Trainer Road, FTP

captain_kelly

Afternoon all.

I've recently signed up to Trainer road, and done the 20 minute test plus a couple more. the one thing I've noticed when comparing my rides to others is that my FTP seems really low by comparison to others.

I'm not slow but I'm not as fast as I'd like to be, so I'm just interested to know other peoples FTP and where I am with mine.

Currently mine is sat at 140.

springtide9

It all depends on a number of things...

- whether you are using a power meter or virtual power.
- if virtual power, how accurate is the mapping between speed and your trainer (the turbo trainer profile)

If you are using virtual power, it can be a bit hit and miss with regards to the accuracy.

Take a look at:
http://support.trainerroad.com/entries/ ... rtualpower
http://www.trainerroad.com/virtual-power

It also could be that you didn't pace and/or push hard enough when you did the test.

GiantMike

Do you have a link to your test? Did you have a HR monitor on?

140 sounds very low.

ShutUpLegs

http://www.trainerroad.com/career/DROMAINE

ShutUpLegs

Oops http://www.trainerroad.com/career/captainkelly

danowat

"Virtual power"?, sorry, but what a load of cobblers.

colinsmith123

danowat wrote:

"Virtual power"?, sorry, but what a load of cobblers.

Is this statement based on fact, or just a load of old cobblers?

robrauy

danowat wrote:

"Virtual power"?, sorry, but what a load of cobblers.

Eh? It's just rear wheel speed with some non linear mappings applied to loosely translate to power, but as Alex has said speed is a decent proxy for power if you haven't got a pm. What's cobblers about that?

danowat

Virtual power is cobbler's, not hard to comprehend surely, "loosely translate" says it all, I prefer my data to be as accurate as possible, not a "loose translation" of

captain_kelly

GiantMike wrote:

Do you have a link to your test? Did you have a HR monitor on?

140 sounds very low.

I was concerned it was too low, any chance you can have a look at it and give some thoughts

Cheers to ShutUpLegs for posting the link to the rides

robrauy

danowat wrote:

Virtual power is cobbler's, not hard to comprehend surely, "loosely translate" says it all, I prefer my data to be as accurate as possible, not a "loose translation" of

I understand where you're coming from, but the units are largely irrelevant whether they be speed, power or whatever. The system of measurement appears consistent enough to be useful for maintaining focus especially on longer intervals, and for comparing previous performances, but not accurate enough to compare your performance with others.

I think it's a given that everyone likes their data to be as accurate as possible, but I don't race enough to justify a pm, wish I did and therefore could!

amaferanga

Trainer road have virtual power for some turbo's that are far from stable. The Elite Supercrono fluid is one. The speed on it is so incredibly sensitive to temperature that trying to get virtual power from speed is a bit of a joke.

When my PowerTap died last year I looked at turbo rides on my new turbo, a Cycleops Fluid 2, considered to be one of the better turbos for consistency. Unfortunately there was still significant variation in power (from memory up to around 20W) at a given speed.

So if you're lucky you might be getting virtual power that's consistent to +/-10% or so, but you'll likely never know. If you're unlucky it could be varying wildly.

And comparing your virtual numbers to anyone elses is a non-starter (as is comparing your virtual power numbers to any other power guessing system such as the powercal thing).

I just don't get this obsession with power that drives people to systems that guess it. Either measure it properly or forget about it and save your money until you can measure it properly.

robrauy

For 3 or 4 minute intervals rpe works fine for me, but for 15 - 20 minute threshold intervals I tend to go out too hard then drift off. Having a speed graph in front of you just helps keep a steady effort. It does *seem* consistent on my Satori though as you say I'll never know, but +/- 10% is better than I'll get using rpe or hr..

danowat

robrauy wrote:

It does *seem* consistent on my Satori though as you say I'll never know, but +/- 10% is better than I'll get using rpe or hr..

Now you see, I would say the opposite, RPE is much better when power isn't available (or accurate), and the whole element of doubt with virtual power just isn't conducive to good training.

Use speed as well, but the idea of trying to quantify the speed reading with some sort of fantastical virtual power is uneccesary and lead's to issues like the one the OP is now finding.

Speed on turbos, especially fluid turbo's, is notoriously bad, in a 60 mins steady state (with powermeter) section of a ride, I have seen speed changes of about 3-5mph

Wrath Rob

Comparing straight FTP to other riders doesn't tell you much, you need to divide it by body weight. So, if you're 50kgs dripping wet then you're at 2.8w/kg. Someone who has an FTP of 280w but weighs 100kg would have the same FTP/kg. To put this into context, top riders are around 5-6w/kg (now that the dark Armstrong days of 6-7w/kg are behind us).

Assuming you're an average weight of 75kg's then you're around 1.9w/kg which is in the "untrained cyclist" end of the spectrum. Given you're just starting training then would seem to be pretty realistic, which may not be what you want to hear. The positive is that you'll see massive improvements to that figure in a relatively short period of time, e.g. 4 weeks.

My only other point is that from looking at your ride data, your HR seems to top out below 170bpm. Everyone is different, and max hear rate decreases with age, but this seems a little low (based on the very coarse 220- your age method). If you got to the end of the 20 mins and you were about to collapse, couldn't turn the pedals another revolution, your heart was trying to climb out of your chest through your lungs etc., i.e. you gave it your all, then that number is probably reasonably close to your FTP (virtual power discussion aside). If not, then you've probably under performed. The fact that your HR seems relatively constant for the test suggests this too. I'd expect it to slowly rise through the test and then peak as you hammer the last minute.

You're test was also over 4 weeks ago, so you should think about re-testing around now anyway.

captain_kelly

So all in all, I need to man up and push harder.

I'll re-test this week and see where i get to.

Thanks

hemper0r

Wrath Rob wrote:

Comparing straight FTP to other riders doesn't tell you much, you need to divide it by body weight. So, if you're 50kgs dripping wet then you're at 2.8w/kg. Someone who has an FTP of 280w but weighs 100kg would have the same FTP/kg. To put this into context, top riders are around 5-6w/kg (now that the dark Armstrong days of 6-7w/kg are behind us).

Assuming you're an average weight of 75kg's then you're around 1.9w/kg which is in the "untrained cyclist" end of the spectrum. Given you're just starting training then would seem to be pretty realistic, which may not be what you want to hear. The positive is that you'll see massive improvements to that figure in a relatively short period of time, e.g. 4 weeks.

My only other point is that from looking at your ride data, your HR seems to top out below 170bpm. Everyone is different, and max hear rate decreases with age, but this seems a little low (based on the very coarse 220- your age method). If you got to the end of the 20 mins and you were about to collapse, couldn't turn the pedals another revolution, your heart was trying to climb out of your chest through your lungs etc., i.e. you gave it your all, then that number is probably reasonably close to your FTP (virtual power discussion aside). If not, then you've probably under performed. The fact that your HR seems relatively constant for the test suggests this too. I'd expect it to slowly rise through the test and then peak as you hammer the last minute.

You're test was also over 4 weeks ago, so you should think about re-testing around now anyway.

Thanks for that Wrath Bob, very helpful.

okgo

Top riders certainly still beyond 6 w/kg Rob! Froome probably over 6.5 when in peak shape.

The rest sounds bout right though

jgsi

If you can get your turbo setup so that "repetition" and "replication" becomes dependable, then even a "poor man's" virtual power metric is a great training aide.
Getting there is another matter. Looking at some peoples profiles on TR then it is bloody amazing that we have so many world class riders... I even think that that Kickr pumps up some people's values like they have been juicing.
I do use Vectors and actually the tracking against my Satori on VP is pretty damn close.
Someone gave TR a Powertap profile for the Satori long ago... much improved the tracking line over the standard TACX factory line which does 'overread'.
At the moment .. slight issue with the pedals.(thats another story).. so back to using VP.
Even with my pathetic threhold power that hovers circa 250 ( it will never get any better guaranteed by the way) .. anything 120% + .. hurts like hell.. so I know some kind of effect is going on, sadly too late in life for me.
In the final analysis, it is all what you can do in the season that justifies your training in time and effort... lots of time and lots of effort.
Combined use of a HRM is essential, because if someone is pushing 400 watts and cruising at 130bpm, it is a load of cobblers.
As I got my club's Vet trophy last night, thats why I carry on and seeing good power numbers can be like having the last rolo for being smug at times.

handful

It's only subjective because I don't have a PM but I find the Virtual Power curve for my Cyclops Jet Fluid Pro pretty consistent, no idea if it's accurate or not. But for the purposes of giving a good hard consistent workout I find it invaluable. The speed/power reading seems to be pretty much the same every time as well but I do take the time to check tyre pressure and make sure I use the same number of 'clicks' when I set the bike up.

When I swap tyres or bikes it's a pain but it only takes a test to get the benchmark right and then it again seems consistent. Fair play to those that can afford or justify a PM but for people like me VP is a godsend.

jgsi

handful wrote:

It's only subjective because I don't have a PM but I find the Virtual Power curve for my Cyclops Jet Fluid Pro pretty consistent, no idea if it's accurate or not. But for the purposes of giving a good hard consistent workout I find it invaluable. The speed/power reading seems to be pretty much the same every time as well but I do take the time to check tyre pressure and make sure I use the same number of 'clicks' when I set the bike up.

When I swap tyres or bikes it's a pain but it only takes a test to get the benchmark right and then it again seems consistent. Fair play to those that can afford or justify a PM but for people like me VP is a godsend.

If its consistent then thats all you need to know...
does it hurt after 10 minutes 105% threshold? all you need to know.

okgo

They're not though, they drift hugely through the ride.

I have heard good things about the lemond wattbox or whatever its called, more expensive than a powermeter though.

jgsi

okgo wrote:

They're not though, they drift hugely through the ride.

I have heard good things about the lemond wattbox or whatever its called, more expensive than a powermeter though.

very old fashioned now... all the yeeha Yanks have over priced Kickrs kickin FTP ass, awesome

Dodger747

Nothing overpriced about Kickrs, the best investment I've ever made for my bike [apart from a bike itself!].

jgsi

Dodger747 wrote:

Nothing overpriced about Kickrs, the best investment I've ever made for my bike [apart from a bike itself!].

It is the price of a bike.

bahzob

captain_kelly wrote:

Afternoon all.

I've recently signed up to Trainer road, and done the 20 minute test plus a couple more. the one thing I've noticed when comparing my rides to others is that my FTP seems really low by comparison to others.

I'm not slow but I'm not as fast as I'd like to be, so I'm just interested to know other peoples FTP and where I am with mine.

Currently mine is sat at 140.

As some above I'd advise not comparing yourself with others, especially at the beginning of using anything new. There will be all sorts of variables, many beyond your control. I use a different system (CVT) and the numbers there are all over the place. Some riders are recording numbers of 6-7w/kg for hour long efforts which would make them top pros.

The real value of power based training is that it provides you with a pretty clear assessment of your personal fitness. If you can sustain x watts for 20 minutes now, then if you can manage x+5% watts after a few weeks you know the training is working and you are improving.

If you want to translate this into some sort of competitive goal later then you may need to worry about how you compare to others in terms of power. But even then its not the be all and end all. It's not just what power you put out but also how you use it that counts.

But if you are simply training for fun and getting fitter it's best to ignore the numbers others are recording.

napoleond

I'd get a kickr if they were about 2/5ths the current price.

okgo

Just buy a power2max for 600 sheets, job done.

Grill

okgo wrote:

Just buy a power2max for 600 sheets, job done.

This. P2M PM + KK Rock and Roll = Cheaper and more useful than Wahoo Kickr.