Post by Ed Slovenkay on Jan 29, 2012 21:23:53 GMT -5
Was talking to a fellow triathlete the other day and he touched on this subject. Thought it would be helpful to post this thread from slowtwitch as it summarizes well the importance of proper effort on the bike, especially in IM.
forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=3721658;search_string=endurance%20nation;#3721658
What also jumps out at me from the discussion is the need to understand power data (if you train/race with it). Mainly TSS and IF numbers and what they mean when it comes to getting off the bike and running. Copying the main post below but check out the link as it has the complete post for reference.
A few more thoughts:
The purpose of riding the IM bike with power is to ride the optimum bike split:
Sets up the run.
Watts are appropriate for the athlete's fitness and demonstrated ability to ride these watts.
These watts are produced in a manner/style of riding that leaves the athlete as least tired as possible.
Sets up the run.
In short, it's not about putting up the "best" or "fastest" bike split you're capable of. Rather, it's about producing the optimum bike split. Optimum sets up the run. In my opinion, there are far more gains to be made by not slowing down on the run than on shouldcouldawoula-ing the fastest bike split. That's not to say you shouldn't apply your attention to building a faster bike split and applying all the tools of the trade -- fitness, aeroness, gear/tire selection, stuff like that. But the IM run course is littered with guys and gals who've chased a bike split...and then don't know how to execute the run and massively underperform relative to their potential.
Some refinements or other notes added to the stuff in Hunter's book:
Not all TSS points are created equal -- 300 TSS accrued at .75 IF are different from 300 TSS points accrued at .68-.7. Anyone who has done these rides in training knows they are very different. For this reason, Hunter's quote, I guess you could say, of our 300 TSS budget is wrong. We are not now and never were at that 300 TSS blanket statement.
That said, if you put up > 300 TSS on the IM bike at an IF of ~.74-75...I'm not betting on you for the run. In my experience, you've very likely set yourself up for a potential long day. You haven't made it easy on yourself. > 300 TSS at an IF of ~.68-70? You're still good.
Pavg is the physics of you riding your bike around the course. Pavg + rider weight + aero + all the other stuff = your bike split. Pnorm is (an attempt to quantify) how tired you made yourself while producing these average watts. The goal is to produce the optimum watts, for your fitness, in a manner that leaves you the least tired, setting up the run. This becomes a style of riding that you can generally describe as being very steady, quantified by a low Variability Index (VI) = Pnorm / Pavg.
Rather than focus on the numbers, I see this as largely a matter of avoiding and capitalizing on the mistakes that others are making around you. As I was racing IMWI this past summer, it was about:
Riding with a big flashing banner in my head that said "Is what you're doing now setting up the run, or are you chasing a bike split?"
Knowing exactly what watts/effort I needed to dial in on every significant terrain feature.
Extending that effort across the crest and into the downhill.
Maintaining those watts/effort/speed on every downhill, ie, never coasting.
Carrying that speed into and through all corners.
In short, there are lots of ways to model the fastest way around a bike course. However, as an Ironman athlete, these discussions should compliment, not supersede, the more relevant discussion which is how to ride the bike split that sets up the run.
forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=3721658;search_string=endurance%20nation;#3721658
What also jumps out at me from the discussion is the need to understand power data (if you train/race with it). Mainly TSS and IF numbers and what they mean when it comes to getting off the bike and running. Copying the main post below but check out the link as it has the complete post for reference.
A few more thoughts:
The purpose of riding the IM bike with power is to ride the optimum bike split:
Sets up the run.
Watts are appropriate for the athlete's fitness and demonstrated ability to ride these watts.
These watts are produced in a manner/style of riding that leaves the athlete as least tired as possible.
Sets up the run.
In short, it's not about putting up the "best" or "fastest" bike split you're capable of. Rather, it's about producing the optimum bike split. Optimum sets up the run. In my opinion, there are far more gains to be made by not slowing down on the run than on shouldcouldawoula-ing the fastest bike split. That's not to say you shouldn't apply your attention to building a faster bike split and applying all the tools of the trade -- fitness, aeroness, gear/tire selection, stuff like that. But the IM run course is littered with guys and gals who've chased a bike split...and then don't know how to execute the run and massively underperform relative to their potential.
Some refinements or other notes added to the stuff in Hunter's book:
Not all TSS points are created equal -- 300 TSS accrued at .75 IF are different from 300 TSS points accrued at .68-.7. Anyone who has done these rides in training knows they are very different. For this reason, Hunter's quote, I guess you could say, of our 300 TSS budget is wrong. We are not now and never were at that 300 TSS blanket statement.
That said, if you put up > 300 TSS on the IM bike at an IF of ~.74-75...I'm not betting on you for the run. In my experience, you've very likely set yourself up for a potential long day. You haven't made it easy on yourself. > 300 TSS at an IF of ~.68-70? You're still good.
Pavg is the physics of you riding your bike around the course. Pavg + rider weight + aero + all the other stuff = your bike split. Pnorm is (an attempt to quantify) how tired you made yourself while producing these average watts. The goal is to produce the optimum watts, for your fitness, in a manner that leaves you the least tired, setting up the run. This becomes a style of riding that you can generally describe as being very steady, quantified by a low Variability Index (VI) = Pnorm / Pavg.
Rather than focus on the numbers, I see this as largely a matter of avoiding and capitalizing on the mistakes that others are making around you. As I was racing IMWI this past summer, it was about:
Riding with a big flashing banner in my head that said "Is what you're doing now setting up the run, or are you chasing a bike split?"
Knowing exactly what watts/effort I needed to dial in on every significant terrain feature.
Extending that effort across the crest and into the downhill.
Maintaining those watts/effort/speed on every downhill, ie, never coasting.
Carrying that speed into and through all corners.
In short, there are lots of ways to model the fastest way around a bike course. However, as an Ironman athlete, these discussions should compliment, not supersede, the more relevant discussion which is how to ride the bike split that sets up the run.