Pacing strategy; how to get it right

[Festina_Lente]

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.

The topic was a bit too tricky to cover succinctly. I started with 'the engine' because that more or less cover the various intensities one rides at. Then terrain I covered issues that I often see: people riding hard down hill, people slowing over the crest of a hill instead of accelerating into a descent and so on...

Pacing involves using an array of different intensities. Certain scenarios (flat, windless TT) would call for a constant speed (intensity?). Most scenarios don't. Even so I believe 'negative splitting' is a better approach although only people on top form seem to manage it. I can understand why from the perspective of a TT this advice might seem odd, however if a TT is technical it's more relevant.

 

[Rob3rt]

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.

I don't think you understand the implications of your proposal. Do you compete at all?

Any athlete can ascertain values for how much power they can put out for various durations. You can not do this with speed, because speed will vary depending on conditions, 400W (well above what most riders can do, but it is just a number for sake of illustration) into a headwind is 400W, no different to 400W with a tailwind. Now for those 400W, into a headwind you might get 22mph,with a tailwind you might get 34 mph. If you tried to maintain a certain speed, say 25mph, there would be times where you end up doing 500+ W. You will blow and come home with an average well below what you aimed for. If you simply maintained your sustanable power say 400W, you would be accepting that at certain points you will be going fast and others slow, but at every point you would be going as fast at you could sustain for the duration of the event.

The topic was a bit too tricky to cover succinctly. I started with 'the engine' because that more or less cover the various intensities one rides at. Then terrain I covered issues that I often see: people riding hard down hill, people slowing over the crest of a hill instead of accelerating into a descent and so on...

Pacing involves using an array of different intensities. Certain scenarios (flat, windless TT) would call for a constant speed (intensity?). Most scenarios don't. Even so I believe 'negative splitting' is a better approach although only people on top form seem to manage it. I can understand why from the perspective of a TT this advice might seem odd, however if a TT is technical it's more relevant.

Speed is not a measure of intensity on the open road.

 

[michaelcycle]

Actually, I was thinking of this within the specific focus of a TT which I was reading a little on recently. My bad.

ETA: lol - no I don't compete, I just like the science side of it and what it entails

 

[Rob3rt]

Actually, I was thinking of this within the specific focus of a TT which I was reading a little on recently. My bad.

ETA: lol - no I don't compete, I just like the science side of it and what it entails

If you like the science side of it, I suggest you read the text Training and Racing with a Power Meter by Hunter Allen and Andrew Coggan, in which you will learn a lot and most likely realise why your proposal is not much of a go-er There are many other good texts but this one is very practical. There are of course other ways to gauge effort, but the power method is by far the most illustrative even if you never get to use it.

My examples and counter arguments were all based on a time trial scenario, as in a bunch race, pacing is rather irrelevant unless you get in a break. The pace will be dictated to you by the bunch, the conditions and the terrain, unless you set the pace, in which case you won't want to do that for long if you want to win, that is unless you are so strong you can just ride the bunch into oblivion, not common!

 

[Festina_Lente]

Speed is not a measure of intensity on the open road.

I meant that as a question: In referring to speed did the poster mean intensity?

Hence the question mark. It was not 100% clear though, granted.

 

[michaelcycle]

If you like the science side of it, I suggest you read the text Training and Racing with a Power Meter by Hunter Allen and Andrew Coggan, in which you will learn a lot and most likely realise why your proposal is not much of a go-er There are many other good texts but this one is very practical.

My examples and counter arguments were all based on a time trial scenario, as in a bunch race, pacing is rather irrelevant unless you get in a break. The pace will be dictated to you by the bunch, the conditions and the terrain, unless you set the pace, in which case you won't want to do that for long if you want to win, that is unless you are so strong you can just ride the bunch into oblivion, not common!

Thanks for the recommendation, I will check that out.

I can see that being so strong that you can simply out ride the bunch into the floor is probably not that common...