No tower, but we're talking power. What the hell, it's all the rage. Last night The Cronoman and JWR4 made the trek down from NH to attend the Rehoboth TT. Due to the typical nightmare traffic, and some circuituitous directions, they got there pretty late and had little time to warmup, let alone preview the course. I got there late late as well, and only warmed up by riding the TT bike for the eight minutes it took to get to the start. Once the lineup was established, I was able to do another ten minutes, some at LT pace, before heading to the line. My HR seemed to be elevating quite easily, see notes on tapering further down.
Yesterday Gewilli emailed me some power tap files from the fastest guy at the TT. Two weeks ago, when I rode my TT bike to a 16:59, this guy rode his full-aero rig to a blazing 16:06, averaging 380 watts for the duration. He is about my size, but his setup surpasses mine in terms of swoopiness (aero helmet and frame, better front wheel, etc). Using the tools at analyticcycling.com, I estimated that my ride would have required ~320 watts average to produce my speed on the TT bike. This calculation also seemed to correlate pretty well with the 18:05 I rode cannibal style last week (basically, I used .5 and .6 respectively for frontal area on the power calculator).
This week, the conditions may not have been as favorable. The temps were cooler, and possibly we had a mild headwind, but not much. The Cronoman is also exactly my size, and he rides similar wheels. He has a powertap wheel converted to a disc with shrinkable PVC, and it is slicker than it sounds. He sports an aero frame (GT Blade), but with his slam-back seatpost position, I am guessing we are roughly equal in terms of aerodynamics. He posted a 17:29 last night, averaging 323 watts. I rode a 17:28, which I think I can safely assume required about the same power.
So my estimates of the prior rides were not too far off. Maybe I put out 330 or so, as I think both rides were better than last night. Since the WMSR TT lay only five days away, I avoided digging too deep both mentally and physically. I experimented by starting a bit easier, staying in the 14 cog until a bit past halfway. The graphing showed that even though my cadence may have been a bit better, my speed suffered, yet my HR was about the same. For the last 5k I went to the 13 cog and hoped for a strong finish, but I never really got on top of the gear and felt like I was running out of gas at the end. My speed over this portion of the course was no better than last time sans aero equipment. Oh well.
Back to the taper. From June 10 to July 4th, I had 45+ hours on the bike in 24 days. I don't have the numbers right here in front of me, but there was a total of around six hours at 150 bpm (the bottom of zone 4, or sub-LT for me) and above, which works out to roughly 15 minutes/day average. Since July 5, I have only 6:15 on the bike (in 9 days), and 2:15 of it is at 150 bpm or above, and much of that was in zones 5C, 5B, and 5A. This is due to the total time being made up of two TT's, a real crit (Attleboro), and a training crit (Wompatuck). So, during my taper period, I got in the same 15 minutes/day average intensity as during my build, but basically eliminated 75% of the lower intensity time, replacing it with couch time. We will see how this works out next week. Last night I felt like maybe I didn't have a lot of reserve strength, but Tuesday night was pretty hard, so with only one day rest that was understandable. Since ceasing the running a month ago, my bike legs are much better in general, and my speed has improved.
I intend to follow Friel's "Race Period" advice and primarily just race, with one additional high intensity workout focusing on my strength (speed endurance) for the next month or so. I got a great massage Wednesday night, so right now I feel healthy, fresh, and fast. Here's hoping that it works... Thanks for reading.
We've been leading the anti power-meter crusade here. I am sure they are great and all, and yes, the data is interesting, but I don't think they are as "essential" as the proponents would have you believe.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the basic idea is that HR is not a solid indicator of effort, because your HR will vary based on numerous factors independent of the effort you are producing (fatigue, thermal stress, caffeine, etc). I've been doing this long enough to be able to judge my effort, so I know that when I'm tired I might only see 160 bpm going hard, where when I'm rested and it is 90 degrees out the same effort might make me see 174 bpm.
For things like this TT, which goes one way, the power meter might tell you that even though your time was slower, you put out more power, indicating a headwind (or maybe your brakes were rubbing). So that much is cool, but they are expensive and finicky, and all that.
Hmmm, I'm the wrong guy to ask about buying one used. Personally though, I've heard some complaints about a lack of waterproofing on the older units.
ReplyDeleteThen there is the question of having multiple bikes/wheels. If you have only one bike, but lots of wheels, the SRM style unit (in the crank) might be the way to go. They are expensive, out of my league. If you go with the powertap, you can get a harness for each bike, but then you need to either buy multiple wheels, or keep swapping it around.
For someone who doesn't already own an HRM, getting a powertap for $900 complete with wheel isn't too bad, considering a polar 720 with speed, cadence, and usb connector is going to run you $400 anyway.
I think the short TT like Rehoboth is a good indicator, except that it is not a loop or an out and back, so wind is a bigger factor. On a longer test, it is harder to maintain focus and a difference in your time might be from lack of effort. I like really short TT's like a 4 miler or the 4000 meter pursuit on the track. Then you're down around 5-10 minutes and can really rip it up and go anaerobic.
Not sure if I'll go to Fall River, depends how my legs feel tommorow. Good luck if you're there!
I plugged in there with the Analytical Forces on the rider stuff - power from speed...
ReplyDeletepulling my numbers - using the rise run of -0.002
and hazarding a guess that i'm so freaking big that i'm closer to 0.8 even in the drops/spinachis
using 100kg for bike and rider (maybe too low for me plus bike plus junk... but close)...
it puts me around 346watts for that duration... possible? maybe
biggest factor... what the hell is my frontal area. that's the only variable i can't nail down.
Cadence was around 80 or so (yeah too low)... but reasonable...
well until i've got the TT bike its all elementary spec on improving other than the engine...
oh its this bit:
Effective Frontal Area (0.4 to 0.7 is typical).
that makes me thing - i'm not typical... i've gotta be well beyond the 0.7 range... gotta be
yeah - simple enough...
ReplyDeleteone question:
open gate or closed gate ;)
Well, there is one other big factor. I've grown up on this hill, and riding it blindfolded wouldn't be much different than walking around my apartment in the dark. That's a huge advantage. Of course, if you go there and try to do a "preview" ride, then you'll probably be toasted for the "real" assault (especially with your gearing).
ReplyDeleteOn the bright side, this climb seems to reward low rpms. I've tried to spin up it, but it just doesn't seem to work as well as grinding it out. The pitch changes constantly, so that may have someting to do with it. Don't pick a hot one like today either...