# I just did an FTP (1hr power) test



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

And it said I will be F-ing fast next year 

Details:

3 week break that started 4 weeks ago.
I've been on my bike for 1 week.
First time on trainer this season (ie, it sucked and I wasn't ready)

Fun facts:

I currently have a higher FTP now than I did exactly 9 months ago in March (my first racing weekend, where I eventually took 2nd in a cat3/4 Regionals race).
If I go by heart rate, I only averaged 96% of my FTP HR from March. I attribute this to not being acclimated to the trainer.
Theoretically, I could have done another 5-10 watts, average.
My unadjusted (from 3) FTP puts me at a solid low cat2/high cat3 level according to this chart (which means give or take depending on the area)

In other words, if I regain fitness and my 1hr pacing ability, I should be a happy man come time for my May 10th peak  We'll see if I can get these numbers high enough to put me on the podium at collegiate nationals. Only problem is that I will be racing some damn good pro/1's.

That is all. Thanks for reading my excitement


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2008)

FWIW, that chart is useless. According to it I should be a strong cat 2, low cat 1. I'm a cat 3 and if I improve my power to cat 1 level according to the chart, I might be able to win the 3's races and hang in the pack in the 1/2s. The chart took untrained athletes, and UCI pros and filled in the rest with random numbers for the most part. Not saying you won't be at that level, but don't expect it just from the chart.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

If you dont mind sharing, what was your FTP number and weight?


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2008)

Looks like he's about 4.1 w/kg.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2008)

That is encouraging, play your cards right and you could gain a lot of ground by May if you're sitting at that level after a break.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

jains89 said:


> FWIW, that chart is useless. According to it I should be a strong cat 2, low cat 1. I'm a cat 3 and if I improve my power to cat 1 level according to the chart, I might be able to win the 3's races and hang in the pack in the 1/2s. The chart took untrained athletes, and UCI pros and filled in the rest with random numbers for the most part. Not saying you won't be at that level, but don't expect it just from the chart.


Well it really depends how the rest of the chart fills out for you too. When I was thin and fit with an FTP of 4.5 I felt very competitive in the NorCal M123 races.... but my sprint is pretty good and I had pretty decent 5 minute power too. Not destroying it by any means... there are still lots of 5w/K guys in that field, but fit enough that I had a match or two to use to make the break and whatnot.

If you are weak in the other areas, but have a really high FTP, yeah, I could see that you'd have a really hard time getting the "expected" results. There aren't that many races with a 1 hour climb, eh?


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

what test protocol did you use? 20m*.95 or an honest to got 1 hour at threshold?


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

There may not always be 1hour climbs, but if you're going deeply anaerobic every time there is a surge or are anaerobic even in the draft of a small breakaway you're not going to last very long.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

jains89 said:


> FWIW, that chart is useless.


A hammer doesn't work too well when you have to drill a hole either. You might want to read this to see how the chart is supposed to be used. http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/profile.asp


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

shawndoggy said:


> what test protocol did you use? 20m*.95 or an honest to got 1 hour at threshold?


An honest 1hr test. I could probably do a 20min one a lot better coming off a long break, and an even longer break from the trainer. Even though there is snow out my window, it was sunny and I just wanted to be out on the road. Plus the occasional 5sec pauses while I cracked up at a random Family Guy joke...

function -- I am a sprinter by trade. I get to practice with a couple local pros/1s, which is nice. I'm trying to train my weakness over winter, which is my long-term power output. My goal is to be able to make and stick with breakaways and win the sprints from there. I guess I can release the numbers now that the season was over, but my peak last year was ~290 watts = 4.3w/kg. The last time I did a test was in April/May (277w), so I never got my true peak in July when I was winning some F-ing fast field sprints in superweek. You can read about a couple of them in my blog.

http://iliveonnitro.blogspot.com/


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

I find the 1 hr test to be more indicative of current fitness than the 20min one. But I'm different from you in that I cannot possibly muster an additional 5% for 20 minutes. In other words, indoors, a 20*.95 test understates my power. Outdoor 20min numbers usually do confirm that the method works, just not for me on the trainer.

Good work. How's your weight? There will come a time when it's easier to increase w/K at FTP by getting lighter than by making more watts.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

shawndoggy said:


> I find the 1 hr test to be more indicative of current fitness than the 20min one. But I'm different from you in that I cannot possibly muster an additional 5% for 20 minutes. In other words, indoors, a 20*.95 test understates my power. Outdoor 20min numbers usually do confirm that the method works, just not for me on the trainer.
> 
> Good work. How's your weight? There will come a time when it's easier to increase w/K at FTP by getting lighter than by making more watts.


It's not that I can magically muster an additional 5% in a 20min test, it's that I was focusing on nearly everything except my effort. Comparing to HR, I've had days on the bike where I would be dragged around in a draft in Madison by some fast guys and average 88-89%MHR for 10min stretches, and 85% for an hour. My solo best is 87% MHR. I was only able to put out 83.4%MHR during my power test. Quite pathetic, actually. I would randomly look down at my HR monitor and see 78% of my max and think, uggh, I have to try harder. This is why I think I could have, fairly easily (albeit painfully) put out another 5-10w for the hour.

As for my weight: FAT! I'm afraid to weigh myself. I was 147lb in-season (5'8") and didn't have a pudgy stomach. I'm a blimp now compared to my peak. Probably 155lbs. I can lose the weight quickly, so I will wait until February to worry about that. Plus, I'm just coming off a sustained period of little exercise...so it should melt away as I up the time on my bike.

My goal last year was to hit 140lbs, but that didn't happen. Not that it's needed here in the midwest.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

HR variance of 2-4% could be anything, including the set cadence of riding a trainer and the likely poorer ventilation than you get on the road. I'd throw away that HRM!

Oh that I could get that lite! I'm 161 right now and am shooting for 154 (the magical 70K). It's been done before, but man is it hard for me to stay there. I look at a light beer at that weight and gain a pound. And even then there's a few more flabby pounds. Could probably realistically get to 150. If I went on Survivor.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

shawndoggy said:


> HR variance of 2-4% could be anything, including the set cadence of riding a trainer and the likely poorer ventilation than you get on the road. I'd throw away that HRM!
> 
> Oh that I could get that lite! I'm 161 right now and am shooting for 154 (the magical 70K). It's been done before, but man is it hard for me to stay there. I look at a light beer at that weight and gain a pound. And even then there's a few more flabby pounds. Could probably realistically get to 150. If I went on Survivor.


My FTP tests are only done on a trainer so I can control conditions. It's the same, year 'round.

I remember the first year Survivor came out and at the end of the season, everyone was scrawny. I really wanted to apply after that...

/Always been a fat kid.
//Work out more to maintain my 4k cal/day diet.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

Good luck with next year! Hopefully you build on your gains over winter.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

someone called his chart useless and Andy Coggan hasn't replied yet? He must be on vacation - there's nothing wrong with interpolating to obtain some of the chart values. The criticism I've heard is that the maximal power data is skewed by including a lot of track riders, but take it for what it's worth, a rough guide for comparison (it's a lot better than any alternative - actually, there's not any alternative...)


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

re: the chart - you'd think that by now there's enough real-world data out there, in public, that the chart could be re-calibrated. Anyone volunteer for that?

Lots of pro's post occasional files. 
Amateurs are all over the wattage forums posting files from race day. 

Heck I bet you could do a halfway decent comparison of winning profiles for a cat 3 master 45+ in Calif vs Florida.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> The criticism I've heard is that the maximal power data is skewed by including a lot of track riders, but take it for what it's worth, a rough guide for comparison


To take it for what it's worth would be to use it as intended; a tool to assess the strengths and weaknesses of an individual not as a way to judge one rider against another or even a group.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

I rode at lunch with a guy I will charitably (to me) call a rival -- he wins, I might get top ten, day in, day out -- and I learned that that sunuvagun, who is almost exactly my height, weighs about twenty pounds less. bastard. with a great deal of effort, I could lose five pounds, maybe even ten, but, twenty? not in my dreams.
and he's got a sprint. bastard.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

bill said:


> I rode at lunch with a guy I will charitably (to me) call a rival -- he wins, I might get top ten, day in, day out -- and I learned that that sunuvagun, who is almost exactly my height, weighs about twenty pounds less. bastard. with a great deal of effort, I could lose five pounds, maybe even ten, but, twenty? not in my dreams.
> and he's got a sprint. bastard.


Don't discount the enormous benefit losing the 10 would have.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Creakyknees said:


> re: the chart - you'd think that by now there's enough real-world data out there, in public, that the chart could be re-calibrated. Anyone volunteer for that?
> 
> Lots of pro's post occasional files.
> Amateurs are all over the wattage forums posting files from race day.
> ...


This came up once and I think Andy's response to the guy who brought it up was "DO IT!"


----------



## MaestroXC (Sep 15, 2005)

With finals next week and the weather shite for the last two, I'm gaining weight to make sure when I start riding again the improvements will be drastic.  

Also, this coming year will be my first full year using a power meter. Watch this space.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

MaestroXC said:


> With finals next week and the weather shite for the last two, I'm gaining weight to make sure when I start riding again the improvements will be drastic.
> 
> Also, this coming year will be my first full year using a power meter. Watch this space.


Nice, keep us updated.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

iliveonnitro said:


> This came up once and I think Andy's response to the guy who brought it up was "DO IT!"


I think another problem is that maybe 10% actually know their FTP and of the 10%, many aren't going to tell the truth. - TF


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

That's a cool chart! I haven't done the 1hr test yet, but after reading a little more and looking back at some of my recent intervals, I'd estimate that I'm putting down between 3.5 and 3.7 watts/kg. I think I remember my coach saying something about wanting me over 4 by springtime.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

TurboTurtle said:


> I think another problem is that maybe 10% actually know their FTP and of the 10%, many aren't going to tell the truth. - TF


I used to know a lot of the guys on my college basketball team. their published personal data (height, weight) was always at least an inch or two and maybe ten, twenty pounds more than their actual size.


----------



## tomk96 (Sep 24, 2007)

Andrea138 said:


> That's a cool chart! I haven't done the 1hr test yet, but after reading a little more and looking back at some of my recent intervals, I'd estimate that I'm putting down between 3.5 and 3.7 watts/kg. I think I remember my coach saying something about wanting me over 4 by springtime.


my wife heard 4 was the number you want to be above. is that correct?


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

It probably depends on what she wants to do- apparently, 3.5 is good enough to hold your own at the local level but get your tail whipped at the national level. I imagine if I can get to 4, I'll be more competitive at a higher level, but it's going to take hours of saddle time to get there.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

Andrea that's interesting, what do US professional women manage?


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

I don't know, but I'm guessing they're around 4.5- 5w/kg based on the chart.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

function said:


> Andrea that's interesting, what do US professional women manage?



Def 4.5 and over, when my wife was racing the circute she was putting out 4.49 and was able to ride near the front in hilly races but not really compete for the win in things like Redlands (course she was racing aginst Saturn and Rona). 

She could hold her own locally but was hampered by the number of sprints races seemed to end in so she was often up front but only won a few races.


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

I am not a horrible sprinter, but def. not the best, either, so my strategy for local races has been to try and finish alone


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Andrea138 said:


> I am not a horrible sprinter, but def. not the best, either, so my strategy for local races has been to try and finish alone


Hers was too but Candice Blickem and Christina Dekray would hardly ever let her have any alone time . for the record shes not a totally terrible sprinter shes great at positioning herself but the sprint has to be all about jump if it turns into a drag race shes not going to win.


----------



## Huckwheat (May 17, 2007)

Interesting post....I am just trying to learn about this stuff.

If anyone has more information on weight versus wattage, I would like to understand that. For every 10 lbs how much more wattage do you need to comparable (all other things equal...in theory).

I am no racer, just have done lots of riding through the years. Today I did my first assessment (first time on a trainer actually). It was 90 Min and we did 2 30 second, 1 5 Min, 2 1 min, and 1 20 Min. I didnt get all my stats yet, so dont know w/kg, but I was watching watts. I did pretty good getting 310 average on 20 min.......trouble is, I am 220, so I am not sure how that really compares. I guess I am still big and slow.


----------



## hooj (Apr 8, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> And it said I will be F-ing fast next year
> 
> Details:
> 
> ...


I didn't notice that you cut your chin open at Humboldt Park. Well lots of crashing and random tactics in cat. 3 field.

I had PT on at every race and race average was between 240 and 260 so not too much. Richton, Bensenville races and Humboldt park were around 260 and Olympia's Field was just 240. At Olympia's Field I just cruised because the course was waaay too dangerous. Next four races I drove harder. I don't know how close Superweek is the national cat. 3 level, but you don't need that much over 4w/kg to win superweek cat. 3 races.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

hooj said:


> I didn't notice that you cut your chin open at Humboldt Park. Well lots of crashing and random tactics in cat. 3 field.
> 
> I had PT on at every race and race average was between 240 and 260 so not too much. Richton, Bensenville races and Humboldt park were around 260 and Olympia's Field was just 240. At Olympia's Field I just cruised because the course was waaay too dangerous. Next four races I drove harder. I don't know how close Superweek is the national cat. 3 level, but you don't need that much over 4w/kg to win superweek cat. 3 races.


NP or avg power?


----------



## hooj (Apr 8, 2006)

shawndoggy said:


> NP or avg power?


AVG power. NP was usually around 300.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

hooj said:


> AVG power. NP was usually around 300.


and what do you weigh?


----------



## hooj (Apr 8, 2006)

shawndoggy said:


> and what do you weigh?


Too much. At that time 170lbs/77kg and now even more.

Week before those Superweek races I did 1h at 309w fairly easy so I would estimate that my FTP was somewhere between 310-320w so ~4,15w/kg. Not very much IMO.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

hooj said:


> Too much. At that time 170lbs/77kg and now even more.
> 
> Week before those Superweek races I did 1h at 309w fairly easy so I would estimate that my FTP was somewhere between 310-320w so ~4,15w/kg. Not very much IMO.


Or... right where you'd expect to be as a well placed 3 according to that silly power profiling chart.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

32and3cross said:


> Def 4.5 and over, when my wife was racing the circute she was putting out 4.49 and was able to ride near the front in hilly races but not really compete for the win in things like Redlands (course she was racing aginst Saturn and Rona).
> 
> She could hold her own locally but was hampered by the number of sprints races seemed to end in so she was often up front but only won a few races.


Isn't Redlands the most doped domestic race in the circuit? Or am I thinking of something else?


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

I'm not sure what the prevalence of doping is in women's races. I'm sure it happens, but you don't hear a lot about it.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

hooj said:


> I didn't notice that you cut your chin open at Humboldt Park. Well lots of crashing and random tactics in cat. 3 field.
> 
> I had PT on at every race and race average was between 240 and 260 so not too much. Richton, Bensenville races and Humboldt park were around 260 and Olympia's Field was just 240. At Olympia's Field I just cruised because the course was waaay too dangerous. Next four races I drove harder. I don't know how close Superweek is the national cat. 3 level, but you don't need that much over 4w/kg to win superweek cat. 3 races.


Yeah that was me getting stitches by turn 1 after the racing finished for the day. They injected me with more numbing shots than I care to remember. Hurt. Like. Hell. I have a nice "hard ass" story to tell my grandkids, though.

When I was your age, I didn't need to dang hospital to get stitches! Right there on the side of the road, sonny.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

I just did 1.75hrs SST at an IF of 0.98.

I think it's time for another power test. Man, it's only been 1 week. I hate these F-ing things.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Sprinting is important, not F-up the race by crashing, missing the break, etc. 

Not watts/Kilo but total Power output is more important for most flat criteriums and road races.

I had 302 watts FTP at 65kg. 4,6 or so. Could have been higher in a couple races but not over 300-320 range. I am mediocre at cat 1/2. Raced cat 3 for a while too. Didnt fly strait through at all. The watts/Kilo means a lot on sustained hills, which many races and criteriums dont have whatsoever.

There are cat 1 riders that get over 400 watts for 60 minutes. Sick bastards.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

F1nut said:


> Not watts/Kilo but total Power output is more important for most flat criteriums and road races.


Completely false (unless you happen to be racing in outer space, which has its own set of problems).


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

asgelle said:


> Completely false (unless you happen to be racing in outer space, which has its own set of problems).


You mis-understand me!

You can be big and have the same watt/Kilo of someone smaller and do much better.

Someone with 400 watts and 190 pounds will do better in those flat 4-corner crits and flat-road races! :mad2:

Think of some big TT riders!

If your riding at the front or at the back in a cat 1/2 criterium it stays pretty steady.  When I did cat 3's it would constantly slow down and speed up. When your in flat races bigger more powerful sprinters do better. Think of Hushovd, Cancellara, Boonen, etc when you watch TV. McEwen is a total freak! He only weighs 150 pounds... You see he blasts the big guys on finishes that have uphill-rises.

And the Road Sprinters are all-rounders, not really just sprinters. You have to follow the lead-out and that takes a strong VO2 max power, FTP to save energy.

GO to the Krutzinger speed and power calculator, Its fun to play with....


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Just did another FTP test and it's up to 282. Not bad for December -- like 20 higher than this time last year. My other training rides make a lot more sense, now.


----------



## stewie13 (Feb 5, 2005)

In your basic industrial park crits, (i.e. wide open, not technical, flat, end in field sprints the large majority of the time, average 75+ starters, strong Cat 1/2 field (not NRC)), I would guess with a fair amount of confidence, that if you took the top 20 finishers in the race and matched them up with the top 20 Watts/KG (for an hour) then you wouldn't find a very high correlation.

This isn't meant in anyway to say that W/KG isn't important or that every rider shouldn't strive to increase his/her watts/kg.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Here it is back again!

4.6 watts per kilo for a 190 pounder at 72 inches tall gets 27.8 mph.

4.6 watts per kilo for a 145 pounder at 67 inches tall gets 26.2 mph.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

F1nut said:


> You can be big and have the same watt/Kilo of someone smaller and do much better.


Or worse, Or the same. Race performance depends on much more than some power number. That notwithstanding, the larger and smaller rider will do the same with respect to work against gravity, rolling resistance and acceleration. That leaves aero drag and that will depend on W/CdA. The problem is, there's no way to say off-hand whether the larger or smaller rider will do better, because we know nothing about their positions.




F1nut said:


> GO to the Krutzinger speed and power calculator, Its fun to play with....


First, if you're serious about performing power/speed calculations, you really should have a better idea of what the site is called. http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm Second, if you're really serious, you should use analyticcycling.com (as I do) so you're free of the assumptions inherent in Kreuzotter.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

F1nut said:


> Here it is back again!
> 
> 4.6 watts per kilo for a 190 pounder at 72 inches tall gets 27.8 mph.
> 
> 4.6 watts per kilo for a 145 pounder at 67 inches tall gets 26.2 mph.


Well, that's all fine and good, but it assumes a certain allometric scaling. The trouble is, CdA is not an inherent property of the rider like weight. A large rider can have a poor position or body type resulting in a high CdA, and a small rider can work on position or be lucky and have a very low CdA. If you go to analyticcycling.com you can play with Cd and A independent of weight and see what I mean. You might also consider the case of Colby Pierce


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

I was gifted with a low CdA -- thank god.

With that being said, IIRC, collegiate nationals will be a 70mi road race in Colorado with 4x10min hill repeats (just under 3mi). I've been talking to two guys (one is now a pro) who had a podium result in either race + the overall.

They're estimating I need 6.2w/kg for 4-6min at the end of a 70mi race, and upwards of 5w/kg FTP. These numbers are huge for me (sprinter, only going into my 3rd season of racing). EDIT: Oh yeah, it's at 5700+ft of elevation. That's like, 5000 more than where I live.

Profile:









Front view of me sprinting (all blue, left...yeah I won it):


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

asgelle said:


> Well, that's all fine and good, but it assumes a certain allometric scaling. The trouble is, CdA is not an inherent property of the rider like weight. A large rider can have a poor position or body type resulting in a high CdA, and a small rider can work on position or be lucky and have a very low CdA. If you go to analyticcycling.com you can play with Cd and A independent of weight and see what I mean. You might also consider the case of Colby Pierce


That's certainly true, but amongst elite athletes where the majority make a point on working and developing their bike position. The larger riders with lower W/kg tend to be faster on the flats due to their higher absolute power. When was the last time you saw small climber types at the front stringing out the peleton? There is a reason why climber types rarely attempt small breakaways on flat courses...

Edit. i just realised i agree with you that CdA is independent of weight. Anyway, my point was that absolute power helps. a lot.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

iliveonnitro said:


> I was gifted with a low CdA -- thank god.


How did you measure that? Or did you make an approximation based on power/speed/environmental conditions?


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

iliveonnitro said:


> Isn't Redlands the most doped domestic race in the circuit? Or am I thinking of something else?


When she did it Jeanson was still racing and easily rode away from the group at Oak Glen. Can't say who else was doping but Jeanson def was.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

function said:


> Edit. i just realised i agree with you that CdA is independent of weight.


I think that's a bit of an overstatement. For a large population, CdA can be correlated with weight, but just as with the 220-age formula for maximum heart rate, it's one thing to know how a variable scales on average and another to say something about two indiividulas.


----------



## iktome (Aug 29, 2003)

asgelle said:


> I think that's a bit of an overstatement.


Didn't you respond to a post that said, roughly, 'total power output is _more important_ than watts/kilo in _*flat*_ races' with the following retort: "Completely false"?

Isn't that a bit of an overstatement? In fact, isn't your response that the initial statement was completely false itself pretty close to "completely false"?

If you knew two things, and two things only, about a rider and had to pick the one that was more likely of the two to predict success in a flat race, wouldn't you select total power output over watts/kilo?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

iktome said:


> If you knew two things, and two things only, about a rider and had to pick the one that was more likely of the two to predict success in a flat race, wouldn't you select total power output over watts/kilo?


Absolutely not. There have been long discussions on the Wattage group about this and the data is overwhelming that W/kg does a much better job predicting performance that W alone.

As to my original statement being "completely false." If you look at the equations of motion it would be obvious that power is applied against a resisting force. Some of those depend on mass, one depends on CdA. In every case though, there must be some resistance to the power applied and without understanding the ratio of power to resistance, there's no way to say anything about performance. Who is faster, the rider at 500 W or the one at 300 W? Why?


----------



## iktome (Aug 29, 2003)

asgelle said:


> Absolutely not. There have been long discussions on the Wattage group about this and the data is overwhelming that W/kg does a much better job predicting performance that W alone.
> 
> As to my original statement being "completely false." If you look at the equations of motion it would be obvious that power is applied against a resisting force. Some of those depend on mass, one depends on CdA. In every case though, there must be some resistance to the power applied and without understanding the ratio of power to resistance, there's no way to say anything about performance. Who is faster, the rider at 500 W or the one at 300 W? Why?


You're still misunderstanding two things: the meaning of "more important" in the original post on this specific topic, and the relevance of "flat." Watts/kilo is _mostly irrelevant_ in the flat races posited initially. Overall (i.e., including 'non-flat' races), watts/kilo might do a better job at predicting performance, but not in a flat crit. All you have to do is race a bit to figure that out.

Note I've never mentioned CdA, given that the original comment to which you responded only considered total power output and watts/kilo.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

I think Mr. asgelle is dealing in the more theoretical than the practical. if someone was big as a house -- really, really fat -- he may be able to put out massive watts. a guy in my club is this way. he's so damned fat that he really can't ride. although he's a heckuva lot better on flats than when the road tilts up even a little.
which is your point. you're in the all things being more or less not too different realm. there are guys with the same w/kg as me that I can kill on the flats. they're a lot thinner than they are powerful, and my absolute wattage, which isn't bad in w/kg for a Cat 3 but isn't great, is a great advantage on flat ground. when the road tilts up -- I suffer.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

I am now very excited for my coming year! I just did a lactic test in a lab and it shows that my FTP power is 355 watts @70-71 kilos. My 20 minute power is between 380 and 390 watts from a recent climb during training. I can't wait for the season to start


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

function said:


> How did you measure that? Or did you make an approximation based on power/speed/environmental conditions?


Not in a windtunnel, but with a powermeter and some calculations. You can't get exact CdA numbers, but you can get close...especially when comparing them with other riders doing the same test on the same day with the same conditions.

Courtesy VisionQuest Coaching at an aero clinic.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

iliveonnitro said:


> Not in a windtunnel, but with a powermeter and some calculations. You can't get exact CdA numbers, but you can get close...especially when comparing them with other riders doing the same test on the same day with the same conditions.
> 
> Courtesy VisionQuest Coaching at an aero clinic.


Can you explain the numbers on that chart? The units are not CdA units (typically expressed as m^2) and they are far too low to be representative of typical CdA numbers. A time trial rider with a CdA south of 0.200 is very very slick. CdA for most TT riders is more typically 0.22-0.28, and higher again when on road bike, on hoods/tops.

If you have a power meter, then you can do your own aerodynamic field testing. It doesn't need other riders to get good results. It does however needs a very light/no wind day if at all possible.

There are a few methods:
- regression testing on a near flat/steady gradient road with out/back runs at different speeds performed
- through the use of virtual elevation modelling, typically by using data from a loop or out n back course passing the same point at least once (mre is good) and matching to known elevation markers.
- through the brute force method, simply comparing power and speed with the equations of motion for a cyclist.

I have described the first two on my blog and put the excel sheets to do the analysis on the files section of the wattage forum. That latter can be done with the aid of analyticcycling.com although I have my own calculator since I went to the trouble of solving the equations of motion for a cyclist in excel (it's a cubic equation, a little tricky but certainly do-able).


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Can you explain the numbers on that chart? The units are not CdA units (typically expressed as m^2) and they are far too low to be representative of typical CdA numbers. A time trial rider with a CdA south of 0.200 is very very slick. CdA for most TT riders is more typically 0.22-0.28, and higher again when on road bike, on hoods/tops.
> 
> If you have a power meter, then you can do your own aerodynamic field testing. It doesn't need other riders to get good results. It does however needs a very light/no wind day if at all possible.


Good catch, Alex. It is a typo, and he meant to say N/m, not kg/m. It was labeled correctly previously in the provided document. As far as I know, this is a measure of surface tension. I agree that this is a funny way of measuring "drag."

Unfortunately, I wasn't provided with the formula, just some raw data. I'll look it over this weekend and attempt to figure out what he was talking about/measuring.


----------



## tyro (May 15, 2005)

My wife got me a year's worth of coaching for X-mas and it came with some testing. I just did VO2 max and lactate level testing a few weeks ago. I put out 265 watts at lactate threshold. I'm about 148 lbs. My VO2 was 64. 

UPDATE: I don't think the test was a pure functional threshold power test by Hunter Allen's definition. 

The odd thing is that my heart rate was quite low. My max was around 172 bpm. Since I've never done any formal training nor have I raced competitively, I don't think this is my true max hr. I've been chased by dogs before when I know that it was higher than that. I think I just need to push it harder...learn to _*hurt *_more. I'm 36 years old, so my max hr should be around 186, but I know that is just from the formula and everyone is different. 

I am not planning on doing any racing, but rather just thought it would be fun to do. I am just trying to be more structured in my workouts rather than, "I went on a 2 hour ride." or "I went 56 miles.", etc...

The thing is, I am considering buying a power meter because all I have now is a HR monitor which is ok. It's just kind of tease really. Isn't training with power the purest way of seeing things? Should I get a power meter?

I'm actually thinking of picking up a used wired SRM off of Ebay rather than plunking down the $4k for the wireless model. It rains too much where I live for the powertap and I like my wheels.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

tyro said:


> My wife got me a year's worth of coaching for X-mas and it came with some testing. I just did threshold power, VO2 max, and lactate level testing a few weeks ago. I put out 340 watts at threshold, which puts me at 5.05 watts/kg. I'm about 148 lbs. My VO2 was 64.
> 
> The odd thing is that my heart rate was quite low. My max was around 172 bpm. Since I've never done any formal training nor have I raced competitively, I don't think this is my true max hr. I've been chased by dogs before when I know that it was higher than that. I think I just need to push it harder...learn to _*hurt *_more. I'm 36 years old, so my max hr should be around 186, but I know that is just from the formula and everyone is different.
> 
> ...


if you're basically untrained with a threshold power of 340 watts at 148 lbs, skip the HRM. just get yourself a pro contract.


----------



## hooj (Apr 8, 2006)

tyro said:


> My wife got me a year's worth of coaching for X-mas and it came with some testing. I just did threshold power, VO2 max, and lactate level testing a few weeks ago. I put out 340 watts at threshold, which puts me at 5.05 watts/kg. I'm about 148 lbs. My VO2 was 64.
> 
> The odd thing is that my heart rate was quite low. My max was around 172 bpm. Since I've never done any formal training nor have I raced competitively, I don't think this is my true max hr. I've been chased by dogs before when I know that it was higher than that. I think I just need to push it harder...learn to _*hurt *_more. I'm 36 years old, so my max hr should be around 186, but I know that is just from the formula and everyone is different.
> 
> ...


That is really good.

I have a friend who rides in a ProTour team and he wins couple of pro races every year. In 2008 he was in top-100 in ProTour ranking. His lab tested LT is 5,4W/kg and his VO2Max is 80ml/kg/min. Needless to say that he is very talented and very well trained. So looking from this perspective you should get into racing next season because you most likely didn't get everything out in the test.

I don't know whether you need to work your way up from Cat 5 or could you move directly to at least Crash 3. With your power you should be moving up to Cat 2 by mid season.


----------



## tyro (May 15, 2005)

bill said:


> if you're basically untrained with a threshold power of 340 watts at 148 lbs, skip the HRM. just get yourself a pro contract.


Oh, I can tel you that I am by no means a pro-level rider., though they said that I should try some racing. I'm considering it, but I've never raced so there's the whle "learning to race " thing too.. The training is really fun so far! ...in a painful kind of way, if you know what i mean.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

wow.... good numbers indeed.

don't worry about the max hr - that wasn't the intent of a threshold test. 

to get a true max hr, you have the right idea - you have to go deep into the pain cave, anaerobic, legs on fire, seeing spots, side stitches etc.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

if that testing was accurate, and assuming that your aero position was at least average -- your 1 hr TT time would be . . . extraordinary. 
also, different testers have different definitions of threshold. but if it was accurate -- watch out, man. you'll be killer.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

What is the tester's definition of "threshold"?


----------



## PMC (Jan 29, 2004)

340ish gets me down to 53 and change for a 40k and I'm 6'1" 

5+ w/kg is big
It's the kinda big that hurts when the hammer goes down and I'm a 2. Those are the same guys (at least the ones I race with) who string it out at 35+ mph 60 miles into the race and blow stuff sky high.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

tyro said:


> My wife got me a year's worth of coaching for X-mas and it came with some testing. I just did threshold power, VO2 max, and lactate level testing a few weeks ago. I put out 340 watts at threshold, which puts me at 5.05 watts/kg. I'm about 148 lbs. My VO2 was 64.


Heavens :blush2: 340W (for an hour?) at 148lbs is HUGE, 5W/kg without focused training is very genetically gifted. VO2 i've found isn't as much of an indicator however as there are many pro level athletes who don't have impressive VO2.


----------



## tyro (May 15, 2005)

bill said:


> if that testing was accurate, and assuming that your aero position was at least average -- your 1 hr TT time would be . . . extraordinary.
> also, different testers have different definitions of threshold. but if it was accurate -- watch out, man. you'll be killer.


I did the VO2 max and threshold power in the same test. I was on the bike a little over 20 minutes I think. The VO2 thing really zapped me. I don't think I've ever been that uncomfortalbe n the bike. I was toasted!!! This is one of the things that they told me I need to be more used to; pushing it VERY hard to the point of pain. This is new to me and I'll have to work on it. I think it is a mental game at that point, and one that I need to work on. 

I've got all the printouts. I don't have much experience with this stuff, so I'm kind of new to what all this means as far as true performance. Plus, they are just numbers and don't directly translate into results. I know that for sure. I think my lactate balance point was poor. It was 8.7 at 167 bpm. Again, I'm not really sure what that means in terms of performance. Numbers...  

Anyway, I was premed at one point in my college career and so the human body kind of fascinates me. I find the study of athletic performance to be interesting, especially how the human body responds to training. All the different systems working in harmony; cool stuff if you ask me. :thumbsup:


----------



## tyro (May 15, 2005)

iliveonnitro said:


> What is the tester's definition of "threshold"?


Well, the lactate portion of it was a "FACT" test (Feldman and Chlebeck Test...just Googled it) if that tells you anything about the test precedure. I'm not sure if it is the same protocol that others use to measure threshold wattage or if the wattage is simply a byproduct of the lactate and VO2 testing. Maybe it should be dome separately.

Basically the test went like this: I was on a computrainer and we started at 100 watts I think. The wattage was increased by 20 watts every minute, or something like that. I did this until I basically blew up. My wattage reached 380 but I think that 340 was the threshold wattage.

Again, I'm new to this, so help me out if you can. You uys know more about this than I do. Thanks!


----------



## tyro (May 15, 2005)

function said:


> Heavens :blush2: 340W (for an hour?) at 148lbs is HUGE, 5W/kg without focused training is very genetically gifted. VO2 i've found isn't as much of an indicator however as there are many pro level athletes who don't have impressive VO2.


Good heavens! Not for an hour! It was like 20 minutes or so. I think I'd be be beating Alberto up the mountain with those kind of numbers. Well, on second thought maybe not! 

I think that iliveonnitro and others that know more about this stuff will shed light on things.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

tyro said:


> Good heavens! Not for an hour! It was like 20 minutes or so. I think I'd be be beating Alberto up the mountain with those kind of numbers. Well, on second thought maybe not!
> 
> I think that iliveonnitro and others that know more about this stuff will shed light on things.


It sounds like a MAP test, but if you describe the testing procedure it'd be easy to guess.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

tyro said:


> Well, the lactate portion of it was a "FACT" test (Feldman and Chlebeck Test...just Googled it) if that tells you anything about the test precedure. I'm not sure if it is the same protocol that others use to measure threshold wattage or if the wattage is simply a byproduct of the lactate and VO2 testing. Maybe it should be dome separately.
> 
> Basically the test went like this: I was on a computrainer and we started at 100 watts I think. The wattage was increased by 20 watts every minute, or something like that. I did this until I basically blew up. My wattage reached 380 but I think that 340 was the threshold wattage.
> 
> Again, I'm new to this, so help me out if you can. You uys know more about this than I do. Thanks!


Sounds like a strange version of a ramp test. Do you have a link or source to this? It's strange that they increase wattage only every 60s.


----------



## tyro (May 15, 2005)

iliveonnitro said:


> Sounds like a strange version of a ramp test. Do you have a link or source to this? It's strange that they increase wattage only every 60s.


Maybe it was every 2 minutes. I don't really remember exactly how long it was. I was really focused on NOT blowing up!

EDIT: I checked the sheet and it goes up by 20 watts every minute.


----------



## tyro (May 15, 2005)

iliveonnitro said:


> Sounds like a strange version of a ramp test. Do you have a link or source to this? It's strange that they increase wattage only every 60s.


I don't have a link to the exact test protocol, but it looks to be more like a "wattage at threshold" than "threshold wattage"...if this is any different.


----------



## tyro (May 15, 2005)

Creakyknees said:


> wow.... good numbers indeed.
> 
> don't worry about the max hr - that wasn't the intent of a threshold test.
> 
> to get a true max hr, you have the right idea - you have to go deep into the pain cave, anaerobic, legs on fire, seeing spots, side stitches etc.


Yeah, I have not had to dig that deep yet I guess. Curiously, what exactly are side stitches?


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Can you post a picture of the graph or numbers from the test? You should have been given a packet of information.


----------



## tyro (May 15, 2005)

iliveonnitro said:


> Can you post a picture of the graph or numbers from the test? You should have been given a packet of information.


Email sent.


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

One thing I noticed from this thread is that many of you equate what you weigh with performance. That is only true to a point and can lead to drops in performance if the weight loss is not done correctly. 

We have some data on this using D1 BB, track, rowing, and tennis players. Unfortunately we don't have any data from cyclists. It also was an observational study.
But overall the trend was that loss of fat typically improved performance while loss of lean reduced performance. So if you do not know what you are doing while dieting, you may lose lean tissue, which will likely decrease performance. 

Also, if you do not eat enough to fuel your workouts, then your performance may drop off as well.

The point is to keep track of as much as possible (weight, lean mass, fat mass, power, lactate threshold, etc.) while dieting. Because if you weigh less, feel like crap, and lose power, you are no better off.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

+1 I have a friend who was putting out (FTP) 300W at 183lbs but wasn't at what he felt was his proper weight. Over the fall he let himself gain weight and is now putting out 360W at 198lbs. It's not fat either, he's a textbook mesomorph, in his case his power to weight also increased.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Bump for my own reference of where it is. I will be posting some data in the next few days and I will be updating this thread.


----------



## tyro (May 15, 2005)

This looks like what I did:

http://www.flammerouge.je/content/1_testing/wvo2max.htm


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

*VO2 Max?*

So the threshold you got was approx. VO2 max?, not lactate threshold? If you intend to use the info to guide your training, it sounds like you need some more guidance as to what it was?


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

that's what it seems to be.
the domestic pro teams maybe will not be breaking down his door this week.


----------

