Home Racing Forum 🏎 140.6 Forums Ironman Lake Placid
Options

Lake Placid Elevation Profiles - are any correct?

Looking at the Athlete Guide I noticed that the elevation gains on both the bike and run were significantly greater than I remembered which got me thinking and digging for past info.

2015 guide uses the elevation profiles from 2014 and are listed as BIke = 6,898' and Run = 1,604'

2013 guide lists the Bike = 4,804' and Run = 998'

My GPS data for 2011 and 2013, including 2 bike race rehearsals are: 

BIke (barametric from Joule 2.0): R11 = 6,155'; IMLP11 = 5,132'; RR13 =  5,552'; IMLP13 =  5,635'

Run (GPS from 310xt) : IMLP11 = 1,873; IMLP13 = 1121

Now I fully understand that elevation data from a GPS source is highly suspect to significant errors so I do not have much confidence in the run elevation numbers.  Even with using an elevation correction inside WKO (based on published elevations as know coordinates) I still find a lot of inconsistancy in any GPS based results. 

So, does anyone have any info that would clarify the elevation discrepancies?  

In the end it doesn't matter much, it is what it is.  I am just very curious about what the actual elevation gain really is.

Comments

  • Options
    My "uncorrected" garmin data reported 5,869 for 112 miles during camp week.
    "Corrected", it reported 7,040
  • Options
    @steve... for the bike my uncorrected elev was 5600 and corrected 7100... the run (1 lap plus some flattish admin) uncorrected 530 (so 1060) and corrected 550 (1100)......

    FWIW it felt like the 6800 number is more correct to me.... IMLP felt that "hard" IMO... In comparison when I went to IMMT and rode that course and compared it to all the hype and the info on paper I thought IMMT was "easy"....
  • Options

    I found MT to be much easier after having ridden both of them. Try riding LP backwards, that will scare the shizz out of you and remind you how much elevation there is. 

    I thought i'd check on Ride w GPS thinking those get autocorrected, but no... the elevations there run from 5400- 7500 as mapped by different people... 



    the major difference between MT & LP are how the hills come.. In LP you climb out of down, have a big descent, then a long TT section then climb to Wilmington, then again from Wilmington to LP. The climbing in LP tends to be lumped together. In MT, the climbing is more spaced apart. Even on the Montee Ryan section of the course where it is steepest, nothing is continual, it is ladder steps to the top... 

    so, what does that all mean? bottom line, expect your time in LP to be 10-12 minutes slower than it would be at MT.. that's all... Despite two decent hills on the LP run course, it is shockingly rated as one of the courses on which to set your IM Mary PR on ...  so, ride smart on the bike and let it rip on the run course!

  • Options
    Being a flat lander from Indiana, I'm getting nervous about all the elevation talk. I ride a 12/28 cassette, with a standard crank (not compact, forgot the exact size), will I have enough gears to get me up without red lining my power?

    thanks in advance
  • Options
    @john, with a 39 up front, might be tough, 36 for sure no problem. 28 out back is good.. question, can you ride out of the saddle without spiking watts? practice!
  • Options
    @ Scott, 39 upfront it is. I'll do my best to not spike the watts. thanks
  • Options

    Posted By John Sakelaris on 13 Jul 2015 08:37 PM


    @ Scott, 39 upfront it is. I'll do my best to not spike the watts. thanks

    There's nothing particularly sharp or steep on the LP course. As long as you're doing the opposite of everyone else in the first 7-8 miles (ie, not hammering up the hills out of town) you should be fine for the rest of the course. That is, it's easy to get caught up in whatever else is doing in the first 45-60' of any IM course and, at IMLP, that means the rollers in the first 7 miles. So if you can get through those safely, without being stupid, the rest of the course is relatively easy to figure out, as the terrain at LP tends to be the same flavor for a long time, and the changes in terrain usually happen after a turn on the course. 

  • Options
    2x what Coach Rich said... the hills ARE broken up, there are a few short sections to be very smart on... go to 4 keys, P has insane experience on this course and will guide you through it!

    @John - find some hills, practice riding up a hill w very low watts, practice it, its a skill, you can do it.
    what type of crank do you have? i have almost new 52/36(110) rings i can ship you if you can get LBS to do the swap. or call planet placid and see if you can make a reservation to have them do it...
  • Options
    @Scott, I have a sram red quarq.  thanks for the offer but at this time it would make too nervous to make any change.  I think I can manage my power up the hills.  thank you.
  • Options
    @ John as mentioned you should be good but what's your w/kg?  I know at 215lbs and 2.4 w/kg I put on a 30 and probably would have went with a 32 if I would not have had to switch out shifters to SRAM.  Go here and check the numbers of a 39-28 versus moving to a 30 but this will not factor in the gradient on the hills.  http://www.bikecalc.com/gear_speed
  • Options

    @Gordon, I am at 3.7 watts/kg.  I just think it's too late in the game to try anything different.  I will consider swapping out to a different crank size in the future.  My training partner uses a compact crank and swears by them.  thanks for the link, I will check it out.

Sign In or Register to comment.