Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule.
Quote | Reply
In the book FASTER the author talks about the 10 watt rule when looking for gains.

Gains or loss of fewer than 5 watts is negligible because we can't be certain they are tied to anyone thing.

Also I can't find where he speaks about latex tubes. Tires and crr yes. Tubes no.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fishbum wrote:
In the book FASTER the author talks about the 10 watt rule when looking for gains.

Gains or loss of fewer than 5 watts is negligible because we can't be certain they are tied to anyone thing.

Also I can't find where he speaks about latex tubes. Tires and crr yes. Tubes no.

There are ways to both tie tests to one thing and to measure power differences of less than 5W.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hmmm.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In the bad old incandescent days, 10 watts would qualify as a dim bulb...
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
He doesn't sound very smart.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I thought his book was considered pretty factual.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 I’m perfectly happy to make 5, 8-watt gains. And I’m even more happy when others aren’t.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond wrote:
He doesn't sound very smart.
My interpretation (based on the paraphrase above) is that you should focus on doing the big gain items before you worry about the small ones, because the validity of the latter might be questionable.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [MattyK] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MattyK wrote:
You should focus on doing the big gain items before you worry about the small ones, because the validity of the latter might be questionable.

Sure focus on the big gains, but because the big gains are bigger than the small gains.

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [MattyK] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MattyK wrote:
jimatbeyond wrote:
He doesn't sound very smart.
My interpretation (based on the paraphrase above) is that you should focus on doing the big gain items before you worry about the small ones, because the validity of the latter might be questionable.

I would not have gotten that. I just figured he was saying the guy was dumb.
His statement makes me think about things like latex tubes.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [refthimos] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's seams polar opposite of "Marginal gains"
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Marginal gains are what you chase after you've nailed the primary gains

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
“Don’t sweat the small stuff, go for the big gains.”

Maybe this is out of context. Sure, go for the big stuff first. But also go for the cheap/easy stuff, even if the gains are smaller. You would be dumb not to.

The bigger question is where to draw the line on the very expensive marginal gains. That is dependant on your budget, and level of competitiveness.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I read his book when I started in the sport. The info was okay and most of the info easy to find if you are a geek. I don't think it influenced me much except holding off for many years before buying carbon aero rims. However, that was more confirmatory than eye opening.

I should review the book, but looking him up now there's something that doesn't vibe well with me. As a geek, I'm constantly looking for the most up to date info. He didn't continue that. It seems like he disappeared. He deleted his twitter and doesn't have anything new posted online except this: http://jim-gourley.blogspot.com/
His velopress bio, it states he his a multiple ironman finisher. I can't find one finish. He keeps bragging about being a rocket scientist. His bio reads like he is twisting the truth. I could be wrong. Since he graduated with a degree in aerospace engineering, he might be working on something top secret.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [hubcaps] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would think they checked his background before it went to print.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [hubcaps] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
hubcaps wrote:
it states he his a multiple ironman finisher. I can't find one finish. He keeps bragging about being a rocket scientist. His bio reads like he is twisting the truth. I could be wrong. Since he graduated with a degree in aerospace engineering, he might be working on something top secret.

Omg Hambini is the author
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [iamuwere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What does that mean????
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I always add 10W to my FTP and subtract 10 minutes from my IM splits whenever I post on ST. After all... it's within the margin of error.

Fishbum wrote:
In the book FASTER the author talks about the 10 watt rule when looking for gains.
Gains or loss of fewer than 5 watts is negligible because we can't be certain they are tied to anyone thing.

Also I can't find where he speaks about latex tubes. Tires and crr yes. Tubes no.

What's your CdA?
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [trailerhouse] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
U wouldn't be the first đź‚
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [trailerhouse] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That is solid gold.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [turdburgler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In manufacturing, it's often stated that nearly 80% of a process is either non-value-add or "necessary" non-value-add while only 20% of the process is value-add.

If you think about this rule this way instead of using it to de-legitimatize small gains, it would make sense.

In other words, focus on the 80% losses first. Then the 20%. Not the other way around. There's folks out there buying $3000 in wheels who don't keep their chains, rings, sprockets perfectly cleaned and lubed and have horrible positions on the bike. There's folks talking about 5w things that are making 20w mistakes.

On a bike, that would mean first focusing on the huge human shaped blob sitting on the bike first. Then looking at the next largest contribution, then the next.

Also, lots of decent testing of small gains does do what a manufacturing environment would do to prove something works..........you make the change, see the improvement, change it back, and see it go back, then change it to the improved state again.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
burnthesheep wrote:
In other words, focus on the 80% losses first. Then the 20%.

Can you do both? Is that allowed?
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I understand all that. And certainly making changes to ones fit that results in a 50 watt gain you're going to see a difference. But let's say for instance you change tubes and save 3 Watts between the two wheels combined then you put on the aerocoach chain guide and supposedly see 2 Watts then change out a front brake and gain another couple Watts if they're each three and in theory going to be nine combined are you actually going to be able to test this and verify that those changes are the reason you are now 9 Watts faster? And it's possible that I'm not doing a good job of asking my question.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That is why you do testing in incremental changes.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [turdburgler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
But the same statement goes for losses. What if you make the change and see a loss. Doesn't mean it was the new equipment.

I guess the bigger question is can we trust anything that is not tested by an outside independent company.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fishbum wrote:
But the same statement goes for losses. What if you make the change and see a loss. Doesn't mean it was the new equipment.

I guess the bigger question is can we trust anything that is not tested by an outside independent company.

If only there were ways to do tests ourselves.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [RChung] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Lol I'm trying to read your shit right not!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fishbum wrote:
Lol I'm trying to read your shit right not!!!

for it....you need a power meter. One that is NOT single-sided.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Tom_hampton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Power tap hub?
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Tom_hampton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom_hampton wrote:
Fishbum wrote:
Lol I'm trying to read your shit right not!!!


for it....you need a power meter. One that is NOT single-sided.

ppffttt. I do all my aero testing using heart rate.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [RChung] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RChung wrote:
burnthesheep wrote:
In other words, focus on the 80% losses first. Then the 20%.

Can you do both? Is that allowed?

You sound like my boss when I ask what the priority tasks are? His response is they’re all top priority
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
Tom_hampton wrote:
Fishbum wrote:
Lol I'm trying to read your shit right not!!!


for it....you need a power meter. One that is NOT single-sided.


ppffttt. I do all my aero testing using heart rate.

Oh yeah? I do mine with RPE, and the feel of the wind against my face. I can just feel if its faster.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [RChung] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No!! Did you watch Karate Kid? Did Mr. Miyagi teach Daniel how to kick ass the first day? No... he made him to wax on / wax off every car in his huge collection of classics first.


RChung wrote:
burnthesheep wrote:

In other words, focus on the 80% losses first. Then the 20%.


Can you do both? Is that allowed?

What's your CdA?
Last edited by: trailerhouse: Mar 15, 19 8:30
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Tom_hampton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom_hampton wrote:
RowToTri wrote:
Tom_hampton wrote:
Fishbum wrote:
Lol I'm trying to read your shit right not!!!


for it....you need a power meter. One that is NOT single-sided.


ppffttt. I do all my aero testing using heart rate.

Oh yeah? I do mine with RPE, and the feel of the wind against my face. I can just feel if its faster.

I just do whatever Jan does.

Sincerely,
Lionel

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fishbum wrote:
Power tap hub?

It does NOT have to be a PT-hub. It just needs to accumulate power from both legs. So, single sided pedals or crank-arm based won't work very well. Chain-ring, bottom bracket, or hub based...along with dual-sided pedals, and cranks.

However, I think the PT-hub is the gold standard for aero testing...specifically because it excludes any errors / losses associated with the drivetrain. I'm not an expert, or anywhere close to it. Just another guy who has done some aero testing...and not really very much.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JasoninHalifax wrote:
Tom_hampton wrote:
RowToTri wrote:
Tom_hampton wrote:
Fishbum wrote:
Lol I'm trying to read your shit right not!!!


for it....you need a power meter. One that is NOT single-sided.


ppffttt. I do all my aero testing using heart rate.


Oh yeah? I do mine with RPE, and the feel of the wind against my face. I can just feel if its faster.


I just do whatever Jan does.

Sincerely,
Lionel

Next up....velotron jokes!
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [hubcaps] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
hubcaps wrote:
I read his book when I started in the sport. The info was okay and most of the info easy to find if you are a geek. I don't think it influenced me much except holding off for many years before buying carbon aero rims. However, that was more confirmatory than eye opening.

I should review the book, but looking him up now there's something that doesn't vibe well with me. As a geek, I'm constantly looking for the most up to date info. He didn't continue that. It seems like he disappeared. He deleted his twitter and doesn't have anything new posted online except this: http://jim-gourley.blogspot.com/
His velopress bio, it states he his a multiple ironman finisher. I can't find one finish. He keeps bragging about being a rocket scientist. His bio reads like he is twisting the truth. I could be wrong. Since he graduated with a degree in aerospace engineering, he might be working on something top secret.

Hmmm... USAT has only one result from a man named Jim or James Gourley, and it's a short course race by someone from the Federated States of Micronesia. As a US Air Force officer, I assume he is from the US....

Also, I know a bunch of engineers and scientists that work on spacecraft and rockets and none of them have ever called themselves a "rocket scientist".

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:

Also, I know a bunch of engineers and scientists that work on spacecraft and rockets and none of them have ever called themselves a "rocket scientist".


Only at parties when trying to impress the chicks. Its most effective when it is pronounced with a listhp. But, that's not very PC.
Last edited by: Tom_hampton: Mar 15, 19 8:41
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [mickison] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mickison wrote:
You sound like my boss when I ask what the priority tasks are? His response is they’re all top priority

I think it's more like your boss saying "Sure, handle the high priority tasks first, but you can't simply ignore the lower priority tasks and never address them."

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Tom_hampton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The power meter doesn't need to be accurate, it has to be consistent, but that isn't what the author was trying to convey. It's a statistics problem.

Even if your meter is dead on every time, your body isn't functioning the same every time. Your position is different every time regardless of how careful your setup is, your speed measuring device has error (even a GPS) that varies from day to day, and the road surface conditions aren't the same. That's if you are looking for gains in speed for reduction in watts. If you are looking at FTP it is even more meaningless.

A +- 5 watt change is nothing more than data scatter under those conditions and should be ignored.

"...the street finds its own uses for things"
Last edited by: AutomaticJack: Mar 15, 19 8:44
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
Tom_hampton wrote:
Fishbum wrote:
Lol I'm trying to read your shit right not!!!


for it....you need a power meter. One that is NOT single-sided.

ppffttt. I do all my aero testing using heart rate.

Reread the post. That's was specifically to racing by hr rate. I train with a power PM on my trainer.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [AutomaticJack] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AutomaticJack wrote:
The power meter doesn't need to be accurate, it has to be consistent, but that isn't what the author was trying to convey. It's a statistics problem.

Even if your meter is dead on every time, your body isn't functioning the same every time. Your position is different every time regardless of how careful your setup is, your speed measuring device has error (even a GPS) that varies from day to day, and the road surface conditions aren't the same. That's if you are looking for gains in speed for reduction in watts. If you are looking at FTP it is even more meaningless.

A +- 5 watt change is nothing more than data scatter under those conditions and should be ignored.

"even a GPS" has error for speed? No kidding! A wheel magnet is awufully precise. GPS is extremely inaccurate and variable.

If only there was a way to statistically isolate causality for the changes... repeated runs on alternating configurations can easily tease out the signal you are looking for, even with a not perfectly immobile rider.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It was just a joke - don't take offense!

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Rocket_racing] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rocket_racing wrote:
“Don’t sweat the small stuff, go for the big gains.”

Maybe this is out of context. Sure, go for the big stuff first. But also go for the cheap/easy stuff, even if the gains are smaller. You would be dumb not to.

The bigger question is where to draw the line on the very expensive marginal gains. That is dependant on your budget, and level of competitiveness.

I agree with this. I'm a MOPer or maybe on good days top 25% to top 1/3 in the big events. There is only so much I'm willing to do. I have my 2014 cervelo P2. That's all the bike I'll ever need. I got an aero helmet, aero wheels. I've been fitted and tweaked my fit a few times. I maybe could work on a more aggressive position on the bike but I'm pretty comfortable with my current fit so hate messing with something that I know doesn't leave me in pain on a 5+ hour ride. I keep my drive train clean. I might fiddle with my BTA bottle and rear hydration stuff. But that's about as far as I'm going.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
None taken! Hence the problem with messages you can never tell what's meant behind the way someone words something.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There is a lot of truth in his statement. Go look at any IM event and notice how many people are riding on high dollar TT rigs and not riding on the aerobars for 3/4’s of the race.

For all the aero weenies, I say get a proper fit and saddle. Dial in that position and then hold power throughout the bike leg. If you can’t do it, then you’re pissing in the wind with all these marginal gains.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [mwanner13] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Agreed. And I've been there. I've been that guy because I assumed what I could hold for 55 miles would translate to a fool IM.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [AutomaticJack] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AutomaticJack wrote:
The power meter doesn't need to be accurate, it has to be consistent,

No, it has to be accurate.

What's your CdA?
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maybe he should have called the book SLOWER

Because if you decide to ignore small gains you need to go :
crap tyres (little difference with good tyres)
crap tubes (it's ok)
average wheels (good enough - it will not make you run faster)
basic frame (who need a real TT frame - aero weenies snowflakes)
big bottles on the frame (more handy)
high position (why bother ?)
wool shirt (more style)
big round helmet (safer)
and you can skip some training sessions (more recovery)
another sausage (mmmmhhh...)
some more chocolate (good things cannot hurt)
some wine (good for recovery)
some beer (hydration is key)
...

Yeah, absolutely. Everybody should do that....
Personally as I'm a bit studdborn and stupid I will stick with the old stupid method of marginal gains
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [AutomaticJack] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AutomaticJack wrote:
The power meter doesn't need to be accurate, it has to be consistent, but that isn't what the author was trying to convey. It's a statistics problem.

Even if your meter is dead on every time, your body isn't functioning the same every time. Your position is different every time regardless of how careful your setup is, your speed measuring device has error (even a GPS) that varies from day to day, and the road surface conditions aren't the same. That's if you are looking for gains in speed for reduction in watts. If you are looking at FTP it is even more meaningless.

A +- 5 watt change is nothing more than data scatter under those conditions and should be ignored.

Are you sure this wasn't meant to be in pink?
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [mickison] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mickison wrote:
RChung wrote:
burnthesheep wrote:

In other words, focus on the 80% losses first. Then the 20%.


Can you do both? Is that allowed?


You sound like my boss when I ask what the priority tasks are? His response is they’re all top priority


The metric Gourley was proposing was "watts saved." I propose something different: the ratio of "watts saved" to either cost or effort.

If you can do something inexpensively or quickly or without much effort it's worth it even if the "watts saved" is less than 10 watts.

Ignoring small gains simply because they're small is short-sighted.

One small gain that I use is to keep my jersey zipped up all the time. The gain is (relatively) small but the implementation is quick and painless.
Last edited by: RChung: Mar 15, 19 10:02
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [RChung] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RChung wrote:
burnthesheep wrote:

In other words, focus on the 80% losses first. Then the 20%.


Can you do both? Is that allowed?

Of course.

I should have said "for me".

Kids are hungry, wife has chores for me...........gotta pick one for now and toss the other on the "to-do" list.

I don't have time to "do both" unless something on the 20% list is super quick to perform, like a latex tube install. Even then, gotta balance that to see if something quick is on the 80% to-do list.

Next on my personal list is a new fit video at home. Same time invest probably as me wanting to make the TT bike 1x. I can guess at finding more savings from the video.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pyrenean Wolf wrote:
Maybe he should have called the book SLOWER

Because if you decide to ignore small gains you need to go :
crap tyres (little difference with good tyres)
crap tubes (it's ok)
average wheels (good enough - it will not make you run faster)
basic frame (who need a real TT frame - aero weenies snowflakes)
big bottles on the frame (more handy)
high position (why bother ?)
wool shirt (more style)
big round helmet (safer)
and you can skip some training sessions (more recovery)
another sausage (mmmmhhh...)
some more chocolate (good things cannot hurt)
some wine (good for recovery)
some beer (hydration is key)
...

Yeah, absolutely. Everybody should do that....
Personally as I'm a bit studdborn and stupid I will stick with the old stupid method of marginal gains

I don't think the author is wrong.

For the typical AGer, whom I'm guessing the author is targeting, it's ALL about training, which is 80+% of your results. Literally, makes the entire difference of how well you will do on race day, because the typical non-FFOP AGer leaves so much on the table from training deficiencies, that it is the single biggest determinant of race day performance.

Marginal gains for the AGer are just that - marginal. Meaning they are so small that they make nearly insignificant contributions to that MOPish AGer compared to the monster effects of training properly.

The typical MOP Ager would absolutely do better to just IGNORE all the fancy aero stuff, fancy training ideas, ignore power, ignore HR, and just train consistently, 1-2hrs per day at low to moderate intensity, for several years. They will crush the inconsistently training version of themself every time, even if that version had $30k of the latest and greatest gear and equipemnt.

Now if you're gunning for a national-class AG win or KQ, you gotta check ALL the boxes. At that level of performance, marginal gains can and do make the difference between kona-bound or going home off the podium. But I suspect that's not the main audience that the author was aiming at.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
Do we need a book called FASTER just to train moderate 1 or 2h a day ?

No

Maybe a piece of paper, with "JUST TRAIN 1 OR 2h MODERATE, THEN EAT A BANANA" is enough ?
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pyrenean Wolf wrote:

Do we need a book called FASTER just to train moderate 1 or 2h a day ?

No

Maybe a piece of paper, with "JUST TRAIN 1 OR 2h MODERATE, THEN EAT A BANANA" is enough ?

Yep, it's true. Most MOPers who are aspiring to get faster make it waaaayyyyy more complicated than they need to.

You can even skip the banana until you're pushing FOP!
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lightheir wrote:

I don't think the author is wrong.

For the typical AGer, whom I'm guessing the author is targeting, it's ALL about training, which is 80+% of your results. Literally, makes the entire difference of how well you will do on race day, because the typical non-FFOP AGer leaves so much on the table from training deficiencies, that it is the single biggest determinant of race day performance.

Marginal gains for the AGer are just that - marginal. Meaning they are so small that they make nearly insignificant contributions to that MOPish AGer compared to the monster effects of training properly.

The typical MOP Ager would absolutely do better to just IGNORE all the fancy aero stuff, fancy training ideas, ignore power, ignore HR, and just train consistently, 1-2hrs per day at low to moderate intensity, for several years. They will crush the inconsistently training version of themself every time, even if that version had $30k of the latest and greatest gear and equipemnt.

Now if you're gunning for a national-class AG win or KQ, you gotta check ALL the boxes. At that level of performance, marginal gains can and do make the difference between kona-bound or going home off the podium. But I suspect that's not the main audience that the author was aiming at.

I would agree with you if going online and shopping for fast tires and tubes...and then installing them interfered with a typical AG's ability to train. Or that the additional disposable income of those items meant that they couldn't train as much. Can I not install tires and tubes after my 1-2 hours of low to moderate intensity workout while sitting on the couch watching TV? Can I not shop around for a fast race suit and aero helmet during my free time? Does spending $200 that I may or may not have prevent me from going out on a 1-2 hour ride or run the next day?

What you're suggesting is that looking for, purchasing, and implementing marginal gain items is mutually exclusive. If that's the case, then every typical MOP Ager should get off of ST because they are wasting their time on the internet when they should be out training. Because it's impossible to train hard and still have time in the day to browse ST.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What is your best time for an IM ?
How old are you ?
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Jason N] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jason N wrote:
lightheir wrote:


I don't think the author is wrong.

For the typical AGer, whom I'm guessing the author is targeting, it's ALL about training, which is 80+% of your results. Literally, makes the entire difference of how well you will do on race day, because the typical non-FFOP AGer leaves so much on the table from training deficiencies, that it is the single biggest determinant of race day performance.

Marginal gains for the AGer are just that - marginal. Meaning they are so small that they make nearly insignificant contributions to that MOPish AGer compared to the monster effects of training properly.

The typical MOP Ager would absolutely do better to just IGNORE all the fancy aero stuff, fancy training ideas, ignore power, ignore HR, and just train consistently, 1-2hrs per day at low to moderate intensity, for several years. They will crush the inconsistently training version of themself every time, even if that version had $30k of the latest and greatest gear and equipemnt.

Now if you're gunning for a national-class AG win or KQ, you gotta check ALL the boxes. At that level of performance, marginal gains can and do make the difference between kona-bound or going home off the podium. But I suspect that's not the main audience that the author was aiming at.


I would agree with you if going online and shopping for fast tires and tubes...and then installing them interfered with a typical AG's ability to train. Or that the additional disposable income of those items meant that they couldn't train as much. Can I not install tires and tubes after my 1-2 hours of low to moderate intensity workout while sitting on the couch watching TV? Can I not shop around for a fast race suit and aero helmet during my free time? Does spending $200 that I may or may not have prevent me from going out on a 1-2 hour ride or run the next day?

What you're suggesting is that looking for, purchasing, and implementing marginal gain items is mutually exclusive. If that's the case, then every typical MOP Ager should get off of ST because they are wasting their time on the internet when they should be out training. Because it's impossible to train hard and still have time in the day to browse ST.

Don't disagree with you in that there's no penalty for buying speed. Sure, if you've got the cash, go crazy, so long as it's not interfering with your training time or goals.

That's still not the point of the author or my point though. The point is that all that stuff is MARGINAL. If it makes you happy to save 1 minute in an 2:35 finish time Oly race through $3k of aerodynamic stuff, sure, go for it! And remember that with good training, you probably could have gone 2:30 or lower with none of that stuff and with just more and consistent training.

I am not a KQ guy yet I rock the race wheels, both for looks as well as for the tiny speed gain that literally makes zero difference in my local AG podium results at my meagre levels of performance.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Jason N] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jason N wrote:
lightheir wrote:

I don't think the author is wrong.

For the typical AGer, whom I'm guessing the author is targeting, it's ALL about training, which is 80+% of your results. Literally, makes the entire difference of how well you will do on race day, because the typical non-FFOP AGer leaves so much on the table from training deficiencies, that it is the single biggest determinant of race day performance.

Marginal gains for the AGer are just that - marginal. Meaning they are so small that they make nearly insignificant contributions to that MOPish AGer compared to the monster effects of training properly.

The typical MOP Ager would absolutely do better to just IGNORE all the fancy aero stuff, fancy training ideas, ignore power, ignore HR, and just train consistently, 1-2hrs per day at low to moderate intensity, for several years. They will crush the inconsistently training version of themself every time, even if that version had $30k of the latest and greatest gear and equipemnt.

Now if you're gunning for a national-class AG win or KQ, you gotta check ALL the boxes. At that level of performance, marginal gains can and do make the difference between kona-bound or going home off the podium. But I suspect that's not the main audience that the author was aiming at.

I would agree with you if going online and shopping for fast tires and tubes...and then installing them interfered with a typical AG's ability to train. Or that the additional disposable income of those items meant that they couldn't train as much. Can I not install tires and tubes after my 1-2 hours of low to moderate intensity workout while sitting on the couch watching TV? Can I not shop around for a fast race suit and aero helmet during my free time? Does spending $200 that I may or may not have prevent me from going out on a 1-2 hour ride or run the next day?

What you're suggesting is that looking for, purchasing, and implementing marginal gain items is mutually exclusive. If that's the case, then every typical MOP Ager should get off of ST because they are wasting their time on the internet when they should be out training. Because it's impossible to train hard and still have time in the day to browse ST.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. What I think lightheir is getting at is that people will spend hours and hours researching which fast tire is marginally faster than the other one. Or which 60mm rim is slightly faster than the other 60mm rim. Is that an efficient use of time, to endlessly debate and go back and forth over whether to get a GP4000 or a Vittoria? Over what, 1 or 2 watts, maybe?

Likewise, a fancy training plan with all the numbers is useless if you aren't training consistently. If you're inconsistent, then there's no point in a PM. Get consistent first, then once you're doing that, then look at how you can enhance that consistency. Which is somewhat anathema to the typical triathlon culture of upgrade, upgrade, new toys, new toys....

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pyrenean Wolf wrote:
What is your best time for an IM ?
How old are you ?

No IM for me. I'm M43, last Oly was slowish on time 2:25 but good was enough for a USAT85 score . So I can only creep onto the podium in small local races if nobody fast shows up, and I have no chance at national-class podiums. So I'm probably a (FO)MOPer - the 80/20 rule does apply to me. I use the cool-looking aero stuff mainly for looks and fun factor - I'm under zero illusion it's making me significantly faster compared if I had more training time/quality at my meagre level of performance.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [hubcaps] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
hubcaps wrote:
I read his book when I started in the sport. The info was okay and most of the info easy to find if you are a geek. I don't think it influenced me much except holding off for many years before buying carbon aero rims. However, that was more confirmatory than eye opening.

I should review the book, but looking him up now there's something that doesn't vibe well with me. As a geek, I'm constantly looking for the most up to date info. He didn't continue that. It seems like he disappeared. He deleted his twitter and doesn't have anything new posted online except this: http://jim-gourley.blogspot.com/
His velopress bio, it states he his a multiple ironman finisher. I can't find one finish. He keeps bragging about being a rocket scientist. His bio reads like he is twisting the truth. I could be wrong. Since he graduated with a degree in aerospace engineering, he might be working on something top secret.

One thing i'd always bear in mind with 'Rocket Science'... the acceptable (and certainly actual) failure rate is at a level that any other industry or activity would find apalling, uttely unnaceptable, and untennable as a business.
Would you accept a bike, car, or frezer where on average you and several others died every 1 in 50 rides / uses ?
Just sayin'.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why should they ignore it? You have no response for why they can’t do both. Please explain How is an AGer better off ignoring potential speed gains? Or how making sensible purchases diminishes even a single second of training time/effort. I never skipped a single training session to research speed or make a purchase. Not once. I hope you and everyone else takes the advice in the article.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [DFW_Tri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DFW_Tri wrote:
Why should they ignore it? You have no response for why they can’t do both. Please explain How is an AGer better off ignoring potential speed gains? Or how making sensible purchases diminishes even a single second of training time/effort. I never skipped a single training session to research speed or make a purchase. Not once. I hope you and everyone else takes the advice in the article.

Read my post again - I never said ignore it. Go ahead and go crazy buying 'free speed!"

Just don't lose the reality that it's all marginal gain, and like I said, unless you're a FOP athlete, training better trumps all that stuff easily.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lightheir wrote:
Jason N wrote:
lightheir wrote:


I don't think the author is wrong.

For the typical AGer, whom I'm guessing the author is targeting, it's ALL about training, which is 80+% of your results. Literally, makes the entire difference of how well you will do on race day, because the typical non-FFOP AGer leaves so much on the table from training deficiencies, that it is the single biggest determinant of race day performance.

Marginal gains for the AGer are just that - marginal. Meaning they are so small that they make nearly insignificant contributions to that MOPish AGer compared to the monster effects of training properly.

The typical MOP Ager would absolutely do better to just IGNORE all the fancy aero stuff, fancy training ideas, ignore power, ignore HR, and just train consistently, 1-2hrs per day at low to moderate intensity, for several years. They will crush the inconsistently training version of themself every time, even if that version had $30k of the latest and greatest gear and equipemnt.

Now if you're gunning for a national-class AG win or KQ, you gotta check ALL the boxes. At that level of performance, marginal gains can and do make the difference between kona-bound or going home off the podium. But I suspect that's not the main audience that the author was aiming at.


I would agree with you if going online and shopping for fast tires and tubes...and then installing them interfered with a typical AG's ability to train. Or that the additional disposable income of those items meant that they couldn't train as much. Can I not install tires and tubes after my 1-2 hours of low to moderate intensity workout while sitting on the couch watching TV? Can I not shop around for a fast race suit and aero helmet during my free time? Does spending $200 that I may or may not have prevent me from going out on a 1-2 hour ride or run the next day?

What you're suggesting is that looking for, purchasing, and implementing marginal gain items is mutually exclusive. If that's the case, then every typical MOP Ager should get off of ST because they are wasting their time on the internet when they should be out training. Because it's impossible to train hard and still have time in the day to browse ST.


Don't disagree with you in that there's no penalty for buying speed. Sure, if you've got the cash, go crazy, so long as it's not interfering with your training time or goals.

That's still not the point of the author or my point though. The point is that all that stuff is MARGINAL. If it makes you happy to save 1 minute in an 2:35 finish time Oly race through $3k of aerodynamic stuff, sure, go for it! And remember that with good training, you probably could have gone 2:30 or lower with none of that stuff and with just more and consistent training.

I am not a KQ guy yet I rock the race wheels, both for looks as well as for the tiny speed gain that literally makes zero difference in my local AG podium results at my meagre levels of performance.

If I told you that you could save 2 watts by dropping your tire pressure 4 psi, would you do it or not? Would you use the author's argument that it's a marginal gain, thus it should not be your concern at the moment?

Just because a gain is marginal, does not mean that it's expensive or difficult to implement. Everything has a cost/benefit. Equipment or setup choices should be made with the cost AND benefit in mind. The author is making a blanket statement that only the benefit (> 10 watts) should be evaluated when deciding the order of implementation. That's my point.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Jason N] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 

Dude read my posts again - I'm not disagreeing with you on your (obvious) points.

If it's cheap and easy, with no downside, of course do it! (duh). Even if it's expensive and you can afford it, go crazy buy it as long as it's not messing something else up.

My point still stands though - if you're a MOPer (like me), the equipment choices after the basic level of a decently fitting road-style bike (not even TT bike), are strictly marginal. Do it for fun, not because it's taking you to the next level of performance.

With regards to your 2 watts saved for 4psi, I'm with the author on this one. I don't care enough about 2 watts saved (statistical noise) to deviate from the typical psi I run in training. I would literally ignore that recommendation completely as if it didn't exist.
Last edited by: lightheir: Mar 15, 19 11:32
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We have very different definitions of marginal.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [DFW_Tri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DFW_Tri wrote:
We have very different definitions of marginal.

What's your definition?
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Jason N] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jason N wrote:

If I told you that you could save 2 watts by dropping your tire pressure 4 psi, would you do it or not?

I have no idea. It would mostly depend on whether or not I believed you. You could be right. You could be full of crap.

If I told you that you could save 2 watts by removing every other spoke from your wheels, would you do it?

If I told you that you could save 5 seconds on your swim by wearing 3 caps, would you do it?

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Jason N] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jason N wrote:
Just because a gain is marginal, does not mean that it's expensive or difficult to implement. Everything has a cost/benefit. Equipment or setup choices should be made with the cost AND benefit in mind. The author is making a blanket statement that only the benefit (> 10 watts) should be evaluated when deciding the order of implementation. That's my point.

My point too.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [RChung] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RChung wrote:
Jason N wrote:

Just because a gain is marginal, does not mean that it's expensive or difficult to implement. Everything has a cost/benefit. Equipment or setup choices should be made with the cost AND benefit in mind. The author is making a blanket statement that only the benefit (> 10 watts) should be evaluated when deciding the order of implementation. That's my point.


My point too.

I agree with that also
1 watt is 1 watt
If easy and cheap, why not get it
whatever it comes in group of 3, 5, 10 or 20
Whatever it is by training properly and consistantly, or putting the right tyre, or getting in the right aero position, ....

Plus, it is fun
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I find that 80% of world class performance is getting the basics right, 15% is paying attention to sensible but important smaller details, 10% is marginal gains like cleaning your chain properly before a race and waxing, 5% is in the mind and finally 2% is the secret sauce / plan only a few world class coaches are privy to that will rock your world for massive gainz

My 3.5c.......

David T-D
http://www.tilburydavis.com
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [tilburs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I've had the luck to work with a handful of record-setting efforts. The commonality is that they worked on everything. As Tolstoy would have said, happy record attempts are all alike; every unhappy record attempt is unhappy in its own way.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lightheir wrote:


Dude read my posts again - I'm not disagreeing with you on your (obvious) points.

If it's cheap and easy, with no downside, of course do it! (duh). Even if it's expensive and you can afford it, go crazy buy it as long as it's not messing something else up.

My point still stands though - if you're a MOPer (like me), the equipment choices after the basic level of a decently fitting road-style bike (not even TT bike), are strictly marginal. Do it for fun, not because it's taking you to the next level of performance.

With regards to your 2 watts saved for 4psi, I'm with the author on this one. I don't care enough about 2 watts saved (statistical noise) to deviate from the typical psi I run in training. I would literally ignore that recommendation completely as if it didn't exist.

Excellent post. Please keep up the good fight for just settling for good enough. I greatly appreciate comments like this as they are what enable to me to still get good placings on the bike split in my mid-sixties despite a modest and gradually declining FTP.

BTW, a few years ago I thought I was really getting close to the point where any additional gains were going to be really hard. But I decided I was going to put together all the little things I could think of to eke out more watts. The results far surpassed my expectations.

But that's just my experience. Please, everyone else should just listen to Mr. Lightheir.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [tttiltheend] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well then the real question is what were those marginal gains for you that you changed in a positive way, and what did they actually gain you?
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [tttiltheend] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tttiltheend wrote:
The results far surpassed my expectations.

I made two little changes (that were far from obvious) last fall and dropped CdA ~10% from an already low position. Cost was 0$.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You are interested in marginal gains now ?

No, forget that.

It is useless.

As a MOP, we (and you) don't have objectives, neither expectations, neither interest in efficiency.
Dumb training, dumb fiting, dumb equipment, dumb racing, dumb result, this make us happy :-)

We love lowering our results using crap equipment, position, nutrition, ...

It is so good to destroy the efforts we put in training.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pyrenean Wolf wrote:
You are interested in marginal gains now ?

No, forget that.

It is useless.

As a MOP, we (and you) don't have objectives, neither expectations, neither interest in efficiency.
Dumb training, dumb fiting, dumb equipment, dumb racing, dumb result, this make us happy :-)

We love lowering our results using crap equipment, position, nutrition, ...

It is so good to destroy the efforts we put in training.


Here we go with the straw man arguments...apparently I used crap equipment, crap nutrition, and have no interest in that stuff, sure whatever you say!

Let's stay on topic and actually answer the question of 'what marginal gains did you use that actually made a difference for you and how much?" for everyone as opposed to the tired old ad hominem 'attack the messenger while avoiding the question outright' which doesn't help anyone.

I'm comfortable enough with my performance and knowledge in the sport to not get up in arms over it, but I'm always interested in stuff that people honestly believes has made a difference in their performance, whether I agree with it or not. And I have definitely changed my mind on some several major items in the past (I went from advocating 100% minimalist shoes to full-out cushion maxi due to ankle arthritis), so I'm not just saying this to be a good sport.
Last edited by: lightheir: Mar 15, 19 16:41
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [RChung] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
there are a finite amount of decisions to be made about bikes and bike equipment. It's possible to check them all and collect all the gains right?

How many choices are we actually making? You have to wear something, you need tires on your wheels, you need a chain. Might as well be right.

RChung wrote:
I've had the luck to work with a handful of record-setting efforts. The commonality is that they worked on everything. As Tolstoy would have said, happy record attempts are all alike; every unhappy record attempt is unhappy in its own way.

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm right on topic, IMO

I have an objective on 70.3.
It is my pleasure to have a relatively sophisticated training plan, and to use all marginal gains I can get, with a limited budget of my choice.

Any statement such as "you can ignore this gain because... whatever blabla", I consider of little interest.

Instead of ignoring some accessibles marginal gain, I prefer to ignore this "10 watt rule".
After 3 pages of thread, have not seen a single good reason to consider it.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pyrenean Wolf wrote:
I'm right on topic, IMO

I have an objective on 70.3.
It is my pleasure to have a relatively sophisticated training plan, and to use all marginal gains I can get, with a limited budget of my choice.

Any statement such as "you can ignore this gain because... whatever blabla", I consider of little interest.

Instead of ignoring some accessibles marginal gain, I prefer to ignore this "10 watt rule".
After 3 pages of thread, have not seen a single good reason to consider it.



Annnd still dodges the question of what those nice upgrades you did and how effective they were.

It's not a hard question, and no, I'm not asking it to be obtuse.

If someone says they made marginal gains they were happy with and had good results, I and sure many others are all ears, even if we ourselves aren't currently interested in certain equipment upgrades (like a faster Tririg front brake or hidden front cables or new aero helmet) ourselves.

I myself have aero helmet, aero wheels (FLO), carbon aerobars, Cervelo P2c frame, aerobar-BTA bottle. I wouldn't be heartbroken or not make the podiums I made if you took any of those away from me, or even made me go road bike sans aerobars. Again, I'm not a FOPer, if you were contending for KQ etc, you'd better max out all the aero goodies.
Last edited by: lightheir: Mar 15, 19 17:08
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [ericMPro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ericMPro wrote:
there are a finite amount of decisions to be made about bikes and bike equipment. It's possible to check them all and collect all the gains right?

How many choices are we actually making? You have to wear something, you need tires on your wheels, you need a chain. Might as well be right.

RChung wrote:
I've had the luck to work with a handful of record-setting efforts. The commonality is that they worked on everything. As Tolstoy would have said, happy record attempts are all alike; every unhappy record attempt is unhappy in its own way.

Actually, in one attempt at the hour record, we'd been fiddling with a certain fit adjustment. We figured that the rider could gain about a couple watt advantage with one setting but the rider was worried that it might be unsustainable for 60 minutes. I did some calculations for the predicted distance at a range of air densities and powers and the rider decided to eat the watts in favor of a more sustainable position. Being able to have some confidence in the estimate was pretty handy.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [RChung] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RChung wrote:
ericMPro wrote:
there are a finite amount of decisions to be made about bikes and bike equipment. It's possible to check them all and collect all the gains right?

How many choices are we actually making? You have to wear something, you need tires on your wheels, you need a chain. Might as well be right.

RChung wrote:
I've had the luck to work with a handful of record-setting efforts. The commonality is that they worked on everything. As Tolstoy would have said, happy record attempts are all alike; every unhappy record attempt is unhappy in its own way.


Actually, in one attempt at the hour record, we'd been fiddling with a certain fit adjustment. We figured that the rider could gain about a couple watt advantage with one setting but the rider was worried that it might be unsustainable for 60 minutes. I did some calculations for the predicted distance at a range of air densities and powers and the rider decided to eat the watts in favor of a more sustainable position. Being able to have some confidence in the estimate was pretty handy.

Oh for sure. I was talking Jim Gourley level decision not RChung level decisions.

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [RChung] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I like the idea of chasing down all aspects of it.
As long as I can prove it actually helped.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What if other people have proven that something is faster?
Last edited by: jimatbeyond: Mar 16, 19 12:42
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I ment can I prove it's an improvement for me.

CHUNG!!!!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And Jim Gourley is who? :-)
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 



Hambini, What does that mean????


https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/Updated%3A_A_Comprehensive_(But_Controversial)_Wind_Tunnel_Wheel_Shootout_P6710888/?search_string=flo%20lawyers#p6710888






and




https://www.hambini.com/




.


Once, I was fast. But I got over it.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If someone has proven that a specific tire is two watts faster, why would you need to prove that it is an improvement for you?
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jeebus what a stupid concept. It’s not rocket science. Use the best data available to make the best equipment decisions that you can justify in terms of $ and risk aversion (for instance, some fast tires come with increased risk of puncture)...whatever. It’s a quick decision and then move on.

Fast tires aren’t hard.
Latex tubes aren’t hard.
Position improvements aren’t hard.
Cleaning up aerodynamics of equipment choices isn’t super hard.
Choosing a saddle that allows a proper aero position isn’t hard.
Finding effective race wheels isn’t hard.

Marginal gains available on most AG setups I see total far more than 10 watts, even if individually some don’t meet this stupid arbitrary level of efficacy.

I don’t support dumbing down of multisports. There is A LOT to learn and incorporate. Actively discouraging athletes from assessing aspects of their sport is ridiculous.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [TriBriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TriBriGuy wrote:
Jeebus what a stupid concept. It’s not rocket science. Use the best data available to make the best equipment decisions that you can justify in terms of $ and risk aversion (for instance, some fast tires come with increased risk of puncture)...whatever. It’s a quick decision and then move on.

Fast tires aren’t hard.
Latex tubes aren’t hard.
Position improvements aren’t hard.
Cleaning up aerodynamics of equipment choices isn’t super hard.
Choosing a saddle that allows a proper aero position isn’t hard.
Finding effective race wheels isn’t hard.

Marginal gains available on most AG setups I see total far more than 10 watts, even if individually some don’t meet this stupid arbitrary level of efficacy.

I don’t support dumbing down of multisports. There is A LOT to learn and incorporate. Actively discouraging athletes from assessing aspects of their sport is ridiculous.

Dude - I just saw your sig line.
You’re back!!
When the hell did that happen?

You coming out to play at AmZof this May?


float , hammer , and jog

Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond wrote:
If someone has proven that a specific tire is two watts faster, why would you need to prove that it is an improvement for you?

It’s 2 watts faster under what conditions, with what setup? What was the margin of error?

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not necessarily talking about tires per se.
But look at thing like the AC chain catch. It claims a couple watts over a open FD
Hanger. This is the stuff others have tested and found to be useless regardless of the companies claims.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [ericMPro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
To be fair, I just listened to a podcast about the book. He doesn’t sound like an over the top guy or line in the sand guy.

I’m sure if he was aware of this thread he would be agreeable with most points....at least the common sense ones.

Never read the book though, so not sure of the context of 10 watts or don’t bother.

Maurice
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [mauricemaher] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Doesn't fraise it like that. But say 10 watts is the number to focus on. And 5 +/- watts or less you can't be sure the changes are what it giving you the results .
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fair enough, I haven’t read the book.

Maurice
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [tilburs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tilburs wrote:
I find that 80% of world class performance is getting the basics right, 15% is paying attention to sensible but important smaller details, 10% is marginal gains like cleaning your chain properly before a race and waxing, 5% is in the mind and finally 2% is the secret sauce / plan only a few world class coaches are privy to that will rock your world for massive gainz

My 3.5c.......


If only world class coaches could do math :)
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A company's claim is not proof.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A previous post said it eloquently - it is a trade-off between watts vs effort. (I believe it was jasonInHalifax). Effort can be measured in time (research, changing, purchasing, installing), cost, etc.

I would also add that it wattage is dependent upon probability of achieving those gains (all of us assume it is 100%, but in reality it isn't); also probability and value of loss if you get it wrong (there COULD be downside if one is fairly optimized).

My n = 1 experience of a FOP AGer, though not KQ level (eg 3rd in AG at 70.3), many of my attempts to optimize has also resulted in me seeing a downside that I was oblivious to seeing when I started the quest to save X watts. Examples of unsuccessful optimization:
+ Lower elbow pads = loss of comfort. Not worth it
+ Laceup shoes with elastic laces = shoe shape didn't fit my feet. Not worth it. Staying with Sidi

The other thing to add to the equation (for MOP, but frankly anyone) is ones desire to be the best irrespective of where one stands on the rankings. Everyone assumes FOP care about ranking but MOP don't. But that is an assumption.

Bottom line (IMHO) - if the equation [wattage improvement > effort + downside] then go for it.

Hope this philosophical response is useful
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [ejd_mil] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for the response. I agree the changes we make to any part of our racing set-up do not happen in a vacuum.
Quote Reply
Re: Jim Gourleys 10 watt rule. [ericMPro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
^This. I mean some people in here area acting like there are endless decisions. For me, there are handful of things I look at: helmet, wheels, tires/tubes, chain, cage/bottle/flat kit choice/placement, trisuit and maybe shoe choice. Add all the potential positive or negative gains (or losses) and they are non-marginal, difference-makers, in my opinion. And my decision on what I use has zero impact on my training time/effort.
Quote Reply