Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => The Knowledge => Further and Faster => Topic started by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 24 April, 2020, 07:03:04 am
-
Not just file transfer protocol it seems but also:
FTP stands for Functional Threshold Power, which is commonly defined as the highest average power you can sustain for an hour, measured in watts.
I never thought about it until lockdown made me buy a turbo trainer.
I discovered it when Zwift told me mine had been raised, not sure what to as they didn't say. I guess about 230watts. My neighbour says that sounds too high as his is 180 Watts.
Do you know your FTP?
-
Mine varies with fitness. Currently 200 (or, maybe less :( ), at my most fit (over recent years since I've been able to measure) 290 ish
-
I (could, before lockdown) sustain a bit over 140W with my arms. This is using a hand crank trainer in the work gym.
Should be much higher using legs on a bike. Over 200W sounds about right for a fit cyclist who is actively training.
Academic testing suggests that arm power is about 2/3 leg. So the estimate from my 140W for arms would be 210W for legs.
-
Me: 192W
Fboab: Much more than me.
-
I do
-
If you want to know it, measure it. There are a few different tests, I assume Zwift has at least the 20 minute one? If not, you basically pick a pace that you can sustain for 20 minutes, and then multiply the average power for that duration by 0.95. There are various refinements to do with depleting your anaerobic abilities first, but TBH, if you haven't done those sorts of tests before then pacing is likely to be your biggest problem. Also, some turbos are better than others a measuring power.
How reasonable 230W is depends on many things. If you weigh 50kg and are female, 230W would be enough to be a seriously competitive cyclist. If you are a 100kg man, not so much. Position will also have an effect - most people make less power in the TT position for example.
My lowest test was 171 when I started Trainer Road. My highest was 262, just before I damaged my foot in 2018. I've floated around 240 ish ever since, though I suspect I'm closer to 220 at the moment.
-
Zwift has 3 options
- Traditional 20 minute test
- Ramp test
- auto demonstrate.
If Zwift is telling you yours has increased, that means you just did a 20 minute effort at a wattage 95% of which was more than what you currently have your ftp set at. it usually shows the increase though - 175 to 210, for example. It won't automagically update what you set it to, though, you have to do that yourself.
Obviously watts is only half the story. Your neighbours 180 watts might be 3W/kg if he's 60kg. If you are 75kg, your 3W/kg is 225W
Mine's 231, which if I was 55kg would be f'ing awesome. Unfortunately, I'm not.
-
About 250W based on the speed I can hold for a "10". Not good enough for racing but good enough not to get overtaken much on the road. It's never changed much over the years. Strava, whose power figures are plucked out of the air, suggests I only use about 160W on a long flat stretch where I usually hold 22mph. It has no idea about my position on the bike, though.
-
Most apps will estimate it from a shorter duration than 1h, e. g. 95% of your best 20' power is common. It does depend on the equipment used though so your FTP as calculated on a turbo might not be the same as your FTP as measured with a power meter on the road, or even different power meters on the same road bike could give different values particularly if comparing hub and pedal PMs.
The best use of this number is that it allows you to plan your training sessions more precisely and measure your progress. Using it to compare with other people will give you a ball park comparison but there could be a +/-50W error due to different set ups and/or calculation used. (NB +/-50 might be a little on the high side but you get the idea)
PS my FTP is 218 on my turbo set up, 227 on the road (95% of 239W for20') but my best ever 60' effort (on the road) is only 216W (all data from 2018 season, current numbers are similar)
-
ftp number on its own doesn't tell the whole story, better metric for cyclists is w/kg or w/cda for flat roads.
it's good for setting your training zones and monitoring the pace.
-
Thanks for the replies. I doubt if my smart turbo is a very reliable guide to the actual figure - it's a Turbo Muin B+, so not quite as smart as my neighbour's Wahoo Kickr - his machine's reading is maybe more accurate as we are similar in build and cycling ability. Even so, if I can improve that will tell me something and it's a good device in other respects, think I was lucky to get it.
-
Apparently the muin are particularly bad at over reading. (sorry)
-
For a turbo accuracy is less important than consistency. Who cares if the number reads 5% less or 10% more than if it does this consistently on every ride. The problem comes when it reads 5% over some of the time, then 10% under, etc. Any attempt at working out your trend over time is going to be lost in the noise.
I have power meters on two bikes but don't bother with a turbo (mostly because I live in a 1st floor flat). If I want a guess at my FTP then I can use a Wattbike at the local gym. And I find a ramp test much easier than a 20 minute test. Ramp tests may not be as accurate as a 20 minute test but they're a lot easier to do physically and mentally. There's no pacing involved (you don't have to guess at what power you can maintain for 20 minutes and then attempt to do that, you simply follow the protocol until you can't go on any more). It's also shorter in time. I can warm up, do the test, cool down and be done in under 20 minutes.
This lockdown is going to be an interesting experiment as I'm off the bike completely (last ride was March 13th) although I am doing lots of running and core/leg workouts so all is not lost. I'll do a ramp test as soon as the local gym opens again and then start cycling and weekly spin classes to see how the FTP progresses.
Goals for the next few years involve rides around 100 miles (the Prudential 100 to finish off my London Classics medal, and half and possibly full Ironman which I've been talking about for years). Those distances (and longer) haven't been a problem in the past but doing them fast rather than at Audax pace will be the challenge. I'll use 200km Audaxes as training for them and try to ride them faster and with minimal stopping.
Knowing my FTP doesn't have any practical use for me really as I don't use it for any type of structured training. For my local spinning classes it's useful to know what I can hold for various durations (30s, 1m, 5m) which is all related to FTP but those can be often found with trial and error, as can intervals at the gym as I just set myself a target for, say, 3x8 intervals at 280W and then record them on the Garmin and analyse them after the fact to see if I'm improving and need to raise the target for next time (because they felt easy or HRmax is dropping and there's spare capacity).
I may just save up for a Wattbike (I'd rather have a whole exercise bike rather than a turbo, more compact and less faff, and my wife and daughter can use it). I guess there are going to be a load second hand coming on to the market once lockdown ends. If I had that I'd then be able to do some proper structured training on Zwift/TrainerRoad/BigRing/etc and do it from home (and when on boring conference calls at work) which would probably get me strong/faster a lot quicker than my own ad hoc approach.
-
I tested at 219W three weeks ago, on the TR ramp test. Within 2 weeks workouts were all too easy, so I manually upped it to 229W. I haven't failed a workout yet at this setting, though they are tough.
-
Ah, the obsessions of the lockdown! I look forward to long rides outside once the crisis passed (If we survive!)
Looking at stuff on the interweb about the Muin B+, the consensus is that its power readings are consistent but not accurate; usually over-estimating the power - worsening as it increases.
Three options, as I see it: 1. live with it and just use it as a fitness tool giving you a representative number to work with, 2. borrow a crank power meter and calibrate it for your power range or 3. if you need "accuracy" AND smart control, sell it and put the money towards a "better" unit.
2p worth:
While FTP is just a useful measure to gauge an individual's changing fitness, as a number for allow comparison between punters, I think using W/kg is more useful than straight Watts.
My FTP is usually measures around 280W which sounds a lot but that only equates to 2.9W/kg.
On my current trainer, a Kickr Core (allegedly accurate to 2%), the results are the same as on a Wattbike I previously used in the gym.
I tend to use the 20 minute test though I have noticed that some clever online systems like Zwift and BigRingVR do an FTP calculation for you based on your power curves on longer rides. I don't push as hard on these rides as in a bespoke test so my results are lower, around 240-260W. (2.5-2.7 W/kg)
IMHO, for the average fittish non-competitive cyclist, anything between 2 and 3 W/kg is quite acceptable!
-
Apparently the muin are particularly bad at over reading. (sorry)
No worries, as long as I can keep leaving Usanians trailing, I don't mind. (I masquerade as a Canadian, I don't think they like me.)
-
I tested at 219W three weeks ago, on the TR ramp test. Within 2 weeks workouts were all too easy, so I manually upped it to 229W. I haven't failed a workout yet at this setting, though they are tough.
Which plan are you on? I think the first build plan is basically supposed to feel easy.
I've not been doing a plan for a while as I've had a variety of niggling injuries, I've jus left my FTP at 236 where it was when I last tested and ridden ad-hoc 30-45 minutes stuff with low IF. I'm in for a shock when I Ramp test next (will have to wait until my WFH desk doesn't screw up my back)...
-
I tested at 219W three weeks ago, on the TR ramp test. Within 2 weeks workouts were all too easy, so I manually upped it to 229W. I haven't failed a workout yet at this setting, though they are tough.
Which plan are you on? I think the first build plan is basically supposed to feel easy.
I've not been doing a plan for a while as I've had a variety of niggling injuries, I've jus left my FTP at 236 where it was when I last tested and ridden ad-hoc 30-45 minutes stuff with low IF. I'm in for a shock when I Ramp test next (will have to wait until my WFH desk doesn't screw up my back)...
Sweet spot base mid volume, with some modifications. I'm doing the Tuesday VO2max workouts from Sweet Spot Base II instead of whatever sweet-spot workout.
My ramp-test score of 219W was slightly higher than I expected, I'd manually set 215W. I had a fairly long break in training before the ramp-test, and I would expect some early gains as there are generally long-term changes to muscles as a result of training, it's not like starting from the beginning.
Rides I've found particularly hard since the FTP bump are a 90-minute over-under workout (McAdie) and Mills (2m VO2max repeats). Yet to fail anything, but I would not be surprised to test below 229W. 7 more workouts to recovery week...
-
Haven't bothered with a 20 minute test in years... just don't like indoor setups and it's very difficult to replicate outdoors, if you don't live in the Alps.
However, Garmin Connect extracts some numbers for me and apparently on occasions I have done 20 minutes at 230 W... but that is by no means my absolute best (road junctions, maybe a slight descent etc...)
My best guess is that I am somewhere around 240-250 Watt (3.5-3.6 W/kg).
I have done 4:30 minutes at 330 Watt (4.8 W/kg), which for me is a more interesting number, as I don't really have the opportunity to go full on for 60 minutes, so FTP is of no real use as an indicator.
If I try, I can generally get in top 1% on any Strava segment, unless it's pan flat and requires peloton riding, or it's regularly visited by the Tour of Britain
-
I have done 4:30 minutes at 330 Watt (4.8 W/kg), which for me is a more interesting number, as I don't really have the opportunity to go full on for 60 minutes, so FTP is of no real use as an indicator.
That's a strangely specific time. Did you run out of hill or something? ;)
If you want to go beyond FTP, the most common I've seen are 5 second, 1 minute and 5 minute power (as well as FTP). That's the 4dp Sufferfest setup, but you can work it out from any power/duration tool.
-
That's a strangely specific time. Did you run out of hill or something? ;)
Yes, up Edge hill in Warwickshire
Hills are the only place where I get it all out... I don't seem to be able to churn out > 300 Watt on the flat for more than a few seconds, so as tests they are pretty pointless... also the road gradient keeps changing, so it's difficult to focus and top up the power when needed.
I've also done 550 Watt (8 w/kg) for 20 seconds on a short steep climb, which might or might not say anything meaningful.
You give me a 10% climb and I can really get some good numbers out
-
I just typed all my power curve figures and then realised the numbers are only of any interest to me and my Race Director1.
#wankystats
1: I do actually have one. She sends me messages while I'm racing, all pro-like. ;D
-
I just typed all my power curve figures and then realised the numbers are only of any interest to me and my Race Director1.
#wankystats
1: I do actually have one. She sends me messages while I'm racing, all pro-like. ;D
Do you get a virtual team car with a megaphone ?
-
In my head I do.
What I mostly get is "YOU GOT THIS" "GO GO GO" "AWESOME POWER GIRL" "SPRINT NOW IT'S ALL YOURS"
It's all in CAPS LOCK so I reckon, yes, megaphone all the way.
-
My view, like some others is that it doesn’t matter a big lot as long as you consistently use the same setup, so that you can see variations.
To measure it accurately you need a calibrated power metre ( Wattbike or similar) and ideally ride for an hour! That’s what it says on the tin - power you can hold for 1 hour.
In Wattbike classes we found that some people got hung up on getting the biggest figure they could; using a ramp test or a 3 minute test. Particularly on the ramp test they would go beyond the indicated stopping point. This led to them being unable to effectively perform power- based training.
Ultimately FTP is a guide, not an achievement.
-
...Particularly on the ramp test they would go beyond the indicated stopping point...
Not sure what you mean? Do you mean you get to the point you know where you won't be able to complete the next minute at the next power level and just smash out as much as you can in order to boost your best 1 minute power? If so that's just purposely abusing the protocol.
-
I’m at 237 at the moment which is about 3.25 w/kg. I find the latter much more of an accurate indication for the reasons posted upthread.
None of this makes me a great cyclist though. I am very average, enjoy fettling bikes and the mindfulness of long rides. Ive only been doing audax for a couple of years and I love it. I find there is a lot more to it than power and fitness.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
...Particularly on the ramp test they would go beyond the indicated stopping point...
Not sure what you mean? Do you mean you get to the point you know where you won't be able to complete the next minute at the next power level and just smash out as much as you can in order to boost your best 1 minute power? If so that's just purposely abusing the protocol.
You’re not supposed to stop because you won’t complete the minute. You’re supposed to ride to failure.
ETA: I just realised this is Wattbike rather than TrainerRoad. However in TR to achieve your current FTP you’d stop half way through the 20th minute of the test. Every second counts.
-
I don't know if this counts as cheating, but you would get a slightly elevated score if you get to a certain power eg 340W, and think "I can't do a minute of this" and you do 10 seconds of 370W rather than however long you can hang on at 340W.
-
I don't know if this counts as cheating, but you would get a slightly elevated score if you get to a certain power eg 340W, and think "I can't do a minute of this" and you do 10 seconds of 370W rather than however long you can hang on at 340W.
Sprinting at the end is specifically advised against in the TrainerRoad test, IIRC
-
Plus if you can do a proper sprint at the end you are either not doing it right or have "Cat 1" against your name
-
There's a difference between sprinting and just going over the suggested power. Doing ramp tests on a dumb training using gears almost always ends in that sort of manner as you tie up and can't do the required cadence for the indicated power.
-
Did 1 minute at 415 Watt this morning... which is 6.1 W/kg...
Just thought I'd let you know... :)
-
Plus if you can do a proper sprint at the end you are either not doing it right or have "Cat 1" against your name
It irritated me when they told me my effort after 'riding' 50 mins of my hour was a fraction of when I started out. Now I try to ramp it up a bit at the end just to show'em. Last time it worked and no derogatory message appeared.
-
I find that there is a lot of confusion over ftp , possibly due to the use of “ gaming” style on-line platforms. As an example, I’ve been having a play with Zwift whilst having too much time on my hands. I’m sure that the aficionados will know the ways around things better than me, but using it during a designated easy day, just to bimble around I find that the all-controlling machine has calculated a set of figures for me.
If you are using power to inform a structured trading programme then you have to be honest about your realistic power levels.
ftp is a zone guide, not an achievement or a target. I mentioned earlier some Wattbike users trying to get a big number. They then can’t keep in zone 4 for any reasonable time, so structured trying becomes unstructured.
-
You’re not supposed to stop because you won’t complete the minute. You’re supposed to ride to failure.
That is the one reason you will never catch me doing an FTP test.
-
Not having the opportunity to measure it on a wattbike, I have set the FTP to 250 Watt on Garmin connect... it's probably a bit generous, but not by much (might be more like 240 W)
Did 90 minutes yesterday on the road (so junctions, ups, downs etc...) felt like a decent workout, 187 Watt average and 205 weighted, not the hardest I have ever done on the road, but 31.7 km/h average for a route with 7.5 mt of climbing every km suggests I wasn't hanging about and here is the breakdown of zones
7 = 4%
6 = 6%
5 = 5%
4 = 10%
3 = 18%
2 = 28%
1 = 21%
Does it sound about right or have I set the FTP way out? I am surprised that basically half of it is in zone 1 and 2, so little more power than turning in bed
-
Where have your numbers come from? If it's Strava, then in my view, you might as well just pluck them out of thin air - they are never anywhere near those measured by my pedals. If it's a power meter, then just do a test.
If you want to get an outside estimate of your FTP and you have a power meter, go to the local 10 course that has the least interruptions/traffic, and try for a PB. You'll get a really good 20 minute power number you can multiply by 95% to get your FTP.
The time spent in Zones 1 and 2 is the reason why people say that you can do so much more work on a turbo. Most people don't work very hard going downhill, or coming up to a junction, or when they are having a drink or something to eat, and all that adds up to a chunk of the ride. Also, Zone 2 is not turning in bed - that's the sort of power you would use if you wanted to do a 5 hour ride. It's probably somewhere between 130W and 190W if you have your FTP set to 250W. See https://support.trainerroad.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005942786-Understanding-Power-Zones
-
As above - you need a power meter on your bike to be anywhere near "accurate".
Also, Garmin Connect does, I believe, give you power/time curves on your activities when they are uploaded and viewed on the web site which are probably what you are after. Alternatively, if your rides are uploaded to Strava, view your activities on Chrome with the "Elevate" extension installed and set up properly - that will give you plenty of power data to confuse yourself with :D
-
I do have a power meter... but Garmin Connect never adjusted the estimated FTP, so I did it manually... the zones come from the power measured and the FTP I inserted
A local 10 TT is a possibility, but they are all sxxt... one is along the A45 and the other is only marginally less lethal, even at this time.
I could plot one myself on some rideable A roads, I suppose...
Anyway, do the numbers look reasonable or bonkers?
-
Zones don't seem barmy. It would be interesting to see the plot of power vs altitude. It doesn't seem like a productive training ride, in terms of doing a bit of everything, but too much time at each end to be anything specific.
-
Zones don't seem barmy. It would be interesting to see the plot of power vs altitude. It doesn't seem like a productive training ride, in terms of doing a bit of everything, but too much time at each end to be anything specific.
Profile is undulated, some sharpish but very short bumps... I am only really interested in the 5-7 zones... kind of training for hill climb, so not bothered about FTP as such... just a reference for the rest...
I suppose reps would make more sense, but during lockdown and not having hills closeby it's difficult to do what is ideal... it's a case of making do
-
I don't often ride outdoors with a PM but 2 weeks ago I did a 2.5h tempo ride at a fairly constant RPE with 74% of time in my Seiler zone 2 which is above LT1 but below LT2. Of the rest, 4% above LT2 i . e. Z3, 16% Z1 (endurance) and 6% Z0 (active recovery).
As far as power went, the time in each zone was:
Z1 25% (active recovery)
Z2 20% (endurance)
Z3 17% (tempo)
Z4 16% (FTP +/- 15W)
Z5 10%
Z6 11%
Make of that what you will but that's why for tempo (and endurance) rides I train to HR. When outdoors I will use PM for intervals less than 2' but that's not often.
-
I don't often ride outdoors with a PM but 2 weeks ago I did a 2.5h tempo ride at a fairly constant RPE with 74% of time in my Seiler zone 2 which is above LT1 but below LT2. Of the rest, 4% above LT2 i . e. Z3, 16% Z1 (endurance) and 6% Z0 (active recovery).
As far as power went, the time in each zone was:
Z1 25% (active recovery)
Z2 20% (endurance)
Z3 17% (tempo)
Z4 16% (FTP +/- 15W)
Z5 10%
Z6 11%
Make of that what you will but that's why for tempo (and endurance) rides I train to HR. When outdoors I will use PM for intervals less than 2' but that's not often.
OK, so that's 36% on Z4 and above, mine is only 24%, I probably got the FTP too high and as a result the zones are not quite right... I'll put it down to 240 W, which is probably more in line with what I thought it was
-
The day before was a similar ride (2 circuits not 3) but only 1.75h so although 71% in the tempo HR zone 9% in Z3 and only 7% in Z0. That resulted in 42% Z4 and above. The shorter the ride the higher the intensity generally. Average speeds were very similar 18.32 v 18.25mph. Another 2.5h ride over exactly the same route 3 days later was 19.33mph with pretty much the same HR profile, a faster bike but no PM. Bottom line, it doesn't matter what you FTP is, all you need to know is, if you're going to ride to power, what is a suitable power that you know you'll be able to sustain for however long you're going to do it for. I find it much easier to do that via HR for anything longer the 10'. Ah, just remembered, I did ride the 2.5h to power to compare with the day before which was to HR.
-
The day before was a similar ride (2 circuits not 3) but only 1.75h so although 71% in the tempo HR zone 9% in Z3 and only 7% in Z0. That resulted in 42% Z4 and above. The shorter the ride the higher the intensity generally. Average speeds were very similar 18.32 v 18.25mph. Another 2.5h ride over exactly the same route 3 days later was 19.33mph with pretty much the same HR profile, a faster bike but no PM. Bottom line, it doesn't matter what you FTP is, all you need to know is, if you're going to ride to power, what is a suitable power that you know you'll be able to sustain for however long you're going to do it for. I find it much easier to do that via HR for anything longer the 10'. Ah, just remembered, I did ride the 2.5h to power to compare with the day before which was to HR.
Roughly speaking, I am interested in 1 minute, 4-5 minutes and maybe 10 minutes, although the latter is hard to measure
So far, the best numbers I got are 6.1 W/kg for 1 minute and 4.8 W/kg for 4 minutes... I haven't got anything that could be called "my best" for 10 minutes...
-
OK, so that's 36% on Z4 and above, mine is only 24%, I probably got the FTP too high and as a result the zones are not quite right... I'll put it down to 240 W, which is probably more in line with what I thought it was
I'm not convinced that riding the same and moving the FTP around is the right way to go about things.
Let's take a step back, and tailor your rides to what you are training for. Most hill climbs are between 2 and 7 minutes, right? That's VO2 territory, zone 6. It also gets you a great bang-for-your-buck in training, but it's easy to overdo it. (It is also an aerobic effort, so a big FTP is valuable for this sort of effort.)
The most common indoor VO2 rides are quite a deep square wave - minute on, minute off kind of effort where "on" is 120% of FTP, and "off" is 60% or so. Repeat a few times, have a 5 minute break at 60% and then do the whole set again. Do you have any small hills where you can just smash out 300W for a minute or more? It's easier to do longer intervals outside - doing a 30 second climb, turning around and descending and then repeating 10 times feels really daft. However, you say you have sharpish short bumps - if these are 30 seconds then that's what you have got. (Where are you if you don't have a 2 minute climb handy - I thought Oxford was flat but we have a few 5 minute jobs around here.)
You probably can't do more than a couple of these types of sessions a week without putting yourself in a hole (typically the TR build stuff does VO2 Tuesday, over-unders Thursday, sweetspot Sunday), so it's worth experimenting with a mixture of these (an hour or shorter to start with) and some threshold work (Zone 5) as well as ordinary rides of the format you posted.
-
However, you say you have sharpish short bumps - if these are 30 seconds then that's what you have got. (Where are you if you don't have a 2 minute climb handy - I thought Oxford was flat but we have a few 5 minute jobs around here.)
Plenty of bumps of a minute or less... anything longer, well Burton Dassett is about 3 minutes and that's about 20 km away and Edge hill is about 4:30 minutes and that's about 25 km away...
So I can do both, even in the same ride, but I can't really go there and do reps, these days. I tend to use these as a test, rather than as a training, so heading there every 10 days or so to see if there is any improvement (there is).
I use the bumps for the zone 6 (or 7 depends how you want to call it) training... but I don't have a lot available to work in zone 5 for long enough, the kind of 260-300 W area
-
The day before was a similar ride (2 circuits not 3) but only 1.75h so although 71% in the tempo HR zone 9% in Z3 and only 7% in Z0. That resulted in 42% Z4 and above. The shorter the ride the higher the intensity generally. Average speeds were very similar 18.32 v 18.25mph. Another 2.5h ride over exactly the same route 3 days later was 19.33mph with pretty much the same HR profile, a faster bike but no PM. Bottom line, it doesn't matter what you FTP is, all you need to know is, if you're going to ride to power, what is a suitable power that you know you'll be able to sustain for however long you're going to do it for. I find it much easier to do that via HR for anything longer the 10'. Ah, just remembered, I did ride the 2.5h to power to compare with the day before which was to HR.
Seems right to me.
I don't have a HR monitor but I did the FTP test on Zwift and got 255w. Then having heard that Alpe du Zwift was modelled on the Alpe d'Huez I thought I must try that (at first my level 5 didn't let me in).
After attaining level 6, I had a go via the Sky Ride route. In my ignorance I was clearly trying too hard and also being too competitive, trying to draft riders who were really too fast for me. I gave it an hour and decided I'd better pack before I overdid it. Later the graph of my stats looked like a seismograph reading during an earthquake.
Two days later I set off with the strategy of keeping the power down to 200w for the entire ride. On my setup it's hard to keep a precise power output so most sections I averaged 210 to 214. After an hour I was feeling ok so I experimented out of saddle and got a peak of 391 for a few seconds. Then it was back to the grind, by that point there was me and two other riders who both overtook me slowly. Near the summit I was catching them again so upped the power to 360 and overtook them before the line. Although my time of just under 75 minutes was long way off the current leader's 43 just finishing the climb was enough for me. I'd averaged 205 watts overall (including a few cooling off kilometres) and my performance graph was far tidier.
Still looking forward to getting back on real roads but also upgrading to a more advanced trainer for the winter.
-
The day before was a similar ride (2 circuits not 3) but only 1.75h so although 71% in the tempo HR zone 9% in Z3 and only 7% in Z0. That resulted in 42% Z4 and above. The shorter the ride the higher the intensity generally. Average speeds were very similar 18.32 v 18.25mph. Another 2.5h ride over exactly the same route 3 days later was 19.33mph with pretty much the same HR profile, a faster bike but no PM. Bottom line, it doesn't matter what you FTP is, all you need to know is, if you're going to ride to power, what is a suitable power that you know you'll be able to sustain for however long you're going to do it for. I find it much easier to do that via HR for anything longer the 10'. Ah, just remembered, I did ride the 2.5h to power to compare with the day before which was to HR.
Seems right to me.
I don't have a HR monitor but I did the FTP test on Zwift and got 255w. Then having heard that Alpe du Zwift was modelled on the Alpe d'Huez I thought I must try that (at first my level 5 didn't let me in).
After attaining level 6, I had a go via the Sky Ride route. In my ignorance I was clearly trying too hard and also being too competitive, trying to draft riders who were really too fast for me. I gave it an hour and decided I'd better pack before I overdid it. Later the graph of my stats looked like a seismograph reading during an earthquake.
Two days later I set off with the strategy of keeping the power down to 200w for the entire ride. On my setup it's hard to keep a precise power output so most sections I averaged 210 to 214. After an hour I was feeling ok so I experimented out of saddle and got a peak of 391 for a few seconds. Then it was back to the grind, by that point there was me and two other riders who both overtook me slowly. Near the summit I was catching them again so upped the power to 360 and overtook them before the line. Although my time of just under 75 minutes was long way off the current leader's 43 just finishing the climb was enough for me. I'd averaged 205 watts overall (including a few cooling off kilometres) and my performance graph was far tidier.
Still looking forward to getting back on real roads but also upgrading to a more advanced trainer for the winter.
If your 1hour power was 210- 214 then that’s your FTP.
Most accurate, and meaningful way to measure FTP is one hour, maximum sustainable power therefore average watts. That’s what the definition is.
Realistically, as long as you are within a reasonable figure, then your work zones will be accurate enough.
-
Climbing a mountain and testing your FTP are two different exercises though. As Pedal Castro says, you choose a suitable power according to how long you will need to sustain it.
Accuracy is a can of worms. I've set my turbo trainer up as best I can but it's not a scientific instrument and the reading is not as reliable as an expensive power meter. Perhaps 255 is optimistic!
Here are the Zwift estimates, solo outside on a flat road with no major winds for a longer stretch of time (20+ minutes) to hold various speeds:
25kph (15 mph) – 92 watts
30kph (18-19 mph) – 143 watts
35kph (21-22 mph) – 212 watts
37.5kph (23-24 mph) – 254 watts
40kph (24-25 mph) – 301 watts
45kph (28 mph) – 415 watts
I guess that's riding a reasonably good roadie, which I don't have! For my bike, putting in 250w I'd only get 35km/h*, which I am fairly sure I could achieve over 20 minutes if I could find a flat, smooth road.
* http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
-
I guess that's riding a reasonably good roadie, which I don't have! For my bike, putting in 250w I'd only get 35km/h*, which I am fairly sure I could achieve over 20 minutes if I could find a flat, smooth road.
* http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
Aerodynamics have such a huge impact. With the default figures (after switching to metric units) and just changing it to 250W:-
hands on the tops: 32.7kph
hands on the drops: 36.7kph
triathlon bicycle: 38.9kph
superman position: 42.7kph
So 10kph difference purely down to the two relative extremes of aero positions.
-
Did a test ride yesterday in a moderate westerly wind, so not exactly a headwind or a tailwind.
The route included busy shared use paths, traffic lights and residential streets so some constraints.
The Elment Bolt recorded:
Distance 56.23km
Time 2:11:22
Elevation 138m
Avg. Speed 25.7
On Zwift (no junctions, shared use paths, wind, potholes, etc), my nearest comparable ride was half the time/distance with these stats
Distance 28.1km
Time 0:55:36
Elevation 519m
Avg spd 30.2
This suggests to me that Zwift gives a reasonably close estimate.
-
Did a test ride yesterday in a moderate westerly wind, so not exactly a headwind or a tailwind.
The route included busy shared use paths, traffic lights and residential streets so some constraints.
The Elment Bolt recorded:
Distance 56.23km
Time 2:11:22
Elevation 138m
Avg. Speed 25.7
On Zwift (no junctions, shared use paths, wind, potholes, etc), my nearest comparable ride was half the time/distance with these stats
Distance 28.1km
Time 0:55:36
Elevation 519m
Avg spd 30.2
This suggests to me that Zwift gives a reasonably close estimate.
;D ;D ;D
Plenty of folks who struggle to average 30 km/h on the road but race at 45 km/h on Zwift... equally, plenty of folks who climb the Alpe du Zwift in under an hour... I'd be surprised if many of them can do the real thing in less than an hour and a half.
It's virtual AND augmented reality... it's designed to make you feel good about your ability... on the road you can never reach those speeds, so why bother? Better to stick to the video game, where you go as fast as the PROs
-
Then again, CTT's virtual V718 race on RGT was just won in 21:58, with national hillclimb champion Ed Laverack in 4th place with 22:00. Can you imagine a real V718 race being won in 22 minutes? :o
-
Did a test ride yesterday in a moderate westerly wind, so not exactly a headwind or a tailwind.
The route included busy shared use paths, traffic lights and residential streets so some constraints.
The Elment Bolt recorded:
Distance 56.23km
Time 2:11:22
Elevation 138m
Avg. Speed 25.7
On Zwift (no junctions, shared use paths, wind, potholes, etc), my nearest comparable ride was half the time/distance with these stats
Distance 28.1km
Time 0:55:36
Elevation 519m
Avg spd 30.2
This suggests to me that Zwift gives a reasonably close estimate.
;D ;D ;D
Plenty of folks who struggle to average 30 km/h on the road but race at 45 km/h on Zwift... equally, plenty of folks who climb the Alpe du Zwift in under an hour... I'd be surprised if many of them can do the real thing in less than an hour and a half.
It's virtual AND augmented reality... it's designed to make you feel good about your ability... on the road you can never reach those speeds, so why bother? Better to stick to the video game, where you go as fast as the PROs
I am comparing a real ride to Zwift. Do you actually have any experience of Zwift?
Also I have a lot of experience climbing the sort of col that the Alpe du Zwift is modelled on, Pyrenean and Alpine, and I never claimed to be able to do it under an hour! My time was just under 75 minutes and seems realistic enough for me.
It's true I would rather be doing this!
(https://i.ibb.co/zSzYfGR/DSCF0026.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/1L3vrjW/DSCF0030-2.jpg)
-
Then again, CTT's virtual V718 race on RGT was just won in 21:58, with national hillclimb champion Ed Laverack in 4th place with 22:00. Can you imagine a real V718 race being won in 22 minutes? :o
Yes, I have noticed times being quite "slow"... maybe RGT works differently... although they were all 6 W/kg at the top... also, there is no dual carriageway effect, meaning no lorries to draft, which explain most of the under 19 minutes times.
You just have to look at Hutch in the best years of his careers and the fact that he was over 5 minutes off pace at the UCI worlds in 2012.
-
Then again, CTT's virtual V718 race on RGT was just won in 21:58, with national hillclimb champion Ed Laverack in 4th place with 22:00. Can you imagine a real V718 race being won in 22 minutes? :o
Yes, I have noticed times being quite "slow"... maybe RGT works differently... although they were all 6 W/kg at the top... also, there is no dual carriageway effect, meaning no lorries to draft, which explain most of the under 19 minutes times.
You just have to look at Hutch in the best years of his careers and the fact that he was over 5 minutes off pace at the UCI worlds in 2012.
How many times have you ridden on the V? The lorry effect is a myth.
-
Did a test ride yesterday in a moderate westerly wind, so not exactly a headwind or a tailwind.
The route included busy shared use paths, traffic lights and residential streets so some constraints.
The Elment Bolt recorded:
Distance 56.23km
Time 2:11:22
Elevation 138m
Avg. Speed 25.7
On Zwift (no junctions, shared use paths, wind, potholes, etc), my nearest comparable ride was half the time/distance with these stats
Distance 28.1km
Time 0:55:36
Elevation 519m
Avg spd 30.2
This suggests to me that Zwift gives a reasonably close estimate.
;D ;D ;D
Plenty of folks who struggle to average 30 km/h on the road but race at 45 km/h on Zwift... equally, plenty of folks who climb the Alpe du Zwift in under an hour... I'd be surprised if many of them can do the real thing in less than an hour and a half.
It's virtual AND augmented reality... it's designed to make you feel good about your ability... on the road you can never reach those speeds, so why bother? Better to stick to the video game, where you go as fast as the PROs
I am comparing a real ride to Zwift. Do you actually have any experience of Zwift?
Also I have a lot of experience climbing the sort of col that the Alpe du Zwift is modelled on, Pyrenean and Alpine, and I never claimed to be able to do it under an hour! My time was just under 75 minutes and seems realistic enough for me.
It's true I would rather be doing this!
(https://i.ibb.co/zSzYfGR/DSCF0026.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/1L3vrjW/DSCF0030-2.jpg)
No idea what you are on about... you have a real ride with 2.7 mt/km of elevation at 25.6 km/h Vs a virtual ride with 20 mt/km of elevation at 30 km/h and you say the latter is realistic? I thought you were having a laugh, hence my comment.
If you average 25 on a flat ride, there is no way you will average 30 on a hilly one... averaging 30 km/h on a ride with 20 mt/km is pretty good going... Nibali in training does a bit more, not a lot more
-
How many times have you ridden on the V? The lorry effect is a myth.
Yesterday a lorry passed me on the A452, I was doing 40 km/h, slightly downhill, within a few seconds I was doing 60, without much extra effort.
So how do you explain folks averaging 53 km/h on dual carriageways, but then not being able to get anywhere near that speed on closed roads?
-
How many times have you ridden on the V? The lorry effect is a myth.
Yesterday a lorry passed me on the A452, I was doing 40 km/h, slightly downhill, within a few seconds I was doing 60, without much extra effort.
So how do you explain folks averaging 53 km/h on dual carriageways, but then not being able to get anywhere near that speed on closed roads?
So the answer is no.
I have several explanations, but it's not worth typing them for you. If you want to argue from ignorance, it's best that you remain ignorant.
-
Then again, CTT's virtual V718 race on RGT was just won in 21:58, with national hillclimb champion Ed Laverack in 4th place with 22:00. Can you imagine a real V718 race being won in 22 minutes? :o
Yes, I have noticed times being quite "slow"... maybe RGT works differently... although they were all 6 W/kg at the top... also, there is no dual carriageway effect, meaning no lorries to draft, which explain most of the under 19 minutes times.
You just have to look at Hutch in the best years of his careers and the fact that he was over 5 minutes off pace at the UCI worlds in 2012.
How many times have you ridden on the V? The lorry effect is a myth.
Never got the chance to. It was banned just as I started to think about making the trip.
-
Did a test ride yesterday in a moderate westerly wind, so not exactly a headwind or a tailwind.
The route included busy shared use paths, traffic lights and residential streets so some constraints.
The Elment Bolt recorded:
Distance 56.23km
Time 2:11:22
Elevation 138m
Avg. Speed 25.7
On Zwift (no junctions, shared use paths, wind, potholes, etc), my nearest comparable ride was half the time/distance with these stats
Distance 28.1km
Time 0:55:36
Elevation 519m
Avg spd 30.2
This suggests to me that Zwift gives a reasonably close estimate.
;D ;D ;D
Plenty of folks who struggle to average 30 km/h on the road but race at 45 km/h on Zwift... equally, plenty of folks who climb the Alpe du Zwift in under an hour... I'd be surprised if many of them can do the real thing in less than an hour and a half.
It's virtual AND augmented reality... it's designed to make you feel good about your ability... on the road you can never reach those speeds, so why bother? Better to stick to the video game, where you go as fast as the PROs
I am comparing a real ride to Zwift. Do you actually have any experience of Zwift?
Also I have a lot of experience climbing the sort of col that the Alpe du Zwift is modelled on, Pyrenean and Alpine, and I never claimed to be able to do it under an hour! My time was just under 75 minutes and seems realistic enough for me.
It's true I would rather be doing this!
(https://i.ibb.co/zSzYfGR/DSCF0026.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/1L3vrjW/DSCF0030-2.jpg)
No idea what you are on about... you have a real ride with 2.7 mt/km of elevation at 25.6 km/h Vs a virtual ride with 20 mt/km of elevation at 30 km/h and you say the latter is realistic? I thought you were having a laugh, hence my comment.
If you average 25 on a flat ride, there is no way you will average 30 on a hilly one... averaging 30 km/h on a ride with 20 mt/km is pretty good going... Nibali in training does a bit more, not a lot more
You do realise that if you climb a hill you also descend? Never stop pedalling.
Descending the Tourmalet I had cars pulling over to let me pass! Only in France..
-
Then again, CTT's virtual V718 race on RGT was just won in 21:58, with national hillclimb champion Ed Laverack in 4th place with 22:00. Can you imagine a real V718 race being won in 22 minutes? :o
Yes, I have noticed times being quite "slow"... maybe RGT works differently... although they were all 6 W/kg at the top... also, there is no dual carriageway effect, meaning no lorries to draft, which explain most of the under 19 minutes times.
You just have to look at Hutch in the best years of his careers and the fact that he was over 5 minutes off pace at the UCI worlds in 2012.
How many times have you ridden on the V? The lorry effect is a myth.
Never got the chance to. It was banned just as I started to think about making the trip.
Me neither, why is it fast? Presumably a good surface, but traffic must be a big part of it, no?
-
Did a test ride yesterday in a moderate westerly wind, so not exactly a headwind or a tailwind.
The route included busy shared use paths, traffic lights and residential streets so some constraints.
The Elment Bolt recorded:
Distance 56.23km
Time 2:11:22
Elevation 138m
Avg. Speed 25.7
On Zwift (no junctions, shared use paths, wind, potholes, etc), my nearest comparable ride was half the time/distance with these stats
Distance 28.1km
Time 0:55:36
Elevation 519m
Avg spd 30.2
This suggests to me that Zwift gives a reasonably close estimate.
;D ;D ;D
Plenty of folks who struggle to average 30 km/h on the road but race at 45 km/h on Zwift... equally, plenty of folks who climb the Alpe du Zwift in under an hour... I'd be surprised if many of them can do the real thing in less than an hour and a half.
It's virtual AND augmented reality... it's designed to make you feel good about your ability... on the road you can never reach those speeds, so why bother? Better to stick to the video game, where you go as fast as the PROs
I am comparing a real ride to Zwift. Do you actually have any experience of Zwift?
Also I have a lot of experience climbing the sort of col that the Alpe du Zwift is modelled on, Pyrenean and Alpine, and I never claimed to be able to do it under an hour! My time was just under 75 minutes and seems realistic enough for me.
It's true I would rather be doing this!
(https://i.ibb.co/zSzYfGR/DSCF0026.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/1L3vrjW/DSCF0030-2.jpg)
Looks familiar...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/98/257565726_d8353e29fb_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oL6jo)CNV00020 (https://flic.kr/p/oL6jo) by SimonP2006 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/27424426@N00/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/119/257565231_7cfaed7e9f_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oL6aR)CNV00009 (https://flic.kr/p/oL6aR) by SimonP2006 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/27424426@N00/), on Flickr
-
Then again, CTT's virtual V718 race on RGT was just won in 21:58, with national hillclimb champion Ed Laverack in 4th place with 22:00. Can you imagine a real V718 race being won in 22 minutes? :o
Yes, I have noticed times being quite "slow"... maybe RGT works differently... although they were all 6 W/kg at the top... also, there is no dual carriageway effect, meaning no lorries to draft, which explain most of the under 19 minutes times.
You just have to look at Hutch in the best years of his careers and the fact that he was over 5 minutes off pace at the UCI worlds in 2012.
How many times have you ridden on the V? The lorry effect is a myth.
Never got the chance to. It was banned just as I started to think about making the trip.
Me neither, why is it fast? Presumably a good surface, but traffic must be a big part of it, no?
I think Karla wrote something on the TT thread years ago. A lot of it is sheltered by banks on both sides which made it pretty fast most of the time. There's no gift hill and it wasn't a guaranteed PB course but testers would happily drive a 400 mile round trip to have a go. That bit of road does carry a fait bit of traffic and I have seen comments about making sure you got an early evening start if Hull City were at home. There did used to be a nice evening 10 series if you lived nearby.
-
I think the Hull City thing was a running joke. I did several rides on there and never noticed a particularly large or particularly variable amount of traffic. In the three decent rides where when I didn't have a mechanical or other screw-up, my times were all within 10 seconds of each other - it was a very consistent course.
-
I'd be surprised if there wasn't something in it (unless there isn't extra football traffic)
-
It's a different bit of road I know, but there's a noticeable difference between a Saturday afternoon on the E2 and a Sunday morning on the E2.
-
I'd be surprised if there wasn't something in it (unless there isn't extra football traffic)
It's a main road so you get main road levels of traffic. It isn't a country footpath. The idea that the V was fast because of traffic levels is a baseless one that is put round by unimaginative people who've never been there, who can't think of any other possible reasons and who think that idle speculation is a good way of arriving at true information.
-
I'd be surprised if there wasn't something in it (unless there isn't extra football traffic)
It's a main road so you get main road levels of traffic. It isn't a country footpath. The idea that the V was fast because of traffic levels is a baseless one that is put round by unimaginative people who've never been there, who can't think of any other possible reasons and who think that idle speculation is a good way of arriving at true information.
Road surface ?
Downhill start ?
Fast turn ?
-
0) A fast main road course like any other fast main road course: straight, flat and a non-zero amount of traffic.
1) Decent surface for most of it
2) Fast turn
3) A finish just slightly downhill from the start
4) A small hill near the western end of the course that flips the wind up over it
5) Trees lining most of the course that prevent it from coming down again
5a) The course's west/east orientation means that the wind does make it back down onto it a little bit at the northern side (i.e. when it's a tailwind) but you get the full shelter of the trees for the headwind leg. Basically, every day is a good day.
6) There were loads of events run on there so everyone got plenty of goes at setting a fast time, as opposed to Levens (reputedly faster on a good day but slow as a dog on a bad one) where the number of good riders riding in good form on good days was miniscule.
7) It was fairly central and easily accessible for most of the population (again unlike Levens) so most of the good riders could get there.
8) The positive feedback effect where because it was where all the good riders were regularly turning up to race all the other good riders, it became the place to do a time, and the place where all the good people brought their A game.
The shelter was really crucial. I once dropped my chain near the turn at the eastern end, so after I'd remounted it I pootled back and was in a position to notice things beyond my own burning thighs. The first five miles to the top of the hill had a slightly noticeable headwind; the last mile after the hill was a case of "F*)# my life I'm being blown off the bike!"
-
I just ordered a 700x25c Schwalbe Marathon Plus tyre for my latest PowerTap wheel.
Seems a bit odd to put a 595g tyre on a wheel like that but I sniped the wheel for cheap off eBay (it's an old PowerTap SL hub that's been upgraded to speak ANT+) and is going on my cheap commuter bike.
That's the 3rd PowerTap hub I have now (an SL+ on the geared bike, a PowerTap track hub on the fixed and now this one on the commuter).
-
114W.
FFS.
It can only improve.
-
Interesting. I've dabbled in the odd club time trial for years, after racing quite heavily for a few years around 40 years ago. That's heavily in all senses of the word - lots of races, with no noticeable success, in part because of the difficulty of carrying a bit of bulk uphill. Latterly, I've generally been a minute or so outside evens on our somewhat sporting course.
Translating to Zwift in the last 12 months, I started on a virtual power curve, with Zwift estimating me around the 120-130W mark. That doubled when I too got an older PowerTap wheel. I've no interest in doing a proper FTP test, but Zwift has bumped me up every now and then, and currently has me at 269W. That feels a bit on the high side, just as the virtual curve felt low - I'm recording 26-27 minutes in the Tempus Fugit 10s, and sitting in sportive groups at 24-25mph on the flat for prolonged periods, neither of which I think I could do IRL. But it's got me dead right going backwards rapidly when the road turns upwards :-[
I guess I'll find out, when all this is over, how far off the mark it is. I've never ridden with a power meter on the road, but may have to try it, just to make sure that it's a fair comparison.
-
Interesting. I've dabbled in the odd club time trial for years, after racing quite heavily for a few years around 40 years ago. That's heavily in all senses of the word - lots of races, with no noticeable success, in part because of the difficulty of carrying a bit of bulk uphill. Latterly, I've generally been a minute or so outside evens on our somewhat sporting course.
Translating to Zwift in the last 12 months, I started on a virtual power curve, with Zwift estimating me around the 120-130W mark. That doubled when I too got an older PowerTap wheel. I've no interest in doing a proper FTP test, but Zwift has bumped me up every now and then, and currently has me at 269W. That feels a bit on the high side, just as the virtual curve felt low - I'm recording 26-27 minutes in the Tempus Fugit 10s, and sitting in sportive groups at 24-25mph on the flat for prolonged periods, neither of which I think I could do IRL. But it's got me dead right going backwards rapidly when the road turns upwards :-[
I guess I'll find out, when all this is over, how far off the mark it is. I've never ridden with a power meter on the road, but may have to try it, just to make sure that it's a fair comparison.
Interesting article https://blog.wahoofitness.com/ask-experts-indoor-cycling-power-vs-outdoor-power/ about the differences between indoor and outdoor power.
-
FTP has seemed to have become the cycling version of the golfers handicap - something to be an achievement rather than a tool.
Protocols for measuring FTP have, in my view, eased towards flattery rather than accuracy.
The definition is still about the power a rider can hold for an hour. Few though do a full hour test. Different tests may favour different types of rider.
At the end of the day, it’s a useful figure to use as a baseline for training - ideally if the rider has an accurate, preferably calibrated, way of measuring power . I believe the value is doing structured training at defined zones which are a %of FTP. It’s also useful way of tracking improvements in performance.
The level to which it is misunderstood is indicated by looking at Rouvy, or Zwift, “ race” results, with people holding 200% TTP!
-
It's worth noting that the ability to ride at a high percentage of FTP for a long time is a separate, trainable quantity.
-
Interesting article... about the differences between indoor and outdoor power.
Thank you. Although that seems to imply that outdoor power would normally be higher. Which is as yet untested in my case, but seems far-fetched :)
-
Outdoors you’re affected by traffic, junctions, road surface, weather etc to ride consistent. But you do get better cooling when on the move and better cooling allows you to work harder for longer.
-
Interesting discussion - I'm pretty confident that my FTP (obtained by TrainerRoad ramp test using a smart trainer) is too high, as I know I'm not that strong a rider on the road. I'm either very good at doing the ramp test (e.g. I'm quite fit from a cardio perspective outside of cycling), my trainer is over reporting power (I have no other power data source to calibrate it against), or the ramp test results are flawed.
That said, none of the above really matters to my training, what's key is consistency / repeatability - I need to be able to train in the right zones, and if my FTP is reported at x% too high, then the intervals I'm doing should be reported at x% too high as well, and therefore be about right. If I keep everything consistent between testing and training, I can measure improvement in power / fitness over time, even if the actual figures themselves are detached from reality.
-
I'm either very good at doing the ramp test (e.g. I'm quite fit from a cardio perspective outside of cycling), my trainer is over reporting power (I have no other power data source to calibrate it against), or the ramp test results are flawed.
All of those might be true! The ramp test is certainly quite susceptible to being gamed. If you care about the figure, a way to 'calibrate' it is to do a different test, eg 20 mins. When I worked with a coach a couple of years ago, testing was less frequent than TR but always involved a ramp test on the monday followed by a 20 mins test on the Tuesday
-
That said, none of the above really matters to my training, what's key is consistency / repeatability - I need to be able to train in the right zones, and if my FTP is reported at x% too high, then the intervals I'm doing should be reported at x% too high as well, and therefore be about right. If I keep everything consistent between testing and training, I can measure improvement in power / fitness over time, even if the actual figures themselves are detached from reality.
I'm with you on this. I ride a Tacx Neo 2T which is reputed to give quite honest readings. If others ride Wahoo Kickrs, Bkools or, heaven forbid, zPower trainers, their power gets a bit inflated but that'll just spur me on a bit more to keep up with them or beat them!
-
If others ride ..., heaven forbid, zPower trainers, their power gets a bit inflated ...
Or, as I mentioned, quite substantially deflated. I was struggling a bit till I got a power meter. I'm not that slow!
-
I lost count of friends who improved their FTP but forgot to enter any race... :P
-
All of those might be true! The ramp test is certainly quite susceptible to being gamed. If you care about the figure, a way to 'calibrate' it is to do a different test, eg 20 mins. When I worked with a coach a couple of years ago, testing was less frequent than TR but always involved a ramp test on the monday followed by a 20 mins test on the Tuesday
That's not a bad idea - before getting my smart trainer, I used to use the 20 or 8 minute FTP tests on TrainerRoad although I'm certain that my dumb trainer didn't get very accurate virtual power. I'd be quite interested to see how I got on with a 20 minute test now in comparison to the ramp, although it's hard to know where to aim for in terms of power. Does anyone know whether there's some way of calculating what percentage of FTP (e.g. 110%) you need to hold for 20 minutes to end up with a given FTP value (if that question makes any sense)?
-
This isn't a good time of year to see a good FTP. You need to wait until the days lengthen. You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals.
-
...Does anyone know whether there's some way of calculating what percentage of FTP (e.g. 110%) you need to hold for 20 minutes to end up with a given FTP value (if that question makes any sense)?
From Zwift
The actual test which follows is 20 minutes long, and your FTP will be automatically calculated as 95% of your average wattage during that 20-minute period.
This is expressed as the inverse of what you asked but to answer your question 105%.
https://www.zwift.com/news/15658-zwift-how-to-decide-which-zwift-ftp-test-you-should-take?__znl=en-gb
-
All of those might be true! The ramp test is certainly quite susceptible to being gamed. If you care about the figure, a way to 'calibrate' it is to do a different test, eg 20 mins. When I worked with a coach a couple of years ago, testing was less frequent than TR but always involved a ramp test on the monday followed by a 20 mins test on the Tuesday
That's not a bad idea - before getting my smart trainer, I used to use the 20 or 8 minute FTP tests on TrainerRoad although I'm certain that my dumb trainer didn't get very accurate virtual power. I'd be quite interested to see how I got on with a 20 minute test now in comparison to the ramp, although it's hard to know where to aim for in terms of power. Does anyone know whether there's some way of calculating what percentage of FTP (e.g. 110%) you need to hold for 20 minutes to end up with a given FTP value (if that question makes any sense)?
You almost need to do it blind to get an accurate value. If the result from a 20 min done that way matches the ramp test value you were trying to match. It just confirms that the ramp test probably didn’t overestimate but not that it didn’t underestimate.
So if smart trainer , program it with say a 5% slope for 20 mins with warm up first. But don’t have the power figure showing during test.
-
Thanks for the replies - I guess I'm trying to work out where I start off power-wise when doing a 20 minute test, as I've not done one for years, and never on a smart trainer. If I have an idea of what power I'd need to maintain to get the same result as the ramp test, then at least I can start at that and adjust a tiny bit up/down depending on how I feel as the test goes on.
-
This isn't a good time of year to see a good FTP. You need to wait until the days lengthen. You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals.
A surefire way to improve FTP: let's inject like they injected in Discovery Channel ;D
-
Thanks for the replies - I guess I'm trying to work out where I start off power-wise when doing a 20 minute test, as I've not done one for years, and never on a smart trainer. If I have an idea of what power I'd need to maintain to get the same result as the ramp test, then at least I can start at that and adjust a tiny bit up/down depending on how I feel as the test goes on.
You perhaps need to view your first one as a throwaway and start at say 200W. If you blow up half way you started too hard, if you found it too easy then you need to try harder next time. Without any benchmark your first attempt is going to be a guess.
-
Or why not do a ramp test, then ride or race hard on Zwift and let Zwift notify you of estimated increases in your FTP?
-
You don't really have to start with a guess anyway. I've never done a proper FTP test, and I've no great interest in doing one. However, Zwift has assigned me an FTP anyway, on the basis of some 10-mile TTs and similar rides. Presumably I'd have a good shot at improving those figures slightly if I tried a formal test - that would be my starting point, anyway. So, as far as I know, if you're on Zwift then you've got an FTP measurement, and it's just a matter of whether it reflects an actual test.
-
Thanks for the replies - I guess I'm trying to work out where I start off power-wise when doing a 20 minute test, as I've not done one for years, and never on a smart trainer. If I have an idea of what power I'd need to maintain to get the same result as the ramp test, then at least I can start at that and adjust a tiny bit up/down depending on how I feel as the test goes on.
Don't overthink it, just try it.
Most people are surprisingly good at pacing efforts. The main thing is not to sprint off at the start but try and ride a reverse split, with your second half at a marginally higher power than your first. When you are half way through, you'll have a good idea if you can increase your effort or not and by how much.
-
From a handful of attempts earlier last year, I found that the key to optimal results was to undercook it for the first 2 thirds but only just, then start building up to a crescendo. All in for the last few mins to the point that you feel decidedly unwell.
Have fun and have a bucket handy!
-
From a handful of attempts earlier last year, I found that the key to optimal results was to undercook it for the first 2 thirds but only just, then start building up to a crescendo. All in for the last few mins to the point that you feel decidedly unwell.
Have fun and have a bucket handy!
That was my plan for the test that I did yesterday but ran out of energy after about 13 minutes and ended up with a result that was actually lower than the last one I did in November. Probably down to a number of factors: I hadn’t had breakfast and I think I overdid it on the last training plan and overstrained. I took last week off but I’m not back at 100%.
-
That was my plan for the test that I did yesterday but ran out of energy after about 13 minutes and ended up with a result that was actually lower than the last one I did in November. Probably down to a number of factors: I hadn’t had breakfast and I think I overdid it on the last training plan and overstrained. I took last week off but I’m not back at 100%.
I did one today (20 minute short version)... and I had dropped ~5%.
This is after following the 6 week "pebble pounder" plan - not that gravel is particularly relevant to me, but I wanted to dip a toe into Zwift's structured training, and my time has been limited of late; the pebble pounder has a low riding volume - where the workouts seemed ok with my old, higher ftp - hard work, but doable - and I definitely increased my ability as the plan went on.
So I was a bit surprised/sad to get a lower result.
However, I think a ramp test gives me a higher result as I can blast my anaerobic system more effectively than my aerobic one for short periods (ie, beast that last interval a bit on the ramp); and the previous higher result was auto-generated by Zwift when I was in a race trying to hang onto a bunch that turned out to all be DQed for sandbagging... so I think there's potentially issues with pacing and pushing yourself on the 20 min test. And I reckon random factors of exactly how you're feeling on a given day probably give you at least +-5% anyway.
So I'm feeling a bit discouraged at the moment despite telling myself all of the above... I'm planning on a week or two of just riding without plan/for pleaasure, before I sign up for the next lot; hoping to have more time available for more volume of training... and then after that it'll be warm enough to get outside again, with any luck :)
-
It may just be that particular set of workouts wasn’t enough to stimulate positive changes in your fitness. It may also be you weren’t sufficiently rested before you did the test. I always do the testing after a recovery / rest week. We’ve all done workouts / ftp tests when not sufficiently rested and you know it’s not happening.
I also think you got to play the long game with this. When you first do structured training you often see big increases in ftp but as time goes on the increases get smaller and take longer. Or ftp may drop as in your case. There will also come a point where you’ve reached a plateau you simply won’t get off without more volume. If you can’t do more volume , then you may be at your fitness peak. That’s as good as it gets.
If your ftp stagnates then you can also work at increasing the volume of intervals. So instead of trying to increase intensity you increase the number of intervals. So if your comfortable doing 3 x 10 at ftp , try 4 x 10 at ftp etc. If your happy at 4 x 3 vo2 max, try 5 x 3 vo2 max etc.
Something I also work on is aerobic decoupling. So what’s the highest HR I can work at steady state and have minimal decoupling from power over an hour, two hours, three hours etc. I count minimal as 5% or less decoupling. Potentially something more useful for my endurance in a long event over many hours and days. This one is more connected with developing that aerobic base.
You’ve pushed your LT2 higher, but have you pushed your LT1 higher or neglected it?
All words from a punter who reads stuff of course!
-
It may just be that particular set of workouts wasn’t enough to stimulate positive changes in your fitness. It may also be you weren’t sufficiently rested before you did the test. I always do the testing after a recovery / rest week. We’ve all done workouts / ftp tests when not sufficiently rested and you know it’s not happening.
I also think you got to play the long game with this. When you first do structured training you often see big increases in ftp but as time goes on the increases get smaller and take longer. Or ftp may drop as in your case. There will also come a point where you’ve reached a plateau you simply won’t get off without more volume. If you can’t do more volume , then you may be at your fitness peak. That’s as good as it gets.
If your ftp stagnates then you can also work at increasing the volume of intervals. So instead of trying to increase intensity you increase the number of intervals. So if your comfortable doing 3 x 10 at ftp , try 4 x 10 at ftp etc. If your happy at 4 x 3 vo2 max, try 5 x 3 vo2 max etc.
Something I also work on is aerobic decoupling. So what’s the highest HR I can work at steady state and have minimal decoupling from power over an hour, two hours, three hours etc. I count minimal as 5% or less decoupling. Potentially something more useful for my endurance in a long event over many hours and days. This one is more connected with developing that aerobic base.
You’ve pushed your LT2 higher, but have you pushed your LT1 higher or neglected it?
All words from a punter who reads stuff of course!
The first 3 paragraphs made good sense... then I got a bit lost ;)
My fitness "peak" may be far more about shallowing the drop!
I do think the 3 workouts + one long zone 2 ride each week on that plan were probably not enough, but real life keeps sticking its nose in :(
I'm planning on the 6 week FTP builder next, which does have some weeks with 4 or 5 workouts, we'll see how they fit into life.
-
Basically the more aerobically fit you are, the longer you can ride at a steady sub threshold power output and the HR will remain steady. It’s a sign of how well adapted your leg muscles are in terms of mitochondria / capillaries for efficient oxygen take up.
-
The day before was a similar ride (2 circuits not 3) but only 1.75h so although 71% in the tempo HR zone 9% in Z3 and only 7% in Z0. That resulted in 42% Z4 and above. The shorter the ride the higher the intensity generally. Average speeds were very similar 18.32 v 18.25mph. Another 2.5h ride over exactly the same route 3 days later was 19.33mph with pretty much the same HR profile, a faster bike but no PM. Bottom line, it doesn't matter what you FTP is, all you need to know is, if you're going to ride to power, what is a suitable power that you know you'll be able to sustain for however long you're going to do it for. I find it much easier to do that via HR for anything longer the 10'. Ah, just remembered, I did ride the 2.5h to power to compare with the day before which was to HR.
Seems right to me.
I don't have a HR monitor but I did the FTP test on Zwift and got 255w. Then having heard that Alpe du Zwift was modelled on the Alpe d'Huez I thought I must try that (at first my level 5 didn't let me in).
After attaining level 6, I had a go via the Sky Ride route. In my ignorance I was clearly trying too hard and also being too competitive, trying to draft riders who were really too fast for me. I gave it an hour and decided I'd better pack before I overdid it. Later the graph of my stats looked like a seismograph reading during an earthquake.
Two days later I set off with the strategy of keeping the power down to 200w for the entire ride. On my setup it's hard to keep a precise power output so most sections I averaged 210 to 214. After an hour I was feeling ok so I experimented out of saddle and got a peak of 391 for a few seconds. Then it was back to the grind, by that point there was me and two other riders who both overtook me slowly. Near the summit I was catching them again so upped the power to 360 and overtook them before the line. Although my time of just under 75 minutes was long way off the current leader's 43 just finishing the climb was enough for me. I'd averaged 205 watts overall (including a few cooling off kilometres) and my performance graph was far tidier.
Still looking forward to getting back on real roads but also upgrading to a more advanced trainer for the winter.
If your 1hour power was 210- 214 then that’s your FTP.
Most accurate, and meaningful way to measure FTP is one hour, maximum sustainable power therefore average watts. That’s what the definition is.
Realistically, as long as you are within a reasonable figure, then your work zones will be accurate enough.
Back in May it's certain the Turbo Muin was flattering me. Since getting the Wahoo Kickr my recent 1 hour averages have all been c.183-5 (all hilly rides). I am however 10kg lighter since Jan 2020 so w/kg is better at just over 2.4.
-
Ramp Tests have given me an FTP of 285 or there abouts.
Riding climbs on the trainer for sustained efforts, my readings are at least 15% below that.
I think the ramp tests are unrealistic and over estimate the true FTP.
What they do seem to do, at least for me, is come up with a very similar reading every time. Any cunning plan to sneak up on a previous best FTP on the ramp and hang in there for one last stomping effort quickly has you blowing up, unable to turn the pedals and it spits the same result out again.
-
Ramp Tests have given me an FTP of 285 or there abouts.
Riding climbs on the trainer for sustained efforts, my readings are at least 15% below that.
I think the ramp tests are unrealistic and over estimate the true FTP.
What they do seem to do, at least for me, is come up with a very similar reading every time. Any cunning plan to sneak up on a previous best FTP on the ramp and hang in there for one last stomping effort quickly has you blowing up, unable to turn the pedals and it spits the same result out again.
There are various ways to game ramp tests. One is to set your FTP at a different level (or adjust the % effort slider a bit). Most people can generally manage only a certain amount of time after they have gone above FTP on a ramp test, I think it is about 5 minutes, but it is not so sensitive to exactly what the power level is. So, if you were to change your FTP manually to, say, 325, I'd expect you to get a higher FTP reading. And if you change it to 230, a lower one.
If that is true - and I think it is based on a modest amount of my own testing - then the same issues would apply when your FTP changes by a modest amount. Say your FTP has increased to 300 since your last test but you start the test at 285. You would expect to get an under-reading that might be close to 285.
Of course you could set your FTP to where you think it now is - say 300W - and see what result that gives. But that wouldn't prove anything as a one-off test as you'd expect a higher reading based on the higher input FTP regardless of any power gains. I suppose what you'd need to do would be a series of tests setting your input FTP at different levels, say 10W apart and measure how performance across the whole set changes. Or just do a differenet test!
Of course, if your FTP changes by a lot, you will be able to blow your previous performance out of the water by going for several more minutes above your old FTP and get a far higher score.
-
Ramp Tests have given me an FTP of 285 or there abouts.
Riding climbs on the trainer for sustained efforts, my readings are at least 15% below that.
I think the ramp tests are unrealistic and over estimate the true FTP.
What they do seem to do, at least for me, is come up with a very similar reading every time. Any cunning plan to sneak up on a previous best FTP on the ramp and hang in there for one last stomping effort quickly has you blowing up, unable to turn the pedals and it spits the same result out again.
There are various ways to game ramp tests. One is to set your FTP at a different level (or adjust the % effort slider a bit). Most people can generally manage only a certain amount of time after they have gone above FTP on a ramp test, I think it is about 5 minutes, but it is not so sensitive to exactly what the power level is. So, if you were to change your FTP manually to, say, 325, I'd expect you to get a higher FTP reading. And if you change it to 230, a lower one.
If that is true - and I think it is based on a modest amount of my own testing - then the same issues would apply when your FTP changes by a modest amount. Say your FTP has increased to 300 since your last test but you start the test at 285. You would expect to get an under-reading that might be close to 285.
Of course you could set your FTP to where you think it now is - say 300W - and see what result that gives. But that wouldn't prove anything as a one-off test as you'd expect a higher reading based on the higher input FTP regardless of any power gains. I suppose what you'd need to do would be a series of tests setting your input FTP at different levels, say 10W apart and measure how performance across the whole set changes. Or just do a differenet test!
Of course, if your FTP changes by a lot, you will be able to blow your previous performance out of the water by going for several more minutes above your old FTP and get a far higher score.
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. My understanding is that the ftp estimate was 75% of your average power in final completed minute. How does you pre estimate of ftp affect things ? Is it because the ramp it gives you has different profile ?
-
The Ramp gives a 5 min warm up period (at a % based on the FTP you currently have set) then starts off stepping at 1 min intervals, these steps are % of set FTP so that Step 9 is always the set around FTP. It ends up being around 26 mins long for me which includes a cool down at the end. I think I've done it about 7 times so far (including twice this week) and all but one I have been through Step 15 and usually packed a few secs in to Step 16. The only one I was less on was this week where I packed after step 13 but had a previous setting of 257W but revised now to 229 - I followed up the next day with that setting and made it to Step 15.
So I think Frank is right, there is only so many steps you might get through before packing if the FTP setting initially value is correct.
If you put to high an initial FTP setting, that number will be less steps before packing and too low an FTP setting, that number of steps will be higher before packing. When I packed on both attempts this week my HR was 94-98% of my max HR, the 98% pack being at the initial setting of 229W and was as a result of I ran out of air to breath.
Additionally there were some irregularities in both tests this week, 1st test lost a lump of power as the trainer ERG went funny bang on FTP causing a dip in recorded power, which is why I attempted a test the following day. During the later test I had some power spikes in the last minute but they didn't effect the similar FTP rating from the second test.
I think the test serves a purpose well in order to establish some personal indoor training zones - the numbers appear similar to the estimated FTP on intervals.icu too.
Now whether my tested number is correct is subjective as it's on a different power meter to what I usually use (the one where I've been testing 250ish) but as long as I use that same meter for the workouts it shouldn't matter.
EDIT: The above refers to the TrainerRoad ramp test in it's current guise
-
There are clearly a number of different ramp test protocols. The full ramp test on Zwift starts at 100W and goes up in 20W increments; I've definitely seen 25W increments in tests too.
-
From what I’ve read, 20W is that recommended for professionals, 25W recommended for amateur men, and 15W recommended for amateur women. I have mine set at 25W a minute but I have it go up 5W every 12 seconds. I start it at 100 watts for first 5 mins before it ramps. My currently set FTP has no impact on starting power or the ramp rate.
-
The one I am describing is the TrainerRoad one (which I assumed, perhaps wrongly, was the one being discussed :) )
-
I was talking about the trainerroad one. On that the size of the jumps is a % of FTP. So if you set your FTP higher your jumps are bigger, and if you go for 5 mins above your initial FTP, you'll get a higher score than if you set FTP lower and can only manage 5 minutes.
You might say, of course I'll be able to go on longer if the jumps aren't as big. But in practice that is not what happens, the time above FTP wears you down even if it isn't at such a high level.
-
I do much worse at ramp tests than I do at 20 minute efforts. Which probably means I haven't done enough VO2 max efforts in training.
-
My three weakest cycling areas are ascents, descents and level riding, (the rest is mostly ok), so in the interests of trying to improve and be a bit scientific about it I decided to measure a "starting" point as reference for future hoped for improvement. So did my first FTP test using the Tacx Training App and my cheapish Tacx Flow Smart trainer, 20 minutes at 5% after a 20 minute not easy "warmup".
169 watts & 2.25 watts/kg, Garmin says on the border between "untrained*" and "fair". Best that can be said I suppose is that it leaves plenty of scope for improvement.
*I have done 42 x 200km rides in the last 7 years but have lots of experience of seeing the rest of the field disappear over (or down) the first hill, rarely to be seen again. Not a spring chicken either.
-
I do much worse at ramp tests than I do at 20 minute efforts. Which probably means I haven't done enough VO2 max efforts in training.
That’s interesting - the vast majority of people do better on ramp tests than on 20-minute tests. I clocked 318W a few weeks ago on a ramp test, and have ridden 2 Tempus Fugit TTs since at only 314W and 308W. I can hold a comfortable 320W until the Wind Caves on the way out, then my power profile goes all spiky and I’m constantly fighting to nudge it back up…
-
That's 20 minutes as part of a race, not 20 minutes as part of a test.
Psychology clearly pays a big part.
-
Yes, but a TT on TF is less than 25 minutes, so not much different from a 20-minute flat test. If my FTP really is 318, I should be able to hold 335W for 20 minutes! That’s just not going to be happening (until/unless my aerobic fitness improves significantly).
-
In the last week I've completed a ramp test (on an ICG bike) and a 20 minute test on a Wattbike pro, both in the same location and time of day.
I use a Wattbike pretty regularly but I haven't used an ICG bike since pre pandemic spin classes, I just wanted to try a different bike and test to see how much the figures varied after reading this thread.
The former returned an FTP of 270W, the latter 226W.
Scrolling back through previous Wattbike 20 minute tests since 2018 they have all have been in the range 220W - 240W so fairly consistent and have varied in line with seasonal fitness (and lack of).
-
Just bought a Wahoo Kickr and signed up to Zwift. I thought I’d do an FTP test and decided on “Ramp Test Lite” which takes you in steps up to 250 W. I manage to get all the way to 250W despite copious amounts of sweat. Then a message pops up on the screen “ You are too strong for this test - you need to do the full Ramp Test”. Well, thanks for that, you could have told me before I started or perhaps at the halfway point. So my currently measured FTP is 196W but I suspect it’s more than that.
As I weigh 110kg, my W/kg is a not very impressive 1.78. I think this puts me firmly in category E, though I can’t find any definitive definition of what the categories are in Zwift.
I do a weekly group ride on a Monday night. Ride, not Race. This is supposed to be an “Everyone stays together, no matter what wattage you are putting out” ride. Why is it then, that every time we go up a hill, I get dropped and spend the rest of my time chasing to get back on. It is very motivating but much tougher than I thought it would be.
-
Everyone below 2.5 W/kg is category D. Category E means an event is for everyone.
The Zwift algorithm (and indeed the real world) favours absolute wattage on the flat but W/kg on climbs, so being dropped on hills is to be expected if the other riders are lighter than you.
Does the Ride have a “fence” to stop people being dropped? In my limited experience it still feels like being dropped, even though it doesn’t allow as a big a gap to open up as it would in reality
-
Everyone below 2.5 W/kg is category D. Category E means an event is for everyone.
The Zwift algorithm (and indeed the real world) favours absolute wattage on the flat but W/kg on climbs, so being dropped on hills is to be expected if the other riders are lighter than you.
Does the Ride have a “fence” to stop people being dropped? In my limited experience it still feels like being dropped, even though it doesn’t allow as a big a gap to open up as it would in reality
In my experience a significant number of riders totally ignore the red mist/ curtain and blast on through. If you do the same you get a message telling you to go back to the “ group”, but by then there isn’t a significant group.
-
Does the Ride have a “fence” to stop people being dropped? In my limited experience it still feels like being dropped, even though it doesn’t allow as a big a gap to open up as it would in reality
The fence isn't there to stop riders being dropped- it's there to stop riders racing off into the distance.
Who were you riding with, TrevA? Some groups are more likely to stick to the advertised pace than others.
-
The fence isn't there to stop riders being dropped- it's there to stop riders racing off into the distance.
Ah! That explains why the “we’ve turned on the fence so everyone can ride together” rides I tried didn’t work out.
-
The fence isn’t. In my experience over 70% of the riders bash through it, despite the constant banner “ Return to Group”. Very often putting out 200% of the stated upper power figure.
-
Ive returned to the turbo after a break for hard efforts in order to avoid the local pot holes, dangerous drivers and Winter weather.
After a few races and a ramp test Ive concluded that its possible to get a slightly higher result on your ramp test than what is likely the true reading. Zwift power bears this out.
Racing wise, I've selected the appropriate category and found that while my estimated power would have me somewhere towards the front of the pack, invariably I'm mid pack and back.
Either way its a nice change and good fun, if knackering.
-
Races aren't a max power test, though, there's a lot of game-craft in there needed to make you successful. Or, as most of us find out, not.
-
As noted, some people do better/worse at ramp tests. I've just done my monthly TrainerRoad one (sore throat from hyper-ventilating ::-)).
From experience I lower my FTP by about 5w from the ramp test result for the next training block. I think it's still close enough to get productive workouts without me dreading every threshold or Vo2 session ;)
-
With the advent of direct drive trainers one would assume greater consistency and reliability with regard to FTP tests. If one uses the same protocol ,ie 20 minutes test or ramp test it should be the case after a few months to establish whether there is an increase or decrease or perhaps a stable FTP level of power output from the person being tested.
If this is the case, do any riders and especially distance riders ie, Audax participants have a notable performance outcome relative to their improved or decrease in FTP?
I ask the question as I'm interested to know whether one hour or so threshold sessions improve average power and thus speed over longer distances, say 100km or more.
-
If this is the case, do any riders and especially distance riders ie, Audax participants have a notable performance outcome relative to their improved or decrease in FTP?
I ask the question as I'm interested to know whether one hour or so threshold sessions improve average power and thus speed over longer distances, say 100km or more.
Good question. According to TrainerRoad you will see improvements accross all disciplines if you follow the programme tailored specifically to your needs.
I'm in my first full year of TrainerRoad 4 days a week (plus the other 3 days in the gym doing weights). My FTP is gradually rising. I'll be able to tell you if it makes any difference to audax-length rides by the summer ;)
Mind you, at my age it's also about retaining ability as much as improvement.
-
Mind you, at my age it's also about retaining ability as much as improvement.
What age, if I am allowed to ask?
-
Mind you, at my age it's also about retaining ability as much as improvement.
What age, if I am allowed to ask?
By all means - 66. A youngster in audax terms ;)
-
With the advent of direct drive trainers one would assume greater consistency and reliability with regard to FTP tests. If one uses the same protocol ,ie 20 minutes test or ramp test it should be the case after a few months to establish whether there is an increase or decrease or perhaps a stable FTP level of power output from the person being tested.
If this is the case, do any riders and especially distance riders ie, Audax participants have a notable performance outcome relative to their improved or decrease in FTP?
I ask the question as I'm interested to know whether one hour or so threshold sessions improve average power and thus speed over longer distances, say 100km or more.
You’ve got to also be aware of the power to speed relationships. The amount of power required rises in proportion to the cube of the speed.
The following are from an online calculator based on a drop bar road bike config
For instance maintain 100 watts on flat and you’ll get approx 24 km/h
Add another 50 watts to 150 watts you get approx 28 km/h
Add another 50 watts to 200 watts you get approx 31 km/h
Add another 50 watts to 250 watts you get approx 34 km/h
So whilst you may see ftp increases that in itself may not translate out on the road unless the increases are substantial. You also need to wary of ftp tests being very short, which means you may get a non trivial anaerobic contribution , inflating the figure.
Interestingly there’s a paper out there that says there’s a significant correlation between fat oxidation levels and iron man performance. The best athletes their fat oxidation at 250 watts as at least 90% of the value at 100 watts. The others are purely glycosis by 250 watts. This is independent of Vo2 max. High intensity won’t develop your fat oxidation capability. For that you’ll need to add the long duration low intensity rides as well. Plus diet on top if you want.
-
If this is the case, do any riders and especially distance riders ie, Audax participants have a notable performance outcome relative to their improved or decrease in FTP?
I ask the question as I'm interested to know whether one hour or so threshold sessions improve average power and thus speed over longer distances, say 100km or more.
Good question. According to TrainerRoad you will see improvements accross all disciplines if you follow the programme tailored specifically to your needs.
I'm in my first full year of TrainerRoad 4 days a week (plus the other 3 days in the gym doing weights). My FTP is gradually rising. I'll be able to tell you if it makes any difference to audax-length rides by the summer ;)
Mind you, at my age it's also about retaining ability as much as improvement.
An improved FTP for me is focused primarily on upping the average speed on multi day endurance events. I appreciate its only a small part of the jigsaw and there are plenty of other skills to hone that will help efficiencies and save time. The idea that you can ride 1km fatser over the day for the same effort and be 15km further up the road is a serious carrot. In addition its good time management for training rather than simply bashing out massive miles every week.
I do some road racing here too in season, and also enjoy the Zwift racing events so its not totally geared to the ultra training.
I "think" my SOG will improve with the training...but then my new bike set up is slower.....but more comfortable, which opens up a whole other can of worms.
I'm mid fifties so somewhat down the road of toontra where a victory is simply keeping the ftp from slipping.
-
The following are from an online calculator based on a drop bar road bike config
For instance maintain 100 watts on flat and you’ll get approx 24 km/h
Add another 50 watts to 150 watts you get approx 28 km/h
Add another 50 watts to 200 watts you get approx 31 km/h
Add another 50 watts to 250 watts you get approx 34 km/h
I don't know what world those measurements come from but it's not the UK.
-
The following are from an online calculator based on a drop bar road bike config
For instance maintain 100 watts on flat and you’ll get approx 24 km/h
Add another 50 watts to 150 watts you get approx 28 km/h
Add another 50 watts to 200 watts you get approx 31 km/h
Add another 50 watts to 250 watts you get approx 34 km/h
I don't know what world those measurements come from but it's not the UK.
They are not a million miles off. I can do a bit better, 40 km/h with 250W in a TT and that is with a road bike and no aero bits and bobs.
-
FTP has increased a lot lately... only thing I changed is that I am doing Veganuary and maybe pushing a bit harder on the turbo, courtesy of virtual racing.
Latest figure is 4.2 W/kg... it was abut 3.8-3.9 back in the autumn :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
If this is the case, do any riders and especially distance riders ie, Audax participants have a notable performance outcome relative to their improved or decrease in FTP?
I ask the question as I'm interested to know whether one hour or so threshold sessions improve average power and thus speed over longer distances, say 100km or more.
Good question. According to TrainerRoad you will see improvements accross all disciplines if you follow the programme tailored specifically to your needs.
I'm in my first full year of TrainerRoad 4 days a week (plus the other 3 days in the gym doing weights). My FTP is gradually rising. I'll be able to tell you if it makes any difference to audax-length rides by the summer ;)
Mind you, at my age it's also about retaining ability as much as improvement.
An improved FTP for me is focused primarily on upping the average speed on multi day endurance events. I appreciate its only a small part of the jigsaw and there are plenty of other skills to hone that will help efficiencies and save time. The idea that you can ride 1km fatser over the day for the same effort and be 15km further up the road is a serious carrot. In addition its good time management for training rather than simply bashing out massive miles every week.
I do some road racing here too in season, and also enjoy the Zwift racing events so its not totally geared to the ultra training.
I "think" my SOG will improve with the training...but then my new bike set up is slower.....but more comfortable, which opens up a whole other can of worms.
I'm mid fifties so somewhat down the road of toontra where a victory is simply keeping the ftp from slipping.
One thing that I have learned in an ultra-racing context is that increasing your FTP is one of the harder ways to increase your speed, and you have to bump it up quite a lot to offset other things which have a negative impact. For example, a typical ultraracer who uses a dynamo should expect to get similar benefit from switching to batteries vs a 10% increase in FTP. One is a lot easier to achieve than the other!
-
One thing that I have learned in an ultra-racing context is that increasing your FTP is one of the harder ways to increase your speed, and you have to bump it up quite a lot to offset other things which have a negative impact. For example, a typical ultraracer who uses a dynamo should expect to get similar benefit from switching to batteries vs a 10% increase in FTP. One is a lot easier to achieve than the other!
Indeed. It would be pretty silly to focus on FTP improvement without sorting out all the other performance-enhancing elements (equipment, aerodynamics, clothing, etc.) first. That's a lot easier and quicker (if not cheaper!).
For ultra-racing, even FTP probably plays a back seat to endurance-specific training and psychology.
-
Definitely still worth doing though (and I am doing it).
There is a risk if you only focus on the non-cycling stuff and doing the long slow rides that you do need to do, that you end up riding long distances increasingly slowly. Morbihan's road and Zwift racing are useful speed work, but I do worry that he has negated all his hard work by going for a slower bike! I hope we get to discuss it in person one day!
-
FTP is threshold. I have increased it a lot and certainly can do a 25 TT a lot faster than I used to. Hasn’t made a great deal of difference to how fast or how far I can go in a day.
You still get tired, you still have aches, you still need to sleep and eat… the average speed over a day goes up only very marginally…
If I was to consider multi day events (which I no longer am), I would aim at sleep efficiency. It takes me ages to fall asleep and that’s a massive disadvantage over someone who can drop down like a stone in minutes.
-
Definitely still worth doing though (and I am doing it).
There is a risk if you only focus on the non-cycling stuff and doing the long slow rides that you do need to do, that you end up riding long distances increasingly slowly. Morbihan's road and Zwift racing are useful speed work, but I do worry that he has negated all his hard work by going for a slower bike! I hope we get to discuss it in person one day!
I hope so too Frank :-)
It remains to be seen if the more comfortable but slower set up is the right call. I should have a definitive answer on (hopefully) 9th of August.
-
Ive continued to do a couple of races a week on Zwift this year and relished (I don't know if you can call it enjoyed!) the challenge of hanging in with the peloton whenever possible.
I'm not really sure why the virtual riding has clicked and stuck this time around after I initially drifted away from it a year or so ago, but it has.
Maybe a better indoor set up, maybe sub conscious bias due to the pandemic and being locked down, or likely boredom of living on a small training ground outside with sketchy traffic. Probably a combination of all of the above.
Ive mixed it up with a good few virtual climbs as practice for the focus on endurance racing too.
One issue I have with the Zwift racing format, though, is my ftp has crept up on Zwift power putting me perilously close to a required A cat race.
In actuality I'm hanging off in the B cat much of the time. For the races you have no choice, you are dumped in the cat that fits your power profile.
I think this is a bit of flaw in how they work out your best suited category.
To that end I jumped into a group ride yesterday instead of a race. Perhaps that's the way to go.
I'm still of the thinking that a higher ftp will result in a better average speed over an ultra race so long as all the other moving parts click too.
Recent recovery rides outside have definitely seen an increase in average speed at the same BPM.
-
Maybe a better indoor set up
That's helped me a lot. I'm lucky to have a spare room in the house (well, half a spare room anyway) and I've made it as pleasant as possible with an array of voice-controlled fans, pretty lights, music, screens and mobile tables (so things are close to hand). It makes the notion of going for a workout less daunting.
-
I'm still of the thinking that a higher ftp will result in a better average speed over an ultra race so long as all the other moving parts click too.
Recent recovery rides outside have definitely seen an increase in average speed at the same BPM.
Agree - sounds encouraging!
-
I tried the 20min FTP test in the EXR app (for rowing).
Caveats; I was feeling ill, so expected a low reading, plus I didn't hammer myself (feeling ill).
Although I sustained 2:07 for 20min, the EXR app calculated my ftp was 2:29 (106W). Something odd there.
2:07 pace is 170W, according to a pace/watt calculator. That would give an FTP of 160W, which is similar to 190W for cycling. Sounds about right, given my current state of fitness.
There is also a ramp test, which I'll try when I feel better.