# Average Watts



## percy (May 17, 2004)

What would be a respectable average watt output or watts per kilogram for an overweight (99 kilogram) 50-year-old doing a 21-mile uphill (2600 ft elevation gain) time trial?

Cyclistats suggests I averaged around 200 watts for the effort. Does that make sense?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## wfrogge (Mar 5, 2007)

Too vague to answer......

/insert 400 watt comment here


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Respectability*



percy said:


> What would be a respectable average watt output or watts per kilogram for an overweight (99 kilogram) 50-year-old doing a 21-mile uphill (2600 ft elevation gain) time trial?
> 
> Cyclistats suggests I averaged around 200 watts for the effort. Does that make sense?


200 watts might make sense. but you'd have to supply more details (like your time) to confirm. For reference, 200 watts is about 21.5 mph on the flats on a standard road bike.


----------



## percy (May 17, 2004)

Thanks Kerry. That sounds about right. Total time for the 21 miles was 1:36 @ 13.12 mph. I was using a standard road bike with clip-on aero bars.

I was pushing 23-25 mph on the relatively short flat section but the 6% grade over the last 5 miles was a granny ring effort.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

percy said:


> I was pushing 23-25 mph on the relatively short flat section but the 6% grade over the last 5 miles was a granny ring effort.


The best place to estimate your power output is on a climb, since aero drag errors become less important there.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

At your weight and speed, given the grade, your output probably averaged about 240 watts, which is 2.42 watts/kg, which places you in the untrained category on the Cycling Peaks WKO scale. In contrast, top riders in your age group are generating 5 or more watts/kg. Your output is respectable, but won't win any races among serious riders.


----------



## Orbea_Carbon_Force (Apr 27, 2004)

In the NYC racing scene, an above average cat4 can produce 4.2w/kg. Couple of really strong cat4s can produce close to 5w/kg. 



percy said:


> What would be a respectable average watt output or watts per kilogram for an overweight (99 kilogram) 50-year-old doing a 21-mile uphill (2600 ft elevation gain) time trial?
> 
> Cyclistats suggests I averaged around 200 watts for the effort. Does that make sense?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


----------



## spongebartstatepants (Apr 12, 2006)

my teamate just averaged 504 watts for a 2.7 mile time trail this weekend. shoot for that.


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

spongebartstatepants said:


> my teamate just averaged 504 watts for a 2.7 mile time trail this weekend. shoot for that.


Yeah for 21 miles? Sorry, doesn't happen.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Kerry*



Kerry Irons said:


> 200 watts might make sense. but you'd have to supply more details (like your time) to confirm. For reference, 200 watts is about 21.5 mph on the flats on a standard road bike.


where does this data come from? I'm interested at wattage at different speeds.

Len


----------



## spongebartstatepants (Apr 12, 2006)

indurain could do 516 for an hour. not to mention the sarcasm that accompanied the first post. wfrogge told me to.


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

Len J said:


> where does this data come from? I'm interested at wattage at different speeds.
> 
> Len


www.analyticcyling.com
www.kreuzotter.de (click the british flag, then speed&power calculator)

Analytic is more scientific, but if you don't know your Coefficient of Drag, your tire rolling resistance, etc, it's guesstimating
Kreuzotter is slightly less accurate, but it picks a CdA and RR that are more generic and more reasonable... meaning that if you have no idea what your Cda is or your RR is, Kreuzotter may be better.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Cool, thanks......*



estone2 said:


> www.analyticcyling.com
> www.kreuzotter.de (click the british flag, then speed&power calculator)
> 
> Analytic is more scientific, but if you don't know your Coefficient of Drag, your tire rolling resistance, etc, it's guesstimating
> Kreuzotter is slightly less accurate, but it picks a CdA and RR that are more generic and more reasonable... meaning that if you have no idea what your Cda is or your RR is, Kreuzotter may be better.


although I don't buy that 370 watts would give me 3MPH difference (26 MPH vs 23 MPH) riding in the drops compared to the tops. 

But for what I want, kreuzotter is perfect.

Where the hell would one get their CoD?

Len


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Len J said:


> Where the hell would one get their CoD?


CdA is the drag coefficient times the frontal area. This is a lumped value for the entire bike and rider. Obviously this is going to depend on your size, as well as your position, and the equipment you are using. If you are riding a standard bike and equipment but are low in the drops, a ballpark value would be CdA/kg^.67= .018. Or in other words if you weigh 75 kg (165 lb), CdA= .018*75^.67= .325. If you are sitting upright (like on a climb), CdA/kg^.67~ .024. If you have all the greatest TT equipment and good positioning, a CdA/kg^.67 value of .013 is possible.

BTW, I just updated my spreadsheet. You might want to give it a look if your are comfortable using Excel.
http://www.whitemountainwheels.com/SpeedPower.html


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

spongebartstatepants said:


> indurain could do 516 for an hour. not to mention the sarcasm that accompanied the first post. wfrogge told me to.


I would bet he could do 416. 516 sounds a bit much, since Floyd was at 385, Lance was at 453 or so. That being said, 6.45 watts/kg (516/80) is much more reasonable for a tour winner than 5.2 w/kg (416/80).

I didn't pick up on the sarcasm... my excuse is that I had prom last night. I'm so sleep deprived it's not even funny.

-estone2


----------



## spongebartstatepants (Apr 12, 2006)

Most conservative estimates of his FT are > 475. Simon Kessler claims Indurain's max. sustainable power was 550. That gets an epo star. Sorry for hijacking this now awful thread.


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

spongebartstatepants said:


> Most conservative estimates of his FT are > 475. Simon Kessler claims Indurain's max. sustainable power was 550. That gets an epo star. Sorry for hijacking this now awful thread.


agreed, I was calling BS initially until I pulled out the calculator and then realized that 416w/kg would be 5.2 w/kg... which wouldn't be winning any Tours.

475 would get him right under 6.0w/kg. I would guess he's over 6.0, since 6.0 is the 'magic number' and Big Mig was, despite his massive size, a fairly good climber.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

estone2 said:


> www.analyticcyling.com
> www.kreuzotter.de (click the british flag, then speed&power calculator)
> 
> Analytic is more scientific, but if you don't know your Coefficient of Drag, your tire rolling resistance, etc, it's guesstimating
> Kreuzotter is slightly less accurate, but it picks a CdA and RR that are more generic and more reasonable... meaning that if you have no idea what your Cda is or your RR is, Kreuzotter may be better.


Kreuzotter can't possibly be right. It's saying that over the weekend when I did a moderate ride on a 28 mile loop and averaged 19.0mph, that I was putting out 265 - 270 watts.

And I've done that ride at 21.4 mph before, which is 360 watts for over an hour. I would love to believe that number, but lets get real.

And I left the wind and elevation change at 0 (which is not the case).

I am a big guy though, 255 pounds right now, on a road bike, riding on "tops"


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

Einstruzende said:


> Kreuzotter can't possibly be right. It's saying that over the weekend when I did a moderate ride on a 28 mile loop and averaged 19.0mph, that I was putting out 265 - 270 watts.
> 
> And I've done that ride at 21.4 mph before, which is 360 watts for over an hour. I would love to believe that number, but lets get real.
> 
> ...


Hmmm. Like I said, Kreuzotter isn't as accurate, but easier to use. Apparently, with a larger rider it becomes significantly more inaccurate. I know that for me, the wattage estimates are a bit high, but yours are... high.
I'm guessing that it overestimates Cda.

-estone2


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

Einstruzende said:


> Kreuzotter can't possibly be right. It's saying that over the weekend when I did a moderate ride on a 28 mile loop and averaged 19.0mph, that I was putting out 265 - 270 watts.
> 
> And I've done that ride at 21.4 mph before, which is 360 watts for over an hour. I would love to believe that number, but lets get real.
> 
> ...


Lots of small details can throw off the most accurate of power calculations. The first thing you might check is the calibration of your speedometer. If it's off 5%, at the speeds you quote, power could be off 10%. Were you riding solo? If you're drafting just a little, it can make a huge difference. Wind is also a big factor. Did the wind shift or die during your ride? Was a portion of the ride protected from the wind? Most power calculators can be pretty accurate if you feed them the correct information. Unfortunately it's sometimes difficult to have all that information.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

StillRiding said:


> Lots of small details can throw off the most accurate of power calculations. The first thing you might check is the calibration of your speedometer. If it's off 5%, at the speeds you quote, power could be off 10%. Were you riding solo? If you're drafting just a little, it can make a huge difference. Wind is also a big factor. Did the wind shift or die during your ride? Was a portion of the ride protected from the wind? Most power calculators can be pretty accurate if you feed them the correct information. Unfortunately it's sometimes difficult to have all that information.


If anything, I erred on the side of getting a lower power reading. The course is a 28 mile loop, with a couple of rolling sections. Nothing I can't big ring over, but I have to dig deep on some of them, and even then, drop down to 14 mph or so.

Calibration of the computer would be a non factor as I often check the calibration by doing three loaded rollouts and averaging the roll outs and using that in the computer.

Like Estone said, it's probably the auto calculation the site is doing for drag on my body. It sees 255 pounds and thinks I'm a piece of plywood on a bike.


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

estone2 said:


> agreed, I was calling BS initially until I pulled out the calculator and then realized that 416w/kg would be 5.2 w/kg... which wouldn't be winning any Tours.
> 
> 475 would get him right under 6.0w/kg. I would guess he's over 6.0, since 6.0 is the 'magic number' and Big Mig was, despite his massive size, a fairly good climber.


And not really as "Big" as many believe. His race weight at the tour was high 160's, not far off from Lance Romance's weight, which is why your numbers aren't adding up.

Also, Indurain averaged 509 watts for his hour record per Dr. Ferrari, Rominger beat him by 2km although he only averaged 413 watts because of his lighter weight and much better Cd.


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

OnTheRivet said:


> And not really as "Big" as many believe. His race weight at the tour was high 160's, not far off from Lance Romance's weight, which is why your numbers aren't adding up.


From Wikipedia ( :lol: ) "1.88 m (6 ft 2 in) and 80 kg (176 lbs)—"
Answers.com agrees
As does www.fundacionprincipedeasturias.org
pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/algy/fulltext.00000381-199712000-00023.htm - That's got a quote from him!
www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1600-0838.2003.00345.x - says 81kg

er???


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

estone2 said:


> From Wikipedia ( :lol: ) "1.88 m (6 ft 2 in) and 80 kg (176 lbs)—"
> Answers.com agrees
> As does www.fundacionprincipedeasturias.org
> pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/algy/fulltext.00000381-199712000-00023.htm - That's got a quote from him!
> ...


Those numbers are very common and usually come from team physicals performed at the beggining of the year or they are from earlier in their career and they just stick. Go look at some of the team websites and see how off some of those weights are, heck Disco has George at 175lbs and I know for a fact he was in the low 160's at the Tour last year. Ullrich was commonly listed at 76kg but when he won the Olympic road race he weighed 71.5 kg.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

I laugh about Hincapie's listed weight. I'm 6'1"-6'2" and got under 160, with a tiny bit of belly still remaining. I was about 8% BF then. There's no way George is 170 in season.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2007)

estone2 said:


> I would bet he could do 416. *516 sounds a bit much, since *Floyd was at 385, Lance was at 453 or so. That being said, 6.45 watts/kg (516/80) is much more reasonable for a tour winner than 5.2 w/kg (416/80).
> 
> I didn't pick up on the sarcasm... my excuse is that I had prom last night. I'm so sleep deprived it's not even funny.
> 
> -estone2


Big Mig was a TT monster and despite his size he could climb well enough to win 5 TDF's.

Chris Boardman did 442 for his 1996 1hr record.

I imagine Boardmans wattage for his 1996? prologue win was close to 600 or so at least.


----------



## homebrew (Oct 28, 2004)

I train with power and I got to say that all this guesstamation is smoke. there are so many factors in how many watts are produced at any givin speed as to make the answers worthless iMO. On flat roads my watts for 21 mph very from 220 to 265 on my last ride. I suspect body position and wind were a factor that day. Wearing different cloths, changing to a different tire................so were does that get you. If you want to train with power get a power meter, otherwise use your heartrate. Heartrate is more accurate then guessing power


----------



## Vegancx (Jan 22, 2004)

Orbea_Carbon_Force said:


> In the NYC racing scene, an above average cat4 can produce 4.2w/kg. Couple of really strong cat4s can produce close to 5w/kg.


Where are these numbers coming from? 

I'm well below 4.2 w/kg and, umm, an "above average" cat 4 (not far from 3) in the NJ/NYC area.

Given that the bulk of the racing we do around here is criterium and circuit racing, it may be more useful to talk about 5', 1', and 5 second power.


----------



## Orbea_Carbon_Force (Apr 27, 2004)

How did you do in Bear Mountain Spring Classic or the Housatonic race??? My FTP is about 4w/kg. My best effort in those two races were finishing mid pack. Hoping I can finish the Housatonic race with the main field this year. Usually half the field gets drop the first time we go up the climb hard. Last year Housatonic race I have to put out 5w/kg for 5 minutes (my max 5 minutes power) just to stay in contact with the main field when we were going up the KOM climb the first time. You can imagine the same guy who drove the pace up must have a higher 5 minutes power or power to weight ratio. Not sure if our local park races are indications of anything but results from those races are not even qualified for upgrade points. No offense but if you get to 3s using your local results only very lightly you will get your behind handed to you when racing outside of NYC. 




Vegancx said:


> Where are these numbers coming from?
> 
> I'm well below 4.2 w/kg and, umm, an "above average" cat 4 (not far from 3) in the NJ/NYC area.
> 
> Given that the bulk of the racing we do around here is criterium and circuit racing, it may be more useful to talk about 5', 1', and 5 second power.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

"...about 4w/kg" is not even close to 4w/kg. Measure it for real, as it's a big jump from 3.7/3.8 to 4.0/4.1 over 1 hour.

Also, watts/kg goes out the window as soon as you hit a good hill. Then it's mostly about the /kg. I could give you many examples from my cat C collegiate races, my group rides, or Zabriskie/etc, but you'll just have to take my word on it for now.


----------



## Vegancx (Jan 22, 2004)

Orbea_Carbon_Force said:


> How did you do in Bear Mountain Spring Classic or the Housatonic race??? My FTP is about 4w/kg. My best effort in those two races were finishing mid pack. Hoping I can finish the Housatonic race with the main field this year. Usually half the field gets drop the first time we go up the climb hard. Last year Housatonic race I have to put out 5w/kg for 5 minutes (my max 5 minutes power) just to stay in contact with the main field when we were going up the KOM climb the first time. You can imagine the same guy who drove the pace up must have a higher 5 minutes power or power to weight ratio. Not sure if our local park races are indications of anything but results from those races are not even qualified for upgrade points. No offense but if you get to 3s using your local results only very lightly you will get your behind handed to you when racing outside of NYC.


24th at Housatonic last year (not that it's relevant). 

5' power is not FTP. So, it seems we're talking about different things here. My 5' power is above 5 w/kg. 

My point was simply that FTP isn't necessarily the only indicator of "how good" a racer is. 

Sure, if we want to look at hilly road races or long TTs, FTP is going to be a key indicator of how well someone may do. However, there's more to bike racing than hilly road races and TTs. 

I think it's useful to attend to the different kinds of racing we do to understand what kind of demands they make on us and what kind of power profile we would need to have to do well. 

No, I'm probably not going to win a race like Housatonic; however, I'm a cross racer first and roadie second. My power profile reflects the demands of my discipline.

As to racing outside of NJ/NYC... it's been going pretty well for the past couple of years.


----------



## Orbea_Carbon_Force (Apr 27, 2004)

Your 5 minutes max power is 120% of your FT. You could have a higher 5 minutes power in relation to your FTP if you have strong neuromscular power output. I know what kills the legs in the race....matches...... Currently working on it.  Having a lower FTP in relation to your competitors is part of the reason. 




Vegancx said:


> 24th at Housatonic last year (not that it's relevant).
> 
> 5' power is not FTP. So, it seems we're talking about different things here. My 5' power is above 5 w/kg.
> 
> ...


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> Also, watts/kg goes out the window as soon as you hit a good hill. Then it's mostly about the /kg.


On a hill is where W/kg is a good measure of your speed. On the flat it's W/CdA. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here... that W don't matter on a climb?


----------



## Orbea_Carbon_Force (Apr 27, 2004)

Is what kind of hill.......that matters.  A 5 minutes to 10 minutes climb having a higher FTP may not be a factor if your competitors have a higher 5 minutes + max power than yours. Not to mention all the little minor hills and rollers in between climbs. They can zap your legs if you don't have MANY "matches" or 1 minutes max power outputs at your disposal. 




rruff said:


> On a hill is where W/kg is a good measure of your speed. On the flat it's W/CdA. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here... that W don't matter on a climb?


----------

