Coaching Smarter Triathletes

Picking a Safe Cycling Route, Part One

Friends Don't Let Friends Do The Coast Ride

In San Diego--as well as most cities--you can find a few wildly popular cycling routes infested with all types of riders.  The coastal highway north of San Diego is a classic--mostly flat with drop-dead gorgeous views of the Pacific, and pleasant weather most days of the year. Weekends bring out parents towing bike trailers, seniors on hybrids, couples on tandems, small groups of triathletes riding in aero bars, multitudes of clubs riding in pelotons and shooting nasty looks at anyone who interrupts their cadence, and triathletes riding in pelotons in their aero bars (yikes!)

Unfortunately, on this route you'll also find an injured cyclist virtually every weekend day.  It seems that most weeks one of the 50-ish people just on the triathlon club ride alone has a wreck there. 

Yes,  statistically speaking we're likely to find more accidents on a popular route (ie: If the accident rate is xx injuries per million miles ridden, a million cyclist miles will be reached more quickly on a popular route than on an empty route). But the accident rate on this stretch of highway seems much higher than in other areas I'm familiar with.

All the Biggest Cycling Hazards in One Convenient Location!

I'd guess I've been on a bicycle 7,000 - 8,000 days over the past 35 years.  I've learned a lot of situations that are dangerous, and I try to avoid them.  Here's my list of the biggest hazards, in no particular order:

• Roads with a lot of stop signs or traffic lights.
• Roads with cars parked along the shoulder.
• Roads with a lot of driveways and parking lots (ie: a lot of turns onto and off of the road).
• Congested parking areas where drivers are focused on finding a parking spot.
• Busy roads with narrow shoulders.
• Roads with a lot of cyclists of varying speeds (ie: cyclists are passing a lot of other cyclists).
• Scenic views that distract drivers from watching the road.
• Lots of tourists who are distracted from driving.
• Riding in a peloton with more than 5-6 people.
• Riding in a group with more than a few beginners.
• Riding in low-light conditions, fog, or rain.
• Riding directly into or away from the sun when it's at a low angle in the sky (and blinding drivers).
• Riding with cyclists who are not very aware of their surroundings, or who don't have good bike-handling skills.
• Riding in an area where drivers are drinking alcohol.

Yes, it's a long list.  But the wildly popular coastal ride has all of them along it's entire length--except for the narrow shoulders part (that's only sporadic).  I think it's no coincidence there are so many accidents there.

So, What is a Safe Route?

In my opinion, having few vehicles on the road will almost always make for a safer ride.  My ideal ride from a safety standpoint?

• Rural roads, with very little traffic.  The width--or even presence of--a shoulder becomes almost irrelevant when there are few motor vehicles.
• Riding with a handful (no more than 7-8) of experienced cyclists who travel at the same speed.
• Lots of hills so there's not the temptation to bunch up into a group and draft for a few hours.

But aren't Rural Roads Dangerous for Cyclists?

A lot of people are scared to ride on rural roads.  We've all heard stories of drivers throwing beer bottles and of pickup trucks running cyclists off the road.  We have stereotypes of "rednecks" and how much they hate cyclists. 

I've spent the past 20+ years riding on both extremely rural roads and bicycle-commuting daily on congested city streets.  And I'll pick a rural road with no shoulder over a busy road with a wide shoulder any time.  Yes, a couple of times out in the sticks I've been called a "faggot in spandex", and have been majorly creeped out by a few situations.  But I can't count the number of times my heart has nearly stopped at some near-incident on busy roads where a driver didn't see me and pulled/swerved right in front of me.

I'll write more about riding on rural roads in a future post--but trust me, they're worth learning to love.

Gasoline is Cheaper than Energy Gel, Part Two

Last week I wrote about how it was cheaper to fuel my car with gas than it was to fuel my body with food to ride my bike.  In short, it cost 59 cents in gas to drive my Prius 10 miles, but 93 cents in food to pedal that same route at an easy pace. 

Another way of making the comparison is by calories per mile.  Pedaling those 10 miles burns 320 calories.   My Prius burns 0.20 gallons of gas (50 mpg) over that route, using 6200 calories (gasoline contains 31,000 calories per gallon).  

At first glance, the bicycle seems much more efficient.  But, let's consider weight.  I, my bike, and my clothes probably total out to about 175 pounds--meaning it costs me about 1.8 calories per pound to pedal 10 miles.  

My Prius and I total about 3200 pounds--meaning it costs me about 1.9 calories (of gasoline) per pound to drive 10 miles.  

	Weight	Caloric Cost to Go 10 Flat Miles	Caloires Burned Per Transported Pound (for 10 miles)
Me and My Road Bike	175 lbs	320	1.8
Me and My Toyota Prius	3200 lbs	6200	1.9

Again, Please Don't Shoot the Messenger

Really, my only point here is that similar calories per pound are used to move both a cyclist and a Toyota Prius.  I'm not claiming that one is more environmentally friendly than the other, and I'm not trying to make a socio-political statement.  And, truly, I'm not interested in knowing the size of anyone's carbon footprint.  

And, yes, I know there are some caveats to the above comparison.  The biggest is that I haven't figured in the energy costs of making and transporting the food and the gasoline.  But I do know that, given the amount of petroleum that goes into producing food (transport is the least of it--think fertilizers and farm equipment), it's possible the calorie/pound equation could swing wildly in favour of the Prius.

Anyway, I simply find the comparison fascinating.  If you're not similarly fascinated, don't worry; next week I'll resume writing about equally esoteric topics, but ones that are at least of some relevance to triathletes.

Parting Bit of Caloric Trivia

The standard energy gel packet is one ounce, contains 100 calories, and costs about a dollar.  In other words...

	Cost	Calories	Miles it Will Propel a Prius or Cyclist (as the case may be)
Gallon of Gasoline	$2.95	31,000	50
Gallon of Gu Energy Gel	$128.00	12,800	400

The Nutritional Expenses of Cycling. Or: It's Cheaper to Fuel Your Car Than Your Body

Yet Another Cost of Cycling

While sitting in the shade after a ride, chowing on Jen's delicious homemade bread, we discussed how expensive all of the "fake" food is that we eat while riding and running.  Energy bars, powdered drink mixes, and those delicious Clif Bloks that in no way resemble anything from nature.  During long, hard rides and runs their primary benefits are that they are easy to transport, don't spoil, and are readily digestible.  But how much do we pay for those qualities?

The Cost of Real Food

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has compiled a "market basket " of food that provides a nutritious diet for eating at home.  On a regular basis it updates how much it costs to buy all of those items in a grocery store.  The menu is quite healthy--lots of fruits and vegetables and very little processed food, fried items or dessert (It's much more healthy than the way I eat...).  They predict that a single male between the ages of 20 and 50 would spend $57.50 per week to buy the items in this basket.  At 2800 calories per day, this works out to 29 cents per 100 calories. 

The Cost of Triathlon Food

Here's a cost/calorie analysis of some typical food consumed during/after bike rides and runs. 

Energy Bars Energy Drinks

	Cost Per 100 Calories
Energy Bars
Clif Bar	$0.42
Power Bar	$0.53
Energy Drinks
Hammer Heed drink mix  (32 servings)	$0.63
Hammer Perpetuem drink mix(16 servings)	$0.63
Cytomax drink mix (27 servings)	$0.52
Gatorade (51 ounce powdered mix from WalMart)	$0.14
Energy Gels
Clif Bloks energy chews	$0.95
Gu enegy gel	$0.95
Hammer Gel (27 serving jug)	$0.85

These are just some typical prices; you can find cheaper prices by scouring the web and buying in bulk.  Note that energy gels are the most expensive (but generally the most convenient for running), and energy bars are the least expensive (but hard to digest on the run or during a hard ride).  A large container of powdered Gatorade is by far the cheapest--but note that you can't make a super-concentrated mix like the other drinks.  In other words, you're stuck with 150 calories per bike bottle, whereas I can easily put 600-700 calories of Heed into a bike bottle.

The Nutritional Cost of a Bike Ride

Our standard weekly ride through the mountains is a 40 mile loop with 3200' feet of climbing that takes us about 2:30 hours.  We ride this hard without stopping--which means we're either working hard or descending at 35 mph.  In other words, I can only consume and digest energy drinks or gels while riding.  Typically I'll eat a big breakfast two hours before riding, and consume 500 calories of Heed during the ride.  Yesterday I ate a Clif Bar (240 calories) back at the car, and then topped off with various "real" foods.    My Powermeter reported that I averaged 214 watts over this ride, and the Training Peaks software calculates that I burned 1600 calories (or 400 calories per 10 miles).  Which means I needed 860 calories of "real food" to replace the remainder of what I burned.  Here's what it cost me to replenish that fuel.

Source of Calories	Number of Calories	Cost Per 100 Calories	Cost
Hammer Heed	500	$0.63	$3.15
Clif Bar	240	$0.42	$1.00
Real Food	860	$0.29	$2.50
Grand Total	1600		$6.65

The total cost of $6.65 works out to $1.66 per 10 miles.  Note that this is a conservative cost; it doesn't include the espresso smoothies we stopped for on the way home or the fact that I eat at restaurants a lot (both a lot more expensive than eating at home)--I use the USDA market basket cost simply as a consistent guideline to illustrate how cheap it is to eat real food.

Driving Would Have Cost Less in Fuel

I paid $2.95 per gallon of gas here in San Diego last week.  I drive a Toyota Prius, which gets 50 mpg.  Figured another way, it takes $0.59 of gas to drive 10 miles.  I would have consumed $2.35 in gas to drive the same 40 miles that we rode.  Even a car that gets 25 mpg takes only $1.18 to drive 10 miles, or $4.72 to drive the 40 miles. Note that piling all three of us riders into the car would have cost about the same in gas (it would increased the net weight of the car by less than 10%-not enough to make much a difference in fuel economy).   Elizabeth and Jen burned fewer calories than I did (because they're much lighter), but amongst the three of us we probably burned $15 worth of food during the ride.

What About a Real-Life Commuting Example?

To be fair, most people don't commute 40 miles over the mountains (but they do go for a 40-mile recreational scenic drive, which is more the equivalent of what our ride was).  I dug up some Powermeter files from when I was just out tooling around on mostly flat terrain, which is the type of commuting most people do (especially when trying to not work up a sweat).  Using a typical example, I averaged 164 watts and burned 385 calories to ride 12 miles in 45 minutes.  This works out to 320 calories per 10 miles (a full 20% less than riding hard through the mountains).  Since I don't need food during such a short ride, I can replenish those calories with inexpensive "real" food at a cost of $0.93 per 10 miles (320 calories @ $0.29 per 100 calories).  Compare this to the fuel costs of $0.59 per 10 miles of my Prius, or $1.18 per 10 miles of a typical car.

Don't Shoot the Messenger

No, I'm not necessarily claiming that it's cheaper to commute by car than by bike.  I've only looked at fuel costs (food versus gasoline).  I'm not considering fixed capital costs (the cost of the bike versus the cost of the car), maintenance costs (tires, tune-ups, etc.), the value of time spent/saved, parking costs, or insurance.  I'm also not considering the presumed lower health care costs that come with being a fit cyclist --or on the other side of the coin the injury costs of cycling (how many cyclists do you know with broken collarbones?).  There are a ton of variables that go into this equation and will vary for each individual.

But my calculations show that, for me, fueling my car with gasoline costs less than fueling my body with food to ride the same distance by bicycle.  I haven't figured out why this is: I may need a mechanical engineer to give me data on the efficiency of internal combustion engines.  I do know that the human body is quite inefficient (much of our generated power is wasted as heat).  

Type of Transport	Cost in fuel (food or gasoline) per 10 miles
Cycle hard through the mountains	$1.66
Cycle easy on the flats (commuting)	$0.93
Drive a typical car (25 mpg)	$1.18
Drive a Prius (50 mpg)	$0.59

<

Comparing a Road Bike to a Triathlon Bike

So I Bought a Tri Bike
For a couple of years I've been content racing triathlons with my road bike (with clip-on aero bars and forward seat post).  I knew that a tri bike would likely shave 5ish minutes off my bike split (on an Olympic distance course), and that it would help with my run (by not burning up my quads as much).  But I put it off, wanting to work on my swim and run, which are by far my weaker sports.  Even a few months ago I was convinced it would be at least another year before I bought one.

Over the past month, a couple of things changed.  First, I've made big progress with my swimming.  Second, on tempo rides with friends I couldn't keep up on my road bike when heading into the wind unless I drafted (which was annoying, because then we couldn't chat (hour-long steady-paced tempo rides can be a bit tedious without some socializing...)).  Third, it was pointed out, "Brian, guys are beating you who shouldn't be."  It might have been this last comment that mattered the most...

Is it Sleek and Sexy?
I did an amazingly little amount of research into bikes before I bought one--except for this: I knew that a proper fit is one of the most important factors in both being aero (going fast) and comfortable (able to stay aero the whole race).   So before I even looked at bikes, I went to the local bike shop and paid to get measured on a "fit bike".  

Training Like We Race: Comparing Two Riding Styles

The Great Western Loop
The Great Western loop is a 40-mile mountainous route in eastern San Diego county.  Featuring long steep climbs (3200 feet of vertical gain), rural lightly trafficked roads, fast descents and scenic wonders, it's a staple ride for a lot of local triathletes. 

It starts with a 20-minute warm-up on the flats, followed by an hour of nearly continual climbing--steep hard hills that demand attention (sometimes just to keep from rolling backward...).  We regroup under an oak tree at the top, and then start on another half-hour of gentler climbs and rollers through an extremely scenic part of the ride.

On this last half-hour I've tended to fall off the back, and hadn't really figured out why--except maybe that I would see the hard part of the ride as being over, and generally would slack off and admire the views. 

For each of the past two weeks I decided to hold the wheels of the people who were always in front on this stretch to see what I could learn. 

Riding Like an Ironman--Smooth and Steady
On July 2nd on this stretch I held the wheel of Elizabeth, who sometimes joins us when she's looking for a short ride.  Elizabeth races a 5-hour 70.3, wins her age group, and is headed to Kona this fall--for her, "riding the Great Western Loop" often means two laps around.  On shorter distances she and I ride at a similar pace, especially when climbing.  I would guess that our power/weight ratios are pretty similar. 

Here's what my power-meter file looked like while holding her wheel for the 7.5 miles of this stretch.  

 

On this file, the solid yellow line is the power in watts, and the blue speed in m.p.h.  Note that the higher speeds coincide with low/zero watts--these are downhills where we're coasting.  A brief spike in power indicates a short rise in an otherwise downhill stretch.

The most notable thing about this graph is the steady application of power.  My normalized power was 210 watts (the straight, dashed yellow line), and all of the climbs ranged from 220 to 270 watts, generally hovering around the 230-240 range.  For me, 210 watts is a zone 3 tempo effort, which is the zone that most non-pros race a half ironman in.  The 230-240 watts is a low zone 4 effort, and is the zone most hit during climbs in a 70.3.  Both of these are solid aerobic efforts, with very little anaerobic activity.

Even though Elizabeth also wins sprint-distance races, her specialty is the half and full ironman distances.  So it's completely expected that she would train primarily in these zones for long distances.  Remember, she often does this loop twice--with the second lap faster than the first.  So it's important that she not fry her legs with anaerobic efforts.

Road Racing--Accelerate, Rest, Hammer, Hang On
On July 9th on this stretch I held the wheel of Matt, who rides this route weekly with me.  Matt is in his second year of triathlon and races sprint and Olympic distances.  His bike splits are generally in the top 10% of the men's field.  For both him and me this 2:30-hour route is usually our long ride of the week, and we finish it with a few-mile transition run (after which we're pretty exhausted and ready for lunch/beer/nap).  Matt and I also ride at a similar pace, and I'd guess that our power/weight ratios are pretty similar.  Here's what my power-meter file looked like while holding his wheel for the 7.5 miles of this stretch.  

  The most notable thing about this graph is the huge accelerations on all of the short hills.  Even though my normalized power was higher (238 watts-the straight dashed line), the spikes above that are visibly much higher than the week before.  These accelerations started at 300 watts, and progressed to 350+ watts.  The 300 watts is zone 5a for me, and readily manageable for a few minutes at a time.  The 350+ watts, however, is an anaerobic zone 5b--a few repeats at this level hurts a lot. 

After the second-such 350-watt acceleration/recovery, I passed Matt at the base of a steep hill and held 270 watts (high zone 4) for 5 minutes.  My thinking was that I really didn't want to have to do another 350 watt acceleration, so I was hoping to tire him out.  It was an effective strategy--at the bottom of the next descent we were both tired and he was content to let me lead with a tempo pace for the last 4-minute climb.

For sprint and Olympic distance triathlons, going into zone 5a on short climbs is very effective for keeping momentum.  Note that my time for this 7.5 miles was 2:30 minutes faster than the week before when I was in zones 3/4.  But the zone 5b is really hard on the legs.  The anaerobic effort builds a lot of lactic acid, which can be really bad for the run.  This style of short, sharp accelerations is very typical of road racers who are trying to drop competitors out of their draft.  But it's maybe not the best strategy in triathlons, where drafting is not legal.

So, Which Style is Better?
It seems that neither style is inherently better--it's just a matter of learning to train and race to fit the courses that you're racing.  For 70.3 races, you'll race primarily in zone 3 and low zone 4 (for climbs).  But training in high zone 4 and even zone 5a will make those race paces much easier. 

For sprint and Olympic distances, training a lot in zones 4/5a is critical, as that's the effort you'll be racing at.  Even some training in zone 5b (30-60 second sprints) is useful, so you can do some short bursts without frying your legs.  But it's important to learn to not spend much time in 5b during a race.  Matt's last race featured a lot of short steep climbs on the bike.  He had a great bike split, but his run pace was well off his typical speed.  My hunch is that, among other factors, he may have gone into 5b too often on the bike.

Training Strategies
Riding with training partners of similar abilities and goals is great in lots of ways.  Matt and I usually push each other into zone 5a and 5b efforts because--well, boys will be boys and that's just how we are.  It can be hard to self-motivate to endure that kind of discomfort.

Riding with Elizabeth seems to involve a lot of story swapping--which almost demands staying in zones 3/4 in order to be conversational.  In fact, Elizabeth is well known for--at the base of long, steep climbs--asking questions that require long, detailed answers.  But that's a whole different training strategy...

Analyzing Wildflower Triathlon Bike Results

Last week I showed how I made a strategy for the bike leg of the Wildflower Olympic-Distance triathlon.   My strategy foresaw a lot of short, steep rolling hills that I planned to take at  zone 5 power, and then recover on the way down the other side of the hill.  Here's how it all worked out.

Pre-Race Recon
We drove the bike course when we arrived at Lake San Antonio on Friday.  The first thing we noted was that--other than Lynch Hill (the first/last hill)--most of the hills were not that steep at all.  This was especially true of the ones near the middle of the course where I had hoped to coast for three to five minutes for recovery.  Eyeballing them told me I'd have to pedal at least at a tempo pace to maintain good speed.

What went wrong here?  One, I was rushed when I did the first plan and simply misread the elevation profile in a couple of places.  Second, and more importantly, I vastly overestimated the steepness of a 2% grade.  Looking at the mapmyride.com elevation profile (which is exaggerated vertically), it's easy to think you can coast down it fast.  Not so, and it was obvious once we saw it in person.

The New Plan
Knowing I wouldn't have a long recovery in the middle of the course, I switched my strategy to a much more conventional time-trial strategy of keeping a relatively even wattage.  I still wanted to go zone 5 on the first two hills, but otherwise stay mostly in zone 4.  Because there were a lot of short recoveries (steep downhills for coasting) at the start and end of the course, I planned on being in high zone 4 rather than a low-mid zone 4 like I would on a flatter Olympic-distance course.

Planning a Race-Day Bike Strategy

"Shouldn't I just go out and hammer as hard as I can on the bike, and then try to hold on during the run?"  Well, maybe.  Especially during a sprint-distance race.  And it is a common strategy, especially for strong cyclists.  But devising a strategic plan based on your known power output--and sticking to it--can leave you fresher for the run without slowing you much on the bike.  Likely giving you a faster overall time. 

The best way for this to work is to have a power meter and know your watts at Functional Threshold  (basically, how hard can you pedal for an hour). Knowing how many watts you can hold for 5 minutes and 1 minute is helpful during a hilly race.

On a flat sprint-distance course (12-15 miles), you can probably hold 95-100% of your FT power and still have a good run.  On an flat Olympic-distance course, it may only be in the 85-95% range.  A good idea is to experiment during your training bricks to see how well you run after riding the race distance at various power outputs.

A hilly course is a bit more complicated.  If you've been training with hill intervals of various lengths (1 minute to 20 minutes), you can likely hold a higher wattage on the hills, and use the descents to recover.  Climbing hard is one of the best ways to shave minutes off your time.

Below is the step-by-step process I used to plan a strategy for the upcoming Wildlfower Triathon (Olympic-distance course).  This will be my first time riding it, so I wanted to do some recon.

Is Aero Gear Worth the Cost?

It's easy to be lured into the idea of riding faster by spending money on "fast" cycling gear.  There are three ways to ride faster:

1. Develop a stronger "engine" (basically, your muscles and your lungs).
2. Make yourself and your bike lighter (this is most beneficial on hills).
3. Make yourself and your bike more aerodynamic.  This is most beneficial on the flats, when speeds are over 18 mph.

This post focuses on aerodynamics; the time saved versus the cost of the gear. 

Why is Aero Important?
On a flat course, at speeds between 20 and 25 mph, 75% to 80% of your power goes toward overcoming air resistance (5% is for mechanical resistance (bearings, chain, etc.) and the rest is the friction of your tires against the road).  The more slippery you and your bike are, the faster you'll go.  Of this aerodynamic drag, approximately 2/3 comes from you (your position on the bike and what you're wearing) and 1/3 comes from the bike itself. Of the drag that comes from you, almost all of it is related to your position on the bike.  A small amount comes from your clothing.

Standard Aero Gear and Costs
Triathletes seem to go through a standard procession of buying aero gear:

• Adding clip-on aero bars and forward seat post to a road bike.  $150-$250, plus $100 - $200 for a professional to set them up so you fit properly.
• Time Trial bike $2,000 - $5,000
• Aero helmet $75 - $150
• Disc and tri-spoke wheelset $1500 - $2500