I'm interested too. Mainly because I'm suprised that a 2:31 takes a normalized 298w for a 76kg rider, while a 2:42 takes a normalized 190w for a 73kg rider. Tough to figure that one out.

One more data point. 226 watts (not normalized--just avg. off the SRM) for 85kg (186 lb.) rider yielded 2:45. A friend of mine had the elevation gain at 2200 on his computer.

PS: Any estimate as to normalized watts?--lost my data before analysis.

Thanks.

GR, your normalized will probably fall between 226-250. 240 is a pretty safe bet.

It's average power that has to do with bike split. My AP was 191. Wim's AP was 287. Also -- Wim's 287 should be reduced 5% to 273 to compare to mine (SRM vs. Powertap). I don't know if Wim rode a disc, either. That's worth as much as 10 watts.

So, the question is: Why does 82 extra watts only save 11 minutes? Obviously, it's a combination of weight and aerodynamics. But, my back-of-the-head-scratching caculations would be that if I rode 82 watts better, I'd pick up 15-18 minutes. I'm smaller than Wim, and probably have a slight weight and aerodynamic advantage.

Not that I will actually ride 82 watts better in this lifetime...Wim will ride circles around me on a beach cruiser.

A few folks have posted their NP/AP ratio from Ralph's. Mine seems to be on the high side at 1.09. Wim reported 1.04. One guy at my level reported 1.076; a second reported 1.09. I think I soft-pedalled too much on the faster parts of the course.

So, if you rode relatively evenly, your NP is likely in the 237-244 range.

Anecdotally, it appears to me that the more powerful and experienced people tend to have a smaller NP-AP spread than the rest of us.

I had 2760' last year from my Polar. It's usually pretty accurate - I'd say plus or minus 5%.

3169 ft according to Topo USA.

I had 2640' on my Polar HRM.

Ok, so we're in the 2640-3000 range. Now for the really important question:

How does this compare to Idaho? IMNA has a nifty tool here. It doesn't have numbers; just a picture and it's hard to tell which has more climbing.

To answer my own question -- I did some googling and found a couple references to ~2000 feet per lap at Idaho.

If you didn't have any trouble at Ralphs you should be fine in CdA. I've done both and the headwinds drained me more than the hills (and the heat in CdA two years ago).

Famous last words! ;-)

...I've got a lot more training to do before June. The thought of riding twice as far, even at 25 fewer watts...yikes. How the hell am I gonna run that far?

(and honestly, my real goal at Idaho is to "run the run." If I can just not walk, I can have a good day and I'll be very happy.)

The Ralph's course is definitely harder than Idaho climbing wise. I logged 3700 (for CDA) from my Polar last year (another logged 3900 with the same HRM), so relatively flat for 112. Not sure what your technical skills are, but the decent is tight in a couple spots and there was a rider down with an ambulance when I went by - I love that stuff though and made up some time there. There are two relatively short climbs - one similar to the last climb (I think) at Ralphs where you just sit in and keep the hr in check. We had some headwind on the first lap then it died for the second, which was a nice surprise.

Not sure what they are doing this year, but the special needs was at mile 63 at the out and back turnaround. One of the aid stations ends up being on the left so be able to grab a bottle with your left hand.

I know there are some ride reports and descriptions from last year if you do a search. I recommend driving the the course so you know what to expect.

The run has some off camber spots towards the turnaround, but on your way back there is a little sliver that is flat if you do not like the off camber stuff.

GL - fun race and great town support.

My specialized computer gave me a bit over 2200 feet. It tends to be very reproducible on climbs by my house though not sure how the weather may affect it. You can also print the profile and add the climbs up on a piece of paper and then simply measure it to get a ballpark. There seems to be a wide variation here.....so the ballpark estimate may really help. I think I got about 2400 feet when I did that but I'm not sure....

Dave

You can look at motionbased.com as well. Some elevation profiles on there. The total gain and loss is shown to be 3200ft for the bike section.

I rode a disc indeed, and yes again I am very high, cause I have a bad back . You would be surprised how much more power is required once the speed is high. An example if you go downhill @ 70 k/u and are putting in 250 W, my gues is it will take 350 W to go only 5 k/u faster.

---

http://www.wimdedoncker.be

wimothy, when you say you are pretty high, what does that correspond to for your drop from saddle to forearm pads?

no idea, but this is my bike

---

http://www.wimdedoncker.be