Trying to figure out what kind of rider I am

reacher

Does this mean you can sustain this or are we talking about testing over a given time, like some are saying 2 and 5 minutes some are saying 20 minutes, i'm not saying theirs anything wrong with it i'm just after some sort of clarification about some of these numbers being put around and the times that they are being held for

nicklong

reacher wrote:

Does this mean you can sustain this or are we talking about testing over a given time, like some are saying 2 and 5 minutes some are saying 20 minutes, i'm not saying theirs anything wrong with it i'm just after some sort of clarification about some of these numbers being put around and the times that they are being held for

FTP based upon 0.95*CP20. My 2*8 protocol results give the same result near enough.

Not that I can sustain it for 60 minutes, that takes an ability to suffer beyond my current capacity (and it is recognised that actually outputting you're FTP over an hour requires a lot of TT-specific training).

burnthesheep

I’ve done 10 at 22mph on drop bars and a team kit on a windy day months ago.

I’ll go do 26min in December then.

reacher

nicklong wrote:

reacher wrote:

Does this mean you can sustain this or are we talking about testing over a given time, like some are saying 2 and 5 minutes some are saying 20 minutes, i'm not saying theirs anything wrong with it i'm just after some sort of clarification about some of these numbers being put around and the times that they are being held for

FTP based upon 0.95*CP20. My 2*8 protocol results give the same result near enough.

Not that I can sustain it for 60 minutes, that takes an ability to suffer beyond my current capacity (and it is recognised that actually outputting you're FTP over an hour requires a lot of TT-specific training).

Ok, thanks, I haven't got a power meter so I was interested in the subject, so if you were out over 60 ks fairly flat road what type of speed would you expect to hold with a power in excess of 4 watts riding solo ?

webboo

burnthesheep wrote:

I’ve done 10 at 22mph on drop bars and a team kit on a windy day months ago.

I’ll go do 26min in December then.

I would expect that most of the field in 3rd/ 4 cat race could do around 24 mins for a 10 on a road bike or the ones who don't get dropped.

joey54321

nicklong wrote:

FTP based upon 0.95*CP20. My 2*8 protocol results give the same result near enough.

Not that I can sustain it for 60 minutes, that takes an ability to suffer beyond my current capacity (and it is recognised that actually outputting you're FTP over an hour requires a lot of TT-specific training).

Then both tests are overestimating your FTP. It should always be difficult, but FTP is what you can do for an hour (near enough, ask a physiologist and it'll get more complex). It shouldn't take any specific training per sa, just lots of motivation. If you can cycle for an hour you can cycle at your hardest for an hour.

joey54321

burnthesheep wrote:

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

Looks like a good range and variety which is good, but regarding number 2; if your goal is to not get dropped in your first I highly doubt you'll be podiuming in your 2nd or 3rd race.

Alex99

reacher wrote:

nicklong wrote:

reacher wrote:

Does this mean you can sustain this or are we talking about testing over a given time, like some are saying 2 and 5 minutes some are saying 20 minutes, i'm not saying theirs anything wrong with it i'm just after some sort of clarification about some of these numbers being put around and the times that they are being held for

FTP based upon 0.95*CP20. My 2*8 protocol results give the same result near enough.

Not that I can sustain it for 60 minutes, that takes an ability to suffer beyond my current capacity (and it is recognised that actually outputting you're FTP over an hour requires a lot of TT-specific training).

Ok, thanks, I haven't got a power meter so I was interested in the subject, so if you were out over 60 ks fairly flat road what type of speed would you expect to hold with a power in excess of 4 watts riding solo ?

So, 240 W. It will vary enormously depending on how aero you can be whilst making that 240 W. For some people it could be 30 MPH, for some 22-25.

fenix

It's not all about the figures. I think Cavendish didn't have fantastic figures at one point in his career but he was gettint the wind because he knew how to race. Being able to follow wheels counts for a lot.

reacher

Alex99 wrote:

reacher wrote:

nicklong wrote:

reacher wrote:

Does this mean you can sustain this or are we talking about testing over a given time, like some are saying 2 and 5 minutes some are saying 20 minutes, i'm not saying theirs anything wrong with it i'm just after some sort of clarification about some of these numbers being put around and the times that they are being held for

FTP based upon 0.95*CP20. My 2*8 protocol results give the same result near enough.

Not that I can sustain it for 60 minutes, that takes an ability to suffer beyond my current capacity (and it is recognised that actually outputting you're FTP over an hour requires a lot of TT-specific training).

Ok, thanks, I haven't got a power meter so I was interested in the subject, so if you were out over 60 ks fairly flat road what type of speed would you expect to hold with a power in excess of 4 watts riding solo ?

So, 240 W. It will vary enormously depending on how aero you can be whilst making that 240 W. For some people it could be 30 MPH, for some 22-25.

I make it higher than that, 270 or so, however, I was asking generally, just riding Between 60 to 70 ks solo , alternating hoods drops, no special aero kit slight breeze some cross winds etc nothing drastic, just an idea of what 4 watts per kilo would give you an average rolling speed to train,

reacher

30 mph over 60 odd ks solo, maybe I'm a lot slower than I thought I was.

daniel_b

reacher wrote:

30 mph over 60 odd ks solo, maybe I'm a lot slower than I thought I was.

Is that meant to be 30 kmh, so two hours riding?

That would be 18.64 mph average.

reacher

Daniel B wrote:

reacher wrote:

30 mph over 60 odd ks solo, maybe I'm a lot slower than I thought I was.

Is that meant to be 30 kmh, so two hours riding?

That would be 18.64 mph average.

Not me, it's what the others are saying is an average speed that people can do over 60 to 70 ks, I'm just trying to find out, if someone has a power meter, what the speed over that distance would be on a 4 watts per kilo, not doing a TT, just a good solid training ride

cycleclinic

power and speed are rleated but there are other factors. if you train at 4/kg for 4 hrs get a contract. not even pro train that way though.

reacher

i'm lost, people are posting saying their on 4.8 watts per kilo moving towards 5 watts per kilo but when i ask what you ride at for a couple of hours or more no one gives a straight answer, its like well it depends etc etc, cant be that hard to ride out for 65 ks look at your figures on a power meter and say what you averaged surely , or are all these figures based on short efforts ?

joe2008

thecycleclinic wrote:

power and speed are rleated but there are other factors. if you train at 4/kg for 4 hrs get a contract. not even pro train that way though.

Did I not just read a long post by you explaining those 'other factors', why have you deleted it?

Midlands Grimpeur

i'm lost, people are posting saying their on 4.8 watts per kilo moving towards 5 watts per kilo but when i ask what you ride at for a couple of hours or more no one gives a straight answer, its like well it depends etc etc,

Call me cynical but I expect a fair few cyclists that quote ftp and w k/g don't own power meters and are quoting figures based on doing a 20 minute test down the gym on a wattbike so basically they can't give you an answer because they don't know. It does depend on various factors but if you have enough consistent data and know your numbers and how to interpret them you should have a good idea. It is tricky as no one really rides full gas for 2 hours, if you are following a training ride to zones you are limited to certain power numbers within the zone. I have had a look back over some of mine from the summer. For low-mid zone 3 rides I was at around 3.4+ watts per kg for 2-3hrs. I suspect I could get up to around 3.6/7 if I was really pushing it. For 4hrs+ I was around 3.15 watts per kg, again this was lower end of zone 3 and could be increased slighly.

daniel_b

reacher wrote:

i'm lost, people are posting saying their on 4.8 watts per kilo moving towards 5 watts per kilo but when i ask what you ride at for a couple of hours or more no one gives a straight answer, its like well it depends etc etc, cant be that hard to ride out for 65 ks look at your figures on a power meter and say what you averaged surely , or are all these figures based on short efforts ?

I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone stated that?
I am approaching 4w\kilo, and have 4.8w\kilo as my target for next year - not saying I am going to get there though, but I will attempt to.
I have checked back through Strava, but my routes round here are not that flat, and I don't tend to go flat out for that distance generally. The nearest I can find is a 20 mile loop from June, when my FTP was 229, and I was at 3.4w\kg.
It has 827ft of elevation and I averaged 176W, so over 20% below my FTP, but then I wasn't going full gas, and often do not when out on the road. So not convinced that is of any use to you at all :?

Could I put out my FTP amount for an hour - almost certainly not, but I gather that is more common than not, so not worried about it.
I also have no issue with the FTP not being truly being representative of the actual power you can hold for an hour (I'll soon be able to figure some of this out with TT's for my own situation) as the fact of the matter is that it is a repeatable test that shows progress, or not, and that, for me is more than good enough.

reacher

Midlands Grimpeur wrote:

i'm lost, people are posting saying their on 4.8 watts per kilo moving towards 5 watts per kilo but when i ask what you ride at for a couple of hours or more no one gives a straight answer, its like well it depends etc etc,

Call me cynical but I expect a fair few cyclists that quote ftp and w k/g don't own power meters and are quoting figures based on doing a 20 minute test down the gym on a wattbike so basically they can't give you an answer because they don't know. It does depend on various factors but if you have enough consistent data and know your numbers and how to interpret them you should have a good idea. It is tricky as no one really rides full gas for 2 hours, if you are following a training ride to zones you are limited to certain power numbers within the zone. I have had a look back over some of mine from the summer. For low-mid zone 3 rides I was at around 3.4+ watts per kg for 2-3hrs. I suspect I could get up to around 3.6/7 if I was really pushing it. For 4hrs+ I was around 3.15 watts per kg, again this was lower end of zone 3 and could be increased slighly.

ok thanks, roughly speaking on the flat what speed would 3.4 watts be ? would it be say between 30 to 35 ks an hour 35 to 40 ks or higher than that ? i'm not looking for exact speeds just trying to get some idea of what i'm riding at for longer distances cheers

nicklong

Responding to a couple of points...

FTP protocols from Hunter Allen:

"Because some athletes have a hard time focusing for 60 minutes on a maximal effort, and those who can learn very quickly that a 60-minute time trial is not that much fun, we have found that 20 minutes is more realistic in terms of getting athletes to do more regular and higher-quality tests. Since 20 minutes is a shorter time period, it incorporates more of the athlete’s anaerobic capacity, however, and this skews the wattage data by about 5 percent over a 60-minute effort. By subtracting that 5 percent, you will come up with a wattage number that would be very close to your 60-minute power measure."

Power /speed / distance:

Look at 100mile TTers and triathletes; at that distance, athletes aim for 70-85% of FTP.

I've only ridden one 100 mile TT, I averaged 3.3 w/kg and finished in 4h30m (22.2mph / 35.8kmh average). Stronger, heavier (and/or more aero) riders would have a quicker time and lower w/kg, so hence why these comparisons are so difficult to, er, compare.

Have you tried mucking around with BestBikeSplit?

Midlands Grimpeur

roughly speaking on the flat what speed would 3.4 watts be ? would it be say between 30 to 35 ks an hour 35 to 40 ks or higher than that

The rides are hilly so average speed depending on route is anything from 29-32 km/h. Speed on flat more like 35km/h+.

burnthesheep

Midlands Grimpeur wrote:

roughly speaking on the flat what speed would 3.4 watts be ? would it be say between 30 to 35 ks an hour 35 to 40 ks or higher than that

The rides are hilly so average speed depending on route is anything from 29-32 km/h. Speed on flat more like 35km/h+.

I can vouch for this. I am right at 3.4 right now and that is very close to what I do. I can hold 20 in a flat all day breathing thru my nose.

I can also say I own a meter and all my rides or training sessions have legitimate power and hrm data.

I feel you get both sides to this story. Riders without meters riding flats alone for hours as 22+mph claiming only some measly power level AND people with meters and legitimate data seemingly going slower than you’d assume.

I can’t comment of TT speeds here in my region of the US, but they split the start times by 10 mile time. Cat 5 and 4 start first and are listed at over 25min. Next is 25 to 23. Then sub 22 min goes last.

The road race is pretty flat (330ft per 10mi) and cat 5 and 4 avg was 24mph last year. When I solo’d the course in full length I was equal or faster up the hills than the race group speed was.

On that AOMM thing, I did a sneak peek ride up the 5500ft HC climb. I parked in Marion at Dollar Store and took 3 bottles and a banana. Mid pack on the Strava board. If you’re below a 2.8 to 3.0 you likely won’t finish the climb without stopping multiple times. I made it no feet down.

birdie23

reacher wrote:

Midlands Grimpeur wrote:

i'm lost, people are posting saying their on 4.8 watts per kilo moving towards 5 watts per kilo but when i ask what you ride at for a couple of hours or more no one gives a straight answer, its like well it depends etc etc,

Call me cynical but I expect a fair few cyclists that quote ftp and w k/g don't own power meters and are quoting figures based on doing a 20 minute test down the gym on a wattbike so basically they can't give you an answer because they don't know. It does depend on various factors but if you have enough consistent data and know your numbers and how to interpret them you should have a good idea. It is tricky as no one really rides full gas for 2 hours, if you are following a training ride to zones you are limited to certain power numbers within the zone. I have had a look back over some of mine from the summer. For low-mid zone 3 rides I was at around 3.4+ watts per kg for 2-3hrs. I suspect I could get up to around 3.6/7 if I was really pushing it. For 4hrs+ I was around 3.15 watts per kg, again this was lower end of zone 3 and could be increased slighly.

ok thanks, roughly speaking on the flat what speed would 3.4 watts be ? would it be say between 30 to 35 ks an hour 35 to 40 ks or higher than that ? i'm not looking for exact speeds just trying to get some idea of what i'm riding at for longer distances cheers

Depends on what you weigh. W/kg means nothing on the flat

reacher

So I understand, but without a power meter I'm trying to get some idea of where I'm at, I'm not that interested in a short test I need to know I can ride for a long period at a given output/FTP. It's fair to say without power meters it's a bit of a lottery trying to work it all out. However riding full bore for an hour seems to work pretty well, I feel that, and very hard sessions on the indoor bike with a longer endurance ride once a week through this winter are nudging it upwards, theirs not much else you can do with the winter light. Btw would a lighter rider putting x watts on the flats generally expect to be higher when climbing ?

Alex99

reacher wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

reacher wrote:

nicklong wrote:

reacher wrote:

Does this mean you can sustain this or are we talking about testing over a given time, like some are saying 2 and 5 minutes some are saying 20 minutes, i'm not saying theirs anything wrong with it i'm just after some sort of clarification about some of these numbers being put around and the times that they are being held for

FTP based upon 0.95*CP20. My 2*8 protocol results give the same result near enough.

Not that I can sustain it for 60 minutes, that takes an ability to suffer beyond my current capacity (and it is recognised that actually outputting you're FTP over an hour requires a lot of TT-specific training).

Ok, thanks, I haven't got a power meter so I was interested in the subject, so if you were out over 60 ks fairly flat road what type of speed would you expect to hold with a power in excess of 4 watts riding solo ?

So, 240 W. It will vary enormously depending on how aero you can be whilst making that 240 W. For some people it could be 30 MPH, for some 22-25.

I make it higher than that, 270 or so, however, I was asking generally, just riding Between 60 to 70 ks solo , alternating hoods drops, no special aero kit slight breeze some cross winds etc nothing drastic, just an idea of what 4 watts per kilo would give you an average rolling speed to train,

Oh, I totally misread. Sorry. I thought you were asking about a rider of 60 kg, doing 4 w/kg. On a road bike over rolling terrain, I'd estimate about 22-24 MPH. I do about 4 w/kg for a 10 mile tt. That is fairly flat with no interruptions, with aero bars. I get about 26 mph for my hard work, which I'm told is pretty bad.

Alex99

reacher wrote:

So I understand, but without a power meter I'm trying to get some idea of where I'm at, I'm not that interested in a short test I need to know I can ride for a long period at a given output/FTP. It's fair to say without power meters it's a bit of a lottery trying to work it all out. However riding full bore for an hour seems to work pretty well, I feel that, and very hard sessions on the indoor bike with a longer endurance ride once a week through this winter are nudging it upwards, theirs not much else you can do with the winter light. Btw would a lighter rider putting x watts on the flats generally expect to be higher when climbing ?

Are you trying to set speed zones to train to?

okgo

reacher wrote:

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,

What on earth are you talking about?

You don't seem to be very bright, these are remarkably simple concepts to get your head round, but you don't seem to be able to get it?

reacher

okgo wrote:

reacher wrote:

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,

What on earth are you talking about?

You don't seem to be very bright, these are remarkably simple concepts to get your head round, but you don't seem to be able to get it?

probably not, i'l try an do some studying just so that i can make sense of what your saying to keep you happy, on second thoughts maybe not, i seem to be doing ok on the bike, so as i see it not much point really in thinking too hard about stuff none of it seems to matter as much as being able to train hard anyway

fenix

Ok so a big guy like Kittel is something like 86kg.
Froome is 66 kilos.

So say they both have a FTP of 450 Watts - thats the power they can hold for an hour and we assume they're both the same. Obviously Kittel will have a far higher figure for the sprints - thats what he trains for.

So Kittel - 450/86 = 5.2W per kg
Froome - 450/66 =6.8W per kg

So the lighter rider climbs faster.

That said - wasn't Malcolm Elliott who won the sprinters jersey in the Vuelta National Hill Climb Champ a few times ? I guess british climbs are usually short enough to basically sprint up.

reacher

okgo wrote:

reacher wrote:

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,

What on earth are you talking about?

You don't seem to be very bright, these are remarkably simple concepts to get your head round, but you don't seem to be able to get it?

ok, i see where your coming from, i looked at your previous post, correct me if i'm wrong but are you not the tubby guy who cant climb too good trying to tell us all how to train to climb ? seems to me your not the bright one here or you would have figured out why your so fat and cant climb