Use a power Tap or disk wheel - Page 2

You're on the right track, but TT pacing strategy is too complex to reduce to a couple of sentences. For your upcoming TT, assuming that the course is almost flat (although few courses are indeed flat) the answer to your question would focus on the wind direction and speed. If you go to AnalyticCycling.com, you can run some numbers for yourself with the wind analysis tools. I suggest that you make up a spreadsheet and work out several upwind/downwind pacing scenarios. Unfortunately, the relationship is not symmetrical so it's not as simple as 260w/240w, 270w/230w, 280w/220w, .... Without getting into the underlying computation, I suggest that you use the following upwind/downwind power numbers for your scenarios: 260w/235w, 270w/215w. I haven't suggested anything more than FT+20w because that could put you at risk of blowing up unless you have been riding long intervals at FT+20w on a regular basis. If the wind is very light (e.g., <6mph), I think you would be better off riding at either a constant power or FT+5w/FT-5w (at the 5w level, you can probably assume the relationship is symmetrical). Good luck.

That'll give you a better time than riding at a steady 250w (assuming the 140 was a typo for 240w). However, depending on the wind speed you'll probably do better to use an even greater difference between your outbound and return power. If the wind will be moderate-to-strong then I'd probably find the highest possible power that I could hold for a 30-minute interval and set that for the target on the return trip. Then work backward to set the target on the outbound trip. If there are any hills at all then things get more complicated, and your detailed knowledge of the course can be really important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert West The previous week I did a practice TT on the same coarse without a PM and did it solely on heart rate. I managed to do it in 58 minutes. Keep in mind this was the first TT I've done in years and I haven't done any racing this year at all. So I suspect anything I can learn to pace myself will help. Thx for any advice as I want to beat 58 minutes next week. Oh ya is there anyway of predicting my time in advance??

Use the tools at www.analyticcycling.com to find your expected speed, given the power on each leg. Using that speed, find the time for each leg and, voilla!

I just have a hard time getting my head around the fact that most of the pro's don't use a PM for time trials. So if a PM is the ticket to the best possible time then why don't they all use them??

The benefit of a PM in a TT is a direct function of one's ability to pace oneself. Some of the pros may in fact be better at pacing themselves by RPE than with a PM. And, some of them may not be better at pacing themselves but they think they are. But, when I address the question of the benefit of a PM to me in a TT, it's not highly relevant how well a pro can pace himself, given his 5-6 hrs/day on a bike or whatever they do. The relevant question for me is how well do I pace myself with and without a PM. It's not even a close call -- I pace myself much better with a PM, especially on a course that calls for a highly variable power pacing strategy. But, even if I rode a 40K TT on an indoor track (flat, no wind) I would want my PM and I would ride a wheel with the CH Aero covers and give up the aero benefits of a disk. But, that's me. Maybe you are fantastic at pacing yourself.

I'm not intending on touching a nerve there Rapdadio, rather I'm stating an observation. Again if the PM"s made that big of difference the pro's would be using them no questions. Maybe you just think you need a PM, maybe you would be better served if you trained and learned how your body should feel when your pacing, maybe by using RPE? so far I haven't heard any real solid proof yet that they are better, although I want to believe as I have a PM.

No one is going to be able to produce a double blind study of the kind ("real solid proof that power meters are good for time trials?" ) you are asking for so that is a totally pointless request. Either it's useful for an individual or it's not. Whether or not lots of pros use it is a pretty naive criteria - if you paid any attention, Greg Lemond had to drag the peloton kicking and screaming into the modern era, and no one except a millionaire can afford some of the training luxuries pros use, and it can be argued, no one except a pro should use some of the pharmaceuticals quite a few of them are admitting to using.

You didn't touch a nerve. I'm simply saying that I think the answer to whether a PM will result in better pacing is different for each cyclist and that what the pros use reflects what they think works best for them. If LA thinks he can pace himself better without a PM, what good does that do me? And, BTW, I have tried pacing myself without my PM and I don't do very well.

While there aren't any studies looking directly at pacing and use (or non-use) of a power meter, there are lots of studies looking at pacing and 'all-out' trials in time trials in a variety of sports, and a variety of durations. Iirc Carl Foster is the main researcher into this sphere of sports science, and the research shows that better pacing is better for the athlete in durations of > 60-secs.

As to whether pro use power meters or not, many pros are still stuck in the dark ages and don't know or understand the benefits of such tools. This also applies to some DS. Additionally, there are also sponsorship considerations (with sometimes only the very best riders allowed to do as they please in terms of non-use of sponsored equipment).

Finally, there is data to show that even a current world champion (he could be current olympic champion -- it's too early for me to recall) paces about as well as demented yapping dog without the use of a power meter -- no differently to the vast majority of people. That is, we start to hard, suffer, feel ill, fade, hurt more, and then manage to up the pace as we approach the finish line.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

So then it would be your belief that I would render a better time if I pace myself at 250 watts throughout a 40km TT as opposed to pacing myself solely on HR. It is almost hard to believe that this will work as the last TT I did I did solely on HR. I know that I was likely producing well over my threshold watts for the 1st 5km. That said, if I were to have raced myself. I would have initially passed myself only to be caught later in the TT. Is that a fair statement? Kinda amazing this PM stuff. If the above is true I will give it a shot in a race that really means something to me as my goal is to beat 58 minutes, weather permittting. If I feel the weather is comperable to the last TT where I did the 58 minutes and I fail, I will think differently about the usefulness of a PM and the people who promote them.

It appears that you believe that a constant power is the optimal pacing strategy for a TT. This is true only for a course that is board flat and with no wind. There are no such courses other than indoor track events.

After further reflection on your post, I think you are mixing two entirely different issues. One issue is the NP you are able to generate on a given day. The second issue is how effectively you deploy that NP on the course under the conditions. For example, I just rode a 17.5 mile hillclimb race that I had ridden on three practice rides. My race time was my best time, but not because I did the best job of pacing. In fact, my pacing was abysmal. My NP hour splits were 253/212. That's horrible, especially in light of the fact that the 2nd half of the course had the most slow sections (grade). The only reason I recorded my fastest time was because my NP was greater than my three previous rides. The only way to compare two pacing strategies is to compare two rides of the same course under the same environmental conditions at the same NP. If the NPs are different, the pacing strategies are non-comparable and you're wasting your time doing it (IMO).

First you'll have to tell me what NP stands for.

And second like I said, I have done a 40km practice TT, pacing myself with only a heartrate monitor. I held nothing back and I was in shear survival mode for at least the last 10km. This coming weekend I will do the same race only this time it counts. I'm planning on taking Ric's advice and to pace myself with my PM. Provided that the weather conditions are comparable the evidence will show the true result. This will not be something you have read about that takes place in a Lab, rather a true to life PM vs HRM challenge. We all read about the latest and greatest wheels or aerobars that give you seconds and we eat it up and spend our cash to gain some speed. In this case what we read in the above posting is forget about a disk wheel in favor of a PM. I think that is saying a mouth full, as we all know that a disk wheel is very advantageous when racing a TT. So we will see, as I'm a skeptic. Skeptics make the best believers.

NP means Normalized Power. NP was developed by Andy Coggan to represent the equivalent intensity (power) of a variable intensity (power) ride. The computation takes into account the ski-slope physiological relationship between blood lactate and power, whereby intensities above one's FT (functional threshold) are weighted more heavily than intensities below one's FT. An explanation can be found here http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/defined.html. NP is the only way I know of to compare two different rides of varying intensities. You get it for free with the Cycling Peaks software, which in itself justifies the purchase IMO.

The results of your two rides may tell you something, but I doubt that the results, regardless of which strategy results in the fastest time, will tell me anything. I have done my testing and I know two things: (1) I pace myself better with a PM than I do without a PM; and (2) a constant power pacing strategy on a variable terrain course is a sub-optimal pacing strategy.

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't think anybody here but you knows how well you pace yourself with your HRM vs. your PM. I have said repeatedly that it depends on the individual but that most of us do a better job of pacing ourselve with a PM. I'm not trying to convince you to pace yourself with a PM. I am simply sharing my knowledge and the results of my personal testing and experimentation. I don't think I am going to change your mind any more than I think I am going to change Stormer's mind, and I'm not going to try.

Most importantly, however you pace yourself, good luck in your TT.

Robert, i *think* you're replying to me (i could be wrong). If you are, this is *not* what i said.

I did not, anywhere, state about riding at a constant power (whether at 250 W or some other value).

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Nowhere did i mention about forgoing a disc for a power meter. I'm not sure if you thought my 1st message in this thread had a 'hidden' subtext, or not. i was responding to some specific questions that Woofer (i think) asked.

That is, i talked about paced and unpaced TTs (paced TT's needn't be at a constant pace/power, just a predetermined effort). I then talked about about why pros may not use PMs.

I then mentioned that i have data from an Olympic Champion, that shows he poorly controlled his power output. It was very up and down, when a more constant or less changeable pattern would have been best. That is nothing to do with RD's ideas (on variable pacing), simply that the rider started *waaaay* too hard and then he faded badly.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com