Determining a ballpark FTP from my first attempt at Elite app "Training Test"?

N0bodyOfTheGoat

I'm trying to get to grips with my new Elite Direto and the Elite app functionality and I'm confused, which is easily done at this time of year, but anyway...

Probably not ideal, but earlier I did a virtual ride up Petersfield's cat3 hill earlier using the app's map and waypoints, gradients and effort very different to how I recall doing the real thing a few times around August. But having re-configured the turbo since yesterday (when I was starting to wonder if it was broken or I was ill), including changing the virtual circumference for a direct driver turbo, today's time was much more in line with expectations from doing the real thing (albeit the real Strava segment does not go to Warren Lane summit, it passes that turnoff and goes a few metres further on, to a slightly lower summit).
https://www.strava.com/activities/1329068847

My best real effort (despite carrying a rucksack that day! ) on the real segment that rides past the Warren Lane junction, seems a reasonable time comparison. https://www.strava.com/activities/12493 ... /5550/6420

After a brief rest and some fluid, I then decided to try the Elite "training test." 10mins at 100W, then 10W increments every minute until it reached a pre-determined heartrate of 156bpm (I'm 44, max recorded heartrate of 189 this summer/autumn). The app then started a 10min countdown, trying to adjust the resistance and keep my heartrate near 156bpm.
https://www.strava.com/activities/13291 ... /1462/1727

Can a shortened duration FTP be determined from that result (which I guess is going to be low because of my virtual cat3 climb)?

Should I ignore today's test results in terms of getting an initial FTP and do the test again tomorrow or Friday, without having slogged myself through another turbo program beforehand?

jgsi

Where is your power being derived from, as in the P in FTP , being power?
Talk of 10 watts increments, heart rate and virtual hills is all very confusing.

A simple 20 minute , very high effort after a very good warm up of 20 minutes, is quite easy to undertake.
you then accept - less5% - the NP of that last effort to base your zones on .

N0bodyOfTheGoat

The Elite Direto turbo trainer uses ERG mode to vary the power during the test (I'm using the same gear ratio all throughout the test, the turbo alters the power required to keep turning the pedals), taking account of the user's supplied heart rate details, using Elite's own app "training test."

I've never done anything like an FTP test before, the Elite Direto's built-in power meter is my first encounter with such gizmos.

I only mentioned the "virtual hill" because I did that pretty intensive workout, where the app tries to replicate that real cat3 hill, not that long before I tried the "training test" for the first time. Given how I averaged 239W for that ~15min30secs workout, where I was sweating buckets towards the top, my guess is that it was far too intensive a warm up that would negatively affect the "training test" that I undertook ~25mins later.

Edit: Just looked again at the workout figures on the Elite app for Windows, the "threshold power W" is 277, which corresponds with the Strava workout where my heart rate exceeded 156bpm just after 26mins50secs. But in the following final 10mins of the test, the power is lowered by the Direto towards ~220W to keep my heart rate under 156bpm, hence my confusion of what the FTP of this test was... If it can be determined at all!

cookeeemonster

whatever app you're using to control the trainer (zwift? elite's own software etc) should have an ftp test program to work out your ftp, though it's really as simple as JGSI says - warmup then 20 minutes at max you can sustain for that time period then deduct 5% from the average, there really is nothing else to it. Forget trying to work it out from your ride, it'll give you the wrong value.

It's a horrible 20 minutes though, good luck!

Alex_Simmons/RST

NitrousOxide wrote:

Should I ignore today's test results in terms of getting an initial FTP and do the test again tomorrow or Friday, without having slogged myself through another turbo program beforehand?

Nothing you have mentioned makes much sense with respect to arriving at a good estimate of your FTP.

Read this old post of mine:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2008/ ... -sins.html

The only real update to that is #5 can be replaced with "suitable use of power-duration modelling". The Critical Power model then becomes a subset of the various P-D modelling options now available.

Alex_Simmons/RST

JGSI wrote:

Where is your power being derived from, as in the P in FTP , being power?
Talk of 10 watts increments, heart rate and virtual hills is all very confusing.

A simple 20 minute , very high effort after a very good warm up of 20 minutes, is quite easy to undertake.
you then accept - less5% - the NP of that last effort to base your zones on .

Agree it's a bit mixed up and KISS principle might instead be applied.

Just a minor comment - putting aside the 5% reduction factor since it's a bit individually variable (like 7% +/- 3%), I would not suggest using an NP value from an effort as short as 20-minutes. If paced well, then it will be pretty much the same as average power and no big deal but if the effort is somewhat variable, e.g. if done on slightly hilly terrain, then stick with the AP value.

burnthesheep

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

JGSI wrote:

Where is your power being derived from, as in the P in FTP , being power?
Talk of 10 watts increments, heart rate and virtual hills is all very confusing.

A simple 20 minute , very high effort after a very good warm up of 20 minutes, is quite easy to undertake.
you then accept - less5% - the NP of that last effort to base your zones on .

Agree it's a bit mixed up and KISS principle might instead be applied.

Just a minor comment - putting aside the 5% reduction factor since it's a bit individually variable (like 7% +/- 3%), I would not suggest using an NP value from an effort as short as 20-minutes. If paced well, then it will be pretty much the same as average power and no big deal but if the effort is somewhat variable, e.g. if done on slightly hilly terrain, then stick with the AP value.

I tend to agree with this. As NP gets at the physiological "cost" in power whereas a test is a test to get at the actual power for a period of time.

I've done a proper 20min test at 255. But I've done 265+ on the road in "NP" for about 35 min or so. That does NOT mean I can do 265. That just meant that was what the cost was of blasting off some 30 second sprints during that half hour.