Race Report: Thames Turbo Sprint Triathlon Series 2013, Race 4

Race day! Woohoo! Up at 4:30am! Less woohoo, but got to be done... Race day mornings are a well oiled machine now. Up, eat, pack car, and off to Hampton Pool. I love these bank holiday Monday races. Now all we need a few more bank holiday Mondays through the year...

Race briefing

Decided to incorporate a good warmup this morning - some plyometric stretches, a few bodyweight squats and lunges, and then I ran down to the first corner on the bike course and back. Nice and sweaty, well warmed up, and after a race briefing at 6:30 we're off! Well, almost, there were 225 people to be off in front of me at 15 second intervals, but they soon were on their way and it was my turn.

A few minutes past 6:30am and the very first swimmer is off

My swim plan was simple – it’s only 426 metres so push hard all the way through. In the first length and a half I’d caught the person in front of me (1.5 lengths swimming, 0.5 lengths trying not to swim over the lady I caught up). The swim marshalling was good and observant, so she was tapped on the head to wait at the end and let me past (as if my constant patting of her feet wasn’t signal enough!). I turned and pushed off hard, then turning for length 4 I caught the next person – same deal. In fact, I caught the next person in front on every pair of lengths – this broke my rhythm, slowed me down, and made the turns take longer. My swim time could have been quite a bit quicker – maybe as much as 15 to 20 seconds over all.

Time for a confession: This “catching people in the swim” problem is the downside of trying to be clever about where you’re positioned in the waves. When you sign up you provide estimates for your 400m swim time and overall race completion time. By having a good swim time estimate, but a slow overall race time estimate, you can get in the first or second wave. I have been under-reporting my race time deliberately to achieve just this result (sorry).

This means I’m surrounded by cyclists who aren’t as fast as me (plenty of people to chase) and because it’s still very early the traffic levels are low on the roads. However, those in the wave seem to be less good at estimating their swim time (it’s hard to do it unless you smash out 400m and see how long it takes) – I know I’ve made a hash of it in previous race entries. If I told the truth about my estimated finish time then I’d be in wave 4 with the scary fast people (along with Mrs). That wave are much more aware of their swim capabilities – Mrs didn’t catch anyone, or get overtaken, and could therefore focus on getting a good swim in. I may need to bite the bullet in 2014 and play with the fast people – being overtaken on the bike and getting someone to harder to chase would be good for me too.

In any case, swim done – couldn’t push as hard as I wanted, but I certainly went harder than I recall going before – this gave me a good time of 07:48 a new PB, happy with that!

I’d decided to try some new things in T1 to speed up and cut down on the number of things I had to do. Shoes were attached to the bike so I don’t need to faff about putting them on and running to the mount line in shoes with cleats, and I’d put my sunglasses across my tri-bars so I didn’t have to put them on and faff about more as they instantly steam up. The routine was simply: run to bike, drop goggles, put race belt on with my number on it, put bike helmet on, grab bike, run out.  This gave me my fastest T1 ever of 53s. Happy with that too. A "Swim + T1" PB of 40s.

Less stuff = less faff = faster transition

Out on the bike, feet slipped into my shoes perfectly (definitely faster, will use the same technique in Zell am See next weekend), got some momentum up, sunglasses on, and settled in for the short ride. I started reeling in the slower riders in front of me, taking a half dozen by the first turn-around. Thinking after the event, being around slower riders is not helpful. There’s nothing driving you on, no one to race, and no one to overtake you – you get a false sense of your own performance. Next year I’ll bite the bullet and start in wave 4, a little humility will do me good.

One set of traffic lights got me but I had good notice so freewheeled up waiting for them to change. A rubbish truck turned into the road in front of me later on and broke my rhythm – I overtook it after 10 seconds or so (felt like a lot longer). I pushed, keeping cadence high, changing up when I could and back down when needed. It was feeling good. No slowing for the speed-bumps, just keep pushing.  One final bit of fun at the end, sprinting to just beat someone to the timing line – maybe a sign I could have been going harder all the time? In any case, came out with a 35:52 which is just 44s off my PB. I’m more than happy with that as I’m certainly far less trained than last year – so with a good winter of base training to come there’s certainly scope for some big bike PB action next year.

I used 06:01 of the 7 minute non-compete zone trundling back up to T2, ran through T2 as fast as I could, including going the wrong way to Run Exit – never done that before! Proof if it were needed that some good transition visualization is important when you rack up in the morning – even if it’s the 10th time you’ve done the race. No room for complacency. T2 was over in 52s, another PB.

I knew the run would be the tricky bit – my swimming is feeling good right now, and I can usually pull out a good bike regardless, but you can’t fake it on the run. I was using my lovely Brooks T7racers from last year and they felt weightless. My cadence got up quickly to 5km turnover of around 92 strides per minute (measured from a sensor on one foot, so a stride is effectively two steps). I kept a good constant pace but was troubled by labored breathing. I was wheezing a fair amount and not running with an inhaler meant there was nothing I could do but push on through. It’s uncomfortable but not debilitating though certainly impacts performance. I was happy with my overall run time of 25:09, which gives a "T2 + Run" time of 26:02, a fair bit slower than my course PB "T2 + Run" time of 23:42 but still the fastest 5km I’ve run since returning to running.

Great stats showing me making places on transitions and bike, and losing them all on the run :)

So, a good day. I recovered quickly, no aches or pains apart from a slight Achilles tenderness from not being used to running in the low-drop trainers.

My final time was 1:10:33 - my third fastest finish time on this course. Overall I was top 16% of finishers at 70th out of 445, top 23% of men at 61st of 269, and top 27% in my age group at 13th out of 48.

Mrs smashed her previous PB and absolutely monstered the bike – check her report.

Over a year since I last raced this race - I love it every time

A calm week ahead now as I try to go into Ironman70.3 Zell am See-Kaprun fresh next Sunday!

P.S. I’m writing this on the plane on the way to Austria now and can confirm it was a calm-ish week, though it may have featured a bit more wine and Peanut M&Ms than is ideal – what is it about Peanut M&Ms? Way too addictive…

Ironman UK performance analysis

As I write this I'm on a plane on my way out to the US for another lightening fast visit. Arrive Sunday night, one night in New York, work Monday, and fly back overnight landing on Tuesday morning in time to go to the office in London. Don't let them tell you international travel is glamorous.

It's an important trip, and I can see the need for me to be there in person on Monday, but I'm a bit annoyed at missing what had become until recently a bit of a bank holiday ritual. The Monday morning 4am start to get up and head over to Hampton Pool for the wonderful Thames Turbo sprint series races. One is held on each of our bank holiday weekends, so there are three in close company at the start of the year, and then one in August.

I had decided to skip race 3, instead getting some extended training in the bank, but had been looking forward to race 4. In theory, I've never been this fit - how much of that transfers from the long course racing for which I've been training to the short course sprint format is uncertain, and I intended to find out tomorrow with a balls-out (metaphorically, I assure you) effort.

In any case, instead I'm an hour out from Heathrow over the Eastern Atlantic on my way to Noo Yoik. I shouldn't complain too much - without my job with the good folks at Razorfish I wouldn't be able to fund my Ironman habit.

Recently I've been reading the rather excellent blog of Russell Cox, entitled Trains & Travels. Lately he's posted a number of articles looking at the relative performance of athletes as benchmarked against their peers and other performance levels in their race. I've always done this with my Thames Turbo results - and they've always shown the same patterns:

The swim: I am roughly at the bottom of the top third. I've been improving, slowly, but not very rapidly. I haven't competed in a Thames Turbo race since I've re-learned to swim (more on that in the future). Recently I've been 25-30% down the field overall, but, as Male 30-39 is a high performing age group, this translates to only about 35-40% in my age group.

The bike: This is where I'm strong. In Thames Turbo races I can get as high as the top 10% in the overall field. I'm also strong in my age group, hitting top 15%.

The run: Do we have to talk about the run? In my first two Thames Turbo races I was beaten by almost 83% of the entire field - I am not a runner. My best run performance was Race 4 last year where I sneaked into the top 50% - but still got beaten by 65% of the others in my age group.

Overall: My strong bike pushes me up the rankings. In recent races I have come in the top 25% of the field, and the top 35% of my age category.

Disclaimer: My Thames Turbo PB was in Race 1 of this year - I haven't conducted my usual analysis on those results as they've stopped releasing the immensely useful .xls of all the results, and have moved to an equally immensely annoying web-based results tool. Colour me unimpressed.

Russell's blog got me thinking about how this performance benchmarking compares to my inaugural Ironman. Would the same pattern be revealed? If so, what action can I take to produce a better performance next time?

It just so happens that I checked the Ironman UK results page yesterday, and they have now released a .xls of the full results. I'll say right now - all race results data should be released like this. Today's Internet is all about the cool things you can do with data - and the first step is making the data available in an easily consumable manner. Coming third only to well documented API and a tidy .csv is the glory that is the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Fancy web front-ends and search tools are great, but please, race organisers, make them your way of interpreting the results for those that just want to click about, don't make them the only way to get to the data.

So what does the spreadsheet tell me? It tells me the following:

My finish was a bit behind where I would expect to come in shorter races. The first race at a new distance is unlikely to give your optimal performance, and I suspect my run will have brought me down the field.

• 501st out of 1,180 overall (42.5%) - meaning I was "chicked" by 39 women
• 462nd out of 1,047 men (44.1%)
• 103rd in my age category (M35-39) out of 227 (45.4%)

My swim was pretty average compared to previous performances. Interestingly I was higher up in my age group ranking than overall - this implies that M35-39 is behind the curve in Ironman swimming, as opposed to my local sprint races where it's one of the strongest groups.

• 408th overall (34.6%)
• 357th male (34.1%)
• 74th M35-59 (32.6%)

My swim to bike transition (T1) was well inside the top third. Again we see the M35-39 group are a little behind the curve - come on guys, get your fingers out!

• 343rd overall (29.1%)
• 303rd male (28.9%)
• 64th M35-39 (28.2%)

The bike was where, in my opinion, my race started to diverge from the plan. I went out far too hard and thought that would massively impact my ranking - I'm still in the top third, but no where near where I would hope to be.

• 350th overall (29.7%)
• 329th male (31.4%)
• 70th M35-39 (30.8%)

The bike is where the spreadsheet gets really interesting. It lists the split times at 7 points on the bike course (to this day I have no idea how they did that - I don't recall going over any timing mats).

My recollection of the bike phase is that I went off like a rocket. I thought I was under control, but I was flying past people like they were standing still. I decayed hard over the second and third laps, and picked up a tiny bit (probably relief!) towards the end of the third lap.

The stats seem to validate my suspicions, only I was decaying way sooner than I realised. In fact every split was slower (relative to the field) than the one before. I managed a very minor improvement on the last split, but that was only 2.3 miles long so I don't think it counts for much! Needless to say, this is not a good example of Ironman pacing. 

However, I was significantly faster at the start than I realised, my 12.5% overall for the first split puts me in the top eighth of all competitors! My assumption that I'd drifted down to half way or even further by the end was based on my starting pace being average - I didn't realise I'd set off so relatively hard, and therefore although I slipped a long long way down, my finish was still quite good (relative to the field, if not relative to my normal short course triathlon performance).

A similar story can be seen from my average speed.

It looks alternately slow and fast because the 3-lap circuit had a very definite slow and fast half, but of note is that the slow halves get slower each time, and the fast halves do too. My pace was dropping continually throughout the bike phase - this is a real eye opener, I had expected a period of good stable performance followed by a rapid drop off, not a decline basically from the word go!

So how does this compare with everyone else? I figure the top 20 finishers should know a thing or two about pacing - after all, they're the only group who went under 10 hours, with 20th place just sneaking under at 9:58:53. This group is all male, the first female was Irish professional Eimear Mullen who came in at 10:08:44 - an incredible performance for her first full distance race.

So it seems the top guys also fade, just like I do - exactly like I did, in fact. Only they are going faster to start with, and they drop off at a lower rate (their reduction is therefore much less impacting). This isn't quite what I expected, I assumed that there was a magic pacing ability the top performers have and their splits would show that the three laps were taken at a similar pace each time. Actually, their pacing pattern was much like mine, only they're much fitter and can therefore go faster and resist the drop off in pace for longer.

If I conserved my energy better by starting more within my capabilities I should find that, although my initial velocity might be marginally reduced, I can limit the rate of decay of pace, and therefore my plot would look similar to the top 20, only shifted down by a few km/h. Overall this would give me a better finishing time. Something to think about for Galway where the bike course is virtually flat. If I can get the pace right from the start and hold it right through to the end, and still have good legs for the run, then I'll have got it right and be deservedly pleased.

I'm expecting my bike to run transition to be poor - basically I stopped for a picnic, application of sun cream, a chat, and generally took my time. Mentally, I needed the break, but race-wise I suspect it cost me some places.

• 1,011th overall (85.7%)
• 896th male (85.6%)
• 199th M35-59 (87.7%) 

As expected - terrible! The stats show that at the slow end the M35-59 group were marginally better than average, but when you get down to the back 15% it's all much for muchness. Any longer and I'd have squeezed in a nice cup of tea (now I've thought that I'm wondering about the practicalities of leaving a small Thermos in my T2 bag, hmm...).

One of my objectives for Galway is to speed up my transitions. I needed the break after the challenging bike ride, but a better managed bike should mean a faster T2 (suggesting a well paced bike makes more difference than just that revealed by the bike split time alone). For reference, the fastest T2 was a breath-taking 1:16 by Rob Cummins, an Irish athlete who was placed 48th overall.

Onto the run, and again I'm expecting a picture of starting too fast and fading fast. If the Thames Turbo pattern holds then I'll be significantly further down the field in the run that I was the swim or bike.

• 747th overall (63.3%)
• 669th male (63.9%)
• 158th M35-59 (69.6%)

So I just squeezed into the top two thirds overall, and the top two thirds of men, but my age category is clearly comprised of stronger than average runners, therefore I got beaten by very nearly 7 out of every 10 of them.

Again, the spreadsheet gives a lot of splits. Let's see if the run really went the way I remember it.

This one is a bit different - it looks like I was gaining places overall for the first 13 miles, unlike the bike where I was losing places form the start. The trend reversed fairly quickly, and I started drifting back relative to the field at a pretty high rate. 13 to 21 miles was really hard, and I got slower and slower, and then managed to halt the decline for the last couple of miles (possibly because I knew the end was close, and also it was downhill!).

Basically, my pacing sucked, and I went off at an utterly unsustainable pace.

Compared again with the top 20 finishers shows my pattern was fairly representative, but once again I started a lot more slowly. My pace from 17-20km didn't pick up again when compared with the top finishers - I expect this was one of the long gentle rises that I just couldn't get going on and ended up walking most of the way. The top 20 picked up the pace again and kept running.

Note here that although it looks like our paces were declining at the same rate because the trend line is roughly parallel, this isn't the case. My drop of about 2.5km/h represents a proportionally greater reduction given my starting pace of only 9.5km/h (26%), whereas the top 20 dropped a similar amount of about 2km/h but starting much faster at 14km/h (14% drop).

As with the bike, I expected the top 20 finishers to have a magic pacing ability that showed they hold an even pace throughout, but this isn't the case. They gradually slow down along with everyone else (along with me, at least). Where my curve differs at 17-20km I was clearly in trouble, this matches my experience - this was the darkest point in the run, although I felt mentally alert (I take that as evidence my nutrition was good) my legs just wouldn't do what they were told. Even the technique of setting small targets (the next aid station, landmark, or sometimes even lamp-post) was not working - legs just went "sorry, no way" and would play ball. Or run.

I'm taking a few things from this analysis:

• My pattern of pacing decay is fairly representative.
• My rate of decay is proportionately greater than those at the sharp end of the field.
• The top 20 are faster at the start, faster in the middle, and faster at the end!
• My swim is OK - although a third of the field beat me, the time difference is comparatively small. The 9th place finisher only beat me by 3 minutes, and despite being 22% faster the top 20 was only on average 16:30 ahead of me. 
• My run is by far the weakest discipline, and that should be a major component of my winter focus. This is where I faded badly, and lost the most time.
• To move up to the next level (12 hours would seem to be a reasonable target) I need to improve my run, and get better at managing my effort on the way there.

Importantly for this year:

• Even if I control my bike better in Wales I'm not going to pluck an amazing run out of thin air.
• The bike course is a lot harder than Bolton, and as a result I'm not sure I'll be able to set a better time, even with better pacing.
• I now recognise that at Wales the challenge for me really is in getting to the end.

In my next races I should (hopefully) have my watch working properly so I can map all this against my own data rather than just the published splits - that will give me a lot more insight.

Race Report: Thames Turbo Sprint Series - Race 2

Thames Turbo race days involve Very Early Starts. Today's was a Very Early Start Indeed, as the first competitor was going to set off at 06:30 instead of the usual 07:00. This meant Race Briefing at about 06:25, and so even though we'd made the trip to the pool yesterday evening to register we still needed to get there for 06:00 to rack up and get ready. I have decided this year to cycle there rather than drive to get a warmup in. Therefore we were leaving the house at 05:20 for the 14km ride, and that meant getting up at 04:30! In my book, that's a Very Early Start Indeed.

It was cold, but dry. There had been some showers over night, but apart from the odd puddle you'd have been hard pressed to tell. Thankfully not a repeat of the rain-fest that was Race 1. We arrived and racked up without incident. I didn't see the exact time the first swimmer went off, but it seemed like they stuck to the planned 06:30 kick-off. I was bib 227 so I had a fair time to wait. I cheered Mrs as she started a few minutes ahead of me as bib 195. Her estimated swim time is faster than mine, so she goes off before me. You can check out her race report here.

Nigel Clemens conducting the Race Briefing

I followed my Race Strategy well. I'd eaten according to plan, and warmed up before the swim (a bit early, there was a wave break after the 174th person and that meant I was all but cooled down again by the time my start came). I'd set up my new Garmin Forerunner 910XT, but decided to leave it on "Other" sport for the duration of the race - I didn't want to be fiddling about telling it when I'd changed sports whilst trying to race. Maybe next time when I can do it without thinking.

It was a bit warmer, but still cold enough for some pre-race foot-warming in the baby pool

The pool - competitors set off at 10 or 15 second intervals in swim-time seeded order

I set off well, not as well as I'd like, but certainly better than the thrashing about of Race 1. The swim felt faster than last time, so I was a bit disappointed to see I was only 3 seconds quicker over the 432m. Still, it's a PB swim time, and I can't complain about that. I think to get better in the swim I need to go out to the pool and become more familiar with it (as well as "get better at swimming", of course).

All through the race the Marshals have competitor lists and shout personalised encouragement

T1 was 3 seconds quicker at 00:57 versus 01:00 in Race 1, I expected more as it was warmer and not raining, but any quicker is still quicker.

It took a bit of gaffing to get my feet in my shoes on the bike, but once in I shot down to the first corner (as per Race Strategy). I can definitely say I went for it on the bike. I pushed hard the whole way, focussing on the next section and the next person ahead. As there were 226 people in front of me, and my bike is strong, I caught lots of people. I enjoy seeing someone on the horizon and reeling them in, I find it helps me keep putting the power down. I caught Mrs with about 500m to go - I was giving it my all for a strong finish. It turns out I was the only person who overtook her - she was having a storming race!

I used almost a bit too much of the 7 minute non-compete zone - I worked out afterwards I'd used 06:56 of it! It was a nice breather though, and really nice to cycle back up to the pool with Mrs who finished just a few seconds behind me.

T2 was uneventful - again, quicker than in Race 1 at 00:49 as opposed to 01:06. I think there's time to be saved here though, I shall make a note to practice the transitions, as I never have done.

I ran according to plan too. Found my legs in the first km, wound it up a bit, tried to hold the pace (with some success) and just focussed on ticking the kilometre markers off. At only 5km you can put some effort in, but it's still long enough to end up blowing up if you go out too hard. I summoned up my strength for the last 500m and pushed hard for the final corner. As I turned it I sensed someone else behind me, and we both opened up and flat out sprinted the last 100m to the finish line. My Garmin says I hit 21.1km per hour! I held out by the way, beating him by what felt like just hundredths of a second. It turns out he was bib 226, so overall I'd beaten him by 10 seconds - that sprint was definitely worth it.

The unofficial timing printout (in the official time I was another 2 seconds faster overall)

I bought my new watch in order to get heart rate data during the race - the Polar RS300X sports watch I wore previously whilst swimming (and therefore racing triathlons) doesn't provide a plot, just average and maximum. 

My first trip out with the Garmin was a resounding success - after only the briefest of configurations I got a great plot.

Today I learned the "Tools -> Annotate -> Add Boxed Text" feature in Apple Preview

You can clearly see:

1. The swim, HR rose rapidly and stabilised
2. The bike, solid output and a sustained push at the end
3. The non-compete zone and T2
4. The run complete with...
5. ...sprint finish

From this I can see that I work hard on the bike, but have a lot more to give in both the swim and the run (in heart rate terms, at least).

I'd followed my Race Strategy well, and I'd given it a really big effort. I can definitely say I was trying hard. My time overall was 01:08:35, just 12 seconds slower than the last race. This says two things to me, firstly that my performance in race 1, in the freezing cold and rain, was far better than I'd realised at the time; and secondly that the training load this week had hit me and I wasn't fresh - I've run 4 of the last 5 days, and cycled 120km home from Northampton parkrun on Saturday (2 days ago).

I cycled home (very) slowly with Mrs who had also put a monumental effort in, and waited for the results to be published.

Mrs looking justifiably super-happy at smashing her PB by a phenomenal 3 minutes and 31 seconds!

When the official results came out, analysis had me double-checking my figures to make sure I was right! In this race my results showed that I was:

• 47th overall out of 391 finishers (top 12%)
• 20th fastest bike split out of the whole field (top 5%)
• 2nd fastest bike split in the M35-39 category of 50 finishers (top 4%)
• 8th finisher in the M35-39 category (top 16%)

This is by far the strongest set of results I've ever had, and I'm absolutely overjoyed about it! I've got a lot to waffle on about the analysis I do on the results (the run and swim stats are not quite so impressive!), and where I place relative to those around me, but I'll save that for another day (there will be lots of interesting graphs, I promise).

Some of the swimmers seemed a little confused (see also this tweet)

I feel thoroughly justified for stuffing my face the second I'd got home and got cleaned up.

To make the day even more special, I had a double-yolked egg!!

The full Garmin log of the race is here.