Author Topic: TCR no8.  (Read 27005 times)

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #350 on: January 17, 2021, 05:58:32 pm »
This route is 1500m of climbing,  in 100km of Limburg. I think I can do it a day including train too/from Ams:

https://www.strava.com/routes/2768987201649032028


If the aim is to maximize elevation/distance and you don't mind doing loops: up Cauberg and down Daalhemmerweg. 90m of climbing in 5km (or 1800m in 100km). Otherwise loop 2 of Amstel Gold Race, where you switch to loop 3 in Eys, is also an excellent training route.

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #351 on: January 17, 2021, 06:02:10 pm »
If the aim is to maximize elevation/distance and you don't mind doing loops: up Cauberg and down Daalhemmerweg. 90m of climbing in 5km (or 1800m in 100km). Otherwise loop 2 of Amstel Gold Race, where you switch to loop 3 in Eys, is also an excellent training route.

I was trying to avoid short loops, esp of the same hill. Otherwise I may as well try everesting... and that's just crazy talk. (Someone has Everested Kopje van Bloemendaal..!?!?!)

Do you have a route for what you call loop 2 and loop 3? I'm not familiar with the Amstel Gold route.

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - around the world by bike
Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #352 on: January 17, 2021, 10:19:48 pm »
I've withdrawn. 

I wouldn't want to do an event this big unless I could give it my all.  Last year I was prepared to focus on it and junk the rest of the season, but this year I've developed other goals, and the new route and race format just isn't inspiring me to lay everything else aside. 

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #353 on: January 17, 2021, 10:54:33 pm »
If you use some of the first/last parts of my 200/300km events you'll find some properly hilly rides starting out from Maastricht Youthhostel. Especially my 300 to Bastogne and Huy did have a reputationl. Don't do this one when all places to warm up are closed.

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #354 on: January 18, 2021, 07:25:26 am »

Do you have a route for what you call loop 2 and loop 3? I'm not familiar with the Amstel Gold route.


It is signposted, but this is comes close to what I meant: https://climbfinder.com/nl/routes/amstel-gold-race

(And Kopje van Bloemendaal has been everested: https://www.nhnieuws.nl/nieuws/270039/jacco-heeft-zijn-doel-bereikt-263-keer-het-kopje-op-fietsen)

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #355 on: January 18, 2021, 01:16:04 pm »
I've withdrawn. 

I wouldn't want to do an event this big unless I could give it my all.  Last year I was prepared to focus on it and junk the rest of the season, but this year I've developed other goals, and the new route and race format just isn't inspiring me to lay everything else aside.

Sorry to hear Karla. Bets of luck with the other goals.
often lost.

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #356 on: January 19, 2021, 05:41:17 pm »
You’ve definitely got to be excited and motivated by the event and route if you’re going to get through the tough times. Got to be in the right head space.

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #357 on: January 19, 2021, 09:36:03 pm »
(Googles Limburg)
Ah yes day one of TCRno5. Cutting across the bottom of "Flat" Holland en route to the Rhine. Just East of Maastricht. "What the heck this is hilly  AF!"  Passed an Amstel Gold banner somewhere along the way there abouts. That will be a good spot to get some ups in for sure.

I remember dot watching that, as all these dots headed for the Rhine, and thinking "Has noone heard of the Ardennes?" That area is lumpy!

I have a few routes planned for such things as Signal 3 ways:

https://www.strava.com/routes/15790729

Three times up the highest point in Belgium, from the three different sides. It's the biggest climb that isn't too far away. It's not quite the 2000+m passes that we're going to need to do, but it's a start.

This route is 1500m of climbing,  in 100km of Limburg. I think I can do it a day including train too/from Ams:

https://www.strava.com/routes/2768987201649032028

Closer to home I have a couple of routes ready to go once we're allowed to move again, 50km and 100km of the same basic hill, only an hour or so by train from home:

https://www.strava.com/routes/2770453097311889426

https://www.strava.com/routes/2768984576381740978

Closer to home, this is 900m of climbing and just 30 mins away by train:

https://www.strava.com/routes/2768986031791470540

But I can't do much with any of them until lockdown eases a bit.

The closest thing I have to a hill nearby is this route:

https://www.strava.com/routes/10586184

I use the word Hill loosely...

J
You could simulate steeper hills with panniers full of rocks.

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #358 on: January 19, 2021, 11:17:55 pm »

You could simulate steeper hills with panniers full of rocks.

That would involve fitting panniers... And a rack...

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #359 on: January 20, 2021, 05:55:51 am »

You could simulate steeper hills with panniers full of rocks.

That would involve fitting panniers... And a rack...

J
The alternative would be to make a template then cast a “full frame bike packing bag” in concrete for a budget version, or cut from plywood with spaces for cast iron weight lifting weights.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #360 on: January 23, 2021, 12:33:07 pm »
Diving weight belt?
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #361 on: January 23, 2021, 12:43:29 pm »
Couple of bladders full of water in bike packing bags

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #362 on: January 24, 2021, 08:35:40 am »
Just work harder... you don't need contraptions to simulate a climb.
The thing with a climb, is that you can't get away by pushing 2 W/Kg... you simply won't go up... so you need to up your game. It is perfectly possible to push harder on the flat. If you need to simulate an half an hour climb, then push harder for half an hour

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #363 on: January 24, 2021, 08:58:14 am »
Just work harder... you don't need contraptions to simulate a climb.
The thing with a climb, is that you can't get away by pushing 2 W/Kg... you simply won't go up... so you need to up your game. It is perfectly possible to push harder on the flat. If you need to simulate an half an hour climb, then push harder for half an hour
Don’t be silly, of course you can go up hills at 2W/kg. You just go up at half the speed of 4W/kg, so perhaps doing 10km/h compared to someone else doing 20km/h.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #364 on: January 24, 2021, 09:42:46 am »
Many TCR folk put out quite a bit less than 200 watts a few days into a long race. Put a tired 100kg me (including bike) putting out not much over 100 watts on a >10% grade and I am down to about 3km/h. It is hard to balance at that speed, particularly in a gusty headwind.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #365 on: January 24, 2021, 09:47:46 am »
Just work harder... you don't need contraptions to simulate a climb.
The thing with a climb, is that you can't get away by pushing 2 W/Kg... you simply won't go up... so you need to up your game. It is perfectly possible to push harder on the flat. If you need to simulate an half an hour climb, then push harder for half an hour
Don’t be silly, of course you can go up hills at 2W/kg. You just go up at half the speed of 4W/kg, so perhaps doing 10km/h compared to someone else doing 20km/h.

It depends on the hill. 2w/kg for a 70kg person is 140w. A 70kg rider on a 15kg bike, going up a 5% hill at 10.7kph is 150w.

Up that gradient to 10% is 5.44kph at 140w.

Except. last time I did an FTP test it was about 120w. And I am a long way off 70kg.

For my weight, at 140w, on a 10% incline the speed would be 4.04kph. My lowest gear is 28:40, which at 50rpm, is 4.5kph. Even if I did have 2w/kg at my current weight, that 10% hill would be done at 5.75kph. Which at least is a better cadence of somewhere between 60 and 65 rpm...

To bring this to my standard rant that stock bikes gearing is too high, a 34:34 gear, at 50RPM is 6.4kph. Which on that 10% hill, would require 223w at my current weight, and 165w at 70kg... a 30:34 GRX setup would be 147w at 70kg, and 5.7kph (50 rpm).

Obviously these numbers don't take every single thing into account, but they give a rough indication of the power involved. I'd like to have an ftp of 2w/kg. But as yet, I'm not there. Not even 1.5w/kg. Maybe that will improve as I lose weight. And as my Coach's inputs start to reap benefits.

My current training for hills involves a lot of headwind work. Tho today I am going to go ride up and down the Kopje a few times...

J

--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #366 on: January 24, 2021, 10:18:59 am »
Most people don't realise how little power you need to ride reasonably well over a long distance.  Here are my figures.

When I was riding the TCR in 2016, by the time I got to the alps, I was riding on the flat and up modest climbs at around 100W.  The first steep climb, the Grosse Scheidegg in the afternoon of day 4, forced me out of my comfort zone - I had to go up it at 120W.  I probably did similar up the Giau two nights later.  And I came 33rd out of about 105 finishers.

Of course, you need a lot more power to be at the sharp end. James Hayden shouted a greeting as he passed me as I was packing away my shopping outside a supermarket just before the start of the Grosse Scheidegg.  He had had a day out at the first checkpoint with a chest infection and was now storming back through the field.  He got through the parcours in about half the time that it took me.  I would guess he probably did the GS climb at something around 350W (his data is public so it will be in his Strava) - but that is not typical of most riders. 

It is surprising how slow you can go on a bike when going faster is not possible.

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #367 on: January 24, 2021, 10:19:09 am »
Many TCR folk put out quite a bit less than 200 watts a few days into a long race. Put a tired 100kg me (including bike) putting out not much over 100 watts on a >10% grade and I am down to about 3km/h. It is hard to balance at that speed, particularly in a gusty headwind.
Looking at my PBP 2019 I was 68 hours elapsed start to finish (including sleep and other stops)  and according to strava I was averaging 101W and at just shy of 90kg that is   about 1.1w/kg.

If what is being discussed is ftp then that is a different matter. You obviously don’t want to be having to go anywhere near ftp on a long event.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #368 on: January 24, 2021, 10:28:00 am »
Davef, those numbers sound pretty similar to my PBP99, a comfortable <70 hr finish and about 75kg naked weight. FTP when racing a few years earlier was above 350W for much the same weight.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #369 on: January 24, 2021, 11:00:26 am »
Most people don't realise how little power you need to ride reasonably well over a long distance.  Here are my figures.

Agreed.

Quote
When I was riding the TCR in 2016, by the time I got to the alps, I was riding on the flat and up modest climbs at around 100W.  The first steep climb, the Grosse Scheidegg in the afternoon of day 4, forced me out of my comfort zone - I had to go up it at 120W.  I probably did similar up the Giau two nights later.  And I came 33rd out of about 105 finishers.

How much did you weigh tho? how fast were you going up the climbs? A lot of it also depends on the gradient. The Italian Parcour in TCRNo7 had some 30% gradients, I don't know how many people actually rode up that bit.

Quote
Of course, you need a lot more power to be at the sharp end. James Hayden shouted a greeting as he passed me as I was packing away my shopping outside a supermarket just before the start of the Grosse Scheidegg.  He had had a day out at the first checkpoint with a chest infection and was now storming back through the field.  He got through the parcours in about half the time that it took me.  I would guess he probably did the GS climb at something around 350W (his data is public so it will be in his Strava) - but that is not typical of most riders. 

It is surprising how slow you can go on a bike when going faster is not possible.

Yep, I completed RatN2019 by not sleeping much, rather than going quick. I still walked every hill in Limberg as I had no power left.

Looking at my PBP 2019 I was 68 hours elapsed start to finish (including sleep and other stops)  and according to strava I was averaging 101W and at just shy of 90kg that is   about 1.1w/kg.

If what is being discussed is ftp then that is a different matter. You obviously don’t want to be having to go anywhere near ftp on a long event.

Remind me, how many 1300m ascents are there on PBP?

The CP2 parcours has a 1300m height difference between start and highest point. It does that over 27km. Which if I understand my maths is an average gradient of 4.8%. If I'm doing 5kph (which sounds about right given fuck all power numbers such as Frank suggests, and being 2000km into the event, means doing it for over 5 hours.

When an effort is that long, then FTP does come into it, as by definition you're basically doing your FTP. For hours on end. If your FTP is low that is. Frank may have an FTP of 350w*, and may do this climb at 120w. That's about 1/3rd of his ftp pre race. If mine is 120w, and I do that climb at 1/3rd of my pre ride FTP, then that's 40w...

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This is why Frank rightly persuaded me to remove the usb-werk from my bike. Because the ~7w it uses to charge my battery pack up, is a significant proportion of the little power I currently have. That 5w reduction (Dyno hub is still going to have 2w resistance when off), is relevant when your power is so damn low.



I'm not sure how to ride up a 72% incline... I'm guessing I'll walk that bit...

That's veloviewer's take on CP3. I think there are some mapping errors in there.

J

* Apologies if this is insultingly low. It's based on the number I've seen a couple of other TCR riders produce in recent FTP tests they put out on twitter.
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #370 on: January 24, 2021, 11:34:14 am »
When an effort is that long, then FTP does come into it, as by definition you're basically doing your FTP. For hours on end.
I thought the definition of ftp as the maximum power you can sustain for 1 hour and no more. So I don’t think you will be doing your ftp for hours on end.

TCR no8.
« Reply #371 on: January 24, 2021, 11:59:39 am »
When an effort is that long, then FTP does come into it, as by definition you're basically doing your FTP. For hours on end.
I thought the definition of ftp as the maximum power you can sustain for 1 hour and no more. So I don’t think you will be doing your ftp for hours on end.
Edit - re : 1300m of ascent, 5 hours is optimistic.
Re: 72% surely an error, that is roping up territory.

Edit again. 100% means 45 degrees, so maybe overly cautious with the roping up comment.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #372 on: January 24, 2021, 12:14:27 pm »
Just for comparison, climbing the Galibier the day after finishing a UAF600, I averaged well under 100W with lots of necessary rest stops and self-reproachment. Climbing the Tourmalet the day after a UAF1000 a couple of years later, I averaged somewhat under 200W at about half the speed of the Strava KOM.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #373 on: January 24, 2021, 01:17:46 pm »
When an effort is that long, then FTP does come into it, as by definition you're basically doing your FTP. For hours on end. If your FTP is low that is. Frank may have an FTP of 350w*, and may do this climb at 120w. That's about 1/3rd of his ftp pre race. If mine is 120w, and I do that climb at 1/3rd of my pre ride FTP, then that's 40w...

I'd expect very high FTPs to be much less sustainable than more mundane ones, so the ratios won't be constant. I think my numbers are something like 180 vs 90.

You'd do well to invest in a power meter if you want to keep track of this stuff.

Re: TCR no8.
« Reply #374 on: January 24, 2021, 01:26:11 pm »


It depends on the hill. 2w/kg for a 70kg person is 140w. A 70kg rider on a 15kg bike, going up a 5% hill at 10.7kph is 150w.

Up that gradient to 10% is 5.44kph at 140w.

Except. last time I did an FTP test it was about 120w. And I am a long way off 70kg.



Given those numbers, it seems to me you would be better off prioritising losing weight, over doing hill training at this stage. There is a long way to go between now and TCR, and if you can lose a kg a week between now and April, then you will be in a much better place to train effectively, with still plenty of time to do things properly.