Do Watts Equal Wins in Bike Racing?

Triathlon Forum
1

Recently on the “Luke Mackenzie Cat 5” thread I think I started a bit of a “100 post shitstorm” by suggesting that Mackenzie should have won the race on his watts/kg alone. This got me thinking about the role of physiological capacity (i.e. watts/kg) in the assessment of cycling talent. In Canada, power testing simply is not used to select or identify talented cyclists and certain results are always the key factor in assessment. I don’t think that is a good policy and I decided to write an article about it:

http://wp.me/p3tHad-7l.

Judging by the Mackenzie thread, not everyone agrees that physiological capacity translates into results on the road or in tri’s, but it counts for something doesn’t it? What does everyone think?

2

I’ll add that these assessments are used in our junior elite talent pool programs (funding goes along with these requirements for HPT teams). I think it’s an good evaluator of development with athletes. There are tests for each swim, bike run and those will help with determining how good an athlete can be.

I think what the power testing does is that it allows an athlete in no where USA to compare themselves to other athletes across the country and internationally. You take junior elite triathlon, there are only 3-4 races in the US. If you cant afford to travel and/or don’t want to “waste” money, these can be great indicators of just how competitive you can be.

3

I think you might be overlooking strategy and placement, which can mean a lot in bike racing. I see a lot of older and wiser riders putting the spank on young guys who think they can just power away. Grab a wheel, counterattack at the right moment, go with the right break. Often that’s the winning ticket…

4

Recently on the “Luke Mackenzie Cat 5” thread I think I started a bit of a “100 post shitstorm” by suggesting that Mackenzie should have won the race on his watts/kg alone. This got me thinking about the role of physiological capacity (i.e. watts/kg) in the assessment of cycling talent. In Canada, power testing simply is not used to select or identify talented cyclists and certain results are always the key factor in assessment. I don’t think that is a good policy and I decided to write an article about it:

http://wp.me/p3tHad-7l.

Judging by the Mackenzie thread, not everyone agrees that physiological capacity translates into results on the road or in tri’s, but it counts for something doesn’t it? What does everyone think?

Anyone that suggests that races are won on watts/kg alone probably has never raced a bicycle. Wt/kg certainly can contribute to success especially on mountainous races. When it is flatter and the race stays bunched together learning to do nothing is a huge part of racing. Threshold level efforts are not required and should really be avoided as that type of effort certainly isn’t “nothing” except for the 117 people following your draft.

Do nothing, or do something:
https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t31/1898784_10203132093489198_1101903315_o.jpg

-SD

5

As long as you can make enough power to stay in the group, all it takes is a short, perfectly timed burst of maybe 1000 watts for 10 seconds to win a race.

I suspect that most ironman pros are not genetically gifted in the fast twtich peak power department. They might be able to sustain 400Watts for maybe 30 minutes, and of course 270-280 Watts for 5 hours, but might fall flast in a sprint. Same reason pro tour “climbers” are not out there going for stage wins on flat stages.

6

You need the engine. Yes there are smart masters racers who can draft and get in the right break but tactics can be taught, a 75+ Vo2 cannot. The engine may not show in a crit or a flat road race but a hilly rr or stage race and you see the talent surface. Luke is a Cat5, never races on the road. I am going to beat him 9/10 times just on tactics in a crit/circuit race. Boulevard or a TT he has a bigger engine and would thump me. There are other psychological indicators for success but those are nice extras.

7

Recently on the “Luke Mackenzie Cat 5” thread I think I started a bit of a “100 post shitstorm” by suggesting that Mackenzie should have won the race on his watts/kg alone. This got me thinking about the role of physiological capacity (i.e. watts/kg) in the assessment of cycling talent. In Canada, power testing simply is not used to select or identify talented cyclists and certain results are always the key factor in assessment. I don’t think that is a good policy and I decided to write an article about it:

http://wp.me/p3tHad-7l.

Judging by the Mackenzie thread, not everyone agrees that physiological capacity translates into results on the road or in tri’s, but it counts for something doesn’t it? What does everyone think?

There are a few different things to consuder. In general, the answer is w/kg helps but doesnt dictAte outcome. There are way too numerous examples of relative weaker but more crafty riders out-foxing people with more brute strength. RvV 2011 (Nuyens over Cancellara and Gilbert) and MSR 2013 (Ciolek over Sagan) are great examples of this. In the hillier classics, i doubt Oliver Zaugg was that much stronger than his opponents in Lombardia 2011. Similarly, i doubt Iglinsky and Dan Martin were the strongest in LBL 2012 and 2013. Well timed attacks, often coupled with great teamwork, can overcome brute strength in many races.

Sometimes, you can even win when your stronger opponents act boneheaded. Juaquin Rodriguez was by far the strongest rider in Firenze, but he’s a below average time trialist. Valverde is at least average when it comes to TT and can pack a punch in the sprint. Nibali has to attack from far out as his sprint is suspect, and all three are also burdened by expectations. Then you have Rui Costa: not the fastest finisher, not the punchiest attacker, but he didnt have to shoulder any burden the racers on the more prominent teams had to carry. Ideally, if you are Spain, you’d want RodrigueZ to get the cushioned ride and have Valverde attack so that you force Nibbles (and to a lesser extent Rui Costa) chase. But instead, Rodriguez attacked before Salviatti, eating too much wind, then had to attack over a short section (after Via Salviatti) and wasnt able to put his punchiness to good use as the hill was too short to create a large gap, and was done in by yhe final 2km of flat ground. When he tried and suceeded using similar tactics in Lombardia, he sat in until the final steep hill, was able to put in 10-15 seconds by the top, used his superb descending skills to maintain or increase the gap, and was able to ride the final 2km of flat ground without losing too much time.

Then again, none of these races are stage races, where consistency and w/kg will propel you to the fore. The Skybots can rely solely on w/kg (perhaps aided by the good Dr. Leinders) when the decisive stages are 20-25 min MTF finishes, but a quick review of their record in the Classics tells you all you need to know about their tactical acumen.

As for the Mackenzie race, that’s different as presumably, the guy has 1-2w/kg on other cat-5’s. that he didnt win is a reflection of the other sandbagging cat-5 rather than anything on w/kg.

Edit to add: i think Jordan’s perspective may be different on this not b/c he’s not an experienced rider, but more b/c he wins races with 20-25 min long MTF.

8

High school grades and test scores do a reasonable job of predicting who gets into Harvard or MIT or Stanford but once you get there those things do a poor job of determining how well you’re going to do. They were used to select you into that group but once there everyone around you had the same test scores and high school grades. They’re good for separating the cream from the crumb but not the cream from the cream.

9

Absolutely right, my point is that Canada is likely wasting considerable resources on “crumb” because they never bother to look at any grades (physical tests) and instead focus on a random mix of science fair ribbons, letters of recommendation and spelling bee wins (race results) which don’t have much reliability at all. Don’t plunk someone in the Olympics because they have an 85 VO2 max but maybe offer them coaching, some financial support and an national project opportunities.

And on the flip side, perhaps most important of all: if a male athlete tests with a 68 Vo2 max or a trained FTP of 5.2 w/kg (without an absurd sprinting ability), this information should be turned into valuable life advice. Stay in school! Don’t put all your eggs in the cycling basket until you are 25 and 20000$ in debt.

10

Watts, Mass, Aero, Tactics, Handling, Luck

Those are all part of bike racing. It isn’t either or. The relative importance depends your talents, the talents of the others in the race, and the race in question.

An uphill TT it is 95% watts and mass

A tour de france GC win is not that complex tactically, but you need watts, mass, aero and luck to pull it off.

A classics win is huge on tactics, and requires different kinds of watts and mass than a mountainous grand tour.

Judging by the Mackenzie thread, not everyone agrees that physiological capacity translates into results on the road or in tri’s, but it counts for something doesn’t it? What does everyone think?

11

Too bad they don’t make them like Kelly and Lemond these days. Kelly actually won a GT, and Lemond has won two WC andfinished top five in all of the monuments, i think

12

I think Sagan may be the second coming you are looking for. I could see him dropping 5-8 kilos and contesting a GT if he wanted to. Dude can TT and ride well in the 3rd week already and has never looked super-lean yet.

13

And on the flip side, perhaps most important of all: if a male athlete tests with a 68 Vo2 max or a trained FTP of 5.2 w/kg (without an absurd sprinting ability), this information should be turned into valuable life advice. Stay in school! Don’t put all your eggs in the cycling basket until you are 25 and 20000$ in debt.Seems like that is good advice regardless of one’s VO2Max. In Canada, if you can get carded then you could defer your education, otherwise, it’s likely best to stay in school.

I think what you’re really lamenting is the lack of money available for cycling development. I would think the progression through racing categories is a reasonable indication of potential provided you live in a reasonably populated area. If there was more money available to a bigger pool of athletes then perhaps testing might make sense.

I wouldn’t be surprised if, on a per capita level, Canadian cyclists get more govt support than Ice Hockey players.

14

He may well be the second coming, especially if the peloton is truly more clean than it was. His success as a junior and pro ranks points to being a generational athlete in terms of pure talent. Also think it would have to be a perfect route and field in order to content in a GT, though.

15

Recently on the “Luke Mackenzie Cat 5” thread I think I started a bit of a “100 post shitstorm” by suggesting that Mackenzie should have won the race on his watts/kg alone. This got me thinking about the role of physiological capacity (i.e. watts/kg) in the assessment of cycling talent. In Canada, power testing simply is not used to select or identify talented cyclists and certain results are always the key factor in assessment. I don’t think that is a good policy and I decided to write an article about it:

http://wp.me/p3tHad-7l.

Judging by the Mackenzie thread, not everyone agrees that physiological capacity translates into results on the road or in tri’s, but it counts for something doesn’t it? What does everyone think?

You can’t just say “Bike Racing”. Cat 5 in SoCal is a little different than the Canadian National Development Squad. With Devo riders, it’s hard to tell if they’re good because they work hard, or if they’re good because their mom and dad are Connie and Davis Phinney, or if they’re good for any combination of reasons. Then, you take a gamble, sign a 15 year old to a squad, and now he’s good because he’s training like a pro, with the best equipment, trainers, support staff, and coaches. Will he be the next Merckx because he can race a cat 1 field at 18? It’s a seriously complex issue, especially when you’ve got limited resources.

Also, you missed the point of that first discussion. No one is saying that you don’t need to be able to lay down the horsies to win races. You very much do. The problem is that people have lots of extra power for their cat often race stupidly because they can get way with a few extra mistakes. Then, they upgrade, and other people can punish them severely for your mistakes. I know a lot of triathletes who will go out to a 4s race and sit on the front all day and finish last in the sprint, but still in the lead group. They have wicked fitness and made the race hard on everyone. I know a lot of these triathletes who upgrade to the 3s or 2s and then get their teeth kicked in for two seasons, because they make stupid mistakes - attacking when they shouldn’t, being on the front EVER, or things like that.

That said, SuperDave is right again: bike racing and triathlon reward two different types of fitness. The difference between a pure cyclist and a triathlete is neuromuscular / anaerobic capacity. I dare you to go to Strava and find a < 2 min climb. Who has the segments? Triathletes or bike racers? The only time you will ever have an analogous situation to a triathlon is when you’re on a long solo break in a road race. A short solo break, a duo break, a small breakaway group, they’re all WAY different. Think about it mathematically: as number of riders to split the load increases, time in the wind decreases:

of escapees / % of time in the wind / effort level in wind

1 / 100% / subthreshold
2 / 50% / slightly suprathreshold
3 / 33% / more above threshold
4 / 25% /
…
10+ / < 10% / 10 seconds of rolling through

The problem to remember is tactics. Remember that there is almost zero tactics in triathlon. (Sticking with that guy will give me the motivation to run 10s faster in the 10K!" is a little different than “Sitting in on this group of 50 means I can do about 80w average for 3 hours and still average 26 mph.”

Anyway. The point is:
People who do less work when it’s easy have more left in the tank when it gets hard.

If two equal riders need to do 400w for 1 minute, who’s going to be able to do it more easily: the guy who’s been above threshold for the last twenty minutes or the guy who’s been sitting on his wheel, softpedalling the whole time?

Now, extrapolate that. If you know that your max is 1200w, and that guy’s is 1400w, you do everything to make it so his max is less than yours. You sit on his wheel. You make him chase. You do faux pulls. You spend less time at the front. That way, he arrives at the line (or bottom of major climb, whatever) more tired than you, and you have a chance.

That is bike racing. Maybe 1 in 20 races will actually boil down to a “Can I rip EVERY SINGLE PERSON’s legs off during the race?” The problem with those races is that they get reputations and so the leg-ripper-off-ers show up.

16

In a bike race a person has to be exceptionally stronger than the combined strength of the whole field to win on brawn alone. As a baseline you have to be about 30% stronger to negate the draft benefit of the field. To add to this, the field represents a constant reshuffle of fresh legs to the front and this rotation itself represents a bit of forward movement. Even if you are 30% stronger, you can’t rule out that someone is willing to go over threshold and sacrifice themselves on the front the group for five minutes and blow up – there are a few in every race.

I’ve seen it so many times and the story of the stronger person who gets beat in races is basically my race career. I’ve joked with friends for years that I have a cat2 body and a cat6 mind. The only stuff I can win are time trials, preferably uphill. Road racing is owned by people who can generally light it up for short duration at the optimal time when everyone else is hurting. People who can suffer long duration at steady effort (like me) are only useful to help the short game racers in winning. My point isn’t to complain about my race experiences, but if races could be won just by being stronger than other people I probably would have figured it out by now.

17

You make him case. You do faux pulls

loving this thread. I am ~2 months into owning a road bike and have entertained some bike racing stuff. I am just a bit over 4w/kg, but admittedly know little about tactics other than what I’ve learned on club rides around strava segments.

Can you explain how these two things work?

18

You make him case. You do faux pulls

loving this thread. I am ~2 months into owning a road bike and have entertained some bike racing stuff. I am just a bit over 4w/kg, but admittedly know little about tactics other than what I’ve learned on club rides around strava segments.

Can you explain how these two things work?

There are a few books that discuss tactics:

http://velopress.com/books/racing-tactics-for-cyclists/
http://velopress.com/books/reading-the-race/

The real education is doing races, lots of them. Bike racing doesn’t work consistently with a fixed formula. Last weeks tactic that won the race may be an epic fail the next. There is a giant matrix of inputs and possible outcomes which is one of the things that keeps folks coming back for more. One of the biggest factors from experience is knowing instantly how to react to an attack, sprint position etc. Folks with lots of races have learn plenty of lessons the hard way. There are “boy wonder” riders but they represent the small minority. In a pack of 90 Cat 3’s, there might be a couple boy wonders but the rest are pretty much evenly matched.

If you just want to compare power numbers, then hill climbs and TT’s become drag races essentially.

19

You make him case. You do faux pulls

loving this thread. I am ~2 months into owning a road bike and have entertained some bike racing stuff. I am just a bit over 4w/kg, but admittedly know little about tactics other than what I’ve learned on club rides around strava segments.

Can you explain how these two things work?

Agreed with wasfast.

I meant to say you make him chase. You do faux pulls.

Two situations where that arises:

In a road race last year, we were in a group of four off the front. Me, a teammate, RMRC, and Primal. Three different teams. RMRC was clearly the fittest guy there, and we knew it. So, team mate and I started “one-two’ing” him. I would attack off the front, and he would have to chase me, or I win the race. My teammate sits on his wheel, and gets pulled up to me in the draft. The moment that I get caught, my teammate would attack him, and he would have to chase my teammate. I would roll back into the slipstream and get brought back up to my teammate. After the third round, he gave up, and I put 3 minutes into the group. With a (long, uphill) mile to go, the teammate attacked too and put a sizeable gap in.

Another one:
In a situation where one team or rider has something to lose, especially in a GC type situation, it is entirely fair for everyone to make them/him do all the work. If there is a rider whose GC lead is threatened by a breakaway, you can make him/them chase the breakway. Sit on his wheel. When someone attacks, just look at him and wait for him to bridge the gap.

As for faux pulls:
Say I have a rider up the road in a break. I know he can sprint, so I don’t want it to get caught, because his chance of one out of three or four is better than one out of twenty. If i’m in the case group, I will quietly disrupt the pace line. When I get to the front, I will either set false tempo (slower than my teammate’s group, intentionally) to buy them time. Or, I’d just totally sit out the rotation entirely. It’s kosher to look at the guys and say, “My sprinter’s up there. I’m sitting in.” People will yell, and scream, and try to break you, but it really hurts a group dynamic to have one guy sitting in on a chase.

Tim Krabbe: “Racing is licking your opponent’s plate clean before starting your own.”

20

Regarding disrupting the chase, i’m personally of the opinion that once you get called out for blocking, you should move aside and let the others chase. Doesnt mean you have to work, but at least give the others enough respect to let them do their thing. Often times in the lower categories, people are too dense to realize what is going on and that’s how you buy time for the break.

Things not to do include slowing down excessively (eg brakes) after rotating to the front as that’s just plain dangerous. Also not cool to attack to get to the front only to slow down. Belkin pulled this stunt at the end of the 2013 Paris-Tours, which was quite uncool as they often slotted to the front right near a turn.