From the Field : Doing Two-Person Team RAAM by Bernie Comeau (2001) UltraMarathon Cycling Assoc., Inc. All rights reserved In 2001, Team RAAM witnessed a changing of the guard. In years past, the four-person competition had always been the mainstay of team RAAM. This year, however, the two-person team dominated the Team RAAM division, with a total of eight teams entered. The appeal of the two-person event is obvious, as it combines the speed and tactics of the fourperson race with an endurance factor that more closely approaches the spirit of RAAM. Thus, riders can expect to spend an average of 12 hours per day in the saddle (as compared to only six hours for the four-person event), riding more than a double-century per day as they help their team move across the country. With the immensely positive outcome from the 2001 race, both in terms of the level of competition, and the comments of the competitors (many have vowed to return for 2002), the two-person event is poised to grow significantly in the next few years. Indeed, RAAM race director Lon Haldeman has noted on several occasions that he sees the twoperson race as the wave of the future for RAAM. The two-person race is still in its infancy. Although a two-person team first entered RAAM in 1997, last year's race was the first time that more than one team entered in the same year. Thus, most who will take part in the two-person RAAM race in the future will be new to the format, coming to the event from either solo experiences or other team events. As such, the learning curve is still pretty steep regarding the best approaches riders should take in preparing for and racing in two-person RAAM. With this in mind, I recently polled riders who have taken part in the two-person RAAM to get their thoughts on how best to approach the race, and what advice they might have for other riders new to, and preparing for, the two-person RAAM event. Their comments are insightful, and highlight that the two-person race is indeed a bona fide race unto itself, containing elements that clearly set it apart from either the solo race or other team events. This article will cover twoperson training and logistics, while the next will detail racing strategies, including tactics and nutrition. Training Almost all riders recognized that this is a unique race, that taxes the mind and body in different ways than solo ultra events. As such, they tailored their training to focus upon elements that would most help them for the two-person event. At the top of the list for almost all riders was speed work. Most had calculated that, depending upon race conditions and specific tactics, they would typically be on the bike for no more than a few hours at a time before resting. Their goal during the race was, in the words of one rider, "to maintain a fast pace for as long as possible", which required "consistently bringing myself to the brink of going anaerobic without actually crossing the barrier". To prepare for this type of focused racing, riders employed different training regimens, though each had a similar goal in mind: to increase power and aerobic capacity for a given sustained effort. The typical peak training month of the these cyclists actually resembled quite closely the "speed work" phase of the average solo RAAM racer's training (see UltraCycling, From the
Field: On the Bike Training, November 2000). Thus, most of these cyclists used some sort of interval-type training at least once per week. Most often this took the form of a 25-mile time trial, a series of 10-minute hill climbs, or just plain interval training (about 10 minutes each). Other rides during the week included ones of about 50-60 miles, as well as one long ride. The long ride was typically 10-12 hours in duration (about 200 miles). Most riders reasoned that even though they would never have to ride this long for one stretch during the race, their daily total would approach this duration/distance, so it was necessary to "train the body" to adapt to riding 200 miles per day. Indeed, some riders, during their peaking phase of training, rode consecutive 200-mile per day rides every other weekend in order to physically (and mentally) prepare themselves for being on the bike 12 hours per day during RAAM. As one rider put it, "this is still RAAM; we may not be riding 24-hours a day, but you still need to be prepared to be in the saddle for long periods of time, and to be in the saddle while you're physically and mentally exhausted". As we might expect, the monthly mileage of the these riders, though impressive, did not approach the peaking phase of the solo RAAM riders, whose main long rides were often 24 hours or more. Riders preparing for the two-person event typically averaged about 1,500 miles per month (compared to 2,500 miles for the solo RAAM rider). While it was clear that "the long rides are key" for solo RAAM riders, it was equally obvious that the fast, "shorter" rides seemed to be key in preparing for the two-person event. A common training ride for these riders, as the race approached, was an 80- or 100-mile time trial. One rider, in fact, to better simulate race conditions, would ride a 100-mile time trial in the morning, rest for six hours, and then ride another 100-mile time trial. The rider felt that these rides in particular allowed him to combine intensity with duration, and effectively prepare himself physically as well as mentally for the stresses of RAAM Logistics The logistical approach to two-person RAAM is also different from solo RAAM. With two racers involved, more "stuff" will be necessary, though not necessarily twice as much for all aspects of the race. Most racers commented that what they found to be the most effective (and efficient) approach was to regard each racer (and their respective stuff) as a separate, fully functioning unit. Thus, each rider would be responsible for bringing to the race the bikes s/he would use, all the spare parts and tools necessary to repair the bikes during the race, all clothing, race nutrition, etc. for him/her, and a support vehicle fully set up to follow that rider during the race. Most teams found it best to assign one pace vehicle to each rider, and stock that vehicle to support that particular rider. Each vehicle would carry the necessary equipment for that rider, and there would be no need to exchange equipment between vans, thus eliminating the risk of losing or forgetting something that a rider needs. Each of the teams usually had a third vehicle as well. Typically, this was an RV, to be shared between the two riders, which functioned to house the resting rider and/or crew (the specifics of rider exchanges and resting patterns will be covered in the next article when we discuss general tactics and strategies). With three vehicles, most two-person teams required no more crew members than solo racers. Typically, this amounted to eight crew: three for each pace vehicle, and two for the motor home. Most teams found it most effective to assign specific crew members to a specific vehicle for the duration of the race. Thus, the same three crew members would be assigned to support one rider
throughout the race. As one rider explained, "if you have the same crew for the entire race, they get to know your quirks much better, and they can anticipate your needs and wants, and you can work much better as a team". Splitting the crew into distinct units also allowed the riders and crew to become inventive in addressing any potential boredom they might encounter in the latter part of the race, when teams often go for long stretches without seeing any of their competitors. As this rider explained, "by the end of the race, we were actually competing with the other rider [his teammate] and his crew, to see who could cover the most distance for each pull. My crew really got into it. It really helped to keep us focused, and provided some specific goals for us." It also, as the rider pointed out, allowed for "some within-team friendly competition in an otherwise very stressful (and sometimes boring) race". With essentially the same number of crew and vehicles as solo riders, but now split between two racers, those racers who had attempted solo RAAM reported that the two-person event was much less expensive per rider than solo RAAM, and therefore much less stressful for them to attempt. Indeed, the riders reported that preparing for the two-person race was "a breeze" compared to solo RAAM, in that "you don't have to train as many miles (you can still have a life), you don't have to find as many crew or vehicles, so it's much less expensive, and you get to share the pain with somebody else!". This rider says he's become hooked on the two-person RAAM, and that you can expect him back in the near future. "You don't have to train as many miles (you can still have a life), you don't have to find as many crew or vehicles, so it's much less expensive, and you get to share the pain with somebody else!". These sorts of comments were typical of all those who competed in the 2001 two-person RAAM. It is clear that the racers, regardless of where they finished, thoroughly enjoyed this format of RAAM, and if their post-race remarks are any indication, we should see much from this race in the future. Tactics The general scenario is clear for most riders entering the two-person team race. Assuming a general equality of team members, each rider can expect to be in the saddle for about 12 hours out of each 24-hour period of the race. After having trained with this assumption in mind, the question facing every two-person team is, how do we apportion the 12 hours of individual rider pulls in order to maximize team efficiency? In other words, should rider pulls be dictated strictly by time (e.g., twelve hours on, twelve hours off), or by the conditions of the race in relation to riders' strengths and weaknesses? PULL "how do we apportion the 12 hours of individual rider pulls in order to maximize team efficiency?" Many teams found it important to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each rider going into the race. For example, it can be vital to know during the race: is one rider a significantly better climber than the other? Similarly, is one rider significantly better on the descents? Is one rider better with long, flat stretches? Is one better at riding into a strong headwind? Is one a better rider at night? Given the variety of terrain and weather conditions facing RAAM riders, many teams found it helpful to have a clear understanding of each rider's strengths and weaknesses. As one rider observed, "this is no time to be macho honestly evaluating your own strengths and weaknesses can go a long way to planning your team's
strategy, and helping your overall performance". Many teammates assessed each other in headto-head "competitions" throughout their training periods in order to ascertain whether one rider was clearly better for given conditions, such as mountain climbs, flats, headwinds, descents, and night riding. As the rider quoted above concluded, "I'm just not a good climber certainly not as good as [my teammate]. Knowing this fact went a long way in helping to determine our strategy at certain points in the race". Most teams also understood that it would be impossible to apply such factors as individual strengths and weaknesses to each and every situation for the entire race. As one rider explained, "with so much climbing during the first of the race, you can't have your best climber do it all. He'd be fried by Colorado!". As a result, despite individual differences between teammates, most teams found that the most efficient strategy was to adhere to a regular time schedule during the race, where each rider would take a pull for a specified duration, regardless of terrain and/or conditions. The riders realized that if you micro-manage rider shifts according to terrain and conditions, neither rider will get significant amounts of rest, and both will be exhausted after only a couple of days of riding. Thus, while managing individual rider strengths and weaknesses may be significant for events such as the four-person team race, it appears to be much less of an overall factor for the two-person event. Indeed, all riders were in agreement that the two-person event requires two good, all-around riders for each team. All concluded that the strongest teams were those who had two riders capable of performing well in all conditions, rather than being specialists who were superb at only one or two aspects of cycling. The question that two-person teams are faced with, then, is what is the best time interval to use for rider shifts? Though the teams used different shifts, the reasoning that guided their decisions was quite similar. Each team noted that the break for the resting rider must be long enough to allow for sufficient rest and sleep, but not so long so as to allow the rider who is out on the course to become exhausted (and thus significantly decrease his or her speed). Some teams, unfortunately, learned this lesson once the race had already started. As one rider explained, "we started out with three hour shifts, reasoning that that was the longest we could go and still maintain high speeds. But we soon realized that there wasn't enough time to rest! By the time I got off the bike, got in the van, and had a bite to eat, there was barely an hour to rest before I had to get up and get ready for my next pull. After the first day-and-a-half, we were both exhausted! We weren't getting much more sleep than the solo riders, even though we were each off the bike for 12 hours!". Lack of sleep was a common complaint among two-person team riders. Many noted that before the race, they reasoned that with riding "only" 12 hours per day, they felt that they would easily be able to get eight hours of sleep per day, and therefore be rested for the entire length of RAAM. But because their 12 "off" hours were not one large block, their sleep was also broken up into smaller segments. The result was that most riders said they felt sleep-deprived throughout RAAM, averaging only 5-6 hours per day. Many noted that their training for future RAAMs would attempt to take that fact into account. Many riders were not prepared for the continuous feelings of sleep deprivation and exhaustion, and found that they had to adjust their mental attitude after the race had started. In this regard, solo RAAM veterans seem to have had a
distinct advantage, as they were able to draw on their experiences of riding while sleep deprived, while most rookies had not previously encountered such a situation to any great degree. With the potential for constant fatigue looming over them, most teams noted that once they sorted out the initial "bugs" in their strategy, they settled into a routine of about four hour shifts per rider. Many felt this was the middle ground between allowing the resting rider to get sufficient sleep (about two hours per rest period, three times per day) and not over-taxing the rider on the course, thus forcing his/her speed to decrease dramatically. Many riders also noted that the added benefit of the four hour shift was that it divided nicely into the 24-hour period, so each rider was always riding during the same time periods each day. As such, they felt that their bodies were not as "out of synch" as if they were riding at different periods for each day. Thus, their bodies did not need to keep "adjusting" every day. One team, for example, split their shifts up into the following schedule: Rider 1 would ride noon- 4 p.m., 8 p.m.-midnight, and 4 a.m.-8 a.m.; Rider 2 would ride 4 p.m.-8 p.m., midnight-4 a.m., and 8 a.m.-noon. To retain consistency (and avoid confusion), these times were allocated according to official "race time" rather local time. The riders used their own strengths and weaknesses to determine who would be Rider 1 and who would be Rider 2. As one rider explained, "from solo rides, I know that I have the most trouble staying awake immediately after sundown, and [my teammate] has trouble in the middle of the night, so he took the first set of shifts [Rider 1], and I took the second [Rider 2]". Other teams similarly set their shifts according to which seemed to better suit each rider. Although most teams had regular rider shifts, things do not always go according to schedule, and RAAM is particularly notorious in this regard. Many riders described numerous instances when it was advantageous not to stick to the interval schedule, due to things like weather conditions, rider injury, or simple logistics ("we couldn't find a safe place for the van to stop on the side of the mountain!"). One rider, for example, developed an injury half-way through the race. The solution was to have the second rider extend his pulls slightly until the first rider's injury subsided. In another instance, one rider was faced consistently with the challenge of riding up a mountain pass for the entire four hours of his shift. Because he was not a particularly strong rider, this began to demoralize him. His teammate extend his pulls in order to shorten the first rider's shift for that section of the race. As the examples illustrate, flexibility in shifts was helpful in some cases. Most teams found it necessary to choose when to make use of this flexibility, and apply their knowledge regarding each rider's strengths and weaknesses to the appropriate scenarios in order to maximize efficiency. Most riders felt that those teams who applied the knowledge sparingly, and at the most opportune times, had the decided advantage over the other teams. The riders stressed the dangers of constant micro-managing of rider shifts. One rider noted that a good crew can be especially helpful. His crew "always seemed to know when it was best to adjust the shifts, and when the riders should just suck it up and push on". In the end, the best tactics for the two-person team event seemed to be those that kept to a fairly consistent rider shift schedule, but allowed for some slight variation in order to play on individual riders' strengths when the need arose. As with solo RAAM, the key to the two-person
race seems to be consistency over the entire route. The Race Across America cannot be won in a day, or on any particular mountain pass, and the successful two person teams recognize this. As one rider noted, "having your stronger rider do almost all of the climbing may benefit your team for the first half of the race, but if he is spent after 1,500 miles, the team's going to suffer". Ultimately, consistency from both riders is what really matters in order for a two-person team to be successful.