Rich Stanbaugh - IMMT 2017 Race Report
Stanbaugh – IMMT 2017 RR
Results
|
Swim: |
1:26:31 |
154th in AG |
|
T1 |
5:54 |
114th in AG |
|
Bike |
5:39:58 |
46th in AG |
|
T2 |
3:37 |
43rd in AG |
|
Run |
4:23:36 |
35th in AG |
|
Overall |
11:39:36 |
35th in AG Course PR |
This was my 9th Ironman and my 3rd time racing Mont Tremblant. My race plan was very simple. Swim steady, bike at 185w and run by HR, starting at 145 and growing to 150+.
While I was finishing the bike leg, I was writing the draft of my race report in my head. It went like this… “Screwed up the swim, biked like an idiot suffered through the run.” Having slept on it a couple times, my perspective has mellowed a little.
Swim
Screwed up the swim. I had a lot more contact than expected on a rolling start and had my goggles kicked off in the first 500 yards. From that point onwards, my right lens was filled with water. I should have stopped and fixed it… the minute that would have cost me would have at least made the swim more comfortable. Pace was ok in the first third of the swim by degraded from there. My right rotator cuff has been angry and it impacted the pace. I was 5-10 minutes slower than expected out of the water. Swam an extra 200 yards.
Bike
Biked like an idiot. I got on the bike (one eye opaque from the filled goggle - lol) and told myself “it’s only 10 minutes… don’t be an idiot.” I repeated that mantra all the way through the descent from Lac Superior on loop 1, at which point, I recognized that I had been an idiot. I was at 195w and 153 TSS. I promptly dropped my wattage to save the run and mentally started writing the race report mentioned above. Finished the bike as reasonable as I could. I rode 100% by HR and by feel and tried to keep it easy; got off at 184w and 276 TSS – a pretty reasonable number, but I had gotten there the wrong way and would pay for it. As a side note – it seemed like a head wind from every direction on the second half of the bike!
Run
Suffered through the run. I had planned to start my run at HR of 145 and then let it build to 150-155 bpm. Because I had trashed my legs on the bike, I decided to hold my HR at 145 (apart from letting it raise a little on climbs). About 6 miles in, HR was dropping to around 140 so I took a gel and started managing calories better. HR responded and was fine the rest of the day. Given all the challenges of the day, I felt like I executed the run as best I could. The pace was slower than I wanted, but I earned that on the bike.
Nutrition & hydration
I had a range of foods over the course of the day. Super hydrated from the day before and about 800 calories for early breakfast. I averaged about 16oz and 325 calories per hour on the bike. The bike calories were closer to 400 the first our and 275 the last hour; I typically bias my bike calories towards the front of the bike so that I’m getting my stomach ready to run towards the end.
Bike Execution
I had spent a lot of time thinking about how to get the best bang for the buck on this course. I intentionally did not ride this course targeting low VI. My approach was to push the hills, push harder on short hills and over the top of hills, back off and soft pedal slight descents and to coast any time I was going more than the upper 20s. My approach was:
- While pedaling – very steady and not spiking the power
- Steady “over-power” up the hills
- Steady “under-power” down the hills
- Bigger pushes over small hills and over the top of climbs
As a result, I coasted for 28 minutes at an average speed of 28mph, my VI was 1.11, but my VI while I was pedaling was 1.02. If I could coast the whole way… I would!
I believe that the TSS invested with slightly over-powering at lower speeds has a better ROI than the TSS needed at high wind speeds where drag is increasing at the square of wind speed. I do not think this approach is why I over biked the first half of the ride – I over-biked the first portion of the ride because I pedaled too hard all the time and didn't pay attention to the 200w lap notifications that kept showing up on the Garmin. A mental mistake.
Summary
Not my best race. Not my worst – it was a PR on the course, but it didn’t leave me feeling very good. It has been a tough season with surgery and injuries etc. resulting in several re-starts. Mentally, the re-starts took a toll on the fun factor. I’m not sure what is next. I may sign up for a redemption race in a few weeks or I may spend the rest of the year on my mountain bike.
Thanks for reading and I’ll appreciate any thoughts / guidance!
Comments
Just curious on whether your HR was higher than you expected on the first lap. It looks like you kept it fairly constant. Your run HR looks great! I know how hard it is to keep it up at the level you want.
Get some rest, have some fun and come back strong next season. Thanks again for sharing.
Nothing to say about this...
As mentioned in my race report, I intentionally did not ride towards a VI of 1.00. I had lots of coasting…
But… while I was coasting, I was going very fast...
And while I was I pedaling… I was (for the most part) pedaling smoothly
My ride was not as bad as I thought (while I was on the bike)… just lost my head for about 45 minutes. The big red spikes (FRC) are not really the problem... It is the bright green (FTP/FRC). A lot of the red came from standing on the pedals and the metabolic cost for that isn’t as big as the power would imply (gravity helped apply the pedal force). The bright green came from sitting and hammering (all energy from legs).
But HR was very steady… I overshot the power, but I kept the nutrition good and to some degree mitigated the fatigue by lowering the power.
EN report card for the bike…
And the run - very steady HR, but slower pace due to tired legs.
With the EN report card...
It doesn't change the outcome... I just like graphics.
Tim Sullivan - HR was about where I expected. without the swim, it quickly goes to upper 130s and is in lower 140s after about 30-45 minutes of IM-pace riding. With the swim, starting around mid 140s was not a surprise. It leveled off around lower 150s (except for some of the short, harder pushes) and was where I wanted it when I got off the bike (down a little from the descent). Regarding TSS - it isn't something I focus on so much as it is a 'cross check' to see if I am where I should be. Riding at IT 70%, one should accumulate about 50 tss/hour. 5.5hr bike = 275... easy math to see if one is coloring within the lines.
Scott Dinhofer - Thanks. We'll see where this leads.
Thanks for your always-great race report. Very interesting and intriguing discussion about bike power output on a hilly course. On flat courses, it's primarily picking a number and staying there all day. But on a 2-mile climb, the difference between a steady 200-watt effort and a 300-watt effort is a lot of speed and time gained (or lost). Truly measuring the cost of that and similar extra efforts, however, is the hard part. I suspect if you swap your first and last 90 minutes on the bike, it might have made a world of difference. The only IM run I was truly disappointed with just happened to follow a bike ride where Dumb Me pushed the opening 10 miles of the bike uphill before settling in. Until someone proves to me otherwise, I still consider the opening 30 minutes of the bike and run to be crucial. We live, learn, have some fun, repeat.
Congrats on a solid race. Looking forward to your next adventure.
MR
Many congrats on the race! Although it wasn't 100% what you wanted, you have clearly learned some key things through it all that will only make you sharper and faster next time around. Even despite the the issues you had, you still set a course PR which shows just how strong you are.
Fantastic job and look forward to seeing what's next on tap!
Was also nice to meet you in person
One thing you should think about DURING your training rides and runs, while you build for the next race: STAY IN YOUR BOX. Your success in life has come from your strategic and long-range thinking, and from your ability to take data, analyze and take action based on your assessment. Thinking about what your race report will say WHILE YOU ARE BIKING THE RACE is the opposite of staying in your box. Plan your workouts meticulously in advance, seeing how they fit into the overall training plan. Analyze the heck out of them after the fact, and make adjustments to upcoming training. But while you are actually DOING them, make it a point of emphasis to pay less attention to the overall picture, and more attention to what is happening RIGHT NOW, starting with RPE. Don't think about the end of the ride or run. Don't even think about what you'll be doing five miles down the road on the bike, or a mile down the road on the run. Pay attention to what needs to be done in the moment, how it is feeling in the moment. Practice this in all your key workouts, and it will be second nature on race day.
Sorry it took me so long to say HI and congratulations!
Really enjoyed seeing you guys out there fighting through it on race day! 5:39 is a great bike time on that course.
FWIW - and IMO, a lower VI will take the same NP as a higher VI and get you to the bike finish line faster. A 184 NP with a 1.02 vs. a 1.11 will be both a faster split and lower TSS, why, because you are not coasting for those 28 minutes but moving through there faster and the additional matches you are burning while you spike on the uphill are not giving you an equal amount of ROI or speed for the effort being spent. Test my theory, ride that course again with the same NP but lower VI.....
Burning less TSS, coming in faster means more matches for the run.....
I know you and I have debated this many times and I love those debates. I also consider you a very smart, hard working and progressive leader in our group!
Look forward to racing with you guys again, soon!
SS
I agree with your comments wrt VI if the course was flat. Riding at a VI of 1.00 is the absolutely fastest way around a flat course on a windless day.
The issue on a hilly course is one of how to best 'invest' your TSS budget. Because drag related to wind goes up as the square of the speed (and the power to overcome that drag goes up as the cube of power that needs to be applied to the pedals), the ROI on the TSS invested while pedaling at high speeds is less than the ROI of the TSS invested at lower speeds. I do not believe that VI=1.0 is the fastest way around a hilly course.
The net-net is that applying slightly more power on a climb and less power on a descent if a more efficient investment of TSS. This is why models that optimize time on a course (like the BestBikeSplit model that CoachP rode) have you applying power unevenly across the course. The "EN Gears" recognize this to some extent by having you climb at +5% and +10% on short hills and to stop pedaling when spun out.
The real questions are: 1.) Is there a more efficient set of numbers than the EN Gears, and becomes 2.) If there is, how can you simplify them so that they are executable on the bike but still leave you in a good position to run.
The 28min that I was not pedaling had an average speed of 28mph. This number includes the time through the towns, going around the turn-arounds, etc. so there are some low speed numbers averaged into that 28mph. I believe that any power invested to try to gain a little speed during these 28min would have been a bad investment of TSS relative to applying a little extra power at times when my speed was below 19.5mph (my average for the course).
Having slept on it a lot now, I believe that I hurt myself in a several ways on this ride:
I really appreciate the feedback and the discussion. I am 100% in agreement that riding at VI=1.00 is a a riding skill that we all need to master, and that it is the fastest way around a flat, windless course. The rest makes for interesting discussion/debate and for good learning opportunities!
Just remember that BBS (Best Bike Split) does not translate into Best Run Split for an Ironman. At the end of the day we are biking in order to run a marathon well....hence the term staying in your box, which really does translate into a lower VI, lower than the BBS VI but results in more matches for the run.
Gonna be hard to convince me that 28 minutes of pure coasting is the most efficient trade off to spiking watts on the climbs.....
Keep the fire burning Stanbaugh!
SS
Part of my point is...coasting does not give you the ability to avoid burning matches when you work harder because you have been "resting". A match is a match, not matter how rested you are. I remember our conversation about FRC; I was skeptical then, and I still am...
We can all agree that the only good strategy for the bike is the one that leaves one in a position to have a great run.
The thought that I am pushing forward is simply that VI=1.00 is only optimal on a flat course. The reason is simple: one spends more time going uphill at a lower speed (and lower wind resistance) than they spend going downhill at a higher speed (and a higher wind resistance). Here (below) is a simple chart I build using bike calculator: http://bikecalculator.com/what.html. Two simple scenarios. An 3% grade out-and-back course with a rider weighing 160 pounds, FTP 270 and no wind. Consider two rides:
I know that this is an extreme example... there are no courses designed like this. These rides are long because of the crazy course design with over 8,000' of climbing. I'm just using them to illustrate a point about the VI.
The second ride is at the same effort budget (TSS 270) and the power was never spiked @IF 72%.The VI ≈1.03 and the ride is 24min faster than the VI=1.00 ride.
Riding a hilly course at IF > 1.00 is faster.
@Shaughn Simmons If I could coast 112 miles at 28mph - I would do it in a minute.
As you know, VI=Pnorm/Pavg. As @tim cronk points out, Pnorm is a model of metabolic cost. It is a calculated number, not a measured number. It is a 4th order weighted average. It is really designed to measure the cost of spiking your power, not of coasting. However, when you put the zeros into the calculation, it causes Pnorm to drift away from Pavg, and the result is VI increases above 1.00. In a sense, this is not a real impact, because your metabolic cost does not increase by coasting.
@Al Truscott, I fully agree that coasting does not give you the ability to spike your power. We all have a finite number of matches to burn. I would argue that, relative to VI, I am not advocating spiking one's power. I am suggesting that riding above the target on climbs and below the target on descents offers a more efficient use of energy than riding a constant V=1.00. Done correctly, it will not burn matches.
When we were discussing FRC, I was attempting to make a different point (probably not very clearly). FRC is an anaerobic energy source above FTP. There are times that many of us are forced well above our targets because of weight, gearing and incline. Or - getting outside our boxes like I did at MT. Having a higher FRC and doing workouts to improve FRC does (at least) two things for us:
- It puts more matches in our match book, and
- The workouts help raise our VO2max, which gives us more space to raise our FTP.
FRC is finite and it doesn't recharge quickly... certainly not in the timespan of coasting. But having a large FRC gives us more room for the sometimes necessary push and more room for error.I think that the EN Gears (3rd = GW+5%, 4th=GW+10%) address this point... I think than rather choosing 5% & 10% that the targets for 3rd & 4th gear may be course specific.
How did you accumulate the chainring data? It seems like riding a race rehearsal using TR and the course data
on a hilly course, would help solidify any gearing changes prior to the race.
D-Fly Link:
http://bike.shimano.com/content/sac-bike/en/home/news-and-info/news/d-fly.html
As to FRC, I see it now as another measure of training effect, like one's FTP or five-hour power or threshold here rate. I think, however, that burning any matches , which I define as going over those EN "gear" recommendations for any extended period, like more than 15 seconds, is never a good choice during an IM. Back in the day before power meters, an old saw about IM racing was: "You lose 3 minutes on the run for every one minute you spend anaerobic on the bike."
IMO, the only time in an IM for burning matches is the last 90 minutes of the run. Hopefully, we'll have saved enough glycogen during the preceding 8-12 hours for that.
None of this applies to shorter races - they are a different sport.