woodcraft

Yeah, I guess that's me misinterpreting the data.

The snapshot in question: https://www.strava.com/segments/7631...U5ODQ3Nzk0Ng==

Eric F 

For an effort like this, where you're riding at/near your sustainable threshold for the duration, doubling your power on any section is only going to be a gain if you can get back to your previous effort level quickly. If the bump in power requires a significant phase of recovery, it's probably going to be a net loss.

GhostRider62

Apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying below from post #45., This is how I read it, you don't see aero drag is significant at 8-10mph. The aero drag difference between 8 mph and 12 mph is around 35 watts (sitting up) and even from 6 to 9 mph, the aero penalty is already 13 watts. Anytime you are expending more than your threshold power, it matters.

UniChris

I pointed out that those factors could well matter to the KOM holder, but I'm not contemplating such differences. Doing the shallower slope at 9 mph vs 8 isn't going to be much more of an increase in wind penalty than doing the slower part at 7 vs 6 - yes it's a trend that absolutely blows up at high speeds, but these are tiny steps where it's not yet that steep a curve.

But basic timing still makes riding the slower part a bit faster more advantageous than riding the faster part a bit faster - it's just the air resistance argument that's not really relevant in the regime where I'm riding it.

tomato coupe

Yep. It's not as simple as "should I double my power on this section, or double my power on that section?"

Eric F 

Agreed. A big part of getting the most out of this kind of effort is knowing what your body is capable of, and how it reacts to various effort levels.

UniChris

Bounced back from yesterday's bike embarrassment to climb it this afternoon on the unicycle a second slower than Sunday's time. What's kind of funny was Sunday I was sure I'd hit the PR, and today I was sure I was slow, but they were only a second apart. Granted, I did take advantage of how it levels out in the last few dozen yards at the end to bring my speed back up in the last little stretch to where I now know the segment actually ends, vs usually riding that bit as dead as I feel.

Definitely left something in the tank as I continued north and climbed another hill, that's slightly shorter but a much more consistent grade without the steep final cone; ironically that one only ever felt like work not the challenge its raw numbers would suggest. My conclusion is that 5, 6, 7% is just about taking it slow, while 8-10% is where I hit "make or break" challenge on the unicycle. On the bike of course that and more are rideable, if I take them slowly enough. Turns out though that I've never taken that second major hill in one go without stop, so all the stats are bogus. Where I usually stopped is well within the segment, but even where I stopped today that I thought was short of it is, too. Now that I know where that segment really starts, next time I'll have to take it straight.

Waiting for the next above freezing day...

PeteHski

Here's a link to a BBS Power Plan for this segment (note that the start and end points may be slightly different as I quickly cropped it from the whole route)

https://www.bestbikesplit.com/public/202609

For me riding this segment at threshold (IF =1 @ 283W FTP), it suggests 248W on the initial shallow part, 312W on the first steep section, 235W where it flattens out slightly, back up to 312W for the next steep part and then tailing off down to 176W as it flattens at the top.

50PlusCycling

What is your definition of "appropriate speed?* I spent a summer competing in Europe as part of a minor cycling team, and being the only non-Spaniard, and the only rider over 60kg, I was the designated sprinter. My "appropriate" speed was whatever it took to get over the mountains without dying and/or falling outside the elimination time. For my teammates the appropriate time was a good deal shorter.