SolarEnergy said:
Could you develop on what these reasons might be?
On track, I guess pacing can be time based?
Never done any track, but in the pool we pace ourselves using a huge 4arrow clock. They'd give me the choice between power and time base pacing, I'd certainly pick time based.
Would trackers use such a clock to pace based on lap splits?
3 main reasons:
1. Self pacing in an event like this is not Jays strong suit. So a method by which I would provide feedback: visual (large printed cards showing lap splits to 0.1 sec); verbal (shouting "easy", "steady", "good", that's good", "spot on" etc); hand signals; and
a lap split pacing strategy that both rider and coach were very clear on. We knew based on environmental conditions and previous training what made sense and what didn't on the day and we adjusted accordingly.
2. Jays needed to focus on being consistent, and chasing power meter numbers is not the way to do that. Even on a supposedly dead flat TT, power still fluctuates, especially in/out of bends, and all that does is make one even more variable as they chase their power tails. So lap splits made more sense and was effectively providing him with an "18-19 second rolling average" of his effort. Much better to make moderations to effort when you are thinking about a change in effort over a whole lap or so rather than over a few seconds. Once I took the PCV out of sight, Jays leaned to pace very, very consistently using my cues.
I knew that he would be up and down on laps splits at the start but it would settle with strong feeback from me. Once into a rhythm, he could than make very subtle changes to effort and that would adjust lap times to suit. Indeed he often said that if he drifted out by 0.1-0.2 he wouldn't necessarily pedal harder but turtle a fraction more than typically comfortable for a lap or two and without trying he would bring lap times down again while he got back to concentrating on pedalling.
3. Aerodynamics, on 3 fronts:
i. most importantly, whenever the meter was on the bars, however hard we tried, Jays would keep looking at it and that would tilt the rear of his helmet up into the air. Not good.
ii positioning of PCV on the bars we settled on (a BC design) meant some compromises in comfort/position etc and it was primarily important that his position was perfect for him. It also meant wiring was more exposed, compared to the saddle mount position where the wiring could run up the inside of the curved seat tube, well out of the air flow.
iii while I can't say for certain, the way I mounted the PCV under the saddle, it almost became an extension of the aero shaped seat tube and I can't think it did any damage to his aero