I’m not new to training with power but I am new to racing (just got a PT wheel built up for racing). In prep for Calif 70.3 I’m trying to rationalize my pacing strategy. My FTP = 275, 80-82% of that = 220-225. Okay, fine, that’s where I want to be on average at the end of 56 miles.
My question is, what is the proper pacing on the hills? My watts will be significantly higher going up, but how hard is too hard for climbing? Are there some specific pacing strategies and rules I should follow on the hills?
I’d use your FTP as a “top cap” for long(er) climbs and if you have been doing some training over FTP you’d be OK using FTP + 10% (say 300 watta) for cap on very short hills. OF course some of this depends on how long you expect to be on the bike, the training you have done, and your training racing backgound.
You have plenty of time … try a 50-55 mile simulation ride using your planned power range and see how things unfold after (TSS / VI / NP etc.) … run off the bike to see how the legs are.
I am new racing with power as well, and am trying to figure out a pacing plan. Where does that 80-82% come from? Is that a generally accepted number for a half?
I know I’m counter-culture, but the best use of your powermeter would be to efficiently build up your power (ftp, etc) in training. Come race day, don’t worry (as much) about power. There is lots of time to be saved by getting up hills quickly and accelerating back up to speed. There is no other place to make up so much time.
A lot of people think that if they are going 5 mph slower on a climb, they can make that time up by going 5mph faster on the descent/ flats, which is not true. I’m just making up convenient numbers, but if you have a 1 mile long climb and hit it at 20 mph (3min/mi) instead of 15 mph (4min/mi) - you will save 1 minute. If on the flats you go 25 mph (2.4min/mi) instead of 20 mph, you only make up 36 seconds.
It’s also true that if you are driving you’ll make up more time going 15mph over in a school zone than you would on the interstate.
You may want to be more reasonable on races longer than Olympic distance. I’m assuming the big surges won’t drain you so much that you suck so badly at the end that you lose all that time you made up. You’ll also want to factor in the run terrain you’ll face afterward too.
There is also a good article that Slowman wrote in the archives about his climbing strategy - I liked that as well.
A good read. Dan seems to indicate that it would be better for the triathlete to maintain the target % of FTP for then entire race (including hills of all sizes) by ensuring the cadence in the 1st half of the climb is high and comfortable. Hopefully I’m reading this right.
Assuming a total sum amount of energy used, going up and back down a hill.
You will do it in less time if you use a bit more energy on the way up, and a bit less on the way down.
Because you are not fighting as much wind resistance on the way up.
But, physiology doesn’t work that way, going 10% harder on the way up incurrs a cost that isn’t totally regained by going 10% easier on the way down.
Its an interesting question =)
It’s been modelled by numerous geeks.
Taking for the sake of example a slightly long, but rolling HIM course for a target normalized power of 215 (say 80% of an FTP of 270), you’d get an theoretically optimum power profile like this
i think it would be fine for someone to ride +10% target power (more or less) up a hill for a couple of reasons: first, you can’t ride your target power on the descent, so there’s some rest there; second, the diminishing returns on velocity created by drag are not significant if the ascent is at, say, 10mph instead of 25mph.
for most triathletes, tho, the low hanging fruit is just in keeping their ascending power close to their average power. you can math this one out to the nth degree, and by all means do so. the larger problem is when climbing power is 50%, or 100%, above your average power. that sort of thing is typical in triathlons.
i did that race several years ago that the OP referred to, the oceanside half, and my average power for the ride was 225w or so, and my time was 2:29 for the bike leg, yet fat guys and old ladies were screaming past me on every ascent. even if you just race your HR, or climb in a race paying attention to RPE on the climb, trying to ride a steady effort, you’ll be way ahead of the game.
on the west coast, races like the oceanside half, and the wildflower half, most people aren’t prepared to ride their target power at their target cadence on ascents, because they don’t have the appropriate gears on their bikes.
on the west coast, races like the oceanside half, and the wildflower half, most people aren’t prepared to ride their target power at their target cadence on ascents, because they don’t have the appropriate gears on their bikes.
Yeah, but they have their 55 or 56x11 so they don’t have to spin more than 80rpm on the descents.
Optimally find a 8-15 min hill with steady gradient do repeats at increasing wattage’s also try different cadences. See how you respond.
From this you will find out what your body does in relation to intensity/power output.
Remember at ac ertain point you got risk it!!
Using a self governor by watching watts is good. But … At some point watts be dammed go fro it get everything out of yourself when racing.
Use watts to make sure you do not cook yourself, then at some point go for it.
My question is, what is the proper pacing on the hills? My watts will be significantly higher going up, but how hard is too hard for climbing? Are there some specific pacing strategies and rules I should follow on the hills?
Hey! Don’t you know that “bike racing isn’t a math problem^TM”?
tireless…absolutely tireless…
(Unfortunately, somebody apparently forgot to explain that to World ITT champ Bert Grabsch and/or his trainer, Sebastian Weber:
http://srm.customer.sasg.de/...mid=161&lang=es)
so you’ve devolved to the ST standard of proof now? (anecdote=data)? Congratulations! any word on how the control group fished up? (I’ll save you typing your response–I know…‘not as well…’).
Bike racing ‘not being a math problem ’ doesn’t mean ‘ignore math’. I think tim_s’ graph at the bottom tells one about all they need to know. In lieu of that, I’d say ‘go a little harder on the hills, and a little easier on the downhill’ and 'the shorter the hill, the higher the variability.
I’d also add that if one is being passed by pudgy 50 yr old women on hybrids, one needs to pedal a little harder.
My question is, what is the proper pacing on the hills? My watts will be significantly higher going up, but how hard is too hard for climbing? Are there some specific pacing strategies and rules I should follow on the hills?
For Triple T I rode up the longer hills at 220 to 230 watts (My FTP was 205-210) and pedaled down the hills trying to hold 150 to 170 watts. I’m a fairly decent decender My running was better than average after those rides.
There was only one hill that I needed to go higher and that was Thompson Hill road which was 15% or something like that. I was near 300 watts for 3 or 4 minutes.
I’m honestly not sure how folks maintain wattage like the numbers I see reported…300W on a 15% grade would have you going pretty darn slow…I’m thinking ~5-7mph. Unless the hill is super long, I wouldn’t be worried about burning a match. I remember climbing Lincoln Gap in VT (I’ve read avg 22% for 1.5 miles, but not sure) at 400-420W and only going 4mph, so that’s where my guess is based.
Granted you can’t kill your legs on a climb like that, but I think you have to let go of numbers like that and just ride up the hill. You can’t throw numbers at a climb to make it seem easier…there’s no magic bullets. IMO, powermeters are great for pacing on flat courses, but make people too afraid on uphills. I find it pretty much impossible to go uphill at less than 250W.
There is nothing anecdotal about noting that somebody apparently forgot to tell Weber and/or Grabsch that bike racing isn’t a math problem. The question is, where did they get the idea that you could model TT performance like that in the first place?
