FTP test recording diary

[Ham]

had my first go at measuring 20min effort, which translates into ftp of 245w

I can't believe that your FTP is 245w, I thought it'd be higher. Try the three minute anaerobic test Zigzag, where you absolutely gunn it for three minutes. I find intitially that this is a better test to establish your training zones and what feels like your threshold as it requires less pacing as you are only pedalling for three minutes.

If you have not already take a memory stick with you, plug it into the back of the unit, do the 3 minute test and then input the value under your personal stats along with your max HR. It will then automatically work out your training zones for you from ZR through to Zmax. Your values in zone 4 will be roughly what your FTP is.

The clue is in the first words.

Onna trainer, I appear to have an FTP of around 250. If my equipment is anywhere near accurate that reading seems to be consistent, although given I don't have any trouble holding at the "sweet spot" there's more than a chance that it should be a touch higher.

There. is. No. Chance. that Zigzag and I share FTP, even in "Winter Mode". As an old fart I would expect to be at least 20% lower, it therefore means that the playing field is not level and that, measured like for like, the differential would be seen.

[zigzag]

i am wondering why is it easier to expend more energy going uphill. as soon as the road goes up, the power goes up with no peceived increase in effort. another question i have is - do i calculate my power zones based on my "road" ftp (as that's where i would be tt'ing) or turbo trainer ftp (which will show a different - higher - figure, which may lead to misjudgement of effort during the real tt)?
i rode on the hoods in blustery and drizzly conditions yesterday and 38.2kph average is what i would expect at 258w.

[Ham]

It leads me to suspect the numbers output by my turbo, it would be interesting to see how it measures up against a powertap or wattbike. Here's the FTP test I did, which appears to be really quite similar to zigzag. Did I mention I don't believe that? (btw, one thing about the Genius, it has road realistic-ish flywheel inertia)

Froome's recent data release is discussed here. The single figure that sets him apart from the likes of us?:

his power-to-weight was 5.78w/kg

[simonp]

Ham:

I suspect zigzag's FTP/kg is higher than yours or mine. My FTP is as high now as it's ever been. I had a 225W FTP in late 2009; I suspect it was 250W or higher in 2010 - but no test to confirm - and weighed as little as 68kg. Now that I'm 78kg my FTP/kg is probably lower than it was then. Currently it comes out as 3.25 or so.

http://www.bicycling.com/training/fitness/trainingpeaks-power-profiles-cyclists

Divide measured FTP by weight and look up the value in the 3rd column (FT) to put the FTP/weight value into some sort of perspective. Froome would be right near the top of that table, but not off the scale.

[zigzag]

shame i cancelled the subscriptions to places where i can go and measure the power on a trainer. i plan to do another ramp/vo2max/ftp test in early spring as it's four years since i've done the last one. i'll keep doing 2x20min intervals over the winter to stay in shape.

[zigzag]

Depending on your physiology some of us find it easier to produce an FTP-effort at +90 rpm on the flat. There was an academic paper about it earlier this year, but I'm damned if I can find it now. Chris Froome is also one such person which is why he spins along going uphill, to avoid getting into that lower cadence that most climbers use. (Mind you, for short tests I also find a slight incline useful in that it saves me having to change gear quite so often.)

You will find that your road FTP is different to your turbo FTP, partly due to the above, and also because (2) the turbo has less inertia and you spend a small amount of each pedal stroke forcing the pedals over centre, which inertia will take care of on the road; and (3) generally you're cooled by wind out on the road. There is a long and rather boring thread on the TT Forum about it. Some people have two FTP settings for each situation (and indeed you might have a third FTP for when you're hunched over the tribars, I do) - the easiest way to engineer this in practice is to have two Garmins, each set with different FTP values.

interesting! so if i understand it correctly, i should use my road ftp as a reference if i'm training outside, and use turbo ftp value for the indoor sessions?

[LMT]

Depending on your physiology some of us find it easier to produce an FTP-effort at +90 rpm on the flat. There was an academic paper about it earlier this year, but I'm damned if I can find it now. Chris Froome is also one such person which is why he spins along going uphill, to avoid getting into that lower cadence that most climbers use. (Mind you, for short tests I also find a slight incline useful in that it saves me having to change gear quite so often.)

You will find that your road FTP is different to your turbo FTP, partly due to the above, and also because (2) the turbo has less inertia and you spend a small amount of each pedal stroke forcing the pedals over centre, which inertia will take care of on the road; and (3) generally you're cooled by wind out on the road. There is a long and rather boring thread on the TT Forum about it. Some people have two FTP settings for each situation (and indeed you might have a third FTP for when you're hunched over the tribars, I do) - the easiest way to engineer this in practice is to have two Garmins, each set with different FTP values.

interesting! so if i understand it correctly, i should use my road ftp as a reference if i'm training outside, and use turbo ftp value for the indoor sessions?

I'd do an FTP test indoors on a trainer, that way the effort is easily (and better) paced then outdoors when you have to deal with elevations in the road, traffic and other things that could hamper you effort.

And I would not have two or three FTP's, power is power after all whether you are inside or outside.

And have you got a Virgin Active close to you? Check that your local one has a Wattbike, pay for a day pass and do the test that way.

[Ham]

Oh buggeryfuckbums. I did think that the FTP value from the first test made things a bit too easy. After this it appears to be 299 now  OOOOORRRR .... the kit is overreading (more likely)

[zigzag]

I'd do an FTP test indoors on a trainer, that way the effort is easily (and better) paced then outdoors when you have to deal with elevations in the road, traffic and other things that could hamper you effort.

And I would not have two or three FTP's, power is power after all whether you are inside or outside.

And have you got a Virgin Active close to you? Check that your local one has a Wattbike, pay for a day pass and do the test that way.

i agree that power is power, however it seems to be easier to extract that power spinning on the trainer than on a real road. i'll keep experimenting and comparing the results. the thing to bear in mind is that if i get a 300w ftp on a trainer and start my 25mile tt on the road at 300w i will be spent way before the end, if my road ftp is only, say, 250w.

[simonp]

Doing an accurate FTP test outdoors is tough. You need to be focused to get an accurate number. Also the test protocol for 20 minute FTP testing uses a 5 minute all out effort when warming up in order to get ensure the test is aerobic power based.

You also need to consider position - an aero position likely compromises some power. For testing FTP ride in the most comfortable position. Then when training spend time in aero position while doing intervals. You can improve your ability to ride in position over time. But the perfect aero position might lose too much power so you may need to compromise.

I'd say it's much easier to work on this indoors.