For those that don't have a power meter

[Rubik]

I think what I was getting at was that it fuels a mindset that focuses on an output that is tangential to the experience rather than the experience itself. Most people couldn't coach by power, but they know what some rough personal bests or high numbers are and can check their head based on that. It's the fear of going over that and "failing" or not getting points, that deters racecraft.

I think you're projecting an erroneous notion that isn't grounded in actuality.

Maybe some cat 5 looks down and thinks "I better slow down, I can't sustain this" and gets dropped, but that could be the case with heart rate or simply speed and is more a matter of learning how to race than anything else. That gets alleviated with more race experience and group rides.

I don't know any bike racers that race road races and crits by power. They race the race that's happening around them. The powermeter is simply recording for later on.

[topflightpro]

I tape over my computer when I race. I do that because I know from experience that when I see numbers I know I cannot hold, I end up off the back. It's not a conscious decision either. It just happens.

I do think there is some truth to what Kwalker is saying - in that people see their numbers and they stop pushing because they know they can't handle it. But I don't think that is hurting amateur racing in the U.S. - It is certainly making a lot of pro racing very boring. There are many more issues that lead to so many Cat 5s never reaching 10 races.

PMs are great training tools, if you know how to use them. They can help you get more out of your workouts in a shorter period of time. They are not good for race pacing outside of TTs. That said, it is nice to have race data for post-event analysis.

[kulivontot]

As a whole i think having power data during a race is distracting, but i could see value on long sustained climbs or during a breakaway to set tempo. But i agree with most, it is primarily a training tool.

[KWalker]

I think what I was getting at was that it fuels a mindset that focuses on an output that is tangential to the experience rather than the experience itself. Most people couldn't coach by power, but they know what some rough personal bests or high numbers are and can check their head based on that. It's the fear of going over that and "failing" or not getting points, that deters racecraft.

I think you're projecting an erroneous notion that isn't grounded in actuality.

Maybe some cat 5 looks down and thinks "I better slow down, I can't sustain this" and gets dropped, but that could be the case with heart rate or simply speed and is more a matter of learning how to race than anything else. That gets alleviated with more race experience and group rides.

I don't know any bike racers that race road races and crits by power. They race the race that's happening around them. The powermeter is simply recording for later on.

My point was that they train so much that they almost never learn to actually race. I don't know people that stick to a certain power, but focus way more on training than on racecraft. Or think "hmm there is a hill coming up and my power on hills isn't good I better just try to sit in or sag climb". I've heard guys say "I don't bother with breaks because I only have X 20min power". Or guys think they're "climbers" because they have a cool power test power, yet they have no clue how to employ it in a climbing race.

[kulivontot]

Well you can do both you know.

[Rubik]

My point was that they train so much that they almost never learn to actually race. I don't know people that stick to a certain power, but focus way more on training than on racecraft. Or think "hmm there is a hill coming up and my power on hills isn't good I better just try to sit in or sag climb". I've heard guys say "I don't bother with breaks because I only have X 20min power". Or guys think they're "climbers" because they have a cool power test power, yet they have no clue how to employ it in a climbing race.

Results matter. That's the point I'm making. You seem to be critical of people who try to race smarter in order to get results. "Race craft" is getting to the finish line in the best position possible, not randomly attacking on every little hill or going for a break you're going to get shelled from.

So I find your posts confusing.

[AJS914]

I raced 25 years way before power meters. Races in the lower categories were similar as described. Lots of attacks. None ever got a way. People don't ride as a team even when they are in a team. In the lower categories, it's every man for himself. It's not until riders get to cat 1 or 2 and get on a well developed team do people take on roles in the race.

[KWalker]

My point was that they train so much that they almost never learn to actually race. I don't know people that stick to a certain power, but focus way more on training than on racecraft. Or think "hmm there is a hill coming up and my power on hills isn't good I better just try to sit in or sag climb". I've heard guys say "I don't bother with breaks because I only have X 20min power". Or guys think they're "climbers" because they have a cool power test power, yet they have no clue how to employ it in a climbing race.

Results matter. That's the point I'm making. You seem to be critical of people who try to race smarter in order to get results. "Race craft" is getting to the finish line in the best position possible, not randomly attacking on every little hill or going for a break you're going to get shelled from.

So I find your posts confusing.

So do tell me, these same riders I'm referencing that only sit wheels- why is it not a huge pattern that any time they are not in small or local races they are irrelevant? Pack fodder at best for a season or two, then fizzle. I'm not talking about the guy that conserves, sprints, and ends up being competitive. When USAC changed the points rules there were a TON more 2s an 1s since people could just race 40 races a year and get 7th or 10th without even sprinting and thus get points.

Good example- there is a local road race that is notoriously hard. 2 big climbs, rough pavement. If you simply look up files from the 2012 edition in cat 3, the winners were hitting the climbs at paces within 10 seconds of the cat 1/2 peloton. I can't remember the VAM off the top of my head, but the winner of that race was averaging 4.8w/kg for around 10min on the hardest climb with an NP of 300w. Fast forward to 2016. The NP for the race winner was 240. The field was slower than cat 1/2 peloton by over a minute. The race winner managed to climb at a whopping 4.1w/kg. There were zero breaks, almost no attacks.

In 2015 the winner attacked on lap 1, solo'd and is now a competitive 1 regionally with wins under his belt. These two racers are completely different. The 2016 no longer races and got shafted when he upgraded as he had literally never been in a single break, single move, or actually experienced a strung out field. He tried the sit in the middle and move up and try not to crash to get 10th thing and got pummeled. He never sprinted as a 3 or a 4 and never actually had to fight for a wheel or hit the wind. Dropped within the first half of every p1/2 road race. Had a coach and a pm and got realllllly great at training, never learned to race.

There is a difference. I get what you're saying. Power can be used to produce fitness that can be used a number of ways, but does not guarantee rider development.

[kulivontot]

All of this seems glaringly obvious. That's why triathletes don't win bike races. That said, the notion that racing by feel alone is the best strategy is outdated. As I said, you can do both, and doing so may be advantageous in certain situations.

[Rubik]

So do tell me, these same riders I'm referencing that only sit wheels- why is it not a huge pattern that any time they are not in small or local races they are irrelevant? Pack fodder at best for a season or two, then fizzle. I'm not talking about the guy that conserves, sprints, and ends up being competitive. When USAC changed the points rules there were a TON more 2s an 1s since people could just race 40 races a year and get 7th or 10th without even sprinting and thus get points.

Good example- there is a local road race that is notoriously hard. 2 big climbs, rough pavement. If you simply look up files from the 2012 edition in cat 3, the winners were hitting the climbs at paces within 10 seconds of the cat 1/2 peloton. I can't remember the VAM off the top of my head, but the winner of that race was averaging 4.8w/kg for around 10min on the hardest climb with an NP of 300w. Fast forward to 2016. The NP for the race winner was 240. The field was slower than cat 1/2 peloton by over a minute. The race winner managed to climb at a whopping 4.1w/kg. There were zero breaks, almost no attacks.

In 2015 the winner attacked on lap 1, solo'd and is now a competitive 1 regionally with wins under his belt. These two racers are completely different. The 2016 no longer races and got shafted when he upgraded as he had literally never been in a single break, single move, or actually experienced a strung out field. He tried the sit in the middle and move up and try not to crash to get 10th thing and got pummeled. He never sprinted as a 3 or a 4 and never actually had to fight for a wheel or hit the wind. Dropped within the first half of every p1/2 road race. Had a coach and a pm and got realllllly great at training, never learned to race.

There is a difference. I get what you're saying. Power can be used to produce fitness that can be used a number of ways, but does not guarantee rider development.

No one has claimed that it does. I don't understand the point of any of the examples you're providing. Having or not having power can have no bearing at all on being an effective bike racer. Because racing is about racing the race that is happening around you, not a power meter. Every one of your examples were repeated a myriad of times by bike racers before power meters even became a thing.

Guess what, bike racing is hard. It makes a whole lot of sense that the majority of people that try it don't particularly succeed at it and quit after a few years. And those that don't quit eventually hit a level they're stuck at. Such is hobby, such is sport, especially a non-participation sport like cycling.

[Tinea Pedis]

Racing in Masters and Veterans (yes, I am shamefully now a veteran racer) is very negative. A lot of moves pulled back, dudes happy to leave it to a bunch sprint. Not many PMs in use in the bunches (especially Vets).

It's a chicken or the egg scenario. In this case I feel the racing attitude came about before PMs, not because of them.

[Nefarious86]

^^ mimics Newcastle to a T

[stormur]

I wonder only how ALL endurance athletes out of cycling train without power meter ??? I mean for example swimmers& runners.

If memory serves well, Chrissie Wellington DID NOT used powermeter.... How she dare to have such stunning results ??

[AJS914]

I guess swimmers and runners use heart rate, time, and pacing these days?

After you've swam the same 50 meters five million times, you get a good sense of how hard you are training based on the lap times. I don't know how they do it. I swam competitively for three years and I found the training so boring. I enjoy swimming but I'm only good for about 20 minutes of laps before I can't take it anymore. Top swimmers must have a brain adaptation that they can endure the boredom of hours and hours in the pool.

[stormur]

exactly, but during lap in pool you have no idea what's your HR nor lap time... just feeling. Same ( almost ) runners, -if- they watch HR monitor, then it's not so frequent as we do looking at cycling computer.. no idea / do they have "cadence" sensor on ..ankle (?) ?