What about TTs by NP Category?

Now that Andy Coggan has developed a way of normalizing a variable power ride (NP), what do you think about a new type of TT race, in which the categories would be based on a max NP? Many sports such as auto racing have race categories limited by power. Presently, bicycle racing categories are based on experience and performance. But, power is the main discriminator in the races themselves -- the cyclist with the most power usually wins. What if racers in a category were disqualified if their NP exceeded the category limit? For example, if the NP category is 250, you would be disqualified if you rode the course at NP=251 or above. Presently, there are about 8-10 race categories for each sex if you include Cats 1-5 and Masters categories. You could have a similar or even smaller number of NP categories and encompass everybody including novices. For example, 200, 230, 260, 290, 320, 350 and Unlimited. You would have to have a PM and would download the workout file upon completion of the race. If your NP exceeds your category limit, you are disqualified. Your category would be self-selected, but there would be no real advantage to race in a category below your potential. It would become a race in which skill and expertise in managing one's power becomes at least as important as absolute power, somewhat like an automobile rally. At the moment, there is one disadvantage -- everyone would have to have a PM. But, as they become more common, this disadvantage will gradually disappear. I realize it's a pretty far out idea, but it occurred to me and I thought I would throw it out there for comment. I have my flak jacket on.

SRM users could increase the slope setting so that they read low. PT users could disable the torque autozero or otherwise monkey with it.

Also, wouldn't this just become an aerodynamics contest?

If anything, race categories should be by age, sex, and perhaps amount of training.

As to the opportunity to cheat, that exists in every sport. Cyclists (and runners and swimmers and ...) can use illegal substances to gain more power, golfers can move their ball and not declare it or play with a bogus handicap in handicap matches, and on and on. And some will do it just as some cheat today -- if it doesn't bother them to gain an advantage by breaking the rules, I'm sure they will carry that same attitude to this form of competition. At some point we have rules and expect competitors to abide by them. As to aerodynamics, that's part of the skill aspect, plus power management. It just makes it less of a contest of who has the biggest engine. Presently, in every category including Cat5, if you don't have a lot of power you are not competitive. This excludes a lot of cyclists who, for reasons of lack of time for training or lack of years of training or whatever, don't have a lot of power. I'm not suggesting this as an exclusive category of racing any more than the standard ski races introduced in the 1970s were the exclusive form of ski racing. I'm looking at a way to level the playing field for more cyclists to enjoy competing because they have a chance to be competitive in their category.

Cute idea...

How about NP X Mass^0.67?

Kinda makes it a test of efficiency rather than ability. Those type of contests seem much more technical and less interesting, IMO. Might be a good way to get MIT students interested in bike racing though...

That's a good idea.

Well, there would be multiple categories by NP, including "Unlimited," so if you have a lot of power and want to go head to head with others who have a lot of power you can go at it. But, the main point is that there would be several brackets for those with less power and they would be competing against each other with raw power sort of "neutralized." Aerodynamics and pacing would be key, both of which are components of ability in my view. Virtually every form of auto racing has horsepower limitations in each class (plus Unlimited). The drivers are competing with skill and tactics and not just raw horsepower -- they can't just show up with the biggest engine and blow everybody away. I think what it would do is open up a category of racing to those who simply have less power. Today, if you don't have much power there isn't a single category in which you can be competitive. What if your FT was 220w? I realize it may be hard for you to imagine that, but just think about it for a minute. In what racing category could you be competitive? It would do for bike racing what handicaps do for golf matches -- put competitors on a level playing field.

It would require an even heavier capital investment in equipment than cycling normally does, which would be a disadvantage. It would also require a lot of technical understanding that might make it difficult. However, the flipside of this is that it would be an excellent way to work on skills that might be lacking in an otherwise strong (physically capable) rider. That said, being able to pace below your maximum NP may or may not correlate with being able to pace at full race pace - going all out may harm the ability to think straight.

Don't you think most people would race in their NP category? Let's say it's a 20K TT and my 20K FT is 220w. If there's a 230w category, I would probably race in that category and try to go all out. But, at least I would be racing against others who don't outclass me by 50w. Why would I want to race "down" in the 200w category? Of course, if my FT was 210w, I would probably race in the 200w category and would just have to be careful managing my power. Again, the big picture is to allow a lot of cyclists to be competitive in a race category whereas today they have no chance because they just don't have enough power. It's like drag racing. A stock Chevy doesn't have a chance against a 7K horsepower blown alky slingshot dragster. But, it does have a chance against other stock cars of comparable power.

RD: I think that if you want to stick with the automotive analogy, there are two different models. Formula1 and many sports car races are defined by min weight and max displacement, not horsepower. The engineering challenge is to get the most horsepower from the given engine size. Remarkably similar to cycling, especially if you split your TT categories by rider weight, not power. (You see, in my view of the sport, power is what we train for, but the likelihood of a lightweight like me developing the same raw power as those of you who outweigh me by 30 pounds is low, i.e. I would have to hit a much higher watts/kg standard to match you on flat to rolling courses, given that our frontal areas are not so different; so I would go for weight classes). But back to cars. In American stock car racing, the fastest tracks are restrictor-plate races, where the horsepower is pretty much equalized. From what I read the drivers hate those races, because it all comes down to slipstreaming (and the appropriate "nudging".) Your proposal puts a premium on aerodynamics (which becomes more and more how much money you're willing to spend on aero bars, wheels, frame, etc.) and power distribution (which would obviously appeal to your analytical side, esp. given your work on variable power strategies). Bottom line, I tend to side with Frenchgye, and feel that segregating by power kind of takes the point out of racing. I would rather split by factors over which we have little control (gender, age, weight within limits) rather than the factors which we train for, in the case of TTs, power. You're right that someone with low power will have trouble competing, but then you don't see many 5'8" basketball players, 200 lb marathoners, etc. - the reality is that not all sports are for all people. In fact, your last sentence "It would do for bike racing what handicaps do for golf matches" suggests another approach, with much less technology requirement - simply start the TT riders at handicap intervals, just like we used to do with road races in the "pre category" days. [By the way, and this really belongs in another thread, I've been reading some of the post-race interviews from the World Championship Elite TT, and while it is hard to tell a lot from them, they don't sound like variable power strategies - simply start within yourself and keep picking it up until the finish line - pretty much what Mick Rogers said after he won his third World TT championship in a row.]

No, I don't think that at all. Just as stockers will sandbag *a little* to be at the top of their class, I think riders would have more incentive to work on their pacing and aero then to develop their ability to generate power. If my FT is 230w, then I know I can do better in the 200-220w bracket because 1) I can top out the bracket in terms of power, and 2) I can ride below my all-out max, which helps my pacing. I just put the meter on Avg Watts when I get to .25 miles from the finish, and if I'm a little too high then I coast across the line to make sure I don't break out of the bracket.

Like I said, that kind of racing would be like racing solar powered vehicles. It'd be great for MIT students who would rather think their way through the race than ride a bike all winter trying to get fit. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just think it makes for a less interesting 'race'.

Also, I'd be willing to bet that there are Cat 4's who have FT's of ~220w. They're out there sitting in and having fun. I've worked pretty hard to get my power to where it is, so I wouldn't be too excited to have the playing field suddenly 'leveled' for the people who don't work as hard but have a lot of expensive aero gear.

Actually, I sort of like the handicap idea, which would indeed address the level playing field issue. You don't even need to start riders at different intervals. You can just apply a time adjustment to their time, based on their official FT. The time adjustment would be a function of the specific course on that day, encompassing the course and the conditions. In fact, someone of average height and weight could ride the course at a constant power (e.g., 250w) to determine the appropriate adjustment. There would of course be cheaters who would under-declare their FT, but just as in golf they would be slapped with a year-long penalty if they come in at a time too far outside of their potential if their FT is real. If they really sandbag it, the regional director could just strip their license for a year. And, just as in golf, there could be no-handicap categories that are just mano-a-mano.

I'm not surprised. VP pacing is complex and difficult to execute. CP is way easier and less risky. But, the merits of VP pacing are unambiguous and provable. I sort of enjoy the challenge of figuring out how to develop and execute the "perfect pacing plan." I'm the guy who would have looked up at the moon back in the 1950s and say, "I'd really like to go up there and see what's there." Eighteen people would immediately say, "We don't have the technology to go there, we don't have a vehicle, engine, navigation, communications, etc., etc." To which I would respond, "Well, it looks like we have some problems to solve." VP pacing is way easier than getting to the moon.

This is the second time you've mentioned MIT students, I guess as a point of "brain over brawn". MIT has a cycling "club" (i.e. non-recognized) team, though I don't know how competitive they are, but a large portion of the student body is sedentary and would likely fall into the lowest possible power bracket. These students would be out of contention regardless of how hard they thought. On the other hand, there is high participation in intramural sports, where winning is emphasized (though not usually to the point of outright cheating). Power-bracketed TTs would probably be "gamed" (i.e. deliberate slowing to stay within a bracket) in order to 1) assure high placing in 2) the highest guaranteed bracket.

I'm hoping to "race" against some friends at the beginning of next season. At the moment, it seems that they have more power available, though not a drastic advantage. I plan to increase my power available for the relevant time/distance, precisely map the course, and deploy a VP strategy. If the weather stays nice until my PT gets here, we might see how useful analytics is without training.

Cool. By then, I just might be able to help you with the "perfect pacing plan." My work is a bit kludgey at the moment -- as frenchyge can testify, sort of "Use at your own risk!" Let me know as you approach the date. I may have a more user-friendly version running.

Of course, the higher NP classes would offer better prizes, (prettier podium girls?) so if enought guys sandbagged to do better in the lower classes, then that would open up opportunities in the upper NP classes. Actually that's sort of how our weekly crits go here. A strong rider could come in and blow away the 5's but there wouldnt be much to brag on for him. I, on the other hand could feel pretty proud of doing well in the 5's or 4's. So I think it would work itself out. We've just gotta wait till everyone has PM's.