# power meter - whats your power?



## pw1972 (Jun 10, 2008)

I rode for the first time on a power meter over the weekend(was just trying it out). Was really cool to see the power output and power/kg, etc. Since it was only one ride the numbers were pretty arbitrary to me. Just out of curiosity, what kind of power are some of you able to sustain over your rides? what duration? what kind of power/kg or power/lb? what kind or rider do you consider yourself?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Go here:

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/profile.asp


----------



## mavicwheels (Oct 3, 2007)

*numbers*

The numbers off my power tap are meaningless to any one else but me. It's like two cyclists comparing heart rates, pretty meaningless unless you use them for some purpose.:mad2:


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

mavicwheels said:


> The numbers off my power tap are meaningless to any one else but me. It's like two cyclists comparing heart rates, pretty meaningless unless you use them for some purpose.:mad2:


Not really true. Unlike HR, power is power. Someone putting out 4W/kg for 10 min is going to get to the top of a 10 min hill before someone putting out 3.5W/kg. - TF


----------



## monocognizant (Sep 12, 2008)

TurboTurtle said:


> Not really true. Unlike HR, power is power. Someone putting out 4W/kg for 10 min is going to get to the top of a 10 min hill before someone putting out 3.5W/kg. - TF


Only if all else is equal. A 150lb person on a 15lb bike that puts out 350 watts is likely to get to the top of the hill faster that the 210lb rider with a 22lb bike that is putting out 400 watts. Unless of course, that 210lb rider is me.


----------



## capt_phun (Jun 14, 2004)

Its all about power to weight ratio. You can't talk power without knowing the other persons weight. A little 100 pounder putting out 300 watts for 20 minutes is effectively stronger than a 200 pounder putting out 550 watts for 20 minutes.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

capt_phun said:


> Its all about power to weight ratio. You can't talk power without knowing the other persons weight. A little 100 pounder putting out 300 watts for 20 minutes is effectively stronger than a 200 pounder putting out 550 watts for 20 minutes.


Actually on level ground power to frontal area comes in to play as well.


----------



## fredhead (Sep 30, 2008)

Since you asked.

Rec/Citizen rider.
Average power this year on the meter is 247W and 3.5W/kg. A typical ride is no less then 90 minutes, sometimes as long at 6 hours. Max power on my meter is probably not a reliable figure, I've seen it spike well over 1KW.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

1.21 jigawatts


----------



## gatorling (Jun 25, 2008)

monocognizant said:


> Only if all else is equal. A 150lb person on a 15lb bike that puts out 350 watts is likely to get to the top of the hill faster that the 210lb rider with a 22lb bike that is putting out 400 watts. Unless of course, that 210lb rider is me.


not really true, the unit in question is power produced per unit weight.

Since the amount of energy to elevate an object increases linearly wrt mass power/weight ratio is an excellent predictor for performance.

power/weight is also great to see how much initial kick a rider has on flat grounds. 

power/weight isn't so great for predicting wins on mostly flat courses since aerodynamics becomes a huge determinant and drag is far from a linear factor (and has a tenuous correlation to mass at best)


----------



## monocognizant (Sep 12, 2008)

gatorling said:


> not really true, the unit in question is power produced per unit weight.
> 
> Since the amount of energy to elevate an object increases linearly wrt mass power/weight ratio is an excellent predictor for performance.
> 
> ...


Which is why my first statement was "Only if all else is equal" Obviously drag coefficiant is a huge facter at higher speeds.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

The weight factor tends to get overhyped, in my opinion. It's really only important for climbing. That said, Andy Coggan and Hunter and the training peaks guys have their ideas about power profile and what p/w makes you what. I know that they have compiled a ton of data so I am going to say that it's fairly accurate. If you want to compare power numbers, use that power profile.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2008)

Sherpa23 said:


> The weight factor tends to get overhyped, in my opinion. It's really only important for climbing. That said, Andy Coggan and Hunter and the training peaks guys have their ideas about power profile and what p/w makes you what. I know that they have compiled a ton of data so I am going to say that it's fairly accurate. If you want to compare power numbers, use that power profile.


A lesser weight will generally also refer to a smaller rider. If that rider can get more aero on the flats then they don't have to produce as much power as the larger ones. For example, I ride with others all the time and while there sitting at 300-350 watts, I'm at 220-250 going the same speed on flat ground.

Since the OP asked
peak: 1442
5 sec: 1358 18.86 w/kg
1 min: 666 9.25 w/kg
5 min: 424 5.89 w/kg
20 min: 349 4.84 w/kg
FTP: 327 3.54 w/kg
at 72kg


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

monocognizant said:


> Only if all else is equal. A 150lb person on a 15lb bike that puts out 350 watts is likely to get to the top of the hill faster that the 210lb rider with a 22lb bike that is putting out 400 watts. Unless of course, that 210lb rider is me.


??????? The 150lb rider has more W/kg and will get to the top first. That's what I said. - TF


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

I agree frontal area is important, but i don't believe that someone say 60kg/180cm turning out 250W will keep up (riding side to side) with an 80kg/190cm rider turning out 350W if they're both, say, in the drops. E.g. 350W is approx 41kph whilst 250W would be about 37kph for those respective riders.


----------



## STARNUT (Jun 19, 2005)

that assums an awful lot.

How about explaing how that takes into account the ^4 shape of the air resistance curve. 

You assumption would on be corretc of the two riders had the same CdA. You would assume a bigger rider has a bigger CdA since they are .............. bigger.

Starnut


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Ferrari says it well:

At a speed of 20 km/h, a headwind blowing at 2 m/sec (7.2 km/h) increases the power output needed to keep the speed by about 50 watts: for a cyclist of 58 kg climbing at 350w (6 w/kg), this corresponds to 14.2% of the expressed power, while for a cyclist of 70 kg climbing at 420w (6 w/kg) this represents only 11.9% of the power. 

Now imagine what that is like at 35-40km/h, or a stiffer headwind...


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

STARNUT said:


> How about explaing how that takes into account the ^4 shape of the air resistance curve.


Why stop at 4? Why not 9? 16? 37?


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

It's kinda funny - everyone arguing and trying to "one up" but saying basically the same thing. Power/weight for hills and power/air resistance on the flats. All somewhat off topic considering the OP's question.

To the OP - my functional threshold power, that being the power I can sustain for 1 hour in competition, is 250 watts (Ok 246, who am I kidding and it wasn't even quite 1 hour) and I did that at a weight of 64.4kgs (142lbs). That has me knocking on 4w/kg (my goal for next year btw). I have no idea what my frontal area is, but the effort was good for almost 36kph over a very bumpy 30km out and back course. Nothing stellar, but it is what it is.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

STARNUT said:


> that assums an awful lot.
> 
> How about explaing how that takes into account the ^4 shape of the air resistance curve.
> 
> ...


There would have to be a really big discrepancy in order for that magnitude (250W vs 350W) have you seen such in the real world on a road bike setup? And by real world i mean 2 racers at those weights and properly setup, not with one rider sitting bolt upright.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

No idea, but I'd love to know.

Anecdotally, I did a slightly uphill sprint against a guy with a PM, and I beat him by half a wheel. He said he was just shy of peak 1400 watts, and I out weighed him by at least 50 pounds.

(said guy is known to be a teller of tall tales)


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Sherpa23 said:


> That said, Andy Coggan and Hunter and the training peaks guys have their ideas about power profile and *what p/w makes you what*. I know that they have compiled a ton of data so I am going to say that it's fairly accurate. If you want to compare power numbers, use that power profile.


Dr Coggan explains in the accompanying notes that a given power to weight ratio for various durations doesn't make you anything.

What the table represents is the typical range of power to weight ratios for riders of various race categories as well as the shape of the profile (relative) for riders of different types (e.g. a TT rider vs a match sprinter). But falling into a typical category power range does not make one a racer in that category.

If you want to know what category rider you are, then the only way to determine that is to race.


----------



## GTScott (Dec 6, 2007)

You asked for numbers...and numbers I have. I consider myself a recreational rider. I ride to feel better. I don't push it until I puke. 

On a typical 90 minute somewhat relaxed ride, I average about 210 watts. I weigh 137 lbs. My output is therefore about 1.5 watts/lb. I imagine on a real hard effort I can maintain just shy of 250 watts for 45-60 mins.


----------



## pw1972 (Jun 10, 2008)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> If you want to know what category rider you are, then the only way to determine that is to race.


I just really wanted for no particular reason to see what other people's numbers were. In typical fashion here, you ask what color the sky is, and you get an explanation of why you should be asking what the sky is made of and why that causes particular light refraction. It's entertaining to say the least!


----------



## moab63 (Aug 7, 2006)

*hahaha thats a typical internet forum*



pw1972 said:


> I just really wanted for no particular reason to see what other people's numbers were. In typical fashion here, you ask what color the sky is, and you get an explanation of why you should be asking what the sky is made of and why that causes particular light refraction. It's entertaining to say the least!


people know it all and aren't afraid to tell you. 

We have numbers max power 1425
ftp 300
I dont have my PT file so I actually dont recall the other numbers. But I can tell you the PT is a cool thing but is definetly a tool that you most learn. Also get the Training with power book and the cycling peaks software to make sense of all the numbers and testing.

The PT won't lie.:thumbsup:


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

pw1972 said:


> I just really wanted for no particular reason to see what other people's numbers were. In typical fashion here, you ask what color the sky is, and you get an explanation of why you should be asking what the sky is made of and why that causes particular light refraction. It's entertaining to say the least!


The point is just that by asking "how much power" you really don't get an accurate picture of anything. 

Change the context to motorsports. If you asked me how many horsepower and I told you "90," would my quarter mile time be fast or slow"? Depends if the 90 is powering a sportbike or a hummer. 

What the blowhards (and not so blowhards) are trying to say is that it's power to weight ratio that tells you something. 

Me: ftp = 285; K = 75ish. Hopefully I'll get the ftp back up to 305 or so and the K down to 70 or so come race season.


----------



## Zipp0 (Aug 19, 2008)

chuckice said:


> 1.21 jigawatts


1.21 Jigawatts??!!! 1.21 Jigawatts??!! How could I be so stupid???!!!


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

GTScott said:


> You asked for numbers...and numbers I have. I consider myself a recreational rider. I ride to feel better. I don't push it until I puke.
> 
> On a typical 90 minute somewhat relaxed ride, I average about 210 watts. I weigh 137 lbs. My output is therefore about 1.5 watts/lb. I imagine on a real hard effort I can maintain just shy of 250 watts for 45-60 mins.


That's over 4watts/kg at FTP - slightly above average rec rider I would say.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

vetboy said:


> That's over 4watts/kg at FTP - slightly above average rec rider I would say.


He meant to say...

It's this big:
|---------------------------------------|


----------



## homebrew (Oct 28, 2004)

interesting that not one person has downloaded their power files


----------



## GTScott (Dec 6, 2007)

vetboy said:


> That's over 4watts/kg at FTP - slightly above average rec rider I would say.


I know nothing of what these ranges. What are the considered "average" ranges, if such a thing even exists.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

GTScott said:


> I know nothing of what these ranges. What are the considered "average" ranges, if such a thing even exists.


Look at Alex's first post.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

fredhead said:


> Since you asked.
> 
> Rec/Citizen rider.
> Average power this year on the meter is 247W and 3.5W/kg. A typical ride is no less then 90 minutes, sometimes as long at 6 hours. Max power on my meter is probably not a reliable figure, I've seen it spike well over 1KW.


according to Coggan's chart, at these levels you should be racing Cat 3. 
according to my data, and I do race Masters/Cat 3, you should be racing at least Cat 3. Maybe Cat 2. My power average over time, when I factor in warm-ups and light days, is under 200 watts, for sure.


----------



## moab63 (Aug 7, 2006)

*The funny thing about numbers is that*

thats all they are. I know plenty of people with numbers like that or better than can't race to safe their lifes, takes them a year to get out of cat5 and so on. To race you have to be able to put all that power to good use, racing smart and so on. But they are fun to look at


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

iliveonnitro said:


> Look at Alex's first post.


. . . although I don't think that Coggan loves his own chart. In my understanding, he basically took some numbers from world class athletes and some numbers from untrained individuals and filled in the blanks in between. 
I think that his numbers are actually a little high for the mid-range athletes.


----------



## velomonkey (Jul 8, 2003)

Not sure what everyone is arguing over, but I'll post my numbers as I just got my powertap.

30 sec 592
1m 531
5min 357
10m 345
30m 306

I haven't done any of the big tests yet and most of this is just intervals here or there. I do want to schedule some workouts for the winter. I weight 185 and am 6'3" so I need to get the power up.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

bill said:


> . . . although I don't think that Coggan loves his own chart. In my understanding, he basically took some numbers from world class athletes and some numbers from untrained individuals and filled in the blanks in between.
> I think that his numbers are actually a little high for the mid-range athletes.


I agree.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

vetboy said:


> I agree.



Me too... sorta. If you can strongly hit one of the four anchor points (and better if they are the shorter duration ones), and you race smart (i.e. are a wheelsucker!) it's possible to mask a somewhat deficient extended duration power output. The situation is reversed (extended durations being more important) in more selective climbing races. 

But if you can't hit any of the anchor points I think you'd probably have a hard time being competitive. My impressions are confined to NorCal; YMMV.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

homebrew said:


> interesting that not one person has downloaded their power files


Tell me how. I tried to upload a WKO file, but it was an invalid type. I would happily show anyone my files.

Joe


----------



## Andrew Coggan (Apr 25, 2007)

bill said:


> according to Coggan's chart, at these levels you should be racing Cat 3.


More like, if you were tossed into a cat. 3 race it wouldn't be your (sustained) power that would prevent you from hanging with the field.


----------



## Andrew Coggan (Apr 25, 2007)

bill said:


> . . . although I don't think that Coggan loves his own chart.


1. That depends on the purpose for which it is (mis)used 



bill said:


> . In my understanding, he basically took some numbers from world class athletes and some numbers from untrained individuals and filled in the blanks in between.


2. That is correct.



bill said:


> I think that his numbers are actually a little high for the mid-range athletes.


3. See #1 above.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

personally, I look at that chart (and I also use Training Peaks software), and the "power profile" stuff is a little demoralizing. I just have to shut my eyes and count to three and remember that three weeks ago I led out the Cat 3 field in a hilly road race up the slope to the finish, and although I was the last guy of the lead group, I still was 18th of the seventy guys that started (and two of my guys finished 2nd and 4th in the field sprint).
the point of the chart is to see the shape of the profile, isn't it? to see where you are relatively strong and where you could use a little work (or a race strategy)?


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

monocognizant said:


> Only if all else is equal. A 150lb person on a 15lb bike that puts out 350 watts is likely to get to the top of the hill faster that the 210lb rider with a 22lb bike that is putting out 400 watts. Unless of course, that 210lb rider is me.


Turbo Turtle referenced different power to weight ratios, not just power. So, your 210lb rider on the 22 lb bike putting down 4W/kg will be faster to the top of the hill than the 150lb person on the 15 lb bike putting out 3.5W/kg.:idea:


----------



## mattmor (Feb 3, 2006)

Velo,

Those are some damn good longer numbers! So I don't know about getting the power up, maybe on the shorter duration stuff. 

It's a lot of fun just watching the numbers, and learning the methods of training with power.

-matt





velomonkey said:


> Not sure what everyone is arguing over, but I'll post my numbers as I just got my powertap.
> 
> 30 sec 592
> 1m 531
> ...


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> Turbo Turtle referenced different power to weight ratios, not just power. So, your 210lb rider on the 22 lb bike putting down 4W/kg will be faster to the top of the hill than the 150lb person on the 15 lb bike putting out 3.5W/kg.:idea:


You guys using new math?

400W/210lbs= 4.2W Kg or 210 + 22= 232lbs 400W/232lb= 3.8W/kg

350W/150lbs= 5.2W/Kg or 150 + 15= 165lbs 350W/165lbs= 4.7W/Kg

Little guy wins.

TF


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

Here’s my power data from this summer at one of the USA cycling regional development camps. 

Age:17 
Weight: 71 Kilos
4.5 minute uphill time trial: 480 Watts 
22 minute uphill TT: 370 Watts

My highest power out put for the summer was 1450 in a race. This is the highest value I have come across and have not been able to replicate it in training. Usually the highest I can hit outside of that race is 1300-1350

If you would like proof I am happy to send you the chart we were sent through PM. The chart is an estimated wattage calculation but I had my power meter on my bike (a powertap which was properly zeroed) which confirmed these results.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

bill said:


> the point of the chart is to see the shape of the profile, isn't it? to see where you are relatively strong and where you could use a little work (or a race strategy)?


Right. Andy revised the chart a few times and at one point completely took off the "category" markings. They came back by popular demand, I guess.

I'll post my numbers as soon as Saris sends me my sponsored powertap.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

From a hard ride this summer

Weight 80kg
1min 566W
5min 467W
10min 401W
20min 360W
60min 340W


----------



## Andrew Coggan (Apr 25, 2007)

iliveonnitro said:


> Andy revised the chart a few times and at one point completely took off the "category" markings. They came back by popular demand, I guess.


Correct: some coaches like them because they feel that looking at the category _guidelines _helps them determine what might be holding someone back (e.g., if someone's functional threshold power is comparable to that of many cat. 1 riders but they're only a cat. 4, it obviously isn't lack of sustainable power that is the issue). Somewhat under protest I therefore put them back in, but included them only in parantheses and preceeded by "e.g.," but that still hasn't stopped many from misinterpreting things.


----------



## logansites (Jan 4, 2007)

power is important, sure, but whats your average speed?!?!


----------



## Andrew Coggan (Apr 25, 2007)

logansites said:


> power is important, sure, but whats your average speed?!?!


Well, I've averaged as much as 31.8 mph during a 40 km TT...how about you?


----------



## logansites (Jan 4, 2007)

give me a nice tail wind and lots of downhills and I could do that. In the mean time Ill just keep training.

now off to ask penis size questions in the porno forums...


----------



## Andrew Coggan (Apr 25, 2007)

logansites said:


> give me a nice tail wind and lots of downhills and I could do that.


Well in my case it required a strong tandem partner and low air density (6000 ft altitude), but since you didn't specify the conditions or even the duration over which average speed was measured, I don't see how you can complain now.  



logansites said:


> In the mean time Ill just keep training.


...which is, after all, the purpose of using a powermeter: as a tool to improve the efficacy of one's training (and racing). That is, it isn't to establish how good of a cyclist one is...if you want to do that, you have to go race your bicycle against others (if only indirectly, i.e., in a TT).



logansites said:


> now off to ask penis size questions in the porno forums...


Hopefully you'll have better luck there coming out on top.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

I once averaged 70kph!!! Downhill - power output - zip.

Joe


----------



## GTScott (Dec 6, 2007)

Andrew Coggan said:


> Well, I've averaged as much as 31.8 mph during a 40 km TT...how about you?


Weak. I left my Garmin on while transporting my bike and averaged over 70 mph coming back home according to the Garmin.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Andrew Coggan said:


> Hopefully you'll have better luck there coming out on top.


haha, wow.


----------



## logansites (Jan 4, 2007)

Well I know Ill lose that argument. :cryin: 

one thing we all have in common no matter what level we are at or who is faster or whatever... we love to ride bikes. :thumbsup:


----------



## ROGER79 (Dec 29, 2005)

*Just out of curiosity.....*

How many watts equals 1 horsepower???
... or is this apples and oranges???


----------



## iktome (Aug 29, 2003)

They are both measures of power, although the watt is a 'better' measure.

As I recall, it's something like 750 watts per 1 hp.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

chase196126 said:


> Here’s my power data from this summer at one of the USA cycling regional development camps.
> 
> Age:17
> Weight: 71 Kilos
> ...


hot damn.
those are some darn good numbers. If your mental game is anything close to keeping up with those you should be really handing it to the rest of us.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

fleck said:


> hot damn.
> those are some darn good numbers. If your mental game is anything close to keeping up with those you should be really handing it to the rest of us.



Thanks! . I have been racing for just under 2 years and I'm currently a cat 2 here in Utah. I think I can handle the mental aspect of the racing quite well, especially after some unfortunate summer events. I got hit by a car the day before Tour de L'abitibi started and had my mouth wired shut for a month and I am going through a bunch of plastic surgery at the moment (I lost the right side of my nose...). I can say that eating through a straw for a month really makes you tough mentally. I’m happy to report that I am back up and training and feeling great, though maybe not looking it  !


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

iktome said:


> They are both measures of power, although the watt is a 'better' measure.
> 
> As I recall, it's something like 750 watts per 1 hp.


Close enough. It's common for decent sprinters (even at the cat4 level) to hit 2hp in a sprint. It's hitting 3hp when you become world class 

Andy, do you know how much power Wiggins was putting out? Care to divulge any?


----------



## spox (May 10, 2002)

Top athletes go around 500w average, peaking around 1000w during takeoff in 4K IP. In 1K TT they go around 750-800w average and peaking 1800-2000w.


----------



## Andrew Coggan (Apr 25, 2007)

logansites said:


> one thing we all have in common no matter what level we are at or who is faster or whatever... we love to ride bikes. :thumbsup:


Well put.


----------



## Andrew Coggan (Apr 25, 2007)

iliveonnitro said:


> Andy, do you know how much power Wiggins was putting out?


No direct information, no. As spox said, though, he's almost certainly averaging 5XX W.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

Andrew Coggan said:


> No direct information, no. As spox said, though, he's almost certainly averaging 5XX W.



I do a 4:40 pursuit and my 4 minute wattage is the 5xx range so I would say that's probably right. My peak is 1860w but rarely ever exceed 1100w in the pursuit. All numbers are at 5,000 ft of altitude, so keep that in mind.


----------



## Andrew Coggan (Apr 25, 2007)

Sherpa23 said:


> I do a 4:40 pursuit and my 4 minute wattage is the 5xx range so I would say that's probably right. My peak is 1860w but rarely ever exceed 1100w in the pursuit. All numbers are at 5,000 ft of altitude, so keep that in mind.


Given the altitude that's a bit higher power than I'd expect you'd need to generate to ride a 4:40 (see, e.g., http://www.fixedgearfever.com/downloads/PASO.ppt). Mind if I ask how big you are, and/or how much attention you've paid to minimizing your aero drag?


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

Andrew Coggan said:


> Given the altitude that's a bit higher power than I'd expect you'd need to generate to ride a 4:40 (see, e.g., http://www.fixedgearfever.com/downloads/PASO.ppt). Mind if I ask how big you are, and/or how much attention you've paid to minimizing your aero drag?


I58 lbs, 5"10 and all I have never paid any attention to reducing drag other than having fast wheels. I know that I'm probably not that aero but I am reasonably comfortable. I am basically in my mass start position but with aerobars.


----------



## iktome (Aug 29, 2003)

iliveonnitro said:


> Close enough. It's common for decent sprinters (even at the cat4 level) to hit 2hp in a sprint. It's hitting 3hp when you become world class


You might be overestimating Cat 4 power just a bit. In fact, depending on the race and your positioning, you could probably win even a Cat 3 race (in your part of the world) at not much over 1000 watts.

Unless things have changed a lot in the past year or so.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

iktome said:


> You might be overestimating Cat 4 power just a bit. In fact, depending on the race and your positioning, you could probably win even a Cat 3 race (in your part of the world) at not much over 1000 watts.
> 
> Unless things have changed a lot in the past year or so.


And this is why the watts per kilo discussion is so relevant. Is a 6'4" 95K sprinter going to put out that kind of power? Most likely yes. Is a 5'5" 60K guy going to? Maybe not. But that still doesn't mean the big guy is faster.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

I think that there are Cat 4 sprinters putting out 1500 watts, but not many.

I know a Cat 1 who has won many a sprint -- smaller guy (less then 70 K's, but not that much less) -- and he might do 1400 watts.


----------



## iktome (Aug 29, 2003)

shawndoggy said:


> And this is why the watts per kilo discussion is so relevant.


Actually, I don't think it's really a watts/kilo issue. That's not as important in a flat sprint (where watts/frontal area is what matters).

_In a race,_ what _is_ important is what happened, e.g., the hour before the sprint, the 5 minutes before the sprint, and the minute before the sprint. It doesn't matter if you can produce 1500 watts for 5 seconds when fresh if you can't do it at the end of a hard race. What power can you produce after rolling at 500 watts for 2 or 3 minutes? How about 10 minutes at over 350 watts? (Those are just examples; they are numbers I've seen, but not necessarily normal or abnormal).

And of course, a crucial part of the issue is _where_ you start your sprint. 

Being a _good_ sprinter means you are a person that uses your sprint to _win_ (or at least do well) in a race environment. Numbers alone don't make you a good sprinter.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

iktome said:


> Actually, I don't think it's really a watts/kilo issue. That's not as important in a flat sprint (where watts/frontal area is what matters).
> 
> _In a race,_ what _is_ important is what happened, e.g., the hour before the sprint, the 5 minutes before the sprint, and the minute before the sprint. It doesn't matter if you can produce 1500 watts for 5 seconds when fresh if you can't do it at the end of a hard race. What power can you produce after rolling at 500 watts for 2 or 3 minutes? How about 10 minutes at over 350 watts? (Those are just examples; they are numbers I've seen, but not necessarily normal or abnormal).
> 
> ...


We are in complete agreement.


----------



## velomonkey (Jul 8, 2003)

iktome said:


> Actually, I don't think it's really a watts/kilo issue. That's not as important in a flat sprint (where watts/frontal area is what matters).
> 
> _In a race,_ what _is_ important is what happened, e.g., the hour before the sprint, the 5 minutes before the sprint, and the minute before the sprint. It doesn't matter if you can produce 1500 watts for 5 seconds when fresh if you can't do it at the end of a hard race. What power can you produce after rolling at 500 watts for 2 or 3 minutes? How about 10 minutes at over 350 watts? (Those are just examples; they are numbers I've seen, but not necessarily normal or abnormal).
> 
> ...


All good - I say - train to race - race to train. I can't do squat for numbers, but guess what, I can corner better, I am more flexible and even at 6'3" able to get lower than guys who are 5'10" and be comfy. Go race BMX and you'll do better in crits than any numbers are going to tell you. In the US - crits matter which means bike skills matter and hardly anyone has any bike skills.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

velomonkey said:


> All good - I say - train to race - race to train. I can't do squat for numbers, but guess what, I can corner better, I am more flexible and even at 6'3" able to get lower than guys who are 5'10" and be comfy. Go race BMX and you'll do better in crits than any numbers are going to tell you. In the US - crits matter which means bike skills matter and hardly anyone has any bike skills.


true. around me, anyway, there really are very few places other than in a race to turn at speed, and there you are in one of the handful of technical crits all season having to turn at speed.
the guys with the skills tend to really shine in those races. in an industrial park crit, you see a different set of players.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Sherpa23 said:


> I58 lbs, 5"10 and all I have never paid any attention to reducing drag other than having fast wheels. I know that I'm probably not that aero but I am reasonably comfortable. I am basically in my mass start position but with aerobars.


Well as a WAG, I'd say at that altitude and mass for an average cruising pace of ~ 14.5 m/s* :
~ 510 watts ~= a CdA of ~ 0.235
~ 530 watts ~= a CdA of ~ 0.25
~ 550 watts ~= a CdA of ~ 0.26

Getting CdA down by 0.02 would knock ~ 7 seconds off your pursuit time.

* allowing 4 sec extra for opening lap.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Well as a WAG, I'd say at that altitude and mass for an average cruising pace of ~ 14.5 m/s* :
> ~ 510 watts ~= a CdA of ~ 0.235
> ~ 530 watts ~= a CdA of ~ 0.25
> ~ 550 watts ~= a CdA of ~ 0.26
> ...


Really? I thought that I wouldn't be able to save all that much. Pursuit is not my main event (points and madison are) but I think that I might look into this. FWIW, I know that my 4 minute wattage is in the 500's but I don't think that my pursuit wattage is more than 485 or so. I could be wrong. nonetheless, I may make a trip to the wind tunnel to figure some of this out. I'll have to see if the team will pay for it but still, if I could shave that much time off, it would be worth it.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Sherpa23 said:


> Really? I thought that I wouldn't be able to save all that much. Pursuit is not my main event (points and madison are) but I think that I might look into this. FWIW, I know that my 4 minute wattage is in the 500's but I don't think that my pursuit wattage is more than 485 or so. I could be wrong. nonetheless, I may make a trip to the wind tunnel to figure some of this out. I'll have to see if the team will pay for it but still, if I could shave that much time off, it would be worth it.


OK, I misread your earlier post, where I saw 5xx for pursuit, not 4-min.

At 485W (well lower for cruise power, say 470W), you would be a lot more slippery than I suggested.

More like a CdA ~ 0.21. That's pretty slick. Certainly better is usually possible and will depend a lot on many things. Dropping to 0.20 is worth ~ a bit less than 4 seconds (at same power).

I'm assuming a Crr ~ 0.0035. What sort of surface was that track? I've assumed a concrete surface. For good boards, maybe closer to 0.0026 or better if tyres are excellent.

Given your sprint and pursuit power, it is no surprise to me that you are a points/madison man. Points is my favourite event.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> OK, I misread your earlier post, where I saw 5xx for pursuit, not 4-min.
> 
> At 485W (well lower for cruise power, say 470W), you would be a lot more slippery than I suggested.
> 
> ...


OK - I dunno what planet I was on before (I had accidentally left in a gradient of 1% in my calcs!) Oops.

Now, trying again:
14.5 m/s at 470W = CdA of 0.28 - 0.29, so yes, I'd say there should be _significant _speed improvement potential for a rider of your size and power.

I've measured a CdA of 0.28 in my standard mass start position on my old standard steel tubed track bike when I was ~ 83 kg, and I'm just under 6' and have large shoulders (IOW I'm not exactly aerodynamically gifted).


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> OK - I dunno what planet I was on before (I had accidentally left in a gradient of 1% in my calcs!) Oops.
> 
> Now, trying again:
> 14.5 m/s at 470W = CdA of 0.28 - 0.29, so yes, I'd say there should be _significant _speed improvement potential for a rider of your size and power.
> ...



Okay, that sounds great. I will definitely do a little work on this come spring time. Thanks to you and Andy for pointing some of this out.

I have won a couple of medals in pursuit at national championships in the past but it was never really anything that mattered. I didn't think that I could win one now although after seeing the times from last week, I could probably be squeak in a medal. The big thing though is that there is now an omnium championship at the world championships and, well, the wheels are turning in my head. Only one per country, etc., etc. and some other hurdles but it's something that I've been thinking about a lot recently. If I prepare properly next season, including some dedicated pursuit prep, I think that I could probably be a good candidate for that.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Sherpa23 said:


> Okay, that sounds great. I will definitely do a little work on this come spring time. Thanks to you and Andy for pointing some of this out.
> 
> I have won a couple of medals in pursuit at national championships in the past but it was never really anything that mattered. I didn't think that I could win one now although after seeing the times from last week, I could probably be squeak in a medal. The big thing though is that there is now an omnium championship at the world championships and, well, the wheels are turning in my head. Only one per country, etc., etc. and some other hurdles but it's something that I've been thinking about a lot recently. If I prepare properly next season, including some dedicated pursuit prep, I think that I could probably be a good candidate for that.


Well having excellent pursuit and neuromuscular power sure is a good start!


----------



## Andrew Coggan (Apr 25, 2007)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> I'm assuming a Crr ~ 0.0035. What sort of surface was that track? I've assumed a concrete surface. For good boards, maybe closer to 0.0026 or better if tyres are excellent.


FWIW, I measured an _apparent _Crr of 0.0038 for Veloflex Record clinchers inflated to 135 psi when rolling on the boards of the Los Angeles track. By "apparent" I mean that's what I got when ignoring the increased normal force in the turns...taking that into account reduced the value to 0.0026.


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

chase196126 said:


> Thanks! . I have been racing for just under 2 years and I'm currently a cat 2 here in Utah. I think I can handle the mental aspect of the racing quite well, especially after some unfortunate summer events. I got hit by a car the day before Tour de L'abitibi started and had my mouth wired shut for a month and I am going through a bunch of plastic surgery at the moment (I lost the right side of my nose...). I can say that eating through a straw for a month really makes you tough mentally. I’m happy to report that I am back up and training and feeling great, though maybe not looking it  !


Oh sh!t I heard about that, were you the guy who got nailed in Val D'Or?


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

estone2 said:


> Oh sh!t I heard about that, were you the guy who got nailed in Val D'Or?


Yep that’s me! Not a fun experience I can tell you! Though it sounds like you had a close call yourself in the race! I'm just bummed I didn’t get to use my good form in the race, i was flying before going up to Canada. I went from the best form I have ever been in to sitting in a hospital bed in one day. Sucktastic.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*don't emphasize the wrong numbers*



pw1972 said:


> I rode for the first time on a power meter over the weekend(was just trying it out). Was really cool to see the power output and power/kg, etc. Since it was only one ride the numbers were pretty arbitrary to me. Just out of curiosity, what kind of power are some of you able to sustain over your rides? what duration? what kind of power/kg or power/lb? what kind or rider do you consider yourself?


I got an SRM a year ago, and I think spent too much time dwelling on numbers.

The only numbers that matter are time (speed) and placing. You can get there a number of ways, and power is only one component.

I averaged 270 watts in a 10 mile time trial. However, keep in mind that sometimes you are willing to sacrifice power to make speed -- in the case of racing on a time trial bike, you may give up power to get a very low drag position, but still get to the finish line faster. Just so happens, and I'm not claiming a bit of credit for it, that I regularly beat riders with much higher power in time trials, as I am somehow very low drag. Beat everyone down hills, too. So, the point is, power is only one consideration.

Have seen as high as 1250 watts sprinting. But, again, that's fairly meaningless, unless you combine that with how much for how long you could make just prior to the sprint, etc.

Power seems to fluctuate quite a bit, too. I've seen power vary on my 10 mile time trials from 218 up to 270, but with very close times and heart rates. Of course, we all report onlyl the highest numbers we get! ;-)

My two cents, don't train just to get good power numbers. Train to get speed.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

the proof is always in the pudding, yes, but power data certainly will help you understand what happened -- if you're completing a TT faster (or slower) than someone with similar power numbers, you've learned something, or if your average power data in a mass start race is considerably different from someone's who finished next to you, you've also learned something. you have to adjust for all the variables -- rider weight, who was in the break, maybe aero wheels, did course conditions change, etc. -- which ain't easy, but maybe you learn that you've got to get lower or corner better or whatever.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fixed said:


> I got an SRM a year ago, and I think spent too much time dwelling on numbers.
> 
> The only numbers that matter are time (speed) and placing. You can get there a number of ways, and power is only one component.
> <snip>
> ...


And the power meter is the perfect tool to do aerodynamic testing in order to determine the best compromise between being slick and being powerful.


----------



## gatorling (Jun 25, 2008)

Fixed said:


> My two cents, don't train just to get good power numbers. Train to get speed.


I see a problem here, power is a training tool not a training goal. The meter is there to help you find your limiters and then attack them. It's there to quantify and allocate your training load, it's also great for pacing.

Use power to establish your Lactate threshold then use power to estimate which zone you're training in. Your training then will become much more specific and you'll be much more able to squeeze the most out of your training, or at the very least quantify which aspects your current training emphasize.


----------



## hooj (Apr 8, 2006)

Answering the OP:

This summer best numbers: 
5s 1366W
10s 1205W
30s 808W
1min 590W
5min 415W
20min 355W
FTP 306W

All but FTP are from races. FTP was just 1h steady effort after 30min warm-up.

I'm 182cm/6' and 75-78kg/165-172lbs. 

These watts are more than enough to win and podium cat. 3 races in US. Longer numbers are from ITT and shorter from Canadian cat. 1/2 crit. I'm more or less a recreational rider nowadays, but I like to push myself.


----------

