I was recently driving a couple of sections of the bike course at Tremblant. The lac superieur section in particular got me wondering about pacing. I have always heard that one should ride with evenly distributed effort. But driving that punchy section got me thinking I’d be better off pushing it hard up and coasting down. In fact, even the hilly parts of monte Ryan seem that way.
Am I wrong? Exactly how evenly are people riding these courses? Do you pedal down?
Course question: anyone know how much of the road is closed in the section from transition to superieur and back?
Just to be clear, I’m not saying I want to go crazy on the uphills, just wondering with the ups and downs how steady/consistent people are riding these hilly and rolling bike courses.
Also, does no one know whether this part of the route is closed or to what extent it is?
I personally can never pedal “hard enough” on downhills to have an even effort but I don’t have a fancy power meter either which a lot of people use to help with that stuff. Not sure how steep/long the downhills are on the course but I usually will cost at anything over 35mph. I think if read some of the IMC stuff there was some talk about coasting, pedaling and gearing for it’s downhills.
I’m sure I’ll be out of the saddle pedaling hard on the ups to take advantage of my power/weight ratio as the flats I’ll be giving back to the power studs although I’m sure my plan will be ease off during the last 20 miles of the bike for the run which is also suppose to be hilly.
How you ride the hills is your choice, can’t really help you there.
Regarding the section to Lac Superieur, given that the website states a large % of the bike course is going to be closed to vehicles, my guess is that the entire section to Lac Superieur will be closed. This is just a guess given that the road there is fairly narrow, hilly and contains a number of limited vision corners.
A power meter can help you even out the wattage being applied. In general you dont want to go much more than +10-15% over your FTP wattage for a given hill. You can even out your wattage by not spiking on the bottom of the hill (where everyone tends to get out of the saddle on ush too hard) and applying more wattage at the top and the downside of a hill. I have found i can catch up and pass people on the downside that tried to push up the hill and coast it down (IM USA 3 sister hill section, was a good test of that tactic).
Exactly my reason for wondering. As my name suggests, I doubt I’ll be passing many people on the uphills, but as a heavier rider, I do enjoy a downhill now and then.
I’d hate to have too many cars/bikes crowded into that section. All the places to fly include corners.
I did run 16 km of the run course, however, and I imagine the smaller types won’t find it too too bad. Can’t say the same for myself, however. I was running in the snow, though, in layers of clothes, in the morning At a temp of around -14.
I was recently driving a couple of sections of the bike course at Tremblant. The lac superieur section in particular got me wondering about pacing. I have always heard that one should ride with evenly distributed effort. But driving that punchy section got me thinking I’d be better off pushing it hard up and coasting down. In fact, even the hilly parts of monte Ryan seem that way.
Am I wrong? Exactly how evenly are people riding these courses? Do you pedal down?
It’s a good question that I’ve been working on for some time.
Make sure you use a 34/27 or better gear ratio if your mass is more than 65kgs
If you don’t have access to any other information, iso-power is the way to go.
Eat and drink in these zones.
If you have access to a course simulator, plug in the elevation profile, and other athlete parameters into it and find the theoretically optimum pacing. (Yes, I have a simulator.)
Here are the results for a windless day for 2 loops of the Mont-Tremblant course. The athlete in question has a 220W FTP and weighs 78 kgs with a CdA of 0.300 m^2, riding Continental GP 4000s.
All the strategies have the same TSS score.
Caveat: these results are rider- and course-specific.
Hello:
I am going to be doing this event and will not have the oppertunity to train on it before the race. How did you pick the eat and drink zones? Are they simply at the tops of hills, or is there another reason? Tim
Hello:
I am going to be doing this event and will not have the oppertunity to train on it before the race. How did you pick the eat and drink zones? Are they simply at the tops of hills, or is there another reason? Tim
Basically, but not always. I went over the course on ErgVideos and found places with some flats or rest afterwards.
Interesting analysis, however not all TSS is created equal so I bet if that athlete ran a marathon after each of those scenarios, the one you predict as the fastest bike ride would have the slowest marathon, and probably by more than the 5 minutes you’d save on the bike.
Interesting analysis, however not all TSS is created equal so I bet if that athlete ran a marathon after each of those scenarios, the one you predict as the fastest bike ride would have the slowest marathon, and probably by more than the 5 minutes you’d save on the bike.
The analysis assumes the validity of “Coggan metrics”, yes.
But I can see no reason why you’d claim that any one of those paces is more or less straining, physiologically, than the others. Why not base your conclusions on average power (total energy), instead?
Interesting analysis, however not all TSS is created equal so I bet if that athlete ran a marathon after each of those scenarios, the one you predict as the fastest bike ride would have the slowest marathon, and probably by more than the 5 minutes you’d save on the bike.
Hmmm. Why would you think that?
Greetings, Robert. I’m open to the idea that TSS might not be the perfect metric. It’s just that, right now, I don’t know of a better one.
If anyone has some ideas about which strain metric to use for workouts, please let me know.
I don’t have a particular problem with TSS as a metric to compare workouts against each other. What I’m not yet sure about is whether setting a TSS target is the best goal. In any event, I think your optimization problem is pretty cool – however, I think a reasonable question is how to execute the pacing plan while on the bike. I don’t think most head units show real-time TSS. The way I do it is to write down “targets” for the mean watts over various intervals on a little slip of paper and tape it to my stem. Actually, in usage they’re not so much targets as they are reminders.
Greetings, Robert. I’m open to the idea that TSS might not be the perfect metric. It’s just that, right now, I don’t know of a better one.
If anyone has some ideas about which strain metric to use for workouts, please let me know.
I don’t have a particular problem with TSS as a metric to compare workouts against each other. What I’m not yet sure about is whether setting a TSS target is the best goal. In any event, I think your optimization problem is pretty cool – however, I think a reasonable question is how to execute the pacing plan while on the bike. I don’t think most head units show real-time TSS. The way I do it is to write down “targets” for the mean watts over various intervals on a little slip of paper and tape it to my stem. Actually, in usage they’re not so much targets as they are reminders.
Yup, I think those little reminders would help a lot. I’ll add this as a feature for the simulator.
On another thread, btw, marcag is talking about the Garmin Edges having realtime TSS displayed. That would be cool!
I was recently driving a couple of sections of the bike course at Tremblant. The lac superieur section in particular got me wondering about pacing. I have always heard that one should ride with evenly distributed effort. But driving that punchy section got me thinking I’d be better off pushing it hard up and coasting down. In fact, even the hilly parts of monte Ryan seem that way.
Am I wrong? Exactly how evenly are people riding these courses? Do you pedal down?
It’s a good question that I’ve been working on for some time.
Make sure you use a 34/27 or better gear ratio if your mass is more than 65kgs
If you don’t have access to any other information, iso-power is the way to go.
Eat and drink in these zones.
If you have access to a course simulator, plug in the elevation profile, and other athlete parameters into it and find the theoretically optimum pacing. (Yes, I have a simulator.)
Here are the results for a windless day for 2 loops of the Mont-Tremblant course. The athlete in question has a 220W FTP and weighs 78 kgs with a CdA of 0.300 m^2, riding Continental GP 4000s.
All the strategies have the same TSS score.
Caveat: these results are rider- and course-specific.
Andy,
Great data set for folks. I must caution your use of the descriptor " Really hard on uphills". Most of us would not characterize 77% FTP as “really hard” . Folks that aren’t using or up up to speed using power meters will be picturing hammering out of the saddle as the definition of “really hard”. I’d bet on the first lap of Lake Placid more than 75% of the field is attacking the hills at 85%+ of their FTP but would characterize the effort a medium at most.
You’re absolutely right, Hugh, and just goes to show how subtle pacing can be.
Edit: Just rereading your post and coming to the realisation that it’s full of excellent advice.
Folks, I’ve had a lot of people tell me that they tried hammering the uphills and it killed their run. Pacing for climbs is extremely subtle. I can’t emphasize that enough. Going 170W – just 15W or so watts above your NP target – requires meticulous care. Pacing like this isn’t for everybody. But if you can pull it off, it does have its dividends.
I’ve looked at enough elite athlete power files to know that, aside from having a huge motor, every one of those elites athletes can hit power targets precisely and crisply. Elite track athletes, for example, can hit power targets without even looking at their head units.
I should have different descriptors. I remember at IMLP doing 320W on a 270W FTP going up Papa Bear. Those darned cowbells really made me push way harder than I should. But, boy, was that fun!
