What about TTs by NP Category? - Page 2

Right. And, in the meantime, build a bigger engine.

Thanks for mentioning that, and I certainly wasn't trying to demean MIT or the students that go there. MIT is just a school that I hear about as being a top contender in technology-application type contests such as solar-power vehicles, robotics, etc. where the crux of the competition revolves around complex problem solving.

On the contrary, if the bracketing were extended low enough then they might do quite well based on ingenuity and technology alone.

Power-bracketed TTs are a fun idea to think about, but I think they would attract a whole different class of specialist athlete if they ever became popular. I don't think the conventional racing cyclists would have much use for them.

Best of luck. Let us know how it goes.

While there may be some students who fit that description, they would be a small minority as shown here: http://web.mit.edu/facts/athletics.shtml
" MIT sponsors the broadest intercollegiate athletic program in the country, with 41 varsity teams (21 for men, 17 for women, 3 coeducational). MIT competes mainly against Division III New England colleges and Ivy League schools, but also routinely participates in regional and national tournaments and championships. There are more than 20 intramural programs, with over 1,000 teams and a 75 percent undergraduate participation rate. "
and
"MIT has earned 119 All-America citations, the highest total among any Division III program in the nation."

OK, I've been trying to refine our intellectual exercise. Since you found my handicap idea to have some merit, we can make this work without powermeters. The "trick" is we need to have a "pre-event" 3-mile TT (think of it as a prologue). 3 miles should take between 7 and 8 minutes, too short for strategies, so with the exception of someone sandbagging, it should be a fairly good analog for power. Then for each rider, we use our handy laptop computer to calculate avg speed for the 3 miles, and scale that up to the predicted finishing time for our full-scale TT (I would extrapolate linearly without trying to get too sophisticated). Then we start the slowest rider off first, the second rider goes off at the "differential" predicted vs. the first rider (i.e. if we expect him to be 10 seconds faster over the distance, he starts 10 seconds after the first rider), etc. Fastest rider goes last, exactly as long as the difference between his and the slowest predicted finish. If our handicapping were perfect, everyone hits the finish line at the same time. Except in the longer event, endurance, pacing, etc. all come into play, so there should be some spreading out. And we stick a video camera at the finish, to sort out those who do come in almost simultaneously (just as we have a camera at most of the mass-start races I ride). Finishing order is then exactly the order in which riders cross the line, although of course we record a time for each. Seems to me to have two nice features: the handicapping gives the slower (less powerful) rider a shot at a high placing, and faster riders have potentially a steady stream of "targets" to chase down. Plus no waiting around at the finish for a last rider, you know your relative placing almost immediately. And if you do this as part of a series, you can use each TT to handicap the next one, essentially eliminating the sandbagging. You know, if someone ran one of these in NJ, even I, the pathetically underpowered TT rider, might give it a shot!

Well, it might get a little crowded as one approaches the finish line, don't you think? But, let's stay with this handicapping idea. Maybe we should borrow an idea from skiing. Ski races used to be just for good skiers. Unless you were pretty good, you weren't competitive. Then, in 1968 Ski Magazine invented the NASTAR (National Standard Races) program, to provide a competition forum for average skiers. They have a handicapping system, based on a time standard for each specific course for a world-class racer. The equivalent of a Lance Armstrong time, if you will. You're racing against this time, but with a handicap adjustment based on your actual ability. The NASTAR program is described here http://www.nastar.com/index.jsp?pagename=home. This program has been hugely successful. Last year 94,000 people competed in NASTAR races. I wonder how that compares with the number who competed in cycling races? There have to be many more people who ride bikes than ski. There should be many more people who compete in bike races than in ski races, based on the respective population of participants. NASTAR states their mission as follows: "Our mission is simple - to provide a fun, competitive and easily accessible racing program that, through the development of a handicap system, allows racers of all ages and abilities a means to compare themselves with one another regardless of when and where they race." That sounds like a reasonable mission statement for a new type of bike racing program, no?