you aren't going to find those answers because as much as you can put "on paper" races still have to play out in real life. It's not as simple as "plug in x y z and the person with the best score wins."

So... they definitely DO NOT make a difference if you're racing master's track races in the 35-39 division.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

I have been racing triathlons for 30 years and run races for 40. In a couple of weeks I will be getting my first bike with a power meter. I have qualified for Kona 6 times (but only gone once) so my 2 cents is that training hard and knowing how to race is the most critical thing (along with genetics) but I wouldn't want to race without a decent bike and race wheels. One year early in my triathlon addiction, I missed qualifying for age group worlds by 35 seconds and didn't own aero wheels yet... the guy who got the final spot had a pair of specialized trispokes (shows how long ago it was!) which likely accounted for at least 35 seconds over 40k.

Try it the other way: ride a long course on a road bike without aerobars. Tri bikes and aerobars are "technical" changes.

I think you've inverted the explanatory power. Speaking of time trial performance, the physics models (incorporating Crr, CdA, etC) have been so well proven in real world testing that assuming a causal effect in competition does not reduce to "ad-hoc fallacy." I'd have a hard time theorizing on how reduce CdA or Crr *wouldn't* result in better time trial performance.

you're going to see an article from me in the next few days on The Preparer. it's an article that describes a type of person i see from time to time who makes up the difference between winning and losing.

it's not simply about tech. it's about tech, but more than that it's about optimizing the tech you have. that's more important. this actually does win races.

as to the tech, what you'll see is a lot of correlation between pro use and wins because, as you might guess, the newest tech is used by the top pros because the top pros are sponsored by the newest tech. but that's just correlation, not causation.

what's vastly underappreciated - because it's hard to achieve, and hard to buy - is the optimized shift system with the optimized chain, optimized bearings, optimized tires for the course, optimal pressure, optimal mounting, bolts tight, position perfect, the correct grease and amount of it, best pedals, adjusted correctly and so on. perfectly adjusted shifting of any system is better than slapdash adjusting of the latest shift systems.

everybody will agree with that i wrote. but not many will behave according to what i wrote.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I'm not sure I've inverted it actually. It's really just a simple causal chain question I suppose- I want to make a data driven decision- say to buy X- but I want proof X will save me Y time because of aero gains- I want proof of that gain before I buy X and I want proof in real world instances- imo it does become an ad hoc fallacy- too many factors that must be included to prove whatever time savings there are- and until we find a way to show X saves us Y then determining whether X is worth the money is actually not a data driven decision at all.

I'm encouraged to buy X... It's not my responsibility to disprove X , it's their responsibility to prove X's worth...and our responsibility, I suppose, to be critical of X without actual proof of its worth

---

"There are two ways to slide easily through life- to believe everything and to doubt everything- both ways save us from thinking "- Korzbyski

You're conflating two different things here. Confirming marketing claims is a whole other issue than confirming that a reduced CdA makes you faster at time trials.

I agree that confirming marketing claims is difficult. It's also difficult to prove that something that may make someone else faster makes *you* faster (e.g. helmets that interact differently with different body morphology) But there are ways to do it. ABAB testing. Chunging the shit out of stuff. Wind tunnels, etc.

I don't think that information is that hard to find.

Most (if not all) races in IM and certainly everything in Canada is timed by one company, Sportstats. Go to any race and look at the results and you will find an AG or Pro that was won or lost by less than a few seconds certainly less than a minute, the same holds true for placings. As you get older the gap widens, but not always.

However I have a friend who came within 14 seconds of a podium trying to catch the runner ahead in a HIM, from 9 minutes down, I have had someone run in behind me and finish within 1 second, who was 12 minutes down at T2. Talk to them about incremental gains of a few seconds. Yes they probably wasted a few seconds here and there in T1 or T2 (lord knows I do), maybe in getting a drink or a gel, breaking aero, putting on or lacing up a shoe.

Heck I go on the treadmill and compare heart rates differences between shoes, to find those few seconds, because half the fun is obsessing over the details.

If you have swum as fast as you can,biked as fast as you dare and run as fast as you are able and come second (or fourth, or out of the points or.....), I believe you would look closely at your equipment and say to yourself, what else can I do to be better. The other option is to restrict everyone to the same swimsuit,goggles, bike,suit, helmet,glasses, shoes, shorts,and so on. I can't think of a single sport that does that, except maybe tiddlywnks.

I think if your average age grouper lost at least 20lbs or more the performance gains would be significant. Most are doing triathlon as a means to get into shape or stay in shape. This same crowd will try to buy marginal gains at any cost rather than cut back on or eliminate eating out, drinking booze and eating crap.

Nothing like dropping a few grand on a Canyon, Ceramic Speed Pulley, or Zipp Disc, and showing up to a race 20-50lbs overweight.

I think a good example of an area where a small tech gain makes a huge difference is by looking at swimming, when they started using the new LZR-racer swimsuits for world-class racing, and promptly swimmers broke so many world records that they had to ban the suit outright. That suit seemed to give on average, a 4% speed increase for swimmers according to most analyses of actual raced/won events. 4% is pretty big at any competitive level, and at the world-class level, is such a game-changer that it ruins the competition. Triathlon has plenty (likely more) areas where you can get similar or more small gains, so you can see that at the Kona world championships such a small % gain could make or break between win Kona or go home well off the podium.

That said, it's REALLY important to keep in mind that this small gain = big difference situation is absolutely NOT the case for the 75%+ of STers (many of whom lurk) who are MOPers or slower. (Yeah, I know it seems like everyone is a FFFOP athlete here with 300+watt FTP and swims sub 1:00/100 since that group is super vocal, but statistically, it's not true in the slightest that everyone here is that remotely that fast.)

The difference between my MOP swimming and the guys winning my AG in the swim is wayyyy bigger than 4%. You could make those guys swim without a wetsuit, and let me have the best wetsuit on the market, LZR suit, etc., and they'll still beat the pants off of me on the swim, because for MOPers, the bulk of results is not about equipment, but overwhelmingly about training, training, then some race execution.

At this point someone'll scream 'but those tech gains still make me faster even though I'm a BOPer - aero doesn't go away!', which is true. But to me, it's screaming losing forest for the trees if you're spending lots of money and paying close attention to tiny details of the tech setup, but showing up to race day with underfocus on the training portion of it. I'm not a coach, but I'd honestly go so far as to tell those slower folks who are checking off all the niggling aero details to completely lay off the focus on the details until they prove they can execute the training correctly over a long period of time. I was a high level violinist at Juilliard, and it is true that a higher-level violin and bow would absolutely give you marginal gains in ability that at the highest level, could mean the difference between a pro contract vs no contract. But despite that, I never had one teacher who focused on the hardware and marginal gains,even when I was going to the All-USA national orchestra and landing in the top 5 ranked 1st violin seats there. They would actually actively discourage taking this route, and hammer home focusing on the CORRECT stuff, and not letting the distractions of hardware and marginal gains start taking attention away from the proper focus. Their advice was 100% spot on.

Bingo!!!

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I don't have an issue with looking at every corner of savings you can make (I was combined T1 + T2 world champion in my age group at 70.3 worlds and Kona in 2010, so it's not like I don't look for free speed).

However, in general, all this obsession with equipment seems like a "loss of the soul of the sport".

Really, you don't hear football players, or soccer players or baseball players (and fans) dominating their discussion about the equipment.

They talk about the game.

I am probably the only person on this forum that remembers every bike of every Kona winner since 1988, however, I'm also probably the same guy who knows their bike and run splits by heart, which is what I really care about....the bikes, well, it's just f&*king stupid shit that we need to do the sport.

BUT ITS NOT THE ACTUAL sport.

I love that aspect of swimming and running. Neither of these sports are about the gear!!!!!

They're intended as complements, not substitutes. That said, I ain't getting younger so substituting for increasing age and decreasing power is all I got.

How many watts have you saved each year since you started your testing. Given that I think you are the only poster who's name is also a verb it would be great to see.

that's a peak dev comment right there :-) i love it.

as for the OP...

obviously faster shit is faster. and obvs one should care if one cares about the wins. i've lost podiums in big tt races to mere seconds. so i feel the pain. BUT .. what i wonder, is how much the pursuit of this stuff can detract from perf indirectly. money, time, doubt. all things being equal, there is an ideal bar on my bike faster than any other but there are costs to finding it. and crappy data is easy to generate, good data is VERY hard to generate.

but ceteris aint paribus for those of us with jobs and budgets and shit to do. so there's an argument for good enough and have a nap or go for a run.

Hah - I actually don't 'think it's a loss of the soul of the sport - a huge part of triathlon is exactly that - obsessing over the cool equipment and optimizing potential gains via hardware! I freaking love that stuff, I and I'm sure most here could pore over bikes and bike upgrades for days on end.

I just think it is worth the reminder for the vast bulk of folks who are NOT AG champion at Kona or worlds, that all this stuff is marginal gains to them/me as a MOPer, They will make us non-champions a hair faster, but are not going to get us to the whole next level whereas training will.

100% agree. In swimming, tech matters a little bit too, you are absolutely going to be faster with a tech suit than a speedo. So definitely get one if you care about placing at meets.

However, while I’m sure that there are speed differences between a top of the line speedo LZR vs an Arena vs Mizuno vs TYR, trying to tease out those differences is virtually impossible. At some point you just pick something based on price, colour, and personal preferences.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Hmmm. This is slightly embarrassing. I know how to measure stuff but I'm not all that good at implementing everything that I learn cuz all I need to do is stay up with the guys I ride with. I've gone from an embarrassingly large parachute to a still embarrassing but smaller parachute cuz that's all it takes, and I'm not going to show up for the alterkaker ride (look it up) with a TT bike, skinsuit, and disc wheels. That said, I usually think in terms of CdA and Crr, not watts. My road bike CdA has dropped from high .3x to low .3x which isn't bad for not racing but is still a pretty big air scoop. My everyday tires/tubes have dropped from Crr > .005 to just a tad over .004.

I am partially with you. Although I believe tech makes a difference, I also think it is way overvalued. What the test results say vs what happens in the real world does not match up to me. If you take this study for instance: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/...ually-fastest-326667

A grand tour rider riding a Giant Propel would be giving away between 18 and 42 watts to another grand tour rider riding a Trek Madone. That is a huge difference that over the course of a Tour de France would mean the guys riding Giants would be super humans if they are able to finish alongside the guys riding Treks. Plus what is even more incredible, neither teams are mostly riding Madones or Propels, but other bikes in the range that in theory are giving away even more watts.

So either the tests are not measuring the right things or they don't count as much in real world situations.

Mass-start racing in the peloton really isn't relevant to IM racing except for Florida and Texas.

Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/...n%27s_laws_of_motion

---

What's your CdA?

Finally, even with obsession and discipline with consistent training there is a common belief (perhaps hope?) that this in itself will reap just rewards - and it will - for those fortunate to have the right talent, genes and prerequisites to absorb the hard training and compensate with improved technique, fitness and form.

For us other mortals even training has a limited return.

I agree that it can look pathetic with someone entering the pool with mp3-player, neoprene pants, fins, snorkel and paddles - at the same time - and fighting hard to make 2:30/100m. Or someone coming to the club with the latest €10,000 bike and not knowing how to behave within a bunch.

But at the same time no one blinks an eye when people buy new cars. To each his own.

You posted this in jest, right? I ask a serious question pertaining to the specificity of tech discussions here on Slowtwitch, " buying speed", and actual proof that all this obsession here over watts savings actually corrolates to race wins and you assume I'm too stupid to know Newton's Laws of Motion? And you post a link to Wikipedia?

---

"There are two ways to slide easily through life- to believe everything and to doubt everything- both ways save us from thinking "- Korzbyski

Ok, so I'm that guy. Been doing tris since 2004, but over the years through injury and lifestyle then I was up to 109kg 18 months ago. Spent last year working hard, getting good coaching, eating well (not dieting as such), and got down to 82kg at one point. Went back to 85kg for raceday. I used my 2012 vintage E-114, albeit with several hundred dollars spent on fit, several thousand on pilates classes for strength/flexibility, and did a pretty respectable time (5:21). Not the best, but not totally shabby either. I've chosen to spend the $ of a 'superbike' on services. Indeed I took 20 minutes off my last (2013) IM bike split. Now it may have been the LG-P09 helmet, but in reality it was mostly the reduced kilos as the rest of the kit was identical.

However, yesterday I got my first ever podium. And I got that by 5 seconds over 4th place. And that was definately 'won' but the elastic laces I bought on Saturday. And the 80mm wheels over 'normal' training wheels. And the helmet. And the position... Bottom line, I can point to about 10 little things I did or used yesterday that each could have cost my 6 seconds. But those are only relevant if you are interested in positions. As I would never have cared about 5-6 seconds unless that 5-6 seconds was the difference between a podium, a 'milestone' time (ie, 10, 11, 12 or even 17 hours). So it's all about context.