Same here:

-Some variation of 3s, 5s, 10s power
-HR
-Distance
-Ride time

For me, the "slave to power" thing can really come into play if you have strong intermittent wind gusts OR some solid rollers for hills to get over. You don't want to drift too high OR get too lazy low. Sure, RPE, but you'd be surprised when pumped up excited how you might not feel you're going that far over target up a shortish hill.

I put ride time there, because depending on terrain distance is not necessarily an easy indicator of time left to go. For me anyway.

It might allow you to bury yourself that last 3min better than going "oops" with 1/2 or 1/4 mile to go.

I'm doing a hill climb TT in summer, and I'll be probably getting rid of ride time and going with % grade.

 

I can't see up close very well, so i go with just 2 fields on the bike computer...

3s avg power
HR

And 2 fields on the wrist watch...
time
distance

and a lap timer goes off every 5 miles if i remember correctly and i look at the wrist watch and check for the lap time and do math in my head to work out the mph --keeps me busy doing math.

If it's a technical course, speed can be helpful. But ultimately this is such a personal thing, you will have to figure it out yourself. If you have a powermeter, then obviously 3 second power would be my first choice. Overall time and distance are usually good, but can either be a motivating or demotivating factor, depending on how you feel and your competition.

Thank all of you for sharing and teaching newbs like me! :)

For a race setup I use the following trick: setup three screens with 4 fields each. Place the same two fields on top in all screens (for me it is 3second power and HR) and put other info in the rest of the fields (time, distance, NP, TSS...). Then activate auto screen rotation and you will get changing fields only at the bottom of your screen, while the key ones remain.

You are welcome.

---

Sr. Salitre

Been curious about trying the auto scroll. Will do some lapping on the TT bike in the morning and try it. I like the idea of keeping the same top couple fields the same, smart!

If you're doing a short course race (like the 20k TT), what HR zone do you typically try to maintain, Z4-Z5? I haven't found a helpful way to use HR in races or training on the bike yet. RPE is easier for me to make sense of and feels more natural. HR can be ten beats lower on some days than others with similar exertion level, so it just throws me off trying to make sense of it. Perhaps over time, I'll learn how to use HR better.

When I got more serious about running and started training with HR years ago, it was a fantastic coach, teaching me that I wasn't working nearly as hard as I'd thought I was...so I essentially learned I had capacity to run faster and then felt what a really hard workout was like (before then, I was backing off too soon). On the bike now, though, I generally review HR after rides, to get a sense of fitness, as I'm unable to gleen what others can during the ride.

I set mine up with 3 purposes in mind:

1. Motivate (and maintain) my level of effort.
2. Monitor the "engine room" - the factors going into my power number
3. Enable my pacing strategy

For these three purposes, because of my approach to the race, speed is completely irrelevant. Why? Because if I am maximizing my power output and pacing strategy, I can't go any faster. So why do I need to know how fast that is? All I need to know is that I'm going as fast as I can. My four parameters tell me that:

Power Zone
HR Zone
Cadence
Distance

My strategy is somewhat dependent on having good, recent power test data. If I know the maximum amount of power I can maintain for 1 hour, 20 minutes, and 5 minutes, all I have to do is maintain that power zone number for the time needed.

For a 25 mile or shorter bike segment, I set my "cruise" at Power Zone 4.1 to 4.5. I know I can maintain 4.5 for an hour. So I focus on my power zone number and let it motivate me to maintain as close to 4.5 as possible all the time. If I'm having trouble maintaining that power number, I look at my HR Zone to see if my heart rate is elevated. If it is (and power is low), I drink more water and I start riding off my HR number, because I'm physiologically limited on that day. If the HR is not elevated, I look at cadence. If my cadence is low, I know to increase cadence to get my power up. If HR and cadence are okay, I know I just need to push harder to maintain the needed power.

Then, about 6.5 miles from the end, I know I can probably sustain power in the low zone 5's from there until then end, so I ramp it up to finish fast.

Some would say that I'm a slave to the power meter, but it's the only way that I can know for sure that I've gotten the most out of myself for the entire race. All I need is four data points for that.

Tried the auto-scrolling on this morning's training ride, really like it! Was wondering about that, no idea why I didn't try it sooner. And great thinking, keeping most fields the same. How annoying it would be to have each screen different.

Now if I can only figure out how to get lap timing to start on its own, so I don't have to remember, then I can be basically hands-off, which would be perfect.

This morning's 4 fields were:

Power 10s Avg
Speed Avg
[Variable Field for changing while auto-scrolling]
Cadence

The variable field had Elapsed Time, Last Lap Time, % FTP. I'm thinking of eliminating the one with last lap time, as average speed is a ride- or race-long target to chase; I kind of like that. Gotta strive for target average speed and drive that number up a little bit all along. That worked well for me this morning, as I'm clear on what average speed I need to achieve in order to get the time goal.

Interestingly, I didn't look at Cadence once this morning. Power 10s and Speed Avg were my focus. It was also interesting to see % FTP, but I'll have to get used to using that and compare percentage output levels to RPE and become comfortable with what 90%, 100% and 110% feel like over the course of a lap, for example.

Quick update, been fooling around with the Garmin on the TT bike doing laps on the race course. With Power 10s and Avg Speed in view, I didn't look at Cadence at all, have been just going by RPE for gearing, which feels simple and natural. So now, I'm down to 3 fields total. The rotating field has been trimmed down to:

Current Lap Time
% FTP
Elapsed Time

So, the net setup I'm going with in the TT is...

Screen 1:
Power 10s
Avg Speed
Current Lap Time

Screen 2:
Power 10s
Avg Speed
% FTP


Screen 3:
Power 10s
Avg Speed
Elapsed Time

It's a 20k TT, 3 laps, so I don't need distance in this case.

Current speed is important, no doubt, but there are so many variables going on with wind and terrain, that it's a constantly moving target. I know I need to go fast, but the average speed gives me a single target to be accountable for, I must drive that number up to goal, otherwise, nothing else matters. At least that's what's making sense to me during this testing.

Avg Speed has been really interesting this week, my first time using it. Good motivator to just do everything a little better, to squeeze out some more speed and make that number go up. Minding head position, loosening upper/mid back to let the shoulders come together and let the head come down, round out the line through turns and stay smooth, ratchet effort up a little higher across the board, stay small in the headwind, let the belly relax to allow full breaths, keep the hands and arms relaxed, etc.. Granted, for many of you, this is all second nature, it's just new to me and some other aero newbs, so these are things that need to be understood and thought about until they become mindless.

I used to think little reminders to myself on the road bike (and mountain bike) to relax hands and arms to leave the extra blood and oxygen for the motor (hips and legs), but on an aero bike, it's so limited by comparison in terms of position, that it's really a healthy list of little things all over which need to be learned and become habitual, like a language. This is fun, really enjoying learning. :)

I have an Edge 1030, so even though I want large data fields for readability I can still fit a fair amount of info on the main screen. I use 5 data fields, but some of them are ConnectIQ fields that I wrote that show more than a single value, so this is what I have on display:


Current & Average Speed
5s Power & Lap Power
Distance
HR, Zone, & Avg
Elapsed Time

For a 40K TT I use auto-lap set to 2.5 miles, which gives me 10 laps and the laps are small enough that if I decide to make an adjustment in pacing I can see the impact on my lap power relatively quickly.

To me Speed and Avg Speed are very useful. It's a time trial after all, point is to cover the course as quickly as possible, not with the best power. Even 'flat' courses tend to have some gentle rollers, and speed is also useful for getting back to target pace after turns and turnarounds. Honestly I pay more attention to speed, RPE, and HR during a TT than I do power.

I used to have a field for cadence, but eventually came to the conclusion I shouldn't care about it during TT's. Previously I would try to keep my cadence up, but as soon as I stopped thinking about it, cadence would drift downward and power would drop with it. Now I tend to push a bigger gear at lower cadence, and it seems easier to find my rhythm that way than when I was always fighting to keep a higher cadence.

If anybody is interested in the ConnectIQ fields, here are the links. Fields will work on any of the modern Edge units (520/820/1000/1030)

SpeedPlus - https://apps.garmin.com/...ad-8642-25efd7977c58
PowerPlus - https://apps.garmin.com/...58-b06f-576b62b37872
HeartRatePlus - https://apps.garmin.com/...f7-a656-bd67dd52c5e8
CadencePlus - https://apps.garmin.com/...2a-83ce-7ca0fc98eede


(Last one shows cadence/gearing, I don't use that for TT's but use it on my road bike).

For me, being inexperienced at this, I think having 10s Power will help me to not overwork or underwork. RPE is something I'm comfortable with when I have nothing else (and generally on training rides, I'm not looking at the Garmin often, so RPE is the most significant influencer), but power is something I think of as a management tool, possibly an essential one. Some people go too hard in races too soon and burn most or all of their matches before the end, so they can't finish strong or consistently with pace. I tend to go the other direction, sometimes I don't work hard enough because I'm saving too much for later...so I'm hoping working with power will help me to avoid that and lay on more work, but measured so I can sustain it.

I'm tempted to ad current speed back in, but trying to keep my fields down to 3, and feel like avg speed is a more absolute target, if I'm not able to have both current and avg speed displayed. Current speed is varying dependent upon where on the course, wind, etc, and I may push too hard in headwind to my detriment for example, to reach a certain current speed target. If I'm using power output and stay within myself, and am mindful of the target avg speed, to go harder but not overcook, I'm thinking it may help me to finish strong instead of struggling to maintain pace after wasting energy in some spots. Go hard, but not too hard, spread the matches out across the entire effort, be consistent and methodical in reeling in the avg speed goal. That's my logic, anyway. After this, I'll probably learn something new and view things through a different lens than I am today. :)

Did a 20K TT today, tried out the 3-field, 3-screen auto-rotating setup.

I think I'm going to trim it down even a bit further to just 2 screens for next race (and training up to it), but might add one field back, to include current speed. Wondering if that will be a motivator or a distraction. Will see.

It'll be like this:

10s Power
Speed
Avg Speed
FTP %

10s Power
Speed
Avg Speed
Elapsed Time

I didn't need cadence, just went with RPE for gear selection and chose what was comfortable on each section of the course (or kept same gear if a change wasn't needed).

The Avg Speed was actually really helpful, that's a keeper. When it started to drop (I went out too hard, rookie error), it was definitely motivating trying to hold avg speed. I ended up improving from 24.9mph avg last race to 26.3mph avg on this one, and 301W NP. Half a second out of 3rd place. I totally could've put out a little more all over the place and nabbed that spot, darn, haha.

Had I not gone out so hard like I did, probably would've kept avg speed above 27mph+ avg, which would've won. Lessons learned to carry forward. But overall, a good day, and good learning experiences aplenty.

Really enjoying TT. This is an obsession, addressing all the little details. Next, I'm going to change tire selection, work on aero positioning (I have to keep reminding myself to get the head lower and more forward, need to make that second nature), change my speedsuit, work on line and smoothness, and maybe go for a fitting on a rig to see if the fit I have right now is optimal, or just comfortable and missing power output in some way.

Looking to setup my 520 with Auto Scroll as you've described, probably 3-4 screens with the top 3 fields staying the same.

Out of curiosity, what speed of auto scroll have you found works best for you?

I was thinking 5 seconds...

Be a slave to speed!

Edit: I see this was referenced above and embedded the related video as it is a great clip with several good nuggets:

I can only see "Slow" or "Fast" in the settings, is Slow 5 seconds and Fast is 3 seconds? I can't seem to find documentation on this online, but I'm sure somebody mentioned it here on ST and I missed it. :)

Not sure, I actually haven't set mine up yet. I was just assuming that you could pick a speed based on seconds...guess that's what I get for assuming.

So are you scrolling slow or fast? And what is your best guess on what that equates to as far as seconds?

That's cool to say for someone who is a very experienced racer, with tons of hours under his belt using tech and reviewing metrics over time. And going with no tech is what we all did before cycling computers, HR monitors, etc. But when we didn't have tech, we were just lacking knowledge. Someone with experience training assisted by tech has a library of knowledge to correlate RPE with metrics he already knows, so the tech becomes less important.

The challenge with most humans is that we're automatically programmed to back off once we feel pain. Some are more naturally willing mentally to endure discomfort or pain, while others have a naturally higher physical threshold and the mental game is less of a factor. Understanding your physical and mental capacities to endure pain is pretty important for an athlete, and if measuring those capacities is accessible as a learning tool, or a racing tool (like using the tach, speedo and temp gauges in a race car), it'd be silly not to----unless you're a seasoned racer who already knows so much, he can correlate feel with metrics he's already seen at those exertion levels.

In the auto racing analogy, when you're so used to the engine note in a given gear, going through a particular turn, and you've seen the reading on the tach, found your target speed exiting the turn, and have had an eye on the temp to make sure you're not approaching blowing up the motor, then you can start to wean yourself off of looking at the tach and temp gauges. You can just go by sound and speed. Or just by sound, if you're working your position through the field in that part of the course. Cover up the gauges the entire time, and you might do very well, or you might fall short of your expectations and not realize you weren't getting everything out of the car, or you might just might blow up the motor and not finish.

When I started training with HR in running, it was the first time that I realized I was backing off way too early, that I had much more capacity for suffering than I was aware of. I thought to myself, "What a wimp! I've had another 20 beats before max in intervals all this time, and I thought I was AT my max." :) It made my running much faster, and it gave me an understanding of what very high effort feels like in terms of pain, and it recalibrated what my level of RPE quite a bit higher. Higher acceptable level of pain, more productive high effort training, ultimately more speed. The measurement provided by the HR meter educated me, very helpful, not much different in this case with cycling and looking at metrics which can educate.

Although I'm not new to racing or competition, I'm new to TT, so take my opinion with an entire salt shaker. I know very little, I'm at the beginning of all this, and I'll be a much better racer with more miles, months and races under my belt. I think once someone gets experience training and racing with real-time metrics, understands their power output and range of discomfort while putting out that much power (and their HR capacities, lactate threshold, cadence, etc), then perhaps they can ditch measurement tech and just feel it. Of course, years ago, cyclists had no tech, and they just rode their asses off, backing off maybe if they felt like they were about to pass out. I'd do that if I was in my 20's (that's what I did), but not now, I'm a little more conservative, and want to know where I am compared to max, only put myself over max for limited time, understand what approaching max effort feels like, what 10-20% over max feels like, and then what all out sprint feels like (seeing numbers and correlating with how I feel is educational). The more I've learned about myself, the less I look at my computer on the road bike; I rarely look at the computer while riding the road bike, it's generally for post-ride review.

Now, the TT bike is a different story. I'm a novice, and seeing the metrics is really a great teacher. Eventually, I'll rely on the computer much less and just feel it. It's already starting to happen just months into this discipline. In my race last month, I only glanced at the computer a few times during the entire race. What did I see in those glances? I saw that I'd overcooked the first lap, my average speed was dropping below where I was intending, and I needed to keep up an uncomfortably high level of effort to make up for my rookie error. After settling in to that higher effort, it became more comfortable, and I was willing to maintain it to the end. Without seeing the metrics earlier on, I'd not have known what I'd done wrong, and wouldn't have had my silent coach urging me to go harder, so my average speed wouldn't tank! :D

Everybody is different, I'm just a student of all of this. Enjoying learning immensely.