Wednesday, January 21, 2015

San Bruno Hill Climb 2015: report

After the 2014 Low-Key Hillclimbs came to a successful conclusion thoughts naturally turn to the San Bruno Hillclimb which comes five weeks later. I'd ridden fairly well at the Low-Key series. After running my first ever 50 km trail race at the Woodside Ramble in April, it had been a decidedly down summer for me fitness-wise, neither doing any running races, bike races, or any endurance rides of note, with the single exception of the Memorial Day Ride (4 days from San Jose to Santa Barbara). I was really in a rut, sort of treading water without making any progress.

But spending all of September and the first 12 days of October based in Basel, Switzerland gave a nice boost to my training load. The first two weeks weren't much, and indeed the entire second week was spent working without much training, but weeks three through six were a solid mix of long bike rides and decent runs. This gave me a bit of a cram course in base which had me feeling better on the bike than I had all year.

Coming back to San Francisco, though, the European experience had remarkably little effect on my Old La Honda times during the few Wednesday Noon Rides I was able to attend. That was a bit of a mystery to me, since I felt that surely all the volume and a bit of welcomed weight loss that came with it should have helped. But I didn't see it in the numbers.

Still, I was able to carry a larger training load out of Europe than I did going into it, and so that had to be a good thing.

My first Low-Key Hillclimb should have been week 3, Welch Creek, but I missed that due to recovery from oral surgery. Week 4 was a short-hill ride which was good training but not really to my strength, which is longer, steady-state climbing. Week 5 Felter Road, which went fairly well, but with its highly variable grade was a road which tended to favor the power climbers. Week 6 was Umunhum, and that went very well. Week 7, was coordinated by Cara and I and so I didn't ride. Week 8 was dirt, never my strength. Then week 9, Mount Hamilton, went fairly well for me, but not as well as I've done at my best.

All in all, though, the competitive climbing should have put me in a good position for New Years. But six weeks is a long gap to span. I was at IEDM in San Francisco for 3 days, then traveled to the East Coast for 6. I was able to get some decent running in, however, on the East Coast trip, and the rest of the time I rode to work a few times, as well as getting in my final OLH Noon Ride for the forseeable future (my employment in Mountain View ending at the end of the calendar year). The Noon Ride was my last chance to make a statement on OLH before San Bruno, but it didn't happen. My time wasn't even the best of the year.

So I went into San Bruno feeling my preparation had been better than for the 2014 race, at least, if not to the rather excellent level I'd reached for the 2012 race when I'd done very well in the 2011 Low-Key series. I really didn't know what to expect. Would I pull a great climb out of the hat? I always like to think this will happen. Of course it rarely if ever does: fitness doesn't just crystallize out of the void. You get solid hints of it beforehand. I'd had no such hints.


image

I lined up with the 45+ group, formally two fields, one for categories 1-2-3, the other for 4-5. I was in the former, where the favorite was Kevin Metcalfe. I saw Kevin's bike as I was approaching the Porta-Potties soon before the start. The Porta-Potties are an essentially element in my weight weenie protocol for hillclimbs, the last and cheepest option to save a bit of weight. Urine is heavy at close to 1 gram per cc. Far better to not carry any extra up the hill.

But to my horror I saw Kevin's bike had not only a GoPro camera on the front, but a red blinky light in the rear, the light associated with a rear-facing camera hidden in the light body. He was documenting the race, he said. In Kevin's case, the rear camera would be doing a lot more of that than the front.

Soon after I was lined up at the staging area. I'd done a decent warm-up, climbing to the top then descending back to the start area, then riding a little loop around there. My warm-up was notably lacking in intensity, however, and in retrospect I should have made a few hard efforts before the climb. San Bruno isn't known for it's relaxed "ease into it" starts.

image
Warm-up

I made the first turn onto Guadalupe Parkway Road fine, but after that things got painful. There were several periods of leg-searing accaleration where I was sure I was about to be dropped, but then every time, just as I was contemplating my impending failure, the pace let up, allowing me to move up a few precious places in the line. Eventually we crested the second, steepest portion of the road, leaving only the gradual run-in to the turn-off. That I knew I could handle. I just had to survive the pair of turns onto Radio Road.

Right turn, blast down past the entry kiosk, then a right turn (I had decided ahead of time to take this wide, due to rougher pavement on the inside line). I survived both of these. But next up was the gate. In my pre-ride, the right half of the road had been blocked by a gate, and we'd been warned at the start line that to get to the left. But the group was veering right. I couldn't really see, but decided to stay left. But riders from earlier groups were descending on that side, so I didn't want to be too far to the left. Then I saw the gate was open after all...

But while all this was occurring we'd gotten to the rough pavement section, and the leaders had clearly just hammered over this. With my time trial tires pumped to 150 psi (a bit less by this point) I was hardly optimized for this "Paris-Roubaix" portion. The little gap grew bigger.

If I'd been strong this wouldn't have been much of a problem; I could have shut the gap down using climbing speed. But I wasn't -- my legs were approaching serious protest mode from the accelerations on Guadalupe. I was forced to setting into damage control.

image

The leaders were gone, but I still hoped to catch some stragglers, perhaps deterred by the headwinds I'd seen earlier approaching the top. And I did catch one rider in my group. I latched onto him and a rider, perhaps a junior, from an earlier group. Approaching the finish the junior, with perhaps too much left in his tank, took off, but I was able to pass and drop the other guy from my group. Trying my best to ignore the pain, I came across the finish in 7th, my same placing as last year. Out of 12 finishers in the 45+ 1-2-3 group this put me below average, but I'd take it. It's a tough field.

Compared to last year I was 15 seconds faster, but over a minute slower than 2012. Ah, well.

image
Finish area

With Low-Keys over and now the San Bruno Hillclimb done, it's the end of the climbing season, at least until the unsanctioned Mount Diablo climb in May. But I still want to test myself, so want to find a way to get down to Old La Honda Road and make a solid effort there. I guarantee I won't get a PR. But if I could at least get close to 17 minutes, for example under 17:30, that would be a very good time for me right now.

image

Here's an analysis of the power I potentially generated for the climb:

image

I modeled the baseline power assuming a coefficient of rolling resistance of 0.6% (the pavement is rough, particularly on Radio Road) and a coefficient of wind drag of 0.36 m2. This is a bit higher than that for a typical pro cyclist, but my position isn't quite pro, and my clothing doesn't fit as well. I also plot a result for a 25% reduction in wind resistance, consistent with drafting. I drafted for most, but not all, the portion to the turn-off (the turn-off evident by a substantial drop in power while I descended and turned). For most of the rest I was solo.

The conclusion is my power was much higher on the bottom portion than the top. But this isn't a running race: you've simply got to stay with a group on that bottom part if you can, then hope you can hang on Summit.


Kevin Metcalf, 45+ winner, video with front and back cameras


different view: 55+ race. Note the strategy of staying over 10 mph. Not sure this is optimal given the course profile.


Sunday, January 18, 2015

Dolphin South End Runner's Club 10 miler

Today was my first running road race in quite awhile. First since CIM? Maybe. Time really flies.

Anyway, I did the Dolphin Southend Running Club's 10 miler at Sierra Point, running out and back along the Bay Trail, past Genentech. The run was in the morning fog, reducing visibility to only a few hundred meters. The trail would appear ahead without long-range context. We started at the Marina, but the boats were only visible on the water well within the final kilometer.

The race was a certified 10-mile course. That means if you run the trail, hitting all the tangents, running the minimum distance consistent with remaining on the trail (which was mostly paved, the sole exception being a very short dirt section), you went 10 miles to measurement precision. This was a bit of a fiction, however, since with the out-and-back course, near the turn-around point there were oncoming runners, so basic courtesy required staying to the right of the path. This added a small bit of distance: 2π times the half-width of the trail times the number of full circles of turning. The path was frequently turning as it followed the shoreline, so if it turned for example 10 full circles, which seems a reasonable estimate, and if I had to run half of the time 2 meter from the inside radius, that would be an extra 62 meters run. I recorded 16.2 km on my iPhone, which was 100 meters over 10 miles.

The run went okay for me. I let the first group go, then tried to latch onto a second group, since my rough target was to finish around 10th and this put me close to that position. But that projected placing was optimistic, and I had to let that group go as well when a glance at the phone display showed that I was on the fast side of 4 minutes per km, which is way too fast. My goal was 70 minutes which is 4:21 per km.

After the fast start, I had to slow down a bit to get into something closer to a pace which would get me to the second half intact. This was payback time for the quick start. But that's okay -- as long as the payback wasn't bigger than the original loan. I've got the cyclist's view of the importance of staying in a good group. The drafting advantage, especially in still air like we had here (the water was like glass) in running is small, but still non-negligible. With my 70 minute target time, that's 4.2 seconds for every 0.1% saved in running power over the course of the full race. With running taking place in a full upright position, although speeds are relatively low, wind resistance is still not to be dismissed.

But the draft benefit didn't last long before I had to crack back the pace. I hit the first mile at 6:35 on my timer, which 4:07 per km. This is pretty much the point beyond which I lost the group.

The water stop was at mile 3.4, meaning we hit it again at mile 6.6. Both times I got Gatorade, both times I did my typical 6 step stop, walk 2 steps before the water, grab the water, drink for 4 steps, drop the cup and run again. This seems to serve me fairly well, and is much less hassle than trying to grab and drink in a running stride. The Gatorade was a bit strong for my taste, and there was less in the cup than I'd prefer, but I think the drinks were beneficial even in the cool (mid-50F's) conditions.

At the turn-around the lead man was followed very closely by Molly, the lead woman. She'd end up falling back a bit off his pace, or else he pulled away from her. In either case she ended up second overall. I was close to 20th at the turn-around, which was further back than I'd expected from my observation of the first mile.

There was a junior runner not far ahead of me, and ahead of him a group of two. I focused first on catching the junior, who visibly slowed not too far after the turn-around. Then there were the two ahead of him. I caught one, but the other sped up when I approached him from behind. He veered to run around a puddle in the trail. I went straight through, passing him, and I thought that would be it, but perhaps it was a mistake to look back at him and smile at what had happened. He soon repassed, decisively, and put 20 seconds on my. I thought that might be it, but didn't give up. I ended up hearing someone approaching from behind. I was now worried about both chasing the guy ahead and not being caught from behind.

But then my rabbit slowed. The distance closed quickly. I passed, trying to keep the pace up: it was important to not let my success in passing him reduce my concentration and get caught from behind.

Not too long after, however, I heard footsteps rapidly approaching from behind. I assumed it was the guy who'd been chasing me, but when the runner passed, with considerable speed advantage, it was that guy I'd passed.... twice now. He just didn't give up. But I'd caught him twice, surely I could do it again.

But no luck. Although he couldn't keep up the insane speed he demonstrated repassing me, I wasn't able to close the gap. I crossed the line in around 17:10.

Pace analysis is here. I clearly went out too hard. I also finished not far from my starting pace. There's a prominent dip in the pace outbound and inbound where I climbed the only significant hill in the course, once from each side. The outbound leg was 4 seconds faster than the inbound leg, Interestingly Strava has me running at a 4:18 per km average, which is 69:13 for 10 miles, although it notes I have my 2nd best "10 mile effort" at 69:52, which is 4:20 per km. Note Strava won't let me view what my best 10 mile effort is. It allows that for some distances but not for 10 miles. I'll have a suggestion to address this.

Monday, January 12, 2015

Cyclocross Nationals Postponement in Austin

Cyclocross world championships, scheduled yesterday in Austin TX, was initially canceled, later postponed to Monday on a "compressed schedule", nominally due to concern over root exposure on heritage trees in Zilker Park. Here's a comment I posted to a Statesman article on the matter:

The key questions are: 1. is the threat of sustained damage actual or just perceived? Cyclocross events are held in the mud world-wide. Sure, some work needs to be done afterwards, but that was anticipated when the permit was issued, and it's why fees were charged. People ASSUME exposing tree routes is a problem. Is it really? 2. Was the rain that unusual? Park officials claimed 2 inches, but the NWS showed less than an inch. By Austin standards, that's hardly rare.

Some would disagree that a permit should have been issued, but the permit WAS issued, and athletes, support, and fans made substantial sacrifices financially and time-wise to come to Austin. Sure, extreme events happen which get in the way of any outdoor event, but < 1 inch of rain is hardly rare or extreme. Unless there is the real, and not simply perceived, threat of sustained damage than you cannot simply tell them their activity is frivolous for political expediency, for the appearance that you value the trees in the park. Given the long international history of cyclocross racing, sometimes in far more extreme conditions, it's reasonable to fear that the threat in this instance was far overstated.

For many of these racers, in particular the juniors, national championships is their chance to prove themselves for later opportunities at the top level. For others it represents the culmination of months of sacrifice in training. Failing to give that proper respect is a huge disservice.

So how much rain really fell?

Here's weather station data for Zilker Park in Austin:

So 0.28 inches on Saturday and 0.10 inches on Sunday, a total of 0.38 inches. Normal rainfall in Austin for January is 2.0 inches. So this rainfall was 19% of normal for January. Is this the sort of extreme, unforeseeable precipitation, an "act of God" like earthquakes or hurricanes? Hardly. It was just a solid winter rain.

So then the question is whether the potential damage from the race was lasting, in particular to the heritage trees. Root exposure is a normal state for large trees, so it's not in itself a problem. Now I'm not going to comment on this particular case, as I'm not a horticulturist in any way. However, I'll indulge in some healthy skepticism over how much of this action was politically motivated and how much it was motivated over an actual threat.

Sunday, January 4, 2015

Strava: 2015 KOMs and too many segments

Strava just released annual KOMs in addition to all-time KOMs. I think this is great. KOMs have gotten harder and harder, and this makes it more realistic for people to get to share in the glory. The major goal of Strava is to provide incentive for competition, and as all-time KOMs get increasingly optimized, a chance of placing top 3 in segments (and getting a medallion) ceases to be an incentive.

One proposal I made was to award medallions for placing top 10%, top 5%, and top 1% of those ranked on a segment, in addition to the present top 3 (a preference given to which one is tougher). Ranking would be using the VeloViewer metric: placing 1st out of 10, counting yourself, is 10%. This recognizes that the more activities with efforts on a particular segment, the more the top ranking in that segment is worth.

But people have complained about the 2015 KOMs. Part of the problem is of course that it's only the first week in January and these rankings are very soft. Come March the complaints will be less. But the real problem is simply there's way too many segments. If the number of segments was much less, there'd be less clutter.

So how can the number of segments be reduced?

I don't propose deleting any existing segments except perhaps those which have been auto-generated (auto-generation was turned off last year, but the damage in a clutter of poorly designed segments remains). Instead, I prefer a verbosity model.

Suppose I'm writing software and I want to provide the user with feedback, notifying him of various events of interest and of various parameter settings. There may be many events, and many parameters. One approach is to just dump them all someplace, and let the user wade through all of them. But this creates excess clutter, and the more important messages may get easily overlooked. A superior approach, if it can be done, is to assign an importance to different messages. For example, I might assign a number from 1 to 5, with 1 being reserved for only the most important messages (like notification of errors which must be corrected for the program to run successfully), then 2 very useful but less critical, all the way to 5 which are messages which might be only of rare interest. Then the user can pick what level of "verbosity" is desired: from 1 (wanting to see only the most critical messages) up to 5 (show me everything).

This approach could be applied to the segment list. Indeed, it already is, but with only 2 levels: more popular segments are shown by default, and less popular segments are hidden by default, where popularity is implicitly determined by how often the segment page is requested. This is okay, but it needs to be taken further.

First, there should be more than 2 levels. The most selective setting should show only the most popular segments. For example, I did the following ride today:

If there's one segment which should be shown, it's probably this one, Kings Mountain via Huddart, which is assigned an exceptionally low index of 1201 marking it as one of the earliest Strava segments to be defined:

Why do I pick this one? It's essentially the longest climb. I say "essentially" because there's some vertical gain before the start of the segment and some after, but this one begins at a gate and ends at a T intersection and so it has well-established traditional end-points. If you asked me to vote for a segment, this is the one for which I'd vote.

There's other factors I'd consider. A segment needs to be defined with an appropriate start point (not too close to the actual start, to give a margin for GPS error) and end-point (same deal). It should consist of good reference GPS data. And not to be overlooked, it should be appropriately named (I should be able to tell what it is from the name).

Whether I click on it is a good test. But I'd additionally like the option to explicitly vote. For example, I'd like to be able to vote on a scale -2 to +2: -2 meaning I think the segment is especially poor, -1 meaning it's flawed in some way, 0 is the default, 1 means I like it and would pick it versus competing options for the same portion of road, and +2 means I especially like it and would always want to see it. Votes other than the default 0 could add to or subtract from the score of a segment, in addition to the number of clicks it gets.

But the voting score and the clicking scores are raw scores: simply using these alone would give preference to segments on more popular roads and doom those on less popular roads to obscurity. This probably isn't what's wanted. If I ride a rarely ridden road and there's a good segment there I probably want to see it. So the click score should be divided by the number of efforts for the segment and the voting score divided by the number of athletes who've generated efforts for the segment. These are normalized click and vote scores. Strava very likely already does this with click scores. I can combine the normalize scores into an aggregate score.

Once I have an aggregate score for each segment, I need to figure out what my thresholds are for displaying them. A simple approach would be for the user to set a sliding scale which establishes how many segments are shown. The scale maps to a score threshold, and only those segments with scores above the threshold are shown. The threshold range on the slider could be based in part on the range of scores of segments matched by the activity.

I'm tempted to go further, to propose additional criterion which should be considered in scoring segments, like the presence of overlapping segments or distance of altitude gained or a climbing difficulty score like the Fiets metric. But I'll leave that to the voting.

I think a few simple measures will help a lot.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

proposal for multi-sport Strava challenges

Strava challenges are fun, motivating getting out on the bike or for a run when otherwise you might not want to, for example because it's cold or windy or raining. On the other hand, they're distortionary: any time you measure and rank something that thing you're measuring or ranking tends to get more focus than things which aren't measured or ranked.

For example, at present Strava challenges are running-based or cycling-based. You get points for running in running challenges, for cycling in cycling challenges. Mixing running and cycling tends to result in mediocre results in both competitions, with nothing to reward balance, which is otherwise probably healthy. Certainly I've enjoyed mixing up running and cycling since I started running in 2008.

So how to reward both?

I recommend a multi-sport challenge. For example, on a distance basis, use a conversion factor for run miles to cycling miles. For example using Ironman distances, running miles would be equivalent to 4.27 cycling miles, and swimming miles would be equivalent to 46.7 cycling miles. A challenge would thus be ranked and scored based on the following formula:

S = C + kr R + kP P

where C is cycling distance, R is running miles, P is swimming distance, S is the total score (units of distance, where kR is a conversion factor for running miles to cycling miles, and kP is a conversion factor for swimming distance to cycling distance.

So what to use for the conversion factors? Strava has a ton of data, but a well-vetted reference is the Ironman Triathlon, the de facto standard in multi-sport distances. Those ratios are:

kR = 4.27
kP = 46.7

For vertical gain, swimming obviously doesn't really apply, but for running versus cycling, either the same conversion factor could be used, or it could be recognized steeper routes are possible with running, and a smaller conversion could apply, or even no conversion (1=1).

Note this approach results in a ranking which can be won by a pure runner or pure cyclist or, if swimming in included, a pure swimmer. It doesn't reward balance at all, but rather simply accepts it. To reward balance an alternate operator to addition is suggested... for example, multiplication.

For example, the following formula could be used (I leave out swimming here since for many access to good swimming is minimal):

S = sqrt[ C × R ]

where C is cycling distance, R is running distance, and "sqrt" specifies square root. With this approach, if you have a choice between a run or a ride, the one which increases your net distance by the maximal percentage is the optimal one for your score. If you do the same distance runs every time, and the same distance rides every time, then you maximize the score by having the same number of runs and rides.

An interesting aspect of this if all your run activities are the same distance, and all the cycling activities are the same distance, then it doesn't matter how long your runs or rides are. There's no run-to-bike conversion factor. All that matters for deciding whether to run or ride is which you've done more of. Pick the other to maximize your score. So if I've done ten 1 km runs and 11 50 km rides, I'm better off doing a 1 km run today than another 50 km ride. Of course I'm even better off doing a 10 km run.

An alternative scheme could be used to give preference to a given fraction (other than 50%) for runs versus rides, but I don't see much point to that:

S = C^f × R^(1-f)

where ^ is exponentiation, f is the power to which the argument is raised, and C and R are as before. Here f is the optimal fraction of cycling activities of the same length assuming running activities also of the same length and a fixed number of total activities (f = 0.5 gives the balanced formula above, f = 1 gives a cycling challenge, f = 0 gives a running challenge).

In any case, this is all selfish on my part, since I want to be rewarded for what I want to do anyway, rather than having to change my behavior. But I think this second sort of challenge would be particularly fun.

I posted this suggestion on the Strava support forum.

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Vector pedal stroke analysis metrics available

Fulfilling a long-term promise, the Garmin Vector now does pedalstroke analysis! See DC Rainmaker's excellent blog post on the latest firmware update.

The new metrics include:

  1. pedal force offset: this measures how far outboard or inboard the average force is applied.
  2. pedal power stroke: this measures over which angles peak propulsive force is applied
  3. seated versus standing time: if you're standing, the pedals support full body weight (non-propulsive), so the Vector can determine how much time you're standing versus sitting (and record whether you're standing or sitting).

Various applications for these metrics would be bike fit, technique analysis, and interpretation of performance. For the pedal force offset, that obviously suggests a bike fit application. "Power stroke" suggests both fit and technique. Standing versus seating suggests performance analysis: am I faster seated or standing on short steep climbs? What about long sustained climbs?

More data is almost never a good thing. The key is how to act on it.

On fit, saddle height optimization is an obvious application. Can I see some signature in the metrics of the saddle being too high? Does the power stroke compress as the bottom of the pedal stroke becomes less accessible when the seat is too high? Does the top of the pedal stroke becomes less productive when the saddle is too low? I don't know.

My key objection is that the update is provided only for the 510, 810, and 1000. For me, the 500 is the best unit most of the time: it's the most compact, the lightest, and it's relatively easy to use. In most cases, I analyze the data after the event: I don't need diverse metrics displayed during the ride. The numbers are produced by the Vector, not the head unit, since they involve samples taken at substantially higher than the 1-per-second rate of the head unit. So updating the head unit would be simply a matter of accepting the associated data field types. As far as I'm concerned, they don't even need to be displayable. I just want them to be recorded.

Rainmaker made the argument that the Edge 500 is 5 years old now and you can't expect Garmin to continue to support 5-year-old hardware. But this is misleading: the unit isn't some deprecated unit which has been displaced by a superior product in the same space. But they don't, and the Edge 500 is still manufactured and is still popular. If you walk into a bike shop and see it for sale today, that it's 5 years old is trivia. As far as you're concerned it's a current product.

The key point here is that this isn't about increasing the value of an Edge 500, which already has well-established value. Rather this is about increasing the value of the Vector, a much newer unit, so that it works fully with the Edge 500.

So I wish Garmin would fix this unfortunate decision: after spending $1500 on a Vector, customers committed to the 500 shouldn't miss out on important functionality which differentiates the Vector from cheaper alternatives.

Saturday, December 27, 2014

modern bar design: the Enve SES Aero

Caley Fretz is one of my favorite cycling reviewers. He now works for VeloNews, where he wrote this review on the new Enve SES bar:

The shape of the SES is a reflection of the way that positioning has changed in recent years — as bars have dropped relative to the saddle, and our understanding of aerodynamics has improved, it has become clear that the lowest drag is often found with hands on the hoods, elbows bent at 90 degrees, chin to the stem.

The SES design allows for a narrow, aerodynamic hood position — 37cm on my test bar — while retaining a wider drop area, 42cm. Narrow when you want it, wide when you need it.

Here's the Enve:

image

I love new ideas!

In completely separate news, VeloPress has recently published Goggles and Dust, a book based on the remarkable photos which are part of the Horton Collection:

image