If you had to do it again, what would you do differently?

The title of this blog entry is probably my second favorite question I like to ask folks who have recently completed a goal event/project...y'know, it's a good question for us curious folks to pose to people who have spent some time and energy striving to achieve a goal that really means something to them. It's an opportunity for us all to learn, so to speak.

Though, really, it's not a very good question to ask someone who, on a whim, decides to give something a go at the last minute. These style of folks probably didn't give what they did (their "execution"), or how they approached the goal (their "process") much thought - so, the answer that these folks might give doesn't really mean much, I reckon...

but...the folks who put some effort into the deal...well, I reckon I'd be a bit curious about what I could learn from them and their experience. So, yeah, I think the title of this blog is a good question for these folks.

Case in point: Jordan Rapp - recently crowned 2009 IM Canada champ. I haven't asked him this question after his IMC effort. Nor do I expect that I'll get the chance to. Who knows, though, about that...I mean, I did get a response from him after this blog entry:

http://www.biketechreview.com/kdublog/2008/11/ironman.html

so, maybe he just might indulge me! lol! :-)

But really, I reckon the more interesting time to have asked "the question" to Rapp might have been after his second attempt at IMAZ last fall. Here's how I would have expected him to answer "the question" after IMAZ 2008: -> "focus more on the run".

If, indeed that would have been how he answered that question last November (2008), his result today in Penticton (August 2009) wouldn't be that surprising.

FWIW, I'm not too surprised.

Though, I am curios to see what he might be able to do in the future if he ever explored the "faster is faster" process, rather than the "optometrist" process (which Mr. Rapp is obliged currently to promote) as it relates to how one ought to sit on a bike.

The topic of how to sit on a bike has evolved over a hundred+ years, and the modern day tools - such as a power meter and a wind tunnel - have suggested that history has gotten things pretty much "right".

Well, that's what the demand side data from n=100+ athletes in the wind tunnel (and n=1000+ runs) has suggested to me anyway. Granted, this is only the demand side of things, but once one considers how much "supply" is necessary/targetted for an IM effort, well, that sort of thing becomes secondary, I reckon.

Though, really, in the grand scheme of things, I'm open to all sorts of ways to play around with how one might try and sit on a bike...and, believe me, in individual cases, I've seen things that buck the trends. Which is why I sort of chuckle to myself when I hear the "certainty" and "precision" of some folks out there on the interwebs when it comes to how one "ought to sit on a bike"...

Hence, "faster is faster" is the process I prefer to promote.

All of this, as it pertains to Rapp, is pure speculation on my part, of course, but hey - dood just won IMC, so congrats to him on a fine performance.

To personalize this a bit on my end...if I were to have asked myself "the question" (and believe me, I've already done this a number of times! :-) ) after my IMAZ performance last fall, I reckon I'd have said: "focus more on the run".

so, yeah...What's my "caveman" summary about the whole Ironman deal?




More often than not, on the day of the event, long course triathlon isn't really about the bike.




Next week, I think I'll jot down some of the specifics of what I did for IMAZ 2008 and what I'd have done differently knowing what I know from experiencing the whole deal.

elites might find these thoughts irrelevant...but then again, non-elites might also find them irrelevant! :-D

Regardless - the IM deal last summer/fall was "my" n=1 experience...and I guess my big hope would be that someone reading can learn, or better yet/more importantly - think about their approach a bit more deeply.

That'd be pretty cool, huh!? Thinking more deeply about process stuff, and whatnot?!

Cycling Weekly e-Interview - part 1

A few months ago, I was sent a series of questions from Oliver Roberts of Cycling Weekly over in the UK.

I spent a wee-bit of time answering all of the questions he sent my way, and some of those answers made it into the final publication (which was cool to see!) - although, I had to purchase a digital copy of it to check out if I was quoted well! ;0)

http://www.zinio.com/cover?is=228905657&img=l

Anyway, since I took the time to answer the questions for him - I reckon my answers would make for some good fodder here on kdublog - I've added some additional nuggets where I felt like it, FWIW!

here goes - question #1:

[cycling weekly] "The received wisdom is 'as low as possible is better' is this in fact the case?"

[kraig] I don’t think so.

I’m living proof that lower is not necessarily better. For the better part of 15 years of bike racing my TT setup was such that I made the bars as low as possible. Then, I went to the Wind Tunnel here in San Diego (http://www.lswt.com/) and explored what I call the "design space".

I quantified how much my axial force changed as a function of reach, drop, elbow width, forearm angle, saddle position, etc… over several different tunnel sessions. What I found out was that I had been riding below my potential in flat TT’s, largely in pursuit of becoming as "aerodynamic" as possible.

Last year (2006), I set lifetime personal bests at the 20k distance with a bar position that was 10+cm higher than previous positions - simply because I intelligently used the tools at my disposal to measure both axial force (I used a wind tunnel) and power production (I used an SRM Pro Power Meter). I also re-learned how to surf the pain curve during the actual time trials - that's worth quite a bit of time, I reckon!

Here's a photo comparison of my position in 2004 vs 2006:



Sure, going lower will generally make you more aerodynamic (that’s why folks tuck on descents!), but at what cost to the other parameter - power production? Going fast is a balance of one’s axial force, power production, and most importantly, putting it all together and executing via the supercomputer on race day.

Here’s an article I wrote that tries to send the message that using tools to help guide the positioning process is often times helpful:

http://www.biketechreview.com/performance/faster.htm

Obree, Boardman, and Faster is Faster

Still under mandatory evacuation around here due to the fires and whatnot. Actually had to go into work and do an 9 "solid" today...

In my idleness of the past few days I did a bit of thinkin' (dangerous!), anybody care to venture a guess at which is faster:



or this one:



Just checkin' to see if y'all is payin' attention to where it's really at: ya'know: "faster is faster" and all.