Dan, thank you for the article. I have a question for you regarding IM distance races. It is generally accepted that the bike leg of an AG IM distance race is paced around 70-75% of your FT watts. Your article states that “Tri bikes are best used when effort levels are high.” Even at the upper end, 75% of FT wouldn’t be considered a high level of effort. But if you are able to maintain the aero position and keep your effort level up throughout the 112mi, I would think the aero benefits of a tri bike would far out weigh a road bike for IM.
I guess my real question is why is a high level of effort a condition for selecting a tri bike? Thx.
Because pedalling hard gets some of the weight off your soft tissue and on to your feet instead. The tri position is not good for rolling around admiring the view. Your scenario is still a high effort one.
Because pedalling hard gets some of the weight off your soft tissue and on to your feet instead. The tri position is not good for rolling around admiring the view. Your scenario is still a high effort one. Ok - but 75% is not pedalling hard.
Compare riding at 75% to 50% or 25%…it’s hard enough to take a bit of weight off.
Or next time you ride the trainer, try just sitting there in the aero position, not pedalling, for half an hour…I have a feeling that would be more painful than half an hour at threshold
I think you need to re-evaluate your FTP if you do not consider riding at 75% “hard”. Of course it isn’t all out but this is a triathlon and you have to run afterwards. How would you pace yourself for a IM? Anything much more intense than 75% and you will be walking afterwards, IMO.
And to make sure we talk about the same level of intensity. To me, FTP is my CP60 or whatever I can hold for an approximate 60min (40km) TT.
I don’t particularly like the way his article was written. I believe it’s a cardinal sin to make statements like this, “Tri bikes are best used when effort levels are high” in this type of article. What does “high” mean? He needs to avoid relative terms and it needs to be quantified in much greater detail. Just following this thread should give you a great example of why we should avoid using subjective terms to answer/address questions/issues of this nature.
I think there are many factors but for anyone who executes a reasonable training plan that involves the right amount of race-specific preparation then I can’t imagine why they would ride a road bike on any IM course out there. If you’re a person who’s constantly squirming through a 112-mile ride on a tri bike then you might consider the comfort of a road bike (assuming you have more experience on a road bike). Although, I suspect anyone who’s in that position is probably going to do equally well just riding his tri bike switching back and forth between the aerobars and the basebar for comfort and use the opportunity as a learning experience because their goal is, or probably should be, more about finishing the race under 17hrs than anything else. If you come into an IM with a considerable difference between power on your road bike and power on your tri bike then you’re unfortunately very much ill-prepared for what lies ahead of you, imho.
