Racing with Power
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2015-09-11 10:25 AM |
Oakville | Subject: Racing with Power I have an Olympic this weekend and will be racing for the first time using my power meter. Technically not my first race with power as my last race I recorded the power data but otherwise rode "blind". I am going to target 95% of my FTP, but what is a general guideline to go above your target for hills? Is there a maximum power that I should try to avoid exceeding for any sustained period? The course is rolling hills and the elevation profile is attached. I tried Best Bike Split but couldn't find this course on their database.
(Elevation.JPG) Attachments ---------------- Elevation.JPG (26KB - 7 downloads) |
|
2015-09-11 10:31 AM in reply to: Scott71 |
Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Generally, try to limit yourself to about FTP. You'll already by rather high up since it's short course, so not a lot of room. 95% seems a bit high for an Oly. Have you tried it before? |
2015-09-11 10:32 AM in reply to: Scott71 |
Elite 7783 PEI, Canada | Subject: RE: Racing with Power 95% for an Olympic sounds a bit aggressive to me. My coach always recommends limiting the time spent above FTP but for short hills of less than 60s then I can go 10-20w above FTP. For Best Bike Split, you can upload your own course (assuming you have it). Just recreate it in something like Strava, export the TCX (or GPX, I forget) and upload that to BBS. |
2015-09-11 10:55 AM in reply to: Scott71 |
Master 1793 Essex Jct, VT | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Assuming you have trained to go 95% of FTP for an hour or a bit longer than you can shoot for 10-20 watts over for short hills. I wouldn't do that for too long though. Spin up the long ones, though from the looks it doesn't appear to have crazy long climbs. I agree with the previous poster though. Considering this is your first race with watching the power meter, I would recommend something a bit more conservative. Set your lap function to 4 miles and keep your avg lap power close to 85-90%. Good luck in your race. |
2015-09-11 11:45 AM in reply to: rsmoylan |
Oakville | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Thanks for the advice everyone. I've done 3 modified Sprints this summer with a 30 km bike split but raced by heart rate and RPE. 95% might be a bit aggressive so I'll go a little more conservative for the first half and then see how I feel after 20 kms. The 4 mile lap function is a great idea! For current power, do you pay attention to 3 sec, 10 sec or 30 sec averaging? |
2015-09-11 11:50 AM in reply to: axteraa |
Oakville | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by axteraa For Best Bike Split, you can upload your own course (assuming you have it). Just recreate it in something like Strava, export the TCX (or GPX, I forget) and upload that to BBS. Thanks for the tip. I tried to upload the file from Map My Ride (after converting to both GPX and FIT) but it didn't work. |
|
2015-09-11 11:54 AM in reply to: Scott71 |
Pro 6582 Melbourne FL | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Nothing terribly steep there so spin up at a max of FTP, no need to burn up before the run. Are you sure racing at 95% is ideal? How long are you expecting to be on the course? |
2015-09-11 12:01 PM in reply to: Scott71 |
Elite 3683 Whispering Pines, North Carolina | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by Scott71 Thanks for the advice everyone. I've done 3 modified Sprints this summer with a 30 km bike split but raced by heart rate and RPE. 95% might be a bit aggressive so I'll go a little more conservative for the first half and then see how I feel after 20 kms. The 4 mile lap function is a great idea! For current power, do you pay attention to 3 sec, 10 sec or 30 sec averaging? Agree on going low 90% for an olympic...remember, you still gotsta run! As for current power, the 30s power is probably best, IMO, bc it doesn't fluctuate as much. Use the others as a gauge, to help with short efforts (hills, passing, etc) Good luck!. |
2015-09-11 12:12 PM in reply to: Donto |
Oakville | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by Donto Are you sure racing at 95% is ideal? How long are you expecting to be on the course? Yeah, after a few online searches 95% seems to be the high end of the spectrum for those with experience at the Olympic. I have a suspicion that my FTP is low (I really hate testing) so if I target 90% it may actually be closer to 85%. Will be playing this one pretty loose and plan to start out on the lower end and adjust as I go based on RPE and heart rate. I think I'll be under 1:10, and optimistically hoping for closer to 1:05, but who knows. The course has a history of being windy this time of year so that throws any time estimate out the window. |
2015-09-11 12:38 PM in reply to: Scott71 |
Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by Scott71 For current power, do you pay attention to 3 sec, 10 sec or 30 sec averaging? Whichever works best for you in what you want out of the shorter duration averaging. Some may rationalize one over another, but that's what works for them. I don't use any of these three, but am very much an exception. |
2015-09-11 12:53 PM in reply to: 0 |
Master 2406 Bellevue, WA | Subject: RE: Racing with Power For an Olympic, yes I would target 90-95% FTP. I've been racing with a power meter for years, and I no longer believe in the flat steady constant power output concept. There are a few good articles on this recently. Yes Allen and Coggan's Training and Racing with a Power Meter talks about steady output and normalized power etc. like it's the One Truth of power meters. It might be for someone else, but riding with more variability has made my rides more enjoyable and given me my best bike performances in years. I have an FTP of 165 or so. For IM distance, I'll usually push the flats at 120-130 watts and hills at 250 watts. I will also cruise the descents at 80-100 watts. I had a really solid bike performance at IM Boulder this year doing that. Basically I work harder on hills and rest more on descents. At Boulder I had an average wattage of 118, fairly low, but still a 6:22 which put me slightly behind mid-pack for my age group. And my run was in the top third at 5 hours or so. For my half at Steamboat Springs, I hit it a lot harder with an average of 137 watts. That was at 7000' altitude and low 80s, with some climbs but mostly rollers. For a flat near Olympic distance race I did in July, I did the 20 miles at 161 watts average, in 1:04. So that Olympic was basically an FTP test, and I followed that with a 56 minute 10K. BTW I do use 10 second averaging. 30 seconds doesn't show the rollers well - too long an interval - and 3 seconds wobbles like crazy. Edited by brucemorgan 2015-09-11 1:00 PM |
|
2015-09-11 2:20 PM in reply to: Donto |
Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by Donto Nothing terribly steep there so spin up at a max of FTP, no need to burn up before the run. Are you sure racing at 95% is ideal? How long are you expecting to be on the course? Emphasis on the bolded. FTP is a function of intensity and time...NOT DISTANCE. Just because someone else can hold X% of FTP for 24.8 miles and still run well for 10k afterwards it doesn't mean you can too. Knowing how long you plan to be out on the course is a critical factor that most people overlook. A pro or top AGer who only plans to be out on the bike for 60 minutes and only run for 35 minutes can bike at a much higher intensity (or % of FTP) because their overall effort is of shorter time or duration. Compare that you your typical AGer who may be on the bike course for 70-75 minutes, and be running for 45-55 minutes and you have to dial back the effort if you expect not to blow up before the finish line. FTP is roughly one hour power regardless of whether or not your are a 1:55ish Oly guy or a 2:45ish Oly guy. So pick your % of FTP appropriately. Best of luck. FWIW, when I was doing tris I was around a 2:20 Oly for a pretty flat course. I would usually target around 88-91% of FTP...but that's also because I'm not a very good runner and I needed to save more energy for the run since I would be out there for over 45 minutes. |
2015-09-11 2:31 PM in reply to: Scott71 |
over a barrier | Subject: RE: Racing with Power I really only put a cap on power in 1/2 IM or IM. I mainly ride by feel for shorter distance with the PM being used a whip. |
2015-09-11 2:35 PM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by Scott71 Yeah, after a few online searches 95% seems to be the high end of the spectrum for those with experience at the Olympic. I have a suspicion that my FTP is low (I really hate testing) so if I target 90% it may actually be closer to 85%. Originally posted by Scott71 my last race I recorded the power data but otherwise rode "blind". First of all I believe you tested CP and not FTP ? While they are close, they are not identical. Since you don't know either with accuracy, I would not use them since you have something better : power from a previous race. If you ran well with previous power, crank that up a bit. If not, notch it down. If your fitness has improved, turn it up. Edited by marcag 2015-09-11 2:52 PM |
2015-09-11 3:00 PM in reply to: marcag |
Oakville | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by marcag Since you don't know either with accuracy, I would not use them since you have something better : power from a previous race. If you ran well with previous power, crank that up a bit. If not, notch it down. If your fitness has improved, turn it up. Unfortunately, the power data is from a Sprint distance so not sure how to use it for an Olympic. It had a few rolling hills but was otherwise a relatively flat course - Average Power was 239, Normalized Power was 249 and VI was 1.041. I had one of the best splits for the 5 km run off the bike ever and not that far off my PB for an open 5 km (Garmin was reading just over 5 kms, so the course was pretty accurate). Based on how I felt after the bike, I could have pushed a few higher watts. You're right though, when I did my last test it was CP not FTP. I have been training using 245 but believe that it probably is higher. |
2015-09-11 3:08 PM in reply to: Scott71 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by Scott71 Originally posted by marcag Since you don't know either with accuracy, I would not use them since you have something better : power from a previous race. If you ran well with previous power, crank that up a bit. If not, notch it down. If your fitness has improved, turn it up. Unfortunately, the power data is from a Sprint distance so not sure how to use it for an Olympic. It had a few rolling hills but was otherwise a relatively flat course - Average Power was 239, Normalized Power was 249 and VI was 1.041. I had one of the best splits for the 5 km run off the bike ever and not that far off my PB for an open 5 km (Garmin was reading just over 5 kms, so the course was pretty accurate). Based on how I felt after the bike, I could have pushed a few higher watts. You're right though, when I did my last test it was CP not FTP. I have been training using 245 but believe that it probably is higher. I would probably knock about 5% off that sprint power for the Oly |
|
2015-09-13 1:43 PM in reply to: Scott71 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by Scott71 I have an Olympic this weekend and will be racing for the first time using my power meter. I would be curious what you rode at. Someone with your name, in your province won their AG today :-) |
2015-09-13 2:48 PM in reply to: marcag |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by Scott71 I would be curious what you rode at. Someone with your name, in your province won their AG today :-) I have an Olympic this weekend and will be racing for the first time using my power meter. I'm a little late to the party, but I'm curious too. I was going to say that assuming his FTP is relatively accurate, his fitness is high enough, and he's tapered, aiming for a Normalized Power of 95% FTP isn't too high. 90% is more appropriate if the athlete has a lower fitness level, there's any question about the accuracy of the FTP number, or if they're not rested. Also, I didn't see anyplace where anyone mentioned it, but NP should be used, not AP for race pacing.
|
2015-09-13 6:18 PM in reply to: marcag |
Oakville | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by Scott71 I would be curious what you rode at. Someone with your name, in your province won their AG today :-) I have an Olympic this weekend and will be racing for the first time using my power meter. Yeah, I placed 1st in my AG despite a slow swim and the worst T1 of my tri career (nothing new on race day... I should have practiced putting on arm warmers when wet). I guess all the fast racers were getting ready for Barrelman and Chicago next weekend. But I'll take it! AP was 230 and NP was 239. I was targeting between 220 and 230 watts but it was hard to hold any steady power due to the rolling hills and heavy winds, so did the majority of the race by RPE and would occasionally check power. Don - thanks for clarification. I set the data field to AP per lap (auto lap at 5 kms), not NP. Below is the summary of the ride. I learned a lot from Marc and Shane in the Power Mentor Group and how to train with power, but not sure how to analyze a power file after a race. Anything jump out from this race? I felt really good off the bike (other than running on numb feet for the first km or so) and my run was about 20 seconds / km slower than my open 10 km times. I've been training with an FTP of 245 watts. Should I bump this up a bit? (Lakeside Oly '15.JPG) Attachments ---------------- 2015-09-13-09-10-02.fit (107KB - 4 downloads) Lakeside Oly '15.JPG (48KB - 6 downloads) |
2015-09-13 6:39 PM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Racing with Power couple of things Congratulations. A win and a especially a great run is amazing I disagree with targeting a NP during the race or pacing by NP. I would leave AP splits on the Garmin. For planning of a race, NP may have a role, during the race it doesn't. Your FTP is definitely too low. To hit an IF over 1 is not likely Are you sure you have it set to 245 ? I think it's set to 235. Either way, I think it's higher, probably closer to 260ish. Your HR is wrong. Average is too low, decoupling makes no sense. You may be able to get some aerodynamic numbers with the power file. Vi is of 1.03 is pretty good for a rolling course. Most important : you ran well. Really well. Setting up a good run is what counts. Edited by marcag 2015-09-13 6:50 PM |
2015-09-13 6:49 PM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Racing with Power |
|
2015-09-13 8:25 PM in reply to: marcag |
Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by marcag couple of things Congratulations. A win and a especially a great run is amazing I disagree with targeting a NP during the race or pacing by NP. I would leave AP splits on the Garmin. For planning of a race, NP may have a role, during the race it doesn't. I'm unsure of what you meant here. I generally agree with not using NP for lapping so much as it's more of an overall thing. But can't really tell what was meant for anything else. |
2015-09-14 7:28 AM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by marcag couple of things Congratulations. A win and a especially a great run is amazing I disagree with targeting a NP during the race or pacing by NP. I would leave AP splits on the Garmin. For planning of a race, NP may have a role, during the race it doesn't. I'm unsure of what you meant here. I generally agree with not using NP for lapping so much as it's more of an overall thing. But can't really tell what was meant for anything else. During race planning I don’t think your primary goal is to establish an average power or normalized power. You pick a power, say 90% for an Olympic. You then adjust that power for different scenarios. Short and long hill targets, a bit above going uphill (with a cap), trying to hold as much as you can coming down, what to do in a head wind, tail wind etc. But besides the downhill where you have little control over it, you try to ride close to the target for that specific scenario. Most people don’t even have the ability to know what their NP will be if they adopt such a strategy. IMO, few, if any AGers can do a NP of 95% of FTP on an Oly. During execution, chasing averages or normalized targets is a mistake IME. Try to hit the immediate power levels set out in your strategy and AP or NP will end up where it ends up. NP is inaccurate over shorter laps. Trying to bring your NP up or down will just cause you to overshoot and undershoot your power levels. Just try to hit your instantaneous targets. If you are doing long distance, looking at NP over long times frames is ok, but certainly not at Oly and less. At the end, analyze it and adjust it for next race. But I do not see how setting a NP target of 95% of FTP is either practical or possible in many race situations. Don't set targets as an AP or NP. Set guidelines and caps for different scenarios, and execute on them. Just an opinion Edited by marcag 2015-09-14 7:30 AM |
2015-09-14 8:35 AM in reply to: marcag |
Elite 3779 Ontario | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by brigby1 During race planning I don’t think your primary goal is to establish an average power or normalized power. You pick a power, say 90% for an Olympic. You then adjust that power for different scenarios. Short and long hill targets, a bit above going uphill (with a cap), trying to hold as much as you can coming down, what to do in a head wind, tail wind etc. But besides the downhill where you have little control over it, you try to ride close to the target for that specific scenario. Most people don’t even have the ability to know what their NP will be if they adopt such a strategy. IMO, few, if any AGers can do a NP of 95% of FTP on an Oly. During execution, chasing averages or normalized targets is a mistake IME. Try to hit the immediate power levels set out in your strategy and AP or NP will end up where it ends up. NP is inaccurate over shorter laps. Trying to bring your NP up or down will just cause you to overshoot and undershoot your power levels. Just try to hit your instantaneous targets. If you are doing long distance, looking at NP over long times frames is ok, but certainly not at Oly and less. At the end, analyze it and adjust it for next race. But I do not see how setting a NP target of 95% of FTP is either practical or possible in many race situations. Don't set targets as an AP or NP. Set guidelines and caps for different scenarios, and execute on them. Just an opinion Originally posted by marcag couple of things Congratulations. A win and a especially a great run is amazing I disagree with targeting a NP during the race or pacing by NP. I would leave AP splits on the Garmin. For planning of a race, NP may have a role, during the race it doesn't. I'm unsure of what you meant here. I generally agree with not using NP for lapping so much as it's more of an overall thing. But can't really tell what was meant for anything else. Marc - wouldn't you expect NP to be useful, even at Oly distance, on a rolling/hilly course? Especially if you display both NP and AP next to seach other so you can get a very good idea of VI just by eyeballing the numbers. For what it's worth a lap on my Garmin is 5km. As you mentioned, I think NP is more useful on a longer course, but had assumed you would display some of the variations in a shorter ride if nailing the uphills and coasting down the other side (though that goes to your comment on hitting your immediate power levels). |
2015-09-14 9:02 AM in reply to: marcag |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Racing with Power Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by brigby1 During race planning I don’t think your primary goal is to establish an average power or normalized power. You pick a power, say 90% for an Olympic. You then adjust that power for different scenarios. Short and long hill targets, a bit above going uphill (with a cap), trying to hold as much as you can coming down, what to do in a head wind, tail wind etc. But besides the downhill where you have little control over it, you try to ride close to the target for that specific scenario. Most people don’t even have the ability to know what their NP will be if they adopt such a strategy. IMO, few, if any AGers can do a NP of 95% of FTP on an Oly. During execution, chasing averages or normalized targets is a mistake IME. Try to hit the immediate power levels set out in your strategy and AP or NP will end up where it ends up. NP is inaccurate over shorter laps. Trying to bring your NP up or down will just cause you to overshoot and undershoot your power levels. Just try to hit your instantaneous targets. If you are doing long distance, looking at NP over long times frames is ok, but certainly not at Oly and less. At the end, analyze it and adjust it for next race. But I do not see how setting a NP target of 95% of FTP is either practical or possible in many race situations. Don't set targets as an AP or NP. Set guidelines and caps for different scenarios, and execute on them. Just an opinion Originally posted by marcag couple of things Congratulations. A win and a especially a great run is amazing I disagree with targeting a NP during the race or pacing by NP. I would leave AP splits on the Garmin. For planning of a race, NP may have a role, during the race it doesn't. I'm unsure of what you meant here. I generally agree with not using NP for lapping so much as it's more of an overall thing. But can't really tell what was meant for anything else. I agree that it's not practical to chase a NP while riding. What I was talking about was using it when discussing % of FTP for racing and as a guide for building your race strategy. It's a method for picking the 90% number you suggest above. Also, 95% of FTP for an Oly is the top end for most people, but that's NP of 95% of FTP, not AP, which will always be lower. I agree that most AGer's will be better off closer to 90% NP. That's why I qualified my original response. The reason to start with NP rather than AP, is because it's a tool to adjust the targeted AP based on the course. It's going to be roughly the same as a % of FTP regardless of the course profile (assuming other variables remain the same). Consider this situation: An athlete raced their best Oly at an NP of 93% of their known FTP on a pancake flat course. The VI should be very low, and AP is going to be very close to the same as NP. Let's say it is 92% of FTP. Now, that same athlete has a race coming up that's very hilly. If they try to target an AP of 92% of FTP again, as they maintained on the flat course, they're probably going to blow up on the run, because the VI will be higher, pushing it up too close to FTP, and burning too many matches on the bike. So, starting with the NP of 93% that worked well on the flat course, adjust for the anticipated VI (let's say 1.07 to 1.1) 93% / 1.1 = 85% AP and 93% / 1.07 = 87% AP. This gives a starting point when developing the race plan for the hilly course of an AP of 85%-87% FTP. From there, the details of the plan is developed the way Marc describes it. I know you know this stuff inside & out, Marc, so you probably take all this into account almost unconsciously, but for the less experienced power user, I think it's good to understand the concepts, otherwise they ride one race at 220w and run well, try to hold that same AP on the next one, and they blow up, but have no idea what happened. I know some argue that there are other tools more sophisticated than using AP, NP, and VI, but IMO, they're still good enough for the average AGer. Combining them with real world experience, like Marc does works well.
|
|
for those that race with power Pages: 1 2 3 4 | |||
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|