This “constant power” theory is wrong and you can easily see it by using the calculators on analytic cycling or by experience. You get more “bang for your buck” by using power on hills (i.e., 50 watts over threshold on a hill might be the difference between going 10 mph and 15 mph, where on the flats it might give you 22 vs. 21). The exact level above threshold is a dicey thing to determine, and you have to consider your recovery time, length of the race, etc.
And I suppose pushing 50 watts over FTP multiple times has relatively little cost (physiologically) to your race? Apparently you aren’t using the calculator correctly. What constraint are you applying? Obviously if you don’t apply a constraint then what you say is true but that’s hardly representative of what any of us can do in real life. Determining how hard you should ride the hills, flats and downhills actually isn’t that dicey since we have the NP paradigm/construct to guide us.
I think the better example would be for a typical HIM race at 80% of FTP…240W of my 300W in my case. I would find it to be no problem whatsoever to be riding at 280-300W for short climbs (<5 mins) or 260-280W for longer climbs ~10mins but probably wouldn’t want to exceed 250-260W for extended climbs unless I knew there was a really long downhill on the other side that I could spend most of the time resting.
try this explination,
your body can only do so much work in a set time, say the race is one hour long and your body can only do 300watts for that hour . As most courses (TT) are flat or at least finish at the same elevation then constant power wins if you can keep the power up at all points of the course, Tri courses are a bit hillier and more technical so it gets a bit trickier. The thing to remember is that like HR if you exceed your power you will pay for it later, if you go hard up you wil go slow down and loose time
try this explination,
your body can only do so much work in a set time, say the race is one hour long and your body can only do 300watts for that hour . As most courses (TT) are flat or at least finish at the same elevation then constant power wins if you can keep the power up at all points of the course, Tri courses are a bit hillier and more technical so it gets a bit trickier. The thing to remember is that like HR if you exceed your power you will pay for it later, if you go hard up you wil go slow down and loose time
Actually, it still pays to go hard up the hill and relax on the downhill. You can show this easily. Suppose you have an out and back course consisting of an uphill and downhill only. This is easily shown by demonstration:
Let’s assume a 180 lb rider+bike, CdA=.27 m^2, fairly standard air pressure, temperature, rolling resistance, blah blah blah. Let our fictitious rider have an ungodly low power of 200 watts. He goes up a 5% grade for 5 km and down the same grade.
For constant power (200 W), it takes 1440 seconds (1155 s up, 285 s down, total work is 80 watt-hours)
Now let’s say our young buck can hit the hill at 220 watts up, or 10% higher. It takes him 1063 seconds to charge that hill. Higher power but shorter effort means total work for the uphill part is only .7 watt-hours higher. He needs to recover that .7 watt-hours, which forces him to go down the hill with 189 watts (5.5% less than 200 w). The reduced power means it takes him a whopping 1 second longer to go down the hill. Total time for the 10k? 1349 seconds. I’m sure most folks here would take 91 seconds.
Now this is an extreme example, but it shows the tangible time savings. A rider may not be able to increase power by 10% for that duration. Nonetheless, the importance of hitting hills and recovering on the downside is clear.
your talking about 1 hill where you might be able to get away with it, but you can only a couple of times before fatigue hits you blow and loose time for the rest of the race.
dont know about the maths i just know from real life experiments that constant wins 99% of the time
Is there a cadence below which it is no longer worthwhile to keep the wattage ceiling?? For instance, I rode the course at Wisconsin this weekend where there are some steep hills that require cadence in the 50’s to stay below my ceiling to 260W with a 27 on back. The sensation for me when cadence drops to this level is that I lose rhythm, am working harder and stomping more. Am I really “saving” my legs when I pedal this slow?
Somehow, this thread got pulled in a few directions.
Training + 2 kilometer hill = 150 - 175% of FTP for me (on a 4 hour ride)
Racing + flat OLY = as fast as I can go
Racing + hilly OlY = as fast as I can go. As far as I’m concerned, a power meter is competely worthless in this scenario for pacing. Bring it along to capture data, but certainly don’t use it to race. Otherwise, you’ll get your ass handed to you b/c you’re going too slow on the uphills.
Racing + rolling HIM = 50 watts below FTP (for me), try to keep constant, but will try my best not to go over FTP
Racing + IM = I haven’t raced a IM with a power meter yet. Ask me in a few weeks. I’m going to “try” to hold FTP - 65 the entire time, including the rollers. I imagine LOTS of people will be spanking me on the uphills, but I’m really going to try hard to tone it down and keep my ego back at T1. Guess I won’t know until I hit T2 whether that strategy worked, but seems realistic based upon training.
Build a bigger matchbook and you can even ride IM’s in this staccato manner. Just think about how the pro pack rides. And a good number of those guys still run well.
Don’t neglect your L5 and L6 training.
It’s how I train and train a few of my people. They like it and the confidence it gives them on race day.
Is there a cadence below which it is no longer worthwhile to keep the wattage ceiling?? For instance, I rode the course at Wisconsin this weekend where there are some steep hills that require cadence in the 50’s to stay below my ceiling to 260W with a 27 on back. The sensation for me when cadence drops to this level is that I lose rhythm, am working harder and stomping more. Am I really “saving” my legs when I pedal this slow?
Quite frankly this is a lose-lose situation. I know because my favorite IM course (Great Floridian) is mostly flat (<3% grade) but has some incredibly steep but very short hills. There are 5 hills in a row at about mile 40-45 and 95-100 on the second lap. Total height is only about 100-300ft but the minimum average grade is about 8% reaching just shy of 20% in a few spots.
There really isn’t an “easy” way to ride a hill like this, my only successful tactic has been to hold high speed at the very bottom and try to maintain 75+rpm up 3/4 of it, then slack off and basically use body weight on the pedals to pop over the top at ~250W/60rpm in a 40/23. I could probably go 25 or 27 to help but the hills are really short. I can do these at 95-110% of FTP (285-330W) without really hurting myself for the rest of the ride, but they are only 1-2 minutes long except for Sugarloaf.
The issue with such low cadence is that even though your power is within range, your torque/pedal force is definitely not! As a perfect example of what not to do, I rode the new course at 1/2IMFL this May and went up the single decently sized hill in the wrong gear. Excessively low cadence (65ish) meant my pedal force was higher producing ~250W up the hill than I would normally do on a 450W 3 minute interval! That’s a guaranteed way to cause serious cramps and fatigue…power is not the only limiter to output…sustainable pedal force is also important. Fortunately CyclingPeaks will show both.
Agreed. Many get in that LSD rut for all three sports and never really get out of it. The have one gear/speed for swimming cycling and running. It’s not uncommon for many rec triathletes to race a sprint distance triathlon at more or less the same average speed that they do a 1/2 IM race! Nothing wrong with that - it get’s many to the finish line and an achievment of thier goals. However, if they are REALLY looking to lift performance, they will need to train at a wide range of paces in all three sports.
Thanks - interesting observations. FWIW, my max torque for the ride was 372 lb-in at pwr of 334W at cadence in high 50’s. Not really sure about how high that torque # is since I don’t generally track my torque.
I recall experimenting on an undulating 15-16km time trial course (4 x 4km laps) back in 2005. The first time I tried it I pretty much hammered everything. I went hard down the long moderate descent (speeds up to 60kph) and on the short sharp hill (approximately 400m) the power spiked to about 500+ watts. I also went hard out of all corners where power also spiked up around 600watts. You can see the results below (ignore the high max power on lap one which was starting from standstill. Below that is the second time I tried it where I think the main change was not letting the power spike too much on the short, sharp uphill. THis meant reducing speed from 22kph to about 18-19kph and spinning in a higher gear rather than out of the saddle stuff. You can see how I was able to hold the pace across the four laps better and average wattage didn’t drop dramatically. Note also higher avg cadence and lower avg HR’s. Conditions were similar. I recall the legs felt really heavy at the top of the hill where I let power spike higher on the first attempt whereas attempt number two (about 1 week later) I was able to push the flat at the top of hill much better.
Chris, I’m too lazy to go back a page and respond to your reply, but I was giving a very crude example. Obviously there’s a metabolic cost to going over FTP and that’s why I pretty much said “it depends”.
MarkyV: Bingo. This is what I’m working on also. I’ve been road racing this year and that has been my biggest lack; the ability to go over threshold and recover. It’s starting to come around and I’m finding that I can ride rolling courses much faster as a result. I can’t run fast anyway so I might as well be Slowtwitchean about it and get to T2 as fast as possible.
I find it fascinating that people are willing to convince themselves of whatever they want to believe when the physics of moving a bike are indisputable. It’s a plain and simple fact that riding any IM NAS course today with less variability (eg VI = <1.05) will yield the fastest bike split. It’s been modeled. Period. End of story. What I find even more fascinating is that people are willing to tell someone else that “variable” is the only way to go when they’ve never even attempted to race at a “less variable or sustained” pace. So, they have absolutely zero data to prove their case yet they’re still willing to fight so adamently for it. You all continue to debate using subjective terminology which will just lead to endless jabber because even when you think you’re saying the same thing, you’re probably not. It’s subjective, it’s based on your observations not someone else’s. You might think “coasting alot” is 20min of coasting in an IM but someone else thinks coasting a lot is 15min. Believe me, 5min of extra coasting or not will make a huge difference.
Note that I actually go through the effort of quantifying “variability.” I just state the facts and then debate what is the best way to use those facts. The answer on how best to use those facts can/will vary from individual to individual depending on many variables.
Road racing is not IM. It’s a completely different sport.
I find it fascinating that people are willing to convince themselves of whatever they want to believe when the physics of moving a bike are indisputable. It’s a plain and simple fact that riding any IM NAS course today with less variability (eg VI = <1.05) will yield the fastest bike split.
I find it fascinating as well, but also feel compelled to point out that you’ve contrained your answer to 1) Ironman-distance events, and 2) only those in North America. Would your answer be different for a shorter event that involved more frequent ups-and-downs (say, a half-Ironman held near Pittsburgh)?
I find it fascinating that people are willing to convince themselves of whatever they want to believe when the physics of moving a bike are indisputable. It’s a plain and simple fact that riding any IM NAS course today with less variability (eg VI = <1.05) will yield the fastest bike split. It’s been modeled. Period. End of story. What I find even more fascinating is that people are willing to tell someone else that “variable” is the only way to go when they’ve never even attempted to race at a “less variable or sustained” pace. So, they have absolutely zero data to prove their case yet they’re still willing to fight so adamently for it. You all continue to debate using subjective terminology which will just lead to endless jabber because even when you think you’re saying the same thing, you’re probably not. It’s subjective, it’s based on your observations not someone else’s. You might think “coasting alot” is 20min of coasting in an IM but someone else thinks coasting a lot is 15min. Believe me, 5min of extra coasting or not will make a huge difference.
I find it amusing that people are willing to convince themselves that riding a constant 220W down a 15% grade at 60mph is worth it compared to coasting and stretching your calves. Or that riding 220W up a 15-20% grade is even possible for a 160lb triathlete. (Here’s a hint, you’d go so slow you’ll fall over…I can’t steer well on a hill like that a 3.2mph.)
I will definitely agree that keeping a low VI is the fastest way around most courses. In my TTs if the VI is much over 1.01 I’m pretty surprised. In HIM and IM races it’s been 1.04 to 1.07 depending on how hilly it is. Coasting at 40-60mph down hills and pushing 250-300W up the next short one cranks the NP way up really quick.
I find it fascinating that people are willing to convince themselves of whatever they want to believe when the physics of moving a bike are indisputable. It’s a plain and simple fact that riding any IM NAS course today with less variability (eg VI = <1.05) will yield the fastest bike split.
I find it fascinating as well, but also feel compelled to point out that you’ve contrained your answer to 1) Ironman-distance events, and 2) only those in North America. Would your answer be different for a shorter event that involved more frequent ups-and-downs (say, a half-Ironman held near Pittsburgh)?
Well it’s about time!! I see you’re paying attention. Meaning, I’ve actually been waiting for someone to raise this issue…
I constrained my answer to what has been modeled and thoroughly studied by myself and the others I have mentioned. I try to be careful when making statements but can be prone to getting a little carried away and over dramatic at times (as I’m sure you’ve noticed). So, would my answer be different? Well, if the event involved more ups-and-downs at a shorter distance then it would be a safe bet for me to say, “Yes,” my answer would likely be different. Having said that, it’s probably different on a relative basis. IOW, a lot of people already believe that more variability is required than necessary on your typical IM NAS course so I highly suspect the same would be true for a hillier course. I’d like to spend more time studying “effective bike execution” for shorter distances but I still haven’t finished with IM which is my priority and definitely my passion. My suspicion so far is that HIM and shorter distances require a stronger emphasis on tactical race execution and, therefore, probably a bit more variability. However, given similar terrain, the most optimal HIM VIs look no different than the most optimal IM VIs. But that shouldn’t surprise you either. Just need more time…
As much as I’m trying to bring some facts to the table, I’m also trying to get people to possibly try to look at it from a different perspective. Very challenging given that I lack the appropriate communication skills to do this most effectively and, obviously, I’m still doing a ton of learning myself.
have a go at modelling IM Lanzarote and see what you conclude …
I think perhaps part of what’s missing here is one’s definition of HILL.
To a TT specialist from the UK, a hill may be any grade or even false flat causing him to drop below 45 kph!! In other places, rollers predominate and in others long to very long steady climbs and descents predominate. No way they should be ridden exactly the same.
See, there’s the problem… Somehow you interpret what I’m saying as, “…they should be ridden exactly the same.” I have no idea how and why you come to that conclusion. My only suspicion is:
I suck more than I thought at communicating my message or
You only hear/read what you want to hear/read
Saying something like a VI of 1.05 is optimal, for example, just defines the overall variability required for that specific course. Clearly, there’s much detail (the art) in how you should achieve that type of variability. No course should be ridden exactly the same. I’ll use a famous quote from Slowman:
“i assumed a level of comprehension not necessarily in evidence”
Meaning, I’ve actually been waiting for someone to raise this issue…