating that the TSS model fails at low intensity.
The TSS scale models cost as IF^4 if I remember right. If it fails at low power, that may mean a more complex fuction is needed for IM, or even just
an adjustment to the equations that raises the power to say 5. That would require LOTS of data crunching to justify, but it's a thought to plant....
I believe that guys like Torbjorn and Lieto plan and train to pull off a 20-30' interval somewhere up closer to 90%+ after the turn in Hawi to get the kinds of gaps they get on the bike. Don't think this calculator will help you with that.
(also not sure how smart that strategy is...)
I agree with Chris, once you start too slow for too long, it's too easy to convince yourself that taking it up is a bad idea or that you can't. So much more of this game lives between the ears than we're willing to admit...
Love the thought process and the calculator!