Author Topic: Realistic power goals?  (Read 7111 times)

Re: Realistic power goals?
« Reply #75 on: November 06, 2018, 12:07:54 pm »
IF isn't a wahoo thing.  It's probably one of the things that Training Peaks popularised, but it used across the power training spectrum. It just means the percentage of FTP you are riding at.
Sorry, I have no advice for completing the second half of the 200 faster than the first - your pacing sounds reasonable ish to me.

Re: Realistic power goals?
« Reply #76 on: November 06, 2018, 01:56:09 pm »
For me, on rides of 200 and above, numbers generally go out the window - I go as fast as I think is sustainable at any given point whilst keeping an undefinable bit in reserve.

I use wattage for training and shorter training-type rides where I'm going full out, which theoretically should make the 200+ ones "easier" (i.e. faster and more enjoyable), although I have no empirical evidence for this.

Re: Realistic power goals?
« Reply #77 on: November 06, 2018, 02:18:08 pm »
I think you're probably right. I could end up being a slave to numbers.

Also, It could be the cause of alot of stress. At TiNaT this year (pre power), I ended up going pretty deep early on just to get up some of those climbs. The intensity numbers would probably make ugly reading mid ride.

Re: Realistic power goals?
« Reply #78 on: November 09, 2018, 02:10:14 pm »
Back to the OP - no way of knowing what you can get to re FTP as it depends on stuff like your VO2 max and, essentially, your genetic fortune. 
Based on people that I have ridden similar times to in events, I'd expect that some of the leading women doing TTs would have FTP in the region of 230-250.  No way of knowing if you can get there until you try!  But as others have said, you can do very well with less than that.

You certainly don't need anything like those numbers to perform ok in an ultra-race.  To give you some actual figures, I was just looking at my data for the TCR before and I was down to 80-90W average power for the last few days and climbed Passo Giau at an average power of 130W (average cadence was 51, v. low gears). My weight then was about 70kg.

Your weight loss is impressive!  It will help you on the flat as well as on hills as the smaller you are, the less frontal area you have to cause drag.

Lot's of good advice above but one thing that is not best advice is to train in a non-aero position.  Power is quite position-specific so you need to train to develop xxx Watts not in the abstract, but in the position in which you want to do your riding on the road.  Lots of coaches advise training on your racing bike for that reason.

Virtually everybody can produce more power in a sitting up position than an aero tuck, but they will end up riding slower as more drag.  Much of the art of going fast is finding the right trade-off for you between higher power and lower drag. 

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Realistic power goals?
« Reply #79 on: November 09, 2018, 02:17:29 pm »
Lot's of good advice above but one thing that is not best advice is to train in a non-aero position.  Power is quite position-specific so you need to train to develop xxx Watts not in the abstract, but in the position in which you want to do your riding on the road.  Lots of coaches advise training on your racing bike for that reason.

Makes sense biomechanically, but there may be practical limitations.  For example, if your racing bike significantly raises your chances of road-surface-related high-speed splatty DETH, you may struggle to maintain a decent training effort on rolling terrain.
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

Re: Realistic power goals?
« Reply #80 on: November 09, 2018, 02:22:20 pm »
As you get older it will drop off a fair bit, although I was 1 minute faster for a "10" at 40 than at 22 (same kit, no aero tricks except tribars, just more practice on the course).  300W for an hour would be a bit of an outlier if you're 40 or over.

Best efficiency normally comes at under 80rpm, if your knees can take it.  I proved this to myself on the turbo years ago; I naturally spin at just over 100rpm but I could achieve a much higher TT speed at lower revs.
Never tell me the odds.

zigzag

  • unfuckwithable
Re: Realistic power goals?
« Reply #81 on: November 09, 2018, 02:31:12 pm »
we should not talk about watts in isolation. a trained larger rider can/will produce more watts for the same amount of perceived effort than a smaller one.

Samuel D

Re: Realistic power goals?
« Reply #82 on: November 09, 2018, 03:17:07 pm »
Virtually everybody can produce more power in a sitting up position than an aero tuck, but they will end up riding slower as more drag.  Much of the art of going fast is finding the right trade-off for you between higher power and lower drag.

I think indoor training encourages bad habits in this regard. At any rate, the people I ride with who do the most indoor training are those with the least awareness of the overwhelming importance of getting extremely low when doing 40+ km/h. They blast along with power I can only imagine, boring a hole through the atmosphere with astonishing disdain for the economies they would make if their chin was grazing the handlebar.

Re: Realistic power goals?
« Reply #83 on: November 12, 2018, 08:14:00 am »
Lot's of good advice above but one thing that is not best advice is to train in a non-aero position.  Power is quite position-specific so you need to train to develop xxx Watts not in the abstract, but in the position in which you want to do your riding on the road.  Lots of coaches advise training on your racing bike for that reason.

Makes sense biomechanically, but there may be practical limitations.  For example, if your racing bike significantly raises your chances of road-surface-related high-speed splatty DETH, you may struggle to maintain a decent training effort on rolling terrain.

That's certainly an issue for a bike optimised for riding fast 10s in an extreme position but the OP is training for ultra-races so I expect her bike will be set up to ride all day on the road safely. 
 

Re: Realistic power goals?
« Reply #84 on: November 14, 2018, 12:27:43 pm »
Virtually everybody can produce more power in a sitting up position than an aero tuck, but they will end up riding slower as more drag.  Much of the art of going fast is finding the right trade-off for you between higher power and lower drag.

I think indoor training encourages bad habits in this regard. At any rate, the people I ride with who do the most indoor training are those with the least awareness of the overwhelming importance of getting extremely low when doing 40+ km/h. They blast along with power I can only imagine, boring a hole through the atmosphere with astonishing disdain for the economies they would make if their chin was grazing the handlebar.

How long someone can stay in such a position varies from person to person, the efficiency may not be worth it if it's giving them back pain if they stay in that position too long!
Old enough to know better, but young enough to do it anyway

Re: Realistic power goals?
« Reply #85 on: November 15, 2018, 02:05:13 pm »
How long someone can stay in such a position varies from person to person, the efficiency may not be worth it if it's giving them back pain if they stay in that position too long!

Sure - any discussion of the right position to train in assumes you know what that position is.  If you can't hold it for the time your event requires, then you haven't found the right position for you.  Of course, in an ultra-race, you are not going to be in your fastest position all the time but you would want to be able to hold it, say, for a few hours on a flat stretch.  But, I have to confess that 6 days of headwind across the Nullarbor last year was too long for me to be able to hold my aero position.