Next weekend I am riding True Grit Epic 50. The race is 45+ miles of very rocky technical trails in Santa Clara, UT. I am using a Garmin Edge 820 and a Stages non-drive power meter. I was wondering what data fields might be helpful to track on the screen. I know I will not be looking frequently.
Elapsed time for nutrition reminders is one, wondering what anyone else who has done more techy endurance races would suggest as data fields that might be helpful to maximize efficiency.
Expecting to finish in a little over 4 hours. https://gropromotions.com/true-grit-epic/
Thanks for the help!
1 Like
That’s sweet. Have a great race.
I’d suggest normalized power since you risk burning too many matches in long rides like this and putting in hard efforts on tech stuff might sap you for the other climbs. Seems like controlled suffering is still the order of the day. Check out Brian Schworm’s power profile for the 2016 100 miler (he crashed out unfortunately) to see an example.
1 Like
Zombie thread. But for future reference.
I just did this race. Well, the “100” (cough 82 cough) mile version. The tech sections on Zen and Barrel Roll (especially Zen) really cover up how physically demanding the race is. My arms were more sore than my legs at the end of the day, and my training bike is a 35 pound enduro (plus I cross train with rock climbing).
NP/IF didn’t do me any good. It was interesting to glance at, but that was all. Either you power up the climbs, or you walk, power be damned. Some of the climbs you could pace yourself but then your NP wouldn’t really represent your effort. I was at around a .85 IF during the first hour and I was trying to pace easy! I ended the race at .7 IF.
Now the long climb out of Bearclaw Poppy you could probably use some power numbers on. It was about 50 minutes of steady climbing (at my pace) both laps. It was the only section I felt like it was hard to pace myself on (because I am not good at long steady state). I luckily drafted a few 50 mile racers on the first lap and was able to duplicate the effort on lap two (I was motivated after finding out I was on the podium).
I think in the future for something similar I would probably pick AVG HR, HR, 3s PWR, NP. Maybe. I would have to think about it, I suck at this stuff. I basically raced on RPE which serves me well.
That’s really interesting. I’ve been looking at IF as a good way to set targets that even I can follow as I get stupider during 4-hour plus XCM races/rides.
Seems like a simple set of targets might be:
.9 - 0.8 for 1-2 hour races
0.7 for 4-hour + races.
Would love to hear what felt like didn’t work about IF specifically… was it about a specific IF level that you were targeting, or more about the way it’s calculated that didn’t work for you?
I would have been chasing an IF that would have been way too much work and didn’t suit actual race conditions. I would have been trying to go too slow on the climbs trying to keep the number down, then pushing too hard on the easier parts to try and bring it back up. It just doesn’t work for me. Just going on RPE works for me, so I will stick with it. I have never raced by power numbers before (been racing with power for a few years now) because I just don’t think it works. Either you race, or you don’t.
1 Like
Gotcha - helpful detail. Thanks!