Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Since I'm guessing you're all like me and find the threads that are all about me the most entertaining on this site (like who wouldn't!).

 

So, I thought I'd throw this out there.

 

I did a PB ftp test the other day. First time I've ever done one well rested.

 

As I have been called for BS on this in the past and I know at trannies get together you can talk of little else than my ftp, here 'tis: http://perfprostudio.com/users/MJ8TCQA/20140904/pkdtmn/pkdtmn.htm

 

Still only second on the leaderboard as the lame-asses still rank only as per kg, because just like the Tour De France, in triafalons the only time that power you can produce matters in the weeks of racing is those 3-4 x 30minute efforts up a mountain.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will need to do it again.. It is broken.

 

You only averaged 33kmph so really at 84Kg that is more likely to be around 200-220watts or so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to break this to you but looking at your average heart rate you appear to be dead. On the up side brains are high fat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still find the 20min calculation method to be a bit inaccurate (take off 5%??) for actual FTP. But even so those are impressive numbers for a young light guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How tall are you?

Nice test.

Watts/kg might not be a huge issue in busso or many tri courses vs raw power but there is still the run afterwards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice effort, seems you really left a lot in the tank in order to push the final 5 minutes so hard?

 

Although I would have to say your comments re: the leaderboard are a little odd. They have both w/kg and watts leaderboards...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was obviously done on an indoor trainer.

To have an avg power of 373 watts with an avg speed of 33kph means either you were doing the test on an uphill segment, and/or the data is "virtual" data... ie not from an actual power meter (rendering it pretty useless for comparison - only good for you to use to train to on the same trainer)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the 20 minute "test", but what does the rest of the session look like. The one I have done on Trainerroad goes for a full hour with the 20 minute test between the 35 and 55 minute mark, with a couple of short over ftp intervals before hand.

 

What else does this test involve or is it a straight 20 minutes only?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict your real FTP is probably more like 340-345.

 

A 20 minute test might look good on paper but FTP is 1h hour best effort, if you want to know what it really is, try it and see.

 

Keep it real...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the 20 minute "test", but what does the rest of the session look like. The one I have done on Trainerroad goes for a full hour with the 20 minute test between the 35 and 55 minute mark, with a couple of short over ftp intervals before hand.

 

What else does this test involve or is it a straight 20 minutes only?

 

I'm going to guess he did the standard athlete lab warmup - this is what that looks like: http://perfprostudio.com/users/QNAVKV8/20140708/4xhwbn/4xhwbn.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone tell me how to do this test?

 

Go out on your bike.

Warm-up, include some 105% short efforts (1min or so).

Go as hard as you can for 20mins.

95% of the Average watts for that 20 mins is your FTP. Though I think it is more like 92%.

 

There is only 1 way to know what your FTP really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice. How many years has it taken you to get these numbers?

 

8 years in tris 6 years of Ironmans, a lifetime of being awesome.

looks about right to me....what sort of power meter.

 

Computrainer

How tall are you?

Nice test.

Watts/kg might not be a huge issue in busso or many tri courses vs raw power but there is still the run afterwards

1.88

 

I know only too well about that unfortunate run atferwards. :shy:

 

I predict your real FTP is probably more like 340-345.

 

A 20 minute test might look good on paper but FTP is 1h hour best effort, if you want to know what it really is, try it and see.

 

Keep it real...

 

Agree. But there is always variablity with the numbers, depending on a range of factors, which is why I find it a bit hard to believe runnng at exactly 72.5% of your ftp is the key to a succeful IM run.

 

I don't think I could hold 354 for an hour on the flats in the aero bars. But if it was on a climb for an hour I'd go close I reckon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice effort, seems you really left a lot in the tank in order to push the final 5 minutes so hard?

 

Although I would have to say your comments re: the leaderboard are a little odd. They have both w/kg and watts leaderboards...

 

Yeah the guy is in your ear the whole time telling you to pace it, and keeping you focused. It's much easier than doing it on a home trainer or by yourself on a flat strip of road.

At the Athlete Lab in Singapore they only record ftp/kg, no mention of total watts. I guess in Sydney/London they put total watts as well? I told them they should and they said women wouldn't want for people to be able to work out their weight.....

 

Regular readers prob know this is a bit of a soap box topic of mine as total power is far more revelant in tris than /kg. The /kg thing is crucial to winning climbs and that's about it. But because winning grand tours is all about those 3-4 climbs we buy into the /kg thing being the most revelant measure. Anyway have been over all this before, and I am obv biased in that I'm massive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they said women wouldn't want for people to be able to work out their weight.....

 

Really????

 

Do they also think that if women need to use a pushbike to run errands for their husbands, that they should ride them like this?

 

side_saddle.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats about normal from what I've seen of a lot FOP age group IM'ers

about the 4.5w/kg mark

 

however there are still plenty of good AG guys who struggle to hit 4w/kg who can outride most in a 180km (particuarly good swimmers "hiding" in the big fields we have now- they often claim its their "aerodynamics":-))

 

not many people placing in AG with FTP under that

 

nearly anyone with ordinary genes who committs to regular trainer work can hit those numbers

 

now......5.5w/kg+ is a whole different story---you need the right parents for that one

Edited by Jimmy C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you reckon the top tri cyclists that are built like me like Andrew Starkowicz or Tjorborn Sindballe (at his best) would be at?

 

Must be 400? I saw Sindballe averaged 300 watts in Kona when he broke the bike course record.

Edited by Niseko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really????

 

Do they also think that if women need to use a pushbike to run errands for their husbands, that they should ride them like this?

 

side_saddle.jpg

He was laughing when he said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you reckon the top tri cyclists that are built like me like Andrew Starkowicz or Tjorborn Sindballe (at his best) would be at?

 

Must be 400? I saw Sindballe averaged 300 watts in Kona when he broke the bike course record.

McKenzie was 281AP 295 NP at kona last year FWIW

I think that was 78% FTP so can do the math there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the best triathletes aren't much more than 5.5w/kg

 

then there is a big gulf between them and the 6.5w+/kg tour guys

 

i know most of the younger QAS people test somewhere in the 5-5.5 range

 

.....and then magically top level tour guys emerge 5-10yrs later cranking out 6-6.5......

 

Lance and Tyler almost touched 7w (give or take a bit of propaganda and temporary starvation/dehydration)

 

 

Sinbale probably had a FTP similar to McKenzie I would guess. He mostly raced around 78-80 kg so 8-10% heavier than Luke but its argueable that he always did the bike leg at a higher % of FTP (hes a slower swimmer than Luke, he mostly rode by himself off the front and before the larger packs we've had in recent years)....also judging by the relative way they both executed the run

 

McKenzie clearly had hit a stellar bike ability last year and despite his fast bike executed his run very very well- thus my case to support he might have a similar FTP despite smaller body weight

Edited by Jimmy C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the best triathletes aren't much more than 5.5w/kg

 

then there is a big gulf between them and the 6.5w+/kg tour guys

 

i know most of the younger QAS people test somewhere in the 5-5.5 range

 

.....and then magically top level tour guys emerge 5-10yrs later cranking out 6-6.5......

 

Lance and Tyler almost touched 7w (give or take a bit of propaganda and temporary starvation/dehydration)

The under 23 QAS riders aren't hitting 5w/kg....even our QTRS riders are in the 4.7-5wkg range....at 5.5 you would be doing pretty damn we'll

 

Fluro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Regular readers prob know this is a bit of a soap box topic of mine as total power is far more revelant in tris than /kg. The /kg thing is crucial to winning climbs and that's about it. But because winning grand tours is all about those 3-4 climbs we buy into the /kg thing being the most revelant measure. Anyway have been over all this before, and I am obv biased in that I'm massive.

 

What's even more relevant than power is W/m^2. (i.e. ratio of power to coefficient of drag area). That is primarily what determines speed on flatter terrain.

 

I demonstrated this again recently when analysing Jens Voigt's hour record ride, and how it could have been plausibly achieved with a power output ranging anywhere from 350W to 450W.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What's even more relevant than power is W/m^2. (i.e. ratio of power to coefficient of drag area). That is primarily what determines speed on flatter terrain.

 

I demonstrated this again recently when analysing Jens Voigt's hour record ride, and how it could have been plausibly achieved with a power output ranging anywhere from 350W to 450W.

Agree, I know of some smaller guys with watts/kg of under 4, but they can still ride very well, even solo, and I put that down to a efficient position, small shoulders and head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What's even more relevant than power is W/m^2. (i.e. ratio of power to coefficient of drag area). That is primarily what determines speed on flatter terrain.

 

I demonstrated this again recently when analysing Jens Voigt's hour record ride, and how it could have been plausibly achieved with a power output ranging anywhere from 350W to 450W.

I think for someone like Niseko, being an IM athlete, looking at those test results, his primary concern is fuel....How is he going to fuel an 84kg body for over 9hrs in an IM?

 

He has good numbers, but it will come at a cost on the run.

 

In saying that his results, show that he is pushing that right to the limit.

 

fluro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow nice numbers.

 

Can someone explain how the average speed is an average commute though?

 

At 370watts surely would be moving much quicker? Or is this due to the resistance of different trainers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow nice numbers.

 

Can someone explain how the average speed is an average commute though?

 

At 370watts surely would be moving much quicker? Or is this due to the resistance of different trainers?

 

The test used would be on a Computrainer simulating a constant slight/moderate positive gradient. While not perfect, it does a reasonable job of getting the speed-power relationship right, provided the software has been fed the correct parameters (rider/bike mass, simulated air resistance value). This all assumes correct roll down calibration was performed and the unit is functioning correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The test used would be on a Computrainer simulating a constant slight/moderate positive gradient. While not perfect, it does a reasonable job of getting the speed-power relationship right, provided the software has been fed the correct parameters (rider/bike mass, simulated air resistance value). This all assumes correct roll down calibration was performed and the unit is functioning correctly.

Ah thanks. Didn't realise there was so much to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What's even more relevant than power is W/m^2. (i.e. ratio of power to coefficient of drag area). That is primarily what determines speed on flatter terrain.

 

I demonstrated this again recently when analysing Jens Voigt's hour record ride, and how it could have been plausibly achieved with a power output ranging anywhere from 350W to 450W.

 

Exactly!

 

I never get tired of explaining exactly this to every stranger who sees my tri bike when it is outside a shop or the like - "Nice bike mate must be light *picks up bike*, how much does it weigh"?

 

"Well you see it's a time trial bike which means.......".

 

They are always fascinated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's even more relevant than power is W/m^2. (i.e. ratio of power to coefficient of drag area). That is primarily what determines speed on flatter terrain.

 

I demonstrated this again recently when analysing Jens Voigt's hour record ride, and how it could have been plausibly achieved with a power output ranging anywhere from 350W to 450W.

 

so your saying I shouldn't really consider having a crack with my 270ish ?

Crushed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for someone like Niseko, being an IM athlete, looking at those test results, his primary concern is fuel....How is he going to fuel an 84kg body for over 9hrs in an IM?

 

 

BACON

:-)

Cheers

Ivp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mid 6 numbers are twenty minute climb numbers not flat hour TT numbers.

So take 5% off to start with then take 8-9% off for EPO.

 

What do you run for 10k/ half marathon? If your run gets closer to your bike level then not many age groupers are going to ever run you down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What do you run for 10k/ half marathon? If your run gets closer to your bike level then not many age groupers are going to ever run you down.

 

Sadly there's always someone who comes along and states what the real limitation is - a lot of good cyclists get run down in the marathon :shy: and the guys running them down usually weigh more like Ironpo or Ruley :scared:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sadly there's always someone who comes along and states what the real limitation is - a lot of good cyclists get run down in the marathon :shy: and the guys running them down usually weigh more like Ironpo or Ruley :scared:

Wouldn't say 'guys running them down USUALLY weigh more'

 

Good heavy runners are more an exception than a norm.

 

Note: Said by a fat boy who can't run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...