Pacing strategy; how to get it right

[Festina_Lente]

I've written a piece on pacing strategy in cycling that could be very useful to any new cyclists.

If you get a grasp of the 'the engine' the rest follows.

 

[helston90]

An interesting piece- having never paid it any attention before- I may have to read a bit more into it all after I hit the wall at 1hr 50 and 36 miles covered the other day, I wondered what I could do.
I'm glad at the end you acknowledge it could be a complete nerd fest!

 

[Rob3rt]

The article is crud, it doesn't tell the reader anything. Further, could you post your content on the forum rather than just dropping a load of links to generate traffic to your website!

 

[Festina_Lente]

I've printed it of here http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/i-wrote-a-few-tips-on-pacing-in-cycling.139385/#post-2644791

Not sure what category is most relevant for it.

It's a shame you didn't find it useful Rob!

 

[Rob3rt]

I've printed it of here http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/i-wrote-a-few-tips-on-pacing-in-cycling.139385/#post-2644791

Not sure what category is most relevant for it.

It's a shame you didn't find it useful Rob!

How could I find it useful, you didn't tell the reader anything! Your website says you are a professional cyclist and coach, so assuming you do have knowledge and experience, your article simply does not reflect this, to me it reads like a draft of something produced by any old Joe after about 3 minutes of reading wikipedia. It is poorly written and not informative. I am not being a debbie downer just for the sake of being unpleasant (although I was quite short initially as the link whoring irritates me), I genuinely think it is a poor read and if I was a potential client, I would be put off as I think it reflects badly on you as a professional cyclist and coach.

 

[Festina_Lente]

How could I find it useful, you didn't tell the reader anything! Your website says you are a professional cyclist and coach, so assuming you do have knowledge and experience, your article simply does not reflect this, to me it reads like something produced by any old Joe after about 3 minutes of reading wikipedia.

Rob, you can share your knowledge on the topic also. What would you add to help people getting into cycling and racing?

From my professional perspective I can tell that it's surprising how many experienced cyclists mess this up and how many don't understand or chose to ignore their limitations. I include myself in the later.

 

[Rob3rt]

Rob, you can share your knowledge on the topic also. What would you add to help people getting into cycling and racing?

From my professional perspective I can tell that it's surprising how many experienced cyclists mess this up and how many don't understand or chose to ignore their limitations. I include myself in the later.

That is my point, from your "professional" position you should be able to construct a better article. Otherwise your "professional perspective" looks rather worthless. Any written piece you present should show potential clients that you have a wealth of knowledge that they can benefit from, and most importantly, that you can communicate this knowledge to them, your text fails on both accounts. Your article basically says "I am going to talk about pacing, there are some things that influence pacing, I am not going to tell you anything about them, here are some constants and equations I lifted from wikipedia, although any high school kid should already know them, if you are nerd, you can do some good maths".

You are correct, I could share my thoughts on pacing, however producing even a modestly concise, well researched and well written paper takes time, it is not something that can be knocked together in 5 minutes (as your article reads as if it was), this is time I don't have to spare. Additionally, I would rather just point people to books or peer reviewed papers, by authors with credence, that are likely to be useful. However I am happy to offer my perspective on any specific questions, where I feel I have something to add!

 

[Festina_Lente]

It is poorly written and not informative. I am not being a debbie downer just for the sake of being unpleasant (although I was quite short initially as the link whoring irritates me), I genuinely think it is a poor read and if I was a potential client, I would be put off as I think it reflects badly on you as a professional cyclist and coach.

In terms of 'link whoring', the content on the site is free, the title of the link wasn't misleading and while you didn't find it useful, other hopefully will. I understand your gripe though, I wont do it again.

 

[Longshot]

The article is crud, it doesn't tell the reader anything

I beg to differ. I read it and learnt a couple of things I didn't know.

 

[michaelcycle]

I think the main issue with your article was not really the content but the lack of logical structure and having one clear central idea from which everything flowed. This made it less useful than it could have been for a beginner.

For example you could started the article by giving a clear idea that pacing is the ability of a rider to use their sustainable power output intelligently.

You could have then gone on to to ask why is this important and that could have been the central premise of the article - because maintaining a constant speed has been shown to lead to an overall quicker time across a course.

You could have then gone to explain the advantages this has over a self selected pace and the physiological and mechanical reasons why that is the case.

Finally you could have had a summary with a few bullet points outlining practical tips for the rider at the end.

Job's a good 'un.

 

[Rob3rt]

I think the main issue with your article was not really the content but the lack of logical structure and having one clear central idea from which everything flowed. This made it less useful than it could have been for a beginner.

For example you could started the article by giving a clear idea that pacing is the ability of a rider to use their sustainable power output intelligently.

You could have then gone on to to ask why is this important and that could have been the central premise of the article - because maintaining a constant speed has been shown to lead to an overall quicker time across a course.

You could have then gone to explain the advantages this has over a self selected pace and the physiological and mechanical reasons why that is the case.

Finally you could have had a summary with a few bullet points outlining practical tips for the rider at the end.

Job's a good 'un.

Not necessarily, ultimately it doesn't particularly matter about how constant your speed is or how your average speed is generated, your speed will vary and there is nothing much you can do about this, it is dictated by conditions and terrain, what matters is your power output and even when this is the focus of consideration a constant effort is not always faster!

 

[michaelcycle]

Not necessarily, ultimately it doesn't particularly matter about how constant your speed is or how your average speed is generated, your speed will vary and there is nothing much you can do about this, it is dictated by conditions and terrain, what matters is your power output and even when this is the focus of consideration a constant effort is not always faster!

Yes, you are right that speed fluctuations are pretty much a given although I do think that trying to maintain a constant speed as much as possible (as opposed to effort) will optimise performance and therefore overall time. What this means in practice is to minimise speed fluctuations by varying your work rate in the face of terrain and conditions as you say in an intelligent way and within the individual's capacity for work. I think that was the point of the OP's article.

 

[Rob3rt]

Yes, you are right that speed fluctuations are pretty much a given although I do think that trying to maintain a constant speed as much as possible (as opposed to effort) will optimise performance and therefore overall time. What this means in practice is to minimise speed fluctuations by varying your work rate in the face of terrain and conditions as you say in an intelligent way. I think that was the point of the OP's article.

Even though a constant effort is not always the fastest way to dump your energy out, if you did so you would VERY likely cover a certain distance faster if you maintained constant effort, rather than attempting to maintain the same speed. If you maintain speed, at some point in order to do so your effort will go well over your sustainable limit and your speed will just drop drop drop from that point onwards.

Pacing yourself on speed is a mugs game!

 

[michaelcycle]

Even though a constant effort is not always the fastest way to dump your energy out, if you did so you would VERY likely cover a certain distance faster if you maintained constant effort, rather than attempting to maintain the same speed. If you maintain speed, at some point in order to do so your effort will go well over your sustainable limit and your speed will just drop drop drop from that point onwards.

Pacing yourself on speed is a mugs game!

Lol - but that's why having a decent coach and training programme pre race which can determine an individual's optimal strategy is important.

None of this is set in stone but I agree that it's a plausible scenario that if you didn't plan your race properly using speed to determine your pace then you could blow out prematurely.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Actual speed is largely irrelevant in bunch racing...