Forum home Road cycling forum Training, fitness and health

Trying to figure out what kind of rider I am

burnthesheepburnthesheep Posts: 675
More generically speaking......not what kind as in "sprint, climb, domestique" kind of stuff. As I'll never ever be any of that stuff. I just want to try to get some kind of idea of where I'm going in the next year or two to make sure I'm happy with the end results.

I live in an area that has windy flats nearby and also enough hills in town to get 3000ft in 30 miles or so. There are mountains with Cat 3 through HC climbs within 3 hour drive.

As I keep training I keep losing weight. Obvious statement. I still could stand to lose some and be perfectly healthy and go from 75 down to 70kg. Keeping the training plan constant, I stand to get to 70kg by spring.

I understand a 20min test figure is at odds with the 1hr figure, but it's how I think and how I can compare easier in my feeble head. If needed, multiply by 95%. I HAVE done 1 hr at 95% of my current 20min result. It sucked, but I did it somehow.

Essentially for a 4.0w/kg goal I want to make sure I'm happy with the power versus the weight part.

You can get there a few ways, I'd call them lightweight, midweight, and heavyweight:
4 = 320 / 80
4 = 300/ 75
4 = 270/ 68

For what it matters I'm 5' 9" tall. I'm at 255w and just under 75kg now. And weekly the weight is falling without too much focus.

Why 4.0? It's probably the best I can maintain given my time input. I'd guess the lower weight ratio for a 4 is easier than a higher weight one. I mean, that's 50w difference.

I'm probably not understanding this relationship between weight and power, which is fine. I'm willing to learn.

I see it as I could easier hit the 4.0 on weight first then slowly tick up the power if I like. I may be totally wrong.

Thanks!
«1345

Posts

  • fenixfenix Posts: 5,437
    What is your FTP now ? Have I missed that part ?

    It's probably easier to lose weight than it is to get an extra 50W depending on how trained you are - so if you can lose the weight easily enough - why wouldn't you ? If its important to you?
  • marykamaryka Posts: 745
    More absolute watts for the same w/kg is what you want in cycling.

    So 320 at 80 is better than 270 at 68.
  • daniel_bdaniel_b Posts: 8,643
    I am in a similar position to you, and hoping to hit 250ish on my next FTP, hopefully this coming Saturday.

    I have an immediate target of 4w\kg, but long term, ie the next 14 months, will be attempting to reach 4.5 to 4.8.

    Don't take my word for it of course, and I'm an amateur at this stuff, but my understanding is that power is absolute, BUT if you want to be specifically good up hills, then your lightweight option will beat your heavyweight option.
    Presumably if you want to be fast on the flat or at sprinting, then the maximum power option will be best.

    Very interested to see what feedback you get on this thread, as it's all new to me too :-)
    I do enjoy a stat though!
    Felt F70 05 (Turbo)
    Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
    Scott CR1 SL 12
    Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
    Scott Foil 18
  • 255w and 74.8kg right now. 245 if you need to go by an hour. I've tried it, once for an hour, and yeah it was damn close to 95% for me.

    I'll wait for more responses before chatting about those responses. I see good arguments so far.

    One concern I have is if adding power is more difficult when lighter than it is when heavier body weight. I can't understand why or what in physiology would affect that, but that can play a part in how I work on this.
  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    burnthesheep, how old are you ?
  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    edited November 2017
    If it helps your same height as me and 7 kilos heavier and i would consider myself to be a big rider because of my build, i'm getting improvement but i want it on climbing, i'm sure being heavier would be an advantage on the flat looking at the people i see out, some of those big lads motor quite well on the flat, so i guess it depends what type of ride your measuring
    edit as i had to convert it to metric
  • FTP is sooooo last year, it’s all about 4DP or 4 does more now.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dcra ... m.html/amp
  • cyclecliniccycleclinic Posts: 6,865
    I would not be concerned about ftp not because it so last year but because it is actually not that informative. It tells you how much power you can manage for an hour and feel really sick at the end of it. No one rides like that though.

    What kind of cyclist are you well that is also unhelpful. You become good at what you train for well better at what you train for.

    Targeting an w/kg is pointless. What you can achieve is mostly genetic. What you can improve even if your ftp stagnate is your ability to recover from hard efforts.
    http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.
  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    That's why I asked the question on another thread, I don't see how measuring yourself over 20 minutes is hugely relevant other than to tell you what you can do for 20 minutes, surely you need to know what you can actually ride at for distances relevant to what your riding. I get that it's a good way to measure and set zones an all, but then I'm pretty new to it so no expert, just interested.Looking on other forums and this you do see some pretty big numbers banded around for FTP I do wonder if it's possible to train at 20 minute efforts to skew the numbers upwards ?
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,003
    Not disagreeing with the above, but among other things, FTP is useful as a number to set your training/power levels against - a bit like MHR or LTHR. Whoever said earlier on that 'FTP is soooo last year' simply doesn't understand FTP or what its purpose is.
  • daniel_bdaniel_b Posts: 8,643
    I can't see how targeting a watts\kg amount is pointless.

    If I become faster, fitter and stronger, how is that pointless?

    Unless I don't want to achieve any of those things, but hey I do :-)

    Additionally, if you know what power you can hold for 8 or 20 minutes, that gives you a really good indicator of how much power you can try and hold for a hill climb, an hour ride, or a TT of varying length.
    I can only see positives myself.

    The fact I can see, and measure tangible progress, keeps me motivated - and for me, that in itself proves it's worth for ME.

    As I understand it, FTP is merely an indicator of your current fitness, and where you are at that given moment in time.
    If you are really worried about the technicalities of it, why not ride flat out for 1 or 2 hours, and as long as you repeat that regularly, you still have your measure, you just need a 'test' of any sort you can repeat and take new stats from as far as I can see it.

    For me, the twin 8 test works fine, although I am yet to try the single 20, but will likely try that in the new year, as am planning to start TT's in the spring.
    Felt F70 05 (Turbo)
    Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
    Scott CR1 SL 12
    Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
    Scott Foil 18
  • joey54321joey54321 Posts: 1,297
    Daniel B wrote:
    I can't see how targeting a watts\kg amount is pointless.

    If I become faster, fitter and stronger, how is that pointless?

    Unless I don't want to achieve any of those things, but hey I do :-)

    Additionally, if you know what power you can hold for 8 or 20 minutes, that gives you a really good indicator of how much power you can try and hold for a hill climb, an hour ride, or a TT of varying length.
    I can only see positives myself.

    The fact I can see, and measure tangible progress, keeps me motivated - and for me, that in itself proves it's worth for ME.

    As I understand it, FTP is merely an indicator of your current fitness, and where you are at that given moment in time.
    If you are really worried about the technicalities of it, why not ride flat out for 1 or 2 hours, and as long as you repeat that regularly, you still have your measure, you just need a 'test' of any sort you can repeat and take new stats from as far as I can see it.

    For me, the twin 8 test works fine, although I am yet to try the single 20, but will likely try that in the new year, as am planning to start TT's in the spring.

    Because watts/kg is an outcome (uncontrollable), not an input (within your control).

    You can choose how many hours you do, how hard you train, your diet, your sleep etc... but you can't control what effect all those variables have on your performance on the bike. Having a goal is great for motivation but there are people that could be living and training like a pro cyclist who still wouldn't get to 4.8 w/k. What if you are one of those people? Your goal is out of your control and impossible. Alternatively, what if you have good genetic potential to hit 4.8 w/kg by doing 2 hours a week, are you gonna stop there and say you're happy with that? If so the goal doesn't really push you to achieve something does it?
  • daniel_bdaniel_b Posts: 8,643
    joey54321 wrote:
    Because watts/kg is an outcome (uncontrollable), not an input (within your control).

    You can choose how many hours you do, how hard you train, your diet, your sleep etc... but you can't control what effect all those variables have on your performance on the bike. Having a goal is great for motivation but there are people that could be living and training like a pro cyclist who still wouldn't get to 4.8 w/k. What if you are one of those people? Your goal is out of your control and impossible. Alternatively, what if you have good genetic potential to hit 4.8 w/kg by doing 2 hours a week, are you gonna stop there and say you're happy with that? If so the goal doesn't really push you to achieve something does it?

    I understand all of that, but if I can't reach 4.8w\kg then I simply re-calibrate, and revise my targets downwards - easily done, won't affect me or destroy my mental attitude.

    Likewise, if I was fortunate enough to be able to hit that on 2 hours a week (Not in a million years!) I woul simply revise my targets in an upward direction, or just come up with a new target once that one was hit.
    I don't just have a target of 4.8w\kg, I have incremental ones along the way, and a timeline by which I hope to hit them by, and will utilise my training to give me the best chance of doing so.
    IF I manage to get to 4.8, then I dare say I would then extend it to 5.0, and if I get there, and so on and so on, until I reach the limit of my abilities, or I get bored!

    I started off the year hoping to get down to a given weight, and set myself a target - didn't quite reach it in the time I expected, took another month or two, but that was all fine.

    If I had simply not been able to get down there though, it wouldn't have meant I had given up and put on loads of weight, I just would have reset my expectations, and got down to as far as I could or was healthy.

    I'm someone who thrives on targets, and I suppose, not fully knowing whether I can hit them, so for me it's the challenge to myself and my abilities\dedication, and the unknown that I find exciting, to see if I can hit the targets I set myself - if it's known you can get there, where is the challenge in that?

    Otherwise what targets would you set yourself to improve, or would you simply not have any targets?
    I like targets, and can't see them doing any harm (Certainly not to me), as long as you understand them for what they are, and that they should not be set in stone - at least for an amateur.

    FTP or w\kg seems to me to be the easiest and most measurable set of stats you can take away, assuming you have a pwoer meter, and or a suitable turbo.
    Felt F70 05 (Turbo)
    Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
    Scott CR1 SL 12
    Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
    Scott Foil 18
  • okgookgo Posts: 4,368
    reacher wrote:
    If it helps your same height as me and 7 kilos heavier and i would consider myself to be a big rider because of my build, i'm getting improvement but i want it on climbing, i'm sure being heavier would be an advantage on the flat looking at the people i see out, some of those big lads motor quite well on the flat, so i guess it depends what type of ride your measuring
    edit as i had to convert it to metric

    Why are you confused? If you want to stay bigger and go better up hills then you need more power. Very simple really.

    Being heavier on the flat makes little odds, again, he with the most watts is generally what you want there, and it just so happens that often those people are bigger. I ride with a chap who will piss all over just about any 2/3 cat road race he enters because he has plenty of power and weighs not a lot to boot. The only chance I really have of beating him (and I did) is on a pan flat circuit.

    Generally those who are light and have plenty of watts are quite rare (like chap I mentioned), all you can do is train to be as powerful as you can and eat to be lean and see where that takes you. For me, over 6 or 7 years I've managed maybe to drop a few KG but it has become clear that I'll never weigh 75kg, but I have added a large amount of watts, which has helped.

    This obsession with W/kg is pathetic and only relevant if you are racing proper mountains, or are concentrating solely on Hill Climbs. Otherwise its just another example of amateurs measuring themselves like pro's when the comparison is totally flawed and pointless.
    Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com
  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    Where did I say I was confused, all I was pointing out was that it seems to me that some of the bigger guys motor very well on the flat, not so well going upwards regardless of power, seems to me that all watts are not equal, although I'm sure you will say they are.
    I don't see it as pointless, you pick the type of stuff you want to compete at and measure accordingly, you might only be interested in climbing or if you want to be a big lump that cruises like a battleship on the flat but climbs like a lardy that's fine as well, it's doing both that's hard.
  • joey54321 wrote:
    Daniel B wrote:
    I can't see how targeting a watts\kg amount is pointless.

    If I become faster, fitter and stronger, how is that pointless?

    Unless I don't want to achieve any of those things, but hey I do :-)

    Additionally, if you know what power you can hold for 8 or 20 minutes, that gives you a really good indicator of how much power you can try and hold for a hill climb, an hour ride, or a TT of varying length.
    I can only see positives myself.

    The fact I can see, and measure tangible progress, keeps me motivated - and for me, that in itself proves it's worth for ME.

    As I understand it, FTP is merely an indicator of your current fitness, and where you are at that given moment in time.
    If you are really worried about the technicalities of it, why not ride flat out for 1 or 2 hours, and as long as you repeat that regularly, you still have your measure, you just need a 'test' of any sort you can repeat and take new stats from as far as I can see it.

    For me, the twin 8 test works fine, although I am yet to try the single 20, but will likely try that in the new year, as am planning to start TT's in the spring.

    Because watts/kg is an outcome (uncontrollable), not an input (within your control).

    You can choose how many hours you do, how hard you train, your diet, your sleep etc... but you can't control what effect all those variables have on your performance on the bike. Having a goal is great for motivation but there are people that could be living and training like a pro cyclist who still wouldn't get to 4.8 w/k. What if you are one of those people? Your goal is out of your control and impossible. Alternatively, what if you have good genetic potential to hit 4.8 w/kg by doing 2 hours a week, are you gonna stop there and say you're happy with that? If so the goal doesn't really push you to achieve something does it?

    Just because you might not achieve it, doesn't mean that it isn't a valid target. Otherwise you may as well say that runners should never target a sub 3 marathon, sub 20 min 5k or sub 4 mile.

    Equally, just because you can hit your target doesn't mean you stop - you get a new target.
  • okgookgo Posts: 4,368
    reacher wrote:
    Where did I say I was confused, all I was pointing out was that it seems to me that some of the bigger guys motor very well on the flat, not so well going upwards regardless of power, seems to me that all watts are not equal, although I'm sure you will say they are.
    I don't see it as pointless, you pick the type of stuff you want to compete at and measure accordingly, you might only be interested in climbing or if you want to be a big lump that cruises like a battleship on the flat but climbs like a lardy that's fine as well, it's doing both that's hard.

    It isn't hard. You just have to have enough watts to make the numbers work. When going up a meaningful hill, that is all that matters, which is why the twitter sleuths are able to so accurately predict what watts pro's are doing on the big climbs.

    Obviously you might find that common physiology of thin people is different to larger people, but what dictates how fast someone goes up a hill surely is w/kg - and the reason its pointless worrying too much about it in the UK is that there are not really many hills to worry about!
    Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com
  • daniel_bdaniel_b Posts: 8,643
    okgo wrote:
    This obsession with W/kg is pathetic and only relevant if you are racing proper mountains, or are concentrating solely on Hill Climbs. Otherwise its just another example of amateurs measuring themselves like pro's when the comparison is totally flawed and pointless.

    With regards to flawed and pointless, for me, that is top drawer :D
    Just because you might not achieve it, doesn't mean that it isn't a valid target. Otherwise you may as well say that runners should never target a sub 3 marathon, sub 20 min 5k or sub 4 mile.

    Equally, just because you can hit your target doesn't mean you stop - you get a new target.

    Indeed.
    To me, this does not seem to be science of the rocket variant.
    Felt F70 05 (Turbo)
    Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
    Scott CR1 SL 12
    Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
    Scott Foil 18
  • okgo wrote:
    This obsession with W/kg is pathetic and only relevant if you are racing proper mountains, or are concentrating solely on Hill Climbs. Otherwise its just another example of amateurs measuring themselves like pro's when the comparison is totally flawed and pointless.

    Someone asked my age earlier........I'm 33.

    To address the above.....I'm specifically signed up for a 100mi 10k feet event in May next year. Assault on Mt. Mitchell. It finishes up a 5500ft HC climb after some 78-odd miles before.
    https://theassaults.com/assault-on-mt-mitchell/

    There is also a good chance our company will send a group of us to Haute Route in Asheville NC since they sponsor one of the main charity groups for the event. They sponsor Team Novo and Team Type 1.

    Both of those events are pretty much only about w/kg. And both are timed. The AOMM you stand to miss your bus back down if you take too long. :lol:

    Someone earlier posted that my height or size was similar to them and they are about 7kg less. Yes, I definitely see some more floating around I could get rid of and never miss having it again.
  • joey54321joey54321 Posts: 1,297
    Daniel B wrote:

    I understand all of that, but if I can't reach 4.8w\kg then I simply re-calibrate, and revise my targets downwards - easily done, won't affect me or destroy my mental attitude.

    Likewise, if I was fortunate enough to be able to hit that on 2 hours a week (Not in a million years!) I woul simply revise my targets in an upward direction, or just come up with a new target once that one was hit.
    I don't just have a target of 4.8w\kg, I have incremental ones along the way, and a timeline by which I hope to hit them by, and will utilise my training to give me the best chance of doing so.
    IF I manage to get to 4.8, then I dare say I would then extend it to 5.0, and if I get there, and so on and so on, until I reach the limit of my abilities, or I get bored!

    I started off the year hoping to get down to a given weight, and set myself a target - didn't quite reach it in the time I expected, took another month or two, but that was all fine.

    If I had simply not been able to get down there though, it wouldn't have meant I had given up and put on loads of weight, I just would have reset my expectations, and got down to as far as I could or was healthy.

    I'm someone who thrives on targets, and I suppose, not fully knowing whether I can hit them, so for me it's the challenge to myself and my abilities\dedication, and the unknown that I find exciting, to see if I can hit the targets I set myself - if it's known you can get there, where is the challenge in that?

    Otherwise what targets would you set yourself to improve, or would you simply not have any targets?
    I like targets, and can't see them doing any harm (Certainly not to me), as long as you understand them for what they are, and that they should not be set in stone - at least for an amateur.

    FTP or w\kg seems to me to be the easiest and most measurable set of stats you can take away, assuming you have a pwoer meter, and or a suitable turbo.


    Ah, I see. You have a calendar with random numbers on it that you can change to other random numbers whenever you want. Yeah, I can see how that is useful.

    Ok, joking aside, i'm just curious; Would you consider a season where you won loads of races but had a lower FTP or W/KG a 'worse' season than one where your W/Kg got up to 5 but you had no significant results?

    I take your point regarding goals for runners, but in my head that is a performance target. That makes sense (to me). FTP is such a meaningless statistic in terms of performance it doesn't really count for anything. Unless you race indoors on a turbo trainer for an hour and whoever has the highest W/KG wins.

    I think targets are very important and you should be failing them ~10-30% of the time depending on your resilience to 'failure'. I divide a lot of my 'mini' goals in to the effort I put in to training rather than the outcome for example. Though I also have some performance-based goals too.
  • daniel_bdaniel_b Posts: 8,643
    edited November 2017
    joey54321 wrote:

    Ah, I see. You have a calendar with random numbers on it that you can change to other random numbers whenever you want. Yeah, I can see how that is useful.

    Ok, joking aside, i'm just curious; Would you consider a season where you won loads of races but had a lower FTP or W/KG a 'worse' season than one where your W/Kg got up to 5 but you had no significant results?

    I take your point regarding goals for runners, but in my head that is a performance target. That makes sense (to me). FTP is such a meaningless statistic in terms of performance it doesn't really count for anything. Unless you race indoors on a turbo trainer for an hour and whoever has the highest W/KG wins.

    I think targets are very important and you should be failing them ~10-30% of the time depending on your resilience to 'failure'. I divide a lot of my 'mini' goals in to the effort I put in to training rather than the outcome for example. Though I also have some performance-based goals too.

    Yeh pretty much :lol:

    BUT it works for me, and that is clearly who I am doing it for.

    Well with regards to my FTP figures I have been trying to hit on a monthly basis, I have pretty much failed at least half of my targets, only by the odd watt or two, but I have not quite hit them, but that merely motivates me to train harder before the next test, so still is useful?
    Do those failures mean you find that approach now suitable?

    If I was a professional athlete, then I would imagine this would not be a suitable approach, but I am not, so I could kill myself trying to hit unnatainable goals, or flex them as I see they are either not reachable, or could be too easy.

    With my weight loss target, I set a target, adjusted it up when I thought I would not reach it, then exceeded it, and have now adjusted it back lower than the original one by a kg.
    I could have sat rigidly at my first chosen figure, but things can change during the process, so why can;t the end target - for better or worse?

    I do not race - yet, but I agree, if I was racing, then no, the results would be foremost, and my w\kg figure would be less important to me, merely used as a benchmark to check I am still on track, and in the vicinity of where I need to be.
    I appreciate racing requires tactical nouse for example, power alone does not deliver that.

    The reason I am training, and have been for a year, and have set these targets, is that I do want to race, and TT - and aim to start next year, and perhaps get on the Velodrome in the summer months as opposed to road racing.

    So it's a means to an end, but to me is a very tangible and (from my laymans perspective) simple way to improve my performance, and as another by product, my enjoyment of cycling.
    Even if I dod not plan to race, I would still target montly improvements, and train hard, as I gain enjoyment from the training, and reaping the rewards out on my local loops - just for the enjoyment of it.

    I work 5 days a week, and have a young family, I don't have a lot of time to study training methods (I would like to, but it isn't going to happen) and techniques, and work out different zones - I use the comparitive plug and play TrainerRoad, a decent trainer with inbuilt power meter, and a power meter out on the road bike, and these combined, are so far giving me good solid and measurable results.
    Felt F70 05 (Turbo)
    Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
    Scott CR1 SL 12
    Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
    Scott Foil 18
  • joey54321joey54321 Posts: 1,297
    Daniel B wrote:

    Yeh pretty much :lol:

    BUT it works for me, and that is clearly who I am doing it for.

    Well with regards to my FTP figures I have been trying to hit on a monthly basis, I have pretty much failed at least half of my targets, only by the odd watt or two, but I have not quite hit them, but that merely motivates me to train harder before the next test, so still acts as a useful side effect no?
    Do those failures mean you find that approach now suitable?

    I do not race - yet, but I agree, if I was racing, then no, the results would be foremost, and my w\kg figure would be less important to me, merely used as a benchmark to check I am still on track, and in the vicinity of where I need to be.
    I appreciate racing requires tactical nouse for example, power alone does not deliver that.

    The reason I am training, and have been for a year, and have set these targets, is that I do want to race, and TT - and aim to start next year, and perhaps get on the Velodrome in the summer months as opposed to road racing.

    So it's a means ot an end, but to me is a very tangible and (from my laymans perspective) simple way to improve my performance, and as another by product, my enjoyment of cycling.
    I work 5 days a week, and have a young family, I don't have a lot of time to study training methods (I would like to, but it isn't going to happen) and techniques, and work out different zones - I use the comparitive plug and play TrainerRoad, a decent trainer with inbuilt power meter, and a power meter out on the road bike, and these combined, are so far giving me good solid and measurable results.

    Yup, these are the important bits for sure, and everyone is different too so what works for one (you) wouldn't work for another (me). Good luck with the races though, at ~4.5w/k you should be doing pretty well in a TT if (and its a big if) you can get aero. [in TTs aero makes MUCH more different than weight, it's basically w/cda wins the race]
  • daniel_bdaniel_b Posts: 8,643
    edited November 2017
    joey54321 wrote:
    Daniel B wrote:

    Yeh pretty much :lol:

    BUT it works for me, and that is clearly who I am doing it for.

    Well with regards to my FTP figures I have been trying to hit on a monthly basis, I have pretty much failed at least half of my targets, only by the odd watt or two, but I have not quite hit them, but that merely motivates me to train harder before the next test, so still acts as a useful side effect no?
    Do those failures mean you find that approach now suitable?

    I do not race - yet, but I agree, if I was racing, then no, the results would be foremost, and my w\kg figure would be less important to me, merely used as a benchmark to check I am still on track, and in the vicinity of where I need to be.
    I appreciate racing requires tactical nouse for example, power alone does not deliver that.

    The reason I am training, and have been for a year, and have set these targets, is that I do want to race, and TT - and aim to start next year, and perhaps get on the Velodrome in the summer months as opposed to road racing.

    So it's a means ot an end, but to me is a very tangible and (from my laymans perspective) simple way to improve my performance, and as another by product, my enjoyment of cycling.
    I work 5 days a week, and have a young family, I don't have a lot of time to study training methods (I would like to, but it isn't going to happen) and techniques, and work out different zones - I use the comparitive plug and play TrainerRoad, a decent trainer with inbuilt power meter, and a power meter out on the road bike, and these combined, are so far giving me good solid and measurable results.

    Yup, these are the important bits for sure, and everyone is different too so what works for one (you) wouldn't work for another (me). Good luck with the races though, at ~4.5w/k you should be doing pretty well in a TT if (and its a big if) you can get aero. [in TTs aero makes MUCH more different than weight, it's basically w/cda wins the race]

    Yeh totally agreed - it just seems somewhat patronising for some people to make sweeping generalisations (Not aimed at you I hasten to add) that X method is completely pointless and unworkable, without taking into account different people and their respective approaches - you can have a differing opinion, but doesn't mean the other persons is worthless - imho :D

    True on the position - might end up getting a bike fit for that, need to get my TT bike built up first of all, a job for the winter me thinks.
    Happily I have been working a lot down in the drops, which I appreciate is not indicative of 'being aero' but what it does translate to is that my body is now happier with that degree of bend, that it used to, and I can spend a lot of time down there now - oooh err missus.
    I won't be at that power output by the spring, hoping to be slightly in excess of 4w\kg - no idea what that might translate to on a TT bike, but intrigued and excited to find out.
    Well probably try it on a road bike first of all, with standard kit, and then swop to full pointy helmet TT mode to see what difference it might make.
    If I'm slower, I'll sell it all :oops:
    Felt F70 05 (Turbo)
    Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
    Scott CR1 SL 12
    Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
    Scott Foil 18
  • In my opinion the power to weight numbers you are quoting as training goals are not goals as such. They are just metrics to measure your training progression. Goals would be a 21 minute 10 TT or podium place on a road race or hill climb. Don't get too hung up on the numbers on your power meter. You risk getting demotivated if you don't hit your numbers or you hit your numbers but get spat out on your first road race.
  • okgookgo Posts: 4,368
    We have established he is doing fairly unique events mind you. So yes, not being a lard will be handy in those.
    Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com
  • It's an interesting point about the overall goals versus just "power meter" and "weigh scale" goals. I'll take that into consideration. Thanks.

    I'm fully aware that without some tactics and savvy that an excess of power or some magic ratio does no good in a RR. I have already gone out and scoped out the RR course. I may see if some buddies want to do a 5 person "race sim" there. Not to drop each other but work on the skills part.

    How about this then as "goals" instead of training metrics for 2018:
    -Finish AOMM in under 7 hours
    -Don't get dropped in the first 90min road race, podium one of the next two (look, I know you set the goal to WIN, but that would be the goal for my 2nd or 3rd race)
    -Do 3 of the 6 ITT events and get one 10mi time under 26min
    -Simply finish the 100mi Umstead gravel grinder.....I may have to rent a bike for this
    -Take the half day track riding training course in Charlotte NC to get a cert
  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    okgo wrote:
    reacher wrote:
    Where did I say I was confused, all I was pointing out was that it seems to me that some of the bigger guys motor very well on the flat, not so well going upwards regardless of power, seems to me that all watts are not equal, although I'm sure you will say they are.
    I don't see it as pointless, you pick the type of stuff you want to compete at and measure accordingly, you might only be interested in climbing or if you want to be a big lump that cruises like a battleship on the flat but climbs like a lardy that's fine as well, it's doing both that's hard.

    It isn't hard. You just have to have enough watts to make the numbers work. When going up a meaningful hill, that is all that matters, which is why the twitter sleuths are able to so accurately predict what watts pro's are doing on the big climbs.

    Obviously you might find that common physiology of thin people is different to larger people, but what dictates how fast someone goes up a hill surely is w/kg - and the reason its pointless worrying too much about it in the UK is that there are not really many hills to worry about!

    I don't see it, you would have mark cavendish and other track riders winning mountain stages if all it took was a bucket of watts, that aside, it's the reason so many people go out to climb toure stages, they want to test themselves on the same climbs, go to the alpe d'huez and theirs people going up their all day long,
  • webboowebboo Posts: 2,712
    It's an interesting point about the overall goals versus just "power meter" and "weigh scale" goals. I'll take that into consideration. Thanks.

    I'm fully aware that without some tactics and savvy that an excess of power or some magic ratio does no good in a RR. I have already gone out and scoped out the RR course. I may see if some buddies want to do a 5 person "race sim" there. Not to drop each other but work on the skills part.

    How about this then as "goals" instead of training metrics for 2018:
    -Finish AOMM in under 7 hours
    -Don't get dropped in the first 90min road race, podium one of the next two (look, I know you set the goal to WIN, but that would be the goal for my 2nd or 3rd race)
    -Do 3 of the 6 ITT events and get one 10mi time under 26min
    -Simply finish the 100mi Umstead gravel grinder.....I may have to rent a bike for this
    -Take the half day track riding training course in Charlotte NC to get a cert
    What's AOMM
    Is the 3rd one down getting one 10 mile time trial under 26 minutes, if so and unless it's very hilly. Then you haven't a hope of doing 2.
  • fenixfenix Posts: 5,437
    AOMM = https://theassaults.com/assault-on-mt-mitchell/ ?

    Looks a challenge to me !
  • nicklongnicklong Posts: 231
    Blimey, there are some unhelpful / obtuse posters on this thread.

    OP, going back to your original scenarios (4w/kg at 68/70/75kg), I'd say it would be more likely you would be able to achieve a range of w/kg but it wouldn't be linear with weight, ie. You might achieve 4w/kg at 68, but only 3.8w/kg at 75kg. BUT, depending on the course you might still go faster with 285W rather than 272W. On the other hand, being lighter might benefit you in road races as there is less mass to accelerate whenever there is a change in pace in the bunch, meaning you will get to the final less fatigued than your opponents.

    Given your goals, lower weight would be preferable and perhaps easier to achieve than more power given your available time to invest in training.

    As a comparison, I'm in a similar position from a life/age/goals perspective. I'm currently at 4.3w/kg @ 65kgs, I could easily go down to 62kgs but I'd rather boost my raw power and try to get close to 300W FTP even if it means putting on some kilos, as it would benefit my time trialling.

    When one day I enter the Haute Route I'll slim down and focus on my climbing physique!
Sign In or Register to comment.