Dan [editor: actually Rick Ashburn] does it again, thanks

[Frank_Day]

OMG! It’s still alive!

with the standard frontal area of 0.5

Nobody ever measures “A” alone. What is the Cd in your example? If you used the 0.5 entry in A-Cycling.com, go back and start over.

2. maintaining a steady power of 250 watts on both the up and the down and maintaining the frontal area of 0.5 on both the up and down.
3. 400 watts on the up and 100 watts on the down with a frontal area of 0.55 on the up and 0.35 on the down
4. 500 watts on the up and 0 watts on the down with a frontal area of 0.55 on the up and 0.35 on the down.

If you plugged 0.35 as “A” into ACycling, you got a CdA of 0.175 – which no human on a real road racing bicycle has ever achieved. You clearly still do not understand CdA and how it works.

Once again, you have proved that you do not understand the sport whatsover.
I am sorry, I simply plugged in somewhat “typical” numbers in the Acycling form. Acycling says the “effective frontal area” is “typically” in a range from .4 to .7. so .35 and .55 do not seem out of line to me to use for someone climbing and someone trying to maximize aerodynamic benefit. Whatever the number, these are simply numbers to illustrate a point in that climbing people are generally less aero and descending they are generally substantially more aero. I simply chose a number in the max aero position for effective frontal area that was not quite half of the climbing aero number. I could have chose .7 and .4 and gotten somewhat similar numbers I am sure.

The point is that hills do not have to have a major effect on overall times (if there is no net gain) if the hills are ridden smartly. While racing at a steady effort may be optimum when riding a flat course like Florida, it is not optimum when racing a course like Canada or Placid or one with lots of rollers. There is little benefit to be gained by riding hard on a substantial downhill if it will prevent you from riding at a hard effort on the next uphill.

As I stated, I did not calculate normalized power and I admitted that they did not have the same average power, but I explained why such a deviation might be “reasonable under the circumstances”.

I will admit that hills could have a devastating effect on average speed if one rides the course particularly stupidly. I was actually surprised it was as large as it was for someone riding at a constant effort. However, my point is that it doesn’t have to be and “constant effort” is not how most people actually do ride hills. The way that most people actually race hilly courses (harder efforts climbing, lesser efforts descending) lessens the effect of hills on slowing the average pace. I can see how hill repeats should be a big part of any build-up if one had one of the hillier IM on the schedule as climbing hard is the most important part of racing fast on a hilly course. At least to my feeble mind that is clearly unable to understand any of this stuff.

[Ashburn]

For reference, the average power of the three examples is 250, 323 and 355.

Gee, I wonder which one produced the fastest time?

Isn’t it a bit pointless to write a post that the more powerful cyclist will ride faster?

“Hills don’t slow down a cyclist if he simply rides harder.” That’s not really a particularly astute observation.

[Frank_Day]

For reference, the average power of the three examples is 250, 323 and 355.

Gee, I wonder which one produced the fastest time?

Isn’t it a bit pointless to write a post that the more powerful cyclist will ride faster?

“Hills don’t slow down a cyclist if he simply rides harder.” That’s not really a particularly astute observation.
But, if hills allow the rider to ride at a higher average power than if riding on the flat then it is a particularly astute observation. Wouldn’t it make perfect sense to take advantage of the opportunity to increase power when the terrain makes it possible and desirable. Hills do two major things to the average rider that allow them to increase their power. First, most will open up into a more powerful position. Second, most lower their cadence to a more powerful, more efficient cadence. One other thing, the hill does not go on forever such that the extra effort does not have to continue forever, compared to a 112 mile flat course.

The question was how much do hills slow down a racer. I suggested it wasn’t particularly much as most seem to make compensatory changes to adjust for the hills. I guess you could say a lot of slowing occurs if the racer does absolutely nothing to counteract the effects of them. The fact that many find themselves much slower in the hills does not mean that it has to be so. Compare the course profiles of all the IM NA races compared to the course records. By your explanation there should be 30-40 minutes between the flattest course compared to the hilliest course records. There is not. In fact, there is only about 2 minutes between IM Canada and IM Florida. How do you explain why they are so close if there is such a big effect of the hills?

It seems to me that the real issue we should be discussing here is not whether a hilly course slows one down (they generally do, all we are arguing is how much) but, what is the best pacing strategy for racing a hilly course and how should one train for it vs training for a flat course. It seems to me that based upon the numbers I ran that a steady effort (power) is clearly the worst choice for a hilly course. What is the best ratio of “extra effort” on the climb to “resting” on the descent for different grades of different lengths for athletes of different abilities?

[Frank_Day]

For reference, the average power of the three examples is 250, 323 and 355.

Gee, I wonder which one produced the fastest time?

Isn’t it a bit pointless to write a post that the more powerful cyclist will ride faster?

“Hills don’t slow down a cyclist if he simply rides harder.” That’s not really a particularly astute observation.
But, if hills allow the rider to ride at a higher average power than if riding on the flat then it is a particularly astute observation. Wouldn’t it make perfect sense to take advantage of the opportunity to increase power when the terrain makes it possible and desirable. Hills do two major things to the average rider that allow them to increase their power. First, most will open up into a more powerful position. Second, most lower their cadence to a more powerful, more efficient cadence. One other thing, the hill does not go on forever such that the extra effort does not have to continue forever, compared to a 112 mile flat course.

The question was how much do hills slow down a racer. I suggested it wasn’t particularly much as most seem to make compensatory changes to adjust for the hills. I guess you could say a lot of slowing occurs if the racer does absolutely nothing to counteract the effects of them. The fact that many find themselves much slower in the hills does not mean that it has to be so. Compare the course profiles of all the IM NA races compared to the course records. By your explanation there should be 30-40 minutes between the flattest course compared to the hilliest course records. There is not. In fact, there is only about 2 minutes between IM Canada and IM Florida. How do you explain why they are so close if there is such a big effect of the hills?

It seems to me that the real issue we should be discussing here is not whether a hilly course slows one down (they generally do, all we are arguing is how much) but, what is the best pacing strategy for racing a hilly course and how should one train for it vs training for a flat course. It seems to me that based upon the numbers I ran that a steady effort (power) is clearly the worst choice for a hilly course. What is the best ratio of “extra effort” on the climb to “resting” on the descent for different grades of different lengths for athletes of different abilities?
just compare high mountain TdF stages to the flats. One typically shows a mid 30’s kph average winning speed and the other mid 40’s. Do you think those guys are riding ‘inefficiently’?
No, but I think the effects of drafting are playing a bigger role there on those flat courses and tactics play a huge role in how each stage is raced. Plus, on those stages the descents are usually quite technical such that one cannot go down full speed so the brakes are used a lot. If the brakes are used the average speed is definitely lowered. Not sure much can be made about that data.

[Ashburn]

By your explanation there should be 30-40 minutes between the flattest course compared to the hilliest course records.

Are you smoking something? Where did I quote a figure? It is pretty outrageous for you to suggest that I have given that conclusion.

I said it before and I’ll say it again – you can’t just make stuff up. You owe me an apology for the above acusation.

I said (1) hills slow us down, and (2) the reason is wind resistance variation between ascent and descent. This is true at any given average or normalized power level.

Those two facts are, frankly, unassailable.

All you’ve done here is waive your hands in the air and blow some smoke about how much harder hills “allow” somebody to ride.

Let’s review: You’ve given an example where an athlete who would ride a 10k flat section at 250 average watts can go just as fast on a 10k up-and-down by instead riding at 350 average watts. The amazing thing is that you actually think actual cyclists will do such things in a time trial event. Look – if the guy was capable of blasting out a 5k stretch at 500 watts instead of 250, he would do that whether the 10k section was flat or hilly. How do you not get this? Have you ever been in 250-watt shape and gone out and ridden at 500 watts for a while? I get in 250-watt shape now and then. I can hold 500 watts for a few seconds when I’m in 250 watt shape.

You seem to be asserting that power is free; that the only reason people slow down in hills is that they don’t ride hard enough. If they would only “buck up” they’d get through hills just fine. Bikes don’t have throttles on them like motorcycles.

I will show up anywhere, any time and race the cyclist of your choice who has the same race-day FT power as me. Let your guy go up and down a big straight hill, and I’ll go the same distance on the flats. Let’s make the wager, say, one million dollars. Let me know when and where to show up. Bring cash.

[Ashburn]

It seems to me that the real issue we should be discussing here is not whether a hilly course slows one down (they generally do, all we are arguing is how much) but, what is the best pacing strategy for racing a hilly course and how should one train for it vs training for a flat course. It seems to me that based upon the numbers I ran that a steady effort (power) is clearly the worst choice for a hilly course. What is the best ratio of “extra effort” on the climb to “resting” on the descent for different grades of different lengths for athletes of different abilities?

Valid point. Your problem is that you are asserting a *conclusive *pacing strategy rather than doing the hard work of figuring out exactly how different climbing versus descending versus flats should be. You’ve given examples that cannot be executed by an actual cyclist.

Here, you have raised an important and valid question. When you don’t know the answer, just say so. You don’t have to make up facts to support a conjecture.

FWIW – I do have a precise answer to this question. I’ll give my findings in next month’s article on Dan’s main page. This is something that can be answered quite accurately, and I have some specific pacing advice for TT’rs and triathletes. I’ll cover how to handle both hills and wind.

As a teaser – steady is not the worst choice. The worst choice is your 500/0 example, and I’ll prove it.

Stay tuned.

[Frank_Day]

It seems to me that the real issue we should be discussing here is not whether a hilly course slows one down (they generally do, all we are arguing is how much) but, what is the best pacing strategy for racing a hilly course and how should one train for it vs training for a flat course. It seems to me that based upon the numbers I ran that a steady effort (power) is clearly the worst choice for a hilly course. What is the best ratio of “extra effort” on the climb to “resting” on the descent for different grades of different lengths for athletes of different abilities?

Valid point. Your problem is that you are asserting a *conclusive *pacing strategy rather than doing the hard work of figuring out exactly how different climbing versus descending versus flats should be. You’ve given examples that cannot be executed by an actual cyclist.

Here, you have raised an important and valid question. When you don’t know the answer, just say so. You don’t have to make up facts to support a conjecture.

FWIW – I do have a precise answer to this question. I’ll give my findings in next month’s article on Dan’s main page. This is something that can be answered quite accurately, and I have some specific pacing advice for TT’rs and triathletes. I’ll cover how to handle both hills and wind.

As a teaser – steady is not the worst choice. The worst choice is your 500/0 example, and I’ll prove it.

Stay tuned.
I am not asserting anything conclusive except for the fact that just because one is racing in a hilly environment is not a reason to necessarily “expect” a substantially slower race, unless one races foolishly or is inadequately trained for the course. If one modifies ones approach to the race and is adequately trained the expected negative effects of the hilly environment can be pretty much mitigated.

It is silly to think that a 500/0 race strategy would be optimum. If one could maintain 500 watts for the climb we would also expect them to be able to maintain some wattage on the downhill (at least after a short period of recovery) rather than completely coasting into the finish. But, such a strategy might be optimal on a series of short steep rollers. The examples were used to simply demonstrate that going hard on the uphill and relaxing on the downhill (recovering, getting ready for the next uphill effort?) offers an advantage over steady effort in a substantially hilly race. Why? Because an extra 1 mph when one is going slow saves a lot more time than an extra 1 mph when one is going fast. Going from 10 mph to 11 mph saves almost 33 seconds per mile while going from 30 to 31 mph saves less than 4 seconds per mile. If one is racing it seems to me that the hardest efforts should be made when one is going slow as that is where the most potential is to make big gains on the competition.

I look forward to your precise answer to the “question”. I really don’t believe there is a precise answer without knowing the ability of the athlete and the specifics of the course. Hence, I have not tried to do “the hard work of figuring out exactly how different climbing versus descending versus flats should be” because I do not know any specifics and I am not sure anyone has done any studies looking at what efforts can be maintained with short periods of recovery in differently trained athletes. It is somewhat like what a football player is asked to do, brief periods of intense exercise interspersed with short recovery periods except the intense efforts last longer than the recovery efforts when riding a bike in a hilly environment as put forth in my example. But, I look forward how you address this issue as a one size fits all answer in your upcoming article.

And, FYI, I think wind is a completely different situation. I look forward to seeing what you say about that also.

[Frank_Day]

By your explanation there should be 30-40 minutes between the flattest course compared to the hilliest course records.

Are you smoking something? Where did I quote a figure? It is pretty outrageous for you to suggest that I have given that conclusion.

I said it before and I’ll say it again – you can’t just make stuff up. You owe me an apology for the above acusation.

I said (1) hills slow us down, and (2) the reason is wind resistance variation between ascent and descent. This is true at any given average or normalized power level.

Those two facts are, frankly, unassailable.

All you’ve done here is waive your hands in the air and blow some smoke about how much harder hills “allow” somebody to ride.

Let’s review: You’ve given an example where an athlete who would ride a 10k flat section at 250 average watts can go just as fast on a 10k up-and-down by instead riding at 350 average watts. The amazing thing is that you actually think actual cyclists will do such things in a time trial event. Look – if the guy was capable of blasting out a 5k stretch at 500 watts instead of 250, he would do that whether the 10k section was flat or hilly. How do you not get this? Have you ever been in 250-watt shape and gone out and ridden at 500 watts for a while? I get in 250-watt shape now and then. I can hold 500 watts for a few seconds when I’m in 250 watt shape.

You seem to be asserting that power is free; that the only reason people slow down in hills is that they don’t ride hard enough. If they would only “buck up” they’d get through hills just fine. Bikes don’t have throttles on them like motorcycles.

I will show up anywhere, any time and race the cyclist of your choice who has the same race-day FT power as me. Let your guy go up and down a big straight hill, and I’ll go the same distance on the flats. Let’s make the wager, say, one million dollars. Let me know when and where to show up. Bring cash.
Sure you did. And, I didn’t make anything up. I simply put in numbers into analyticcycling.com to assess the impact of the scenario you described. You have said that hills slow you down compared to the flat. Putting a steady 250 watts over 10 k on a 6% up and down grade compared to steady 250 watts over 10 k on the flat slows one down over 6 minutes. An IM is 180 k so we are talking almost two hours slowing under that scenario. Since every race has substantial portions of flat or very small grade we would not expect such slowing but comparing a course like Canada to Florida one would expect huge bike time differences based upon your analysis. They simply don’t exist.

If you actually said something different I would like to understand what it was.

Anyhow, I haven’t said that power is free. But, one can modulate (edit) one’s output to maximize the benefit under the conditions. Putting out extra power when everyone is going slow has a competitive advantage over putting out that extra power when everyone is going fast (assuming there will be a period that one can recover from the deficit following the effort) - see another post on this - or putting out constant power despite conditions. We are talking about racing aren’t we?

[GregX]

i must say, reading this thread makes me want to meet frank day in person, just to see what he is really like. is it really possible for someone to be so eccentric?

[Frank_Day]

i must say, reading this thread makes me want to meet frank day in person, just to see what he is really like. is it really possible for someone to be so eccentric?
Yes

[Ashburn]

“But, such a strategy might be optimal …”

There you go again – just guessing. Frank, do the heavy lifting here. Stop having everybody else run the numbers for you. Analyticcycling.com doesn’t offer the tools to optimize pacing strategy – it will not iterate the possibilities for you. You have to get off your ass and write some spreadsheets and write some macros to do this, or you can program MatLab or something similar. If you’re not willing to do the work, stop poking your finger in the eye of people who do. You’re too lazy to go check your facts, but you want to insist that everyone else is wrong.

"…I am not sure anyone has done any studies looking at what efforts can be maintained with short periods of recovery in differently trained athletes. "

You would be wrong there. Again – stop sitting around and go get the information. You say you don’t have specifics on courses – then go get some. You say you don’t have specifics on the abilities of the athletes – then go get the information. I can fill a football stadium with people who understand these things, yet you want to sit there and insist nobody knows nothing.

You’re not an athlete; you’re not a coach. You’re a lapsed former physician who takes some perverse pleasure in trying to knock down people who go out in the world and try to get something productive done. Why don’t you just take some more swipes at Brian Sell? He’s going to the Olympics. Where are you going?

[Frank_Day]

“But, such a strategy might be optimal …”

There you go again – just guessing. Frank, do the heavy lifting here. Stop having everybody else run the numbers for you. Analyticcycling.com doesn’t offer the tools to optimize pacing strategy – it will not iterate the possibilities for you. You have to get off your ass and write some spreadsheets and write some macros to do this, or you can program MatLab or something similar. If you’re not willing to do the work, stop poking your finger in the eye of people who do. You’re too lazy to go check your facts, but you want to insist that everyone else is wrong.

"…I am not sure anyone has done any studies looking at what efforts can be maintained with short periods of recovery in differently trained athletes. "

You would be wrong there. Again – stop sitting around and go get the information. You say you don’t have specifics on courses – then go get some. You say you don’t have specifics on the abilities of the athletes – then go get the information. I can fill a football stadium with people who understand these things, yet you want to sit there and insist nobody knows nothing.

You’re not an athlete; you’re not a coach. You’re a lapsed former physician who takes some perverse pleasure in trying to knock down people who go out in the world and try to get something productive done. Why don’t you just take some more swipes at Brian Sell? He’s going to the Olympics. Where are you going?
I am not sure what you are talking about. I have not been talking specifics, only generalities. It is simply a “thought experiment” being thrown out onto an internet forum. A hilly course can affect ones average speed, we can all agree on that. It appears to me the degree of the effect depends upon both how “hilly” the course is and how the rider adapts race intensity to the varying conditions. It would appear to me that if one has the ability and adapts optimally that a normally hilly course will have little affect on average speed. That is all I am saying.

I look forward to reading your next article where you explain all this to all the el stupido’s like me out here.

Edit: When did I take some swipes at Brian Sell?

[Ashburn]

Wow. This is almost sad.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=1552917;search_string=brian%20sell;#1552917

[Frank_Day]

Wow. This is almost sad.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=1552917;search_string=brian%20sell;#1552917
My man, that was not a knock on Brian Sell. That was meant as an argument against those who advocate “more is more” and that is all. Apparently you didn’t read post #7 in that thread where I explained this. Sell, against all odds, got himself there. but everyone (except perhaps you) knows Sell was not the class of that field. Hall was. Sell got himself to the Olympics because of a lot of hard work, good for him. I doubt he will win the Olympics while Hall has a good chance. (or, do you disagree?) Anyone who wants to understand the difference between excellent and great might want to compare Sell and Hall and figure out what is the difference and then, try to figure out if, whatever that difference is, it is coachable/trainable.

Using Sell as an example that “more is more” is not necessarily the gold standard for coaching/racing success is like pointing out that the bike course records at IM Florida and IM Canada differ by only about 2 minutes as an example that hilly courses do not necessarily have a detrimental effect on overall bike speed. It is put forth as an example to try to make a point about what was being discussed, not being put forth to put down Brian Sell.

Failing to understand that is sad. But, it is the internet. We cannot control how people choose to misinterpret what we write and then continue to misinterpret it after attempts are made to clarify. I will bear up.

[Former_User]

It would appear to me that if one has the ability and adapts optimally that a normally hilly course will have little affect on average speed. That is all I am saying.

…and that is where you are utterly wrong. Repeating it over and over doesn’t make it true.

[Frank_Day]

It would appear to me that if one has the ability and adapts optimally that a normally hilly course will have little affect on average speed. That is all I am saying.

…and that is where you are utterly wrong. Repeating it over and over doesn’t make it true.
The course record for the IM Canada bike course is about 2 minutes slower than the course record for the IM Florida bike course. Most people would classify IM Canada as “somewhat” hilly and IM FL as pancake flat. And, it looks like the Bike course record for all IM events is within 10-15 minutes of each other. Could you give me some real world evidence that suggests that I am wrong.

[fredly]

Tom & etc.;

In the same way that some of the more outlandish off-topic threads on this site lead to the creation of the “Tibb’s Lavender room” forum, I think that perhaps it has come time to petition for the creation of “Frank’s Alternate universe” forum, where posts that present ideas and concepts unsupported by the physical laws of this particular planet can be discussed in suitable fashion…

.

[Frank_Day]

Tom & etc.;

In the same way that some of the more outlandish off-topic threads on this site lead to the creation of the “Tibb’s Lavender room” forum, I think that perhaps it has come time to petition for the creation of “Frank’s Alternate universe” forum, where posts that present ideas and concepts unsupported by the physical laws of this particular planet can be discussed in suitable fashion…

.
I will say this. Dr. Coggan and I may have had our disagreements but at least he has attempted to reference published scientific literature when he has tried to argue against my points in our PowerCranks disagreements and when he called me an idiot. Now in most instances the literature he cites does not support his case when read closely, but, at least, he tries. Would somebody please present some real evidence that I am living in an alternate universe instead of simply calling me names. IF i really am in an alternative universe I would welcome such a forum. Any publicity is good publicity, right?

[fredly]

Frank,

No matter how many comments are made in regard to your wardrobe, you will always remain convinced that, despite manifest evidence to the contrary, you are fully clothed.

I daresay that many of us have grown weary of pointing out the many malfunctions in your mental wardrobe, and are now content to merely point and snicker as you go traipsing by, ass in the wind…

.

[Frank_Day]

Frank,

No matter how many comments are made in regard to your wardrobe, you will always remain convinced that, despite manifest evidence to the contrary, you are fully clothed.

I daresay that many of us have grown weary of pointing out the many malfunctions in your mental wardrobe, and are now content to merely point and snicker as you go traipsing by, ass in the wind…

.
Here is the problem. You may be tired of presenting your “proof” but there is a “problem” the masses might have since if you don’t present your “proof” it is more like a radio announcer announcing that the king doesn’t have any clothes as opposed to say, if it were on TV, the announcer could be silent and the audience could decide for themselves or, if the announcer said something, the masses could decide for themselves if the observation were correct. It may be tiresome but your argument lacks credibility if all you do is call your “opponent” names.