Trainer Road Ramp Test

kingrollo

Did this for the first time the other night - it just didn't feel right.

I have a tacx flow 2240 smart turbo

I also have a usb dongle (ant +)

As the available devices showed up I connected to the ant + dongle.

I was doing the ramp test for about 18 minutes - even as I was going up the ramps it didn't feel any more difficult - sure I fatigued but just feel this would have happened the same on a non smart turbo - in the end I wasn't hitting the power targets and thought the test would have stopped at this point - but just carried on

I got bored at step 13 - it gave me an ftp of 109 - I am new to all this training on turbo's ....what did I do wrong |?

I thought the trainer road ramp test was only supposed to last 8 minutes - yet it seems it would have gone on forever ?

OnTheRopes

If you did this correctly, then you will have finished completely Bolloxed. You will have nothing left at the end and your heart rate will be pretty much maxed out. You would certainly not be bored, more likely scared of trying again for a while. If not then it sounds like something was wrong. Have a look at this if you like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtKTdf9 ... bgtzhGe6Qo

OnTheRopes

duplicate

supermurph09

Forum.trainerroad.com will have all the info you need. But...

If you got bored you did it wrong. When the steps change you need to be hitting the power shown on screen not just pedalling at the same rate. 109W is very low so it certainly looks like something was amiss.

You basically stop the test when you fail, the test should only be really hard in the last few minutes. TR will then take your best 1 minute power to figure out your FTP.

kingrollo

Supermurph09 wrote:

Forum.trainerroad.com will have all the info you need. But...

If you got bored you did it wrong. When the steps change you need to be hitting the power shown on screen not just pedalling at the same rate. 109W is very low so it certainly looks like something was amiss.

You basically stop the test when you fail, the test should only be really hard in the last few minutes. TR will then take your best 1 minute power to figure out your FTP.

I would have thought the test would stop when you failed to hit the power target ? - it just kept telling me to keep the cadence steady and how well I was doing ?

OnTheRopes

I don't use Trainer Road, but I don't see how it can give you a target wattage, the target is the maximum you can achieve to failure

kingrollo

OnTheRopes wrote:

I don't use Trainer Road, but I don't see how it can give you a target wattage, the target is the maximum you can achieve to failure

That was the one thing I was sure it was doing !!! ??????

I wasn't overly impressed to be honest - unless I missed it, it didn't even identify the first 5 minutes as warm up - it just assumed you knew this - yet kept giving a commentary of useless drivel.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Never used the Tacx app, but something sounds like it went wrong!

Have you followed the Tacx instructions for your turbo about calibrating it? Some turbos require you to do this before every training session, perhaps even with a pre-calibration warmup time.

As you have probably read, judging your effort on early FTP tests is not easy, if you weren't already used to pushing yourself to your limits for 20mins+.

To get an initial ballpark FTP, I'd simply use a free app or a free trial of an app with a long hill, for example Virtugo's Col de Soller (which will be too short if you think you can put out a 300W+ average) or better still, RoadGrandTours' Stelvio Pass (which I will use for this example)...
Set the slope feel at ~30% (based on Tacx 2240 emulating up to 6% slope and Stelvio having short spikes of up to 20%). Average gradient on climb is ~10%, so this low slope feel will give you the option of several easier gears, if you feel you need them.
Warm up for 5mins+ at the Stelvio base in an easy gear, using your small chainring for the whole session.
Then start your test, changing to a harder gear every say 5mins, unless you really really feel that your legs are utterly destroyed or your heart rate goes uncomfortably high compared to what you are used to seeing during hard efforts.
Ride for at least 20mins, but if you feel like you can keep going while increasing the gear inch ratio (i.e. putting out more power on average), keep going.
When dead, warm down for 5mins+ (ideally longer if you have time) in a very easy gear.

Use a site such as https://power-meter.cc/home or https://cricklesorg.wordpress.com/ (presuming you have a Strava account to link to), which will give you a ballpark baseline FTP figure to work with, based on 95% of the best 20mins of power you achieved.

I wasn't trying to do an "all out" FTP test, more just a good workout after a work shift yesterday afternoon, but I did something similar to above https://www.strava.com/activities/2022005530/overview . Gave me ~286W reading for best 20mins effort while barely exceeding my Lactate Threshold Heart Rate of ~166bpm, a recent all out effort was ~302W for 19mins 44secs on Col de Soller. In essence, it was a decent crude ballpark figure.

The more tests you do, the easier it will be to judge how hard you can push for 20mins+.

bsharp77

kingrollo wrote:

Did this for the first time the other night - it just didn't feel right.

I have a tacx flow 2240 smart turbo

I also have a usb dongle (ant +)

As the available devices showed up I connected to the ant + dongle.

I was doing the ramp test for about 18 minutes - even as I was going up the ramps it didn't feel any more difficult - sure I fatigued but just feel this would have happened the same on a non smart turbo - in the end I wasn't hitting the power targets and thought the test would have stopped at this point - but just carried on

I got bored at step 13 - it gave me an ftp of 109 - I am new to all this training on turbo's ....what did I do wrong |?

I thought the trainer road ramp test was only supposed to last 8 minutes - yet it seems it would have gone on forever ?

Hard to work out whats going on here Kingrollo - first thing to ask is was the trainer definitely in ERG mode to respond to the "steps"? If it wasn't feeling progressively harder every minute, then the trainer wasn't in ERG mode.
The typical ramp test lasts around 25 minutes and you should hardly be able to walk after it as its designed to push you to the maximum.

You say you weren't hitting the targets, but kept going anyway - you are supposed to stop as soon as you can't do any more....it tells you this during the "commentary" at the start.

One thing about indoor equipment and software is that it all requires a bit of investment in time to make sure everything is set up correctly and to actually learn about the system you are going to use.
As good as technology is, its not just a plug in and ride situation just yet.

Trainer Road support are very, very helpful so your first port of call should be there - they will give you much more concise help and may be able to pinpoint any unique problem you may be having that we wouldn't be able to figure out.
(there may be issues with ANT+, have you an option to try bluetooth and what device are you connecting to?)

You say you weren't very impressed, but to be honest, I don't think you've given it a fair shot - TR is one of the best training platforms out there.
To be fair, i'm not a fan of the T2240 - cheap and cheerful it may be, but not without problems and theres also issues where you won't be able to hit all power targets without changing gears, which makes things even more complicated and confusing to those new to the indoor training scene....thats where the direct drive trainers come into their own, although there is a cost implication.

I currently use TR with a spin bike and power tap P1 pedals connected to an iPad over bluetooth - a manual setup I grant you, but never had a single problem and TR is responsible for my FTP improving nearly 15% in the last 6 months even though I've been riding less and less due to a new baby.

It really is a great training platform and worth an investment of your time to get it all sorted.

Best of luck!

StillGoing

OnTheRopes wrote:

I don't use Trainer Road, but I don't see how it can give you a target wattage, the target is the maximum you can achieve to failure

A ramp test is a quicker, but still accurate method to establish your FTP. Each step of the staircase has a set watts to hit. You ride to that target increasing the watts with each step. Eventually you reach your ceiling with your lungs bursting, heart rate going hell bent for leather and feeling like you're about to meet your maker. The program then calculates from your performance, what your FTP is. It isn't the last step of the ramp that you achieved.

With a smart trainer, ERG mode ensures the resistance is applied so you simply match the required rpm. On a dumb trainer you have to ensure that you achieve the watts and rpm.

diamonddog

Obviously something not right. I did the FTP test using the same trainer and Tacx app, after I finished my wife said it looked like I had been beaten up.

joey54321

Just to clarify, you were running the TrainerRoad app connected to a Tacx turbo? Not the tacx app?

The only thing I can think of is
1) your FTP wasn't even in the ballpark when starting, the steps are in % of FTP, if you FTP is set to something ridiculous like 5 it might take ages.
2) you weren't in Erg mode, this will effect the trainers response to what TR is telling it the resistance should be.


If you go in to your account on TR and view how big the difference between each step is, that might help narrow it down.

daniel_b

You are getting confused between the 3 test types that TR offers.

The orginal ones are the twin 8 test - two 8 minute tests, with a rest period inbetween.
As long as these are within a close percentage of each other, they average them out, multiply the power value by 0.9, and that is your FTP value.
The 20 is similar, but just one 20 minute block - this is multiplied by 0.92 iirc.

Both of the above switch off ERG mode whilst you are on those time blocks, and it is up to you to have the right gear, and level of resistance set so you know what combination to be in the right kind of ballpark for what you are trying to achieve.

The ramp test I have tried, but it always under reads for me, so far I have never been able to achieve the same FTP I can on the twin 8 test.
This stays in ERG mode throughout, and needs no warm up, as it's all built it.
If you look at historical tests carried out by others, the average survival time seems to be around 20 minutes.

However, my gf had her original ftp set too low, and was on it for over half an hour, so sounds what has happened for you.
What is your FTP set to at present in TR?
I think it defaults to 200, but could be wrong.
If it was, maybe whack it up to 250, and repeat the test.

This may help.

https://blog.trainerroad.com/new-ramp-test-makes-ftp-testing-more-efficient-and-less-stressful/

Don't write it off, TR is a stunningly useful resource, and you really see the benefits out on the road.
Not saying you couldn't do that with other training programs, or make your own workouts, but for me personally, with a young family, full time job, it is a must have. I'm using my lunch hour to do a workout at 14:00 as it happens

joey54321

Daniel B wrote:

The ramp test I have tried, but it always under reads for me, so far I have never been able to achieve the same FTP I can on the twin 8 test.

Just out of interest have you validated the 8 min test against a 60 minute test? It could be that the 8 min over estimates rather than the ramp test under estimating? Just a thought.

Typical Analytical

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi ... D_TEST.pdf

daniel_b

joey54321 wrote:

Daniel B wrote:

The ramp test I have tried, but it always under reads for me, so far I have never been able to achieve the same FTP I can on the twin 8 test.

Just out of interest have you validated the 8 min test against a 60 minute test? It could be that the 8 min over estimates rather than the ramp test under estimating? Just a thought.

It's a valid point joey, and you could well be onto something - my pet theory is that I have a very high HR compared to most people, so I just seem to run out of steam sooner than I do for the longer steady efforts.

I have not tried to hold that power for an hour, I think they think most people cannot, and it's just a metric to use for subsequent workout intensities.

The reason I believe I end up with a low reading via the ramp test, is that if I stick with the ramp tests result, the workouts are not as hard as I believe they should be, ie the hard 0.95 IF ones don't feel as challenging as I remember them to be, if that makes sense.

On average, my ramp test results seem to be perhaps 5% less than the twin 8.

After someone on here bought my attention to the Enthusiast HIT maintenance plans, I have been enjoying those for the last 5 weeks or so, and have 3 left, before I switch to a low volume build plan.
Struggling to find time at the mo, so two 60 minute, and one 90 minute workout a week are proving pretty useful around my schedule. Will switch to a mid volume one as and when more time magicly becomes available!

Was beginning to lose the plot a bit, and was just getting too fatigued, 3 a week (none being easy) seems to be a good fit for me at the moment.

Oh and just to add to the OP's post about it only taking 8 minutes - both of the twin 8 and single 20 FTP test methods, are a full hour including warm up and cooldown - where as your ramp test with cooldown could easily be half that.

rdt

Daniel B wrote:

The reason I believe I end up with a low reading via the ramp test, is that if I stick with the ramp tests result, the workouts are not as hard as I believe they should be, ie the hard 0.95 IF ones don't feel as challenging as I remember them to be, if that makes sense.

On average, my ramp test results seem to be perhaps 5% less than the twin 8.

Maybe you're not completely emptying the tank in the Ramp Test?

I've found with practice that it's possible to hang on for a while, a minute or two, past the point where previously I might have quit. I'm talking about higher levels of perceived effort (not higher wattages because I'm now fitter) being maintainable due to increased mental tenacity (greater ability to suffer) and focus.

If not fully mentally focused, it might be quite possible to bale 5% lower. Could that be it?

8min and 20min tests require pacing skills that can be tricky, whereas the ramp test is simpler but requires an effort to failure which is mentally v tough; both approaches have strengths and weaknesses.

daniel_b

rdt wrote:

Daniel B wrote:

The reason I believe I end up with a low reading via the ramp test, is that if I stick with the ramp tests result, the workouts are not as hard as I believe they should be, ie the hard 0.95 IF ones don't feel as challenging as I remember them to be, if that makes sense.

On average, my ramp test results seem to be perhaps 5% less than the twin 8.

Maybe you're not completely emptying the tank in the Ramp Test?

I've found with practice that it's possible to hang on for a while, a minute or two, past the point where previously I might have quit. I'm talking about higher levels of perceived effort (not higher wattages because I'm now fitter) being maintainable due to increased mental tenacity (greater ability to suffer) and focus.

If not fully mentally focused, it might be quite possible to bale 5% lower. Could that be it?

8min and 20min tests require pacing skills that can be tricky, whereas the ramp test is simpler but requires an effort to failure which is mentally v tough; both approaches have strengths and weaknesses.

Hi rdt, it could easily be that, a mental thing.

I'm pretty good at suffering now though, but I think I can do better at getting through an 8 minute effort at a steady specific wattage - I mean it gets REALLY tough, and quite often when I do it, especially in the second one I feel like I am likely to stop, but only on one occasion I have folded completely, and I think that was going out too hard on the first one.
During the 8's I employ all sorts of 'methods' to get me through the interval - my most common is counting to various numbers - I normally try and complete them at circa 90rpm which seems to work well for me, so if I want to get rid of 3 minutes, I'll do something simple like count to 54 five times etc - it can be a big help\distraction for me to be couting up to 54, and then counting each of the 5 instances - weird I know, but seems to work for me.
During those 8's I am running at the highest HR I would really want to, but I know it's for a finite time.

As you say, the 8's and 20 (Not tried a 20 yet) are more about pacing, and maybe my mind is just more at home with that kind of challenge, constantly monitoring your cadence, how you are feeling, going too hard going too easy, is it completable etc etc

With the ramp one, I just seem to run out of puff earlier on, and can simply not keep the pedals going at the same cadence, my counting fails for me there, as the resistance is going up noticably (at the latter stages) every minute and I know it's only going to get tougher - perhaps psychological for me.
IIRC, I've made it to 18 or 19 minutes only on the 3 attempts.

I know I am probably in the minority, as people in general seem to love it.

In fact, last time I completed one, I cheated and added 5% onto my FTP value
Unscientific I know, but just today I completed a 0.95 workout, at full intensity - it was hard, but I wasn't destroyed at the end of it, though I certainly felt it.

kingrollo

OP HERE
Will check the ERG thingy and do a re test.

rdt

Daniel B wrote:

During the 8's I employ all sorts of 'methods' to get me through the interval - my most common is counting to various numbers - I normally try and complete them at circa 90rpm which seems to work well for me, so if I want to get rid of 3 minutes, I'll do something simple like count to 54 five times etc - it can be a big help\distraction for me to be couting up to 54, and then counting each of the 5 instances - weird I know, but seems to work for me.
During those 8's I am running at the highest HR I would really want to, but I know it's for a finite time.

It sounds like you've developed a very good technique to really maximise your efforts in the 8 min tests, but don't (yet!) have a similarly honed approach to the ramp test. It's entirely possible that honed vs. unpolished technique difference accounts for the divergent results.

Maybe, as you say, the constant effort tests really suit you in a way that the ramp never will, but also maybe with more practice you'd improve your ramp test technique and results would converge with the 8 mins.

We're drawn to things that deliver better results (bigger numbers!) so not surprising you prefer the 8 min test currently

cougie

You won't be bored if you do it properly.
You'll be absolutely knackered.

daniel_b

rdt wrote:

Daniel B wrote:

During the 8's I employ all sorts of 'methods' to get me through the interval - my most common is counting to various numbers - I normally try and complete them at circa 90rpm which seems to work well for me, so if I want to get rid of 3 minutes, I'll do something simple like count to 54 five times etc - it can be a big help\distraction for me to be couting up to 54, and then counting each of the 5 instances - weird I know, but seems to work for me.
During those 8's I am running at the highest HR I would really want to, but I know it's for a finite time.

It sounds like you've developed a very good technique to really maximise your efforts in the 8 min tests, but don't (yet!) have a similarly honed approach to the ramp test. It's entirely possible that honed vs. unpolished technique difference accounts for the divergent results.

Maybe, as you say, the constant effort tests really suit you in a way that the ramp never will, but also maybe with more practice you'd improve your ramp test technique and results would converge with the 8 mins.

We're drawn to things that deliver better results (bigger numbers!) so not surprising you prefer the 8 min test currently

Yes I reckon you may have hit the nail on the head there
Although in my defence (as it were) if I was unable to complete the workouts off the higher ftp, I would readily swap to the lower reading.
Perhaps I should persevere and see if I can improve at it, will likely give it another go early January.
I would certainly like to be able to complete the ramp test equally as well, as I realise it's a lot less draining, especially if you're completing them every few weeks.

Either that, or I stick to my ramp test + 5% formula

StillGoing

Daniel B wrote:

rdt wrote:

Daniel B wrote:

During the 8's I employ all sorts of 'methods' to get me through the interval - my most common is counting to various numbers - I normally try and complete them at circa 90rpm which seems to work well for me, so if I want to get rid of 3 minutes, I'll do something simple like count to 54 five times etc - it can be a big help\distraction for me to be couting up to 54, and then counting each of the 5 instances - weird I know, but seems to work for me.
During those 8's I am running at the highest HR I would really want to, but I know it's for a finite time.

It sounds like you've developed a very good technique to really maximise your efforts in the 8 min tests, but don't (yet!) have a similarly honed approach to the ramp test. It's entirely possible that honed vs. unpolished technique difference accounts for the divergent results.

Maybe, as you say, the constant effort tests really suit you in a way that the ramp never will, but also maybe with more practice you'd improve your ramp test technique and results would converge with the 8 mins.

We're drawn to things that deliver better results (bigger numbers!) so not surprising you prefer the 8 min test currently

Yes I reckon you may have hit the nail on the head there
Although in my defence (as it were) if I was unable to complete the workouts off the higher ftp, I would readily swap to the lower reading.
Perhaps I should persevere and see if I can improve at it, will likely give it another go early January.
I would certainly like to be able to complete the ramp test equally as well, as I realise it's a lot less draining, especially if you're completing them every few weeks.

Either that, or I stick to my ramp test + 5% formula

I wouldn't say the ramp test was less draining as I always feel worse after a ramp test than say a CP20 test, although the Sufferfest Full Frontal is something again. Its a shorter test is all, so shorter pain for the result.

rdt

Daniel B wrote:

Either that, or I stick to my ramp test + 5% formula

I don't see a problem with that - the purpose of the FTP test is just to calibrate the TR workouts to your level of ability.

If a TR plan as a whole seems too easy at an FTP of RampTestResult * 100%, but remain doable at RampTestResult * 105% then the latter is probably the number to use.

Perhaps just be mindful that RampTestResult might converge towards 8minTestResult over time, so you may need to progressively dial back the 105% towards 100% else you'll be pushing too hard. Be on the lookout for your workout failure rate to begin increasing.

NB in a coming release TR are going to be automatically classifying workout success/failure, as part of their big data (mining) efforts, which might be useful for monitoring your failure rate:
https://forum.trainerroad.com/t/our-tra ... oving/7855

daniel_b

philthy3 wrote:

I wouldn't say the ramp test was less draining as I always feel worse after a ramp test than say a CP20 test, although the Sufferfest Full Frontal is something again. Its a shorter test is all, so shorter pain for the result.

Ah ok, I am only going on how TR seemed to promote it, they seemed to say it was less taxing on the body, as it was less effort than the single 20 or the twin 8, and therefore they thought it took less time to recover from, and could be done more frequently.

Do you find you reover quicker?

Unless you are the opposite to me, and put more effort out in the ramp than the traditional one.

rdt wrote:

Daniel B wrote:

Either that, or I stick to my ramp test + 5% formula

I don't see a problem with that - the purpose of the FTP test is just to calibrate the TR workouts to your level of ability.

If a TR plan as a whole seems too easy at an FTP of RampTestResult * 100%, but remain doable at RampTestResult * 105% then the latter is probably the number to use.

Perhaps just be mindful that RampTestResult might converge towards 8minTestResult over time, so you may need to progressively dial back the 105% towards 100% else you'll be pushing too hard. Be on the lookout for your workout failure rate to begin increasing.

NB in a coming release TR are going to be automatically classifying workout success/failure, as part of their big data (mining) efforts, which might be useful for monitoring your failure rate:
https://forum.trainerroad.com/t/our-tra ... oving/7855

Yes that's true enough, a good enough argument\reason to stick with the ramp test, and as you say, just monitor if I start to fail to hit targets for a specific workout.

bvduck

philthy3 wrote:

I wouldn't say the ramp test was less draining as I always feel worse after a ramp test than say a CP20 test, although the Sufferfest Full Frontal is something again. Its a shorter test is all, so shorter pain for the result.

Any fitness test is going to be hard. But they're not all created equal. One test might be shorter than another, but that might mean that the result is less accurate and/or useful. You might find this review of the pros/cons of different kinds of tests that our Coaches Neal Henderson and Mac Cassin wrote up at The Sufferfest useful: https://thesufferfest.com/blogs/trainin ... ey-measure

It covers:
Full Frontal Fitness Test (60-minute, single session power profile)
2 x 8-minute FTP Test
20-minute FTP Test
60-minute FTP Test
Multi-Day Power Profile
MAP Ramp Test
FTP Ramp Test
Continuous Data Analysis

barongreenback

And amazingly the Sufferfest says their test is better than everyone else's! What a surprise! Seriously though, I respect the work that you put into your protocol but you have a commercial advantage in promoting yours, just as TrainerRoad have a commercial advantage in saying their move to a ramp test is the best too. You both have lots of good data from your users and I suspect that before long, Zwift will also come up with a proprietary testing protocol based on the data they have from all their riders.

I've done 8 min, 20 min and ramp tests and they are also evil/painful in their own ways. So far I would say the ramp test was the most painful in absolute terms even if it was a shorter duration of pain.

StillGoing

barongreenback wrote:

And amazingly the Sufferfest says their test is better than everyone else's! What a surprise! Seriously though, I respect the work that you put into your protocol but you have a commercial advantage in promoting yours, just as TrainerRoad have a commercial advantage in saying their move to a ramp test is the best too. You both have lots of good data from your users and I suspect that before long, Zwift will also come up with a proprietary testing protocol based on the data they have from all their riders.

I've done 8 min, 20 min and ramp tests and they are also evil/painful in their own ways. So far I would say the ramp test was the most painful in absolute terms even if it was a shorter duration of pain.

I'll agree with that. I've done CP20, Full Frontal, 2 x 8 min and Ramp tests. They all hurt (although I couldn't get used to 2 x 8 min and gave up on it after the 2nd attempt) but Full Frontal and the Ramp test hurt most. After both I curled up in a ball with the head down hoping not to pass out.

Daniel B wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

I wouldn't say the ramp test was less draining as I always feel worse after a ramp test than say a CP20 test, although the Sufferfest Full Frontal is something again. Its a shorter test is all, so shorter pain for the result.

Ah ok, I am only going on how TR seemed to promote it, they seemed to say it was less taxing on the body, as it was less effort than the single 20 or the twin 8, and therefore they thought it took less time to recover from, and could be done more frequently.

Do you find you reover quicker?

Unless you are the opposite to me, and put more effort out in the ramp than the traditional one.

The Ramp test is easier to follow. The watts and cadence are set so the user just matches it for each segment or they fail the test at that point. You continue until failure. By the time you reach the failure point, you should be on your chin strap fighting for breath and the strength to continue. It hurts and I feel like I'm dying afterwards. The beauty of it is though, you can repeat it frequently even after a days rest. I actually find it a decent workout when I'm struggling for time.

rdt

philthy3 wrote:

The Ramp test is easier to follow.
...
It hurts and I feel like I'm dying afterwards. The beauty of it is though, you can repeat it frequently even after a days rest.

For me, those are the two key benefits of the rampt test approach.
Restated:

- The erg-based protocol means that "user error" (eg. pacing) is removed from the equation.

- And although murderous in the last few minutes, the day after the test I've also still been able to do tough workouts.

These two factors make me much more willing to do a test than with other protocols, which means I get to measure my progress (or lack) more frequently, ensuring workouts are correctly calibrated to my changing ability.


I've very happy to accept the compromises of the ramp test protocol (such as its focus on a certain aspect of fitness/ability) in exchange for the pluses above. As a non-racing punter, increased aerobic power (FTP, VO2max) are my objectives.

A more comprehensive test isn't so useful to me as a "joe punter" if (a) that test's format is such that it deters me from ever wanting to do it and (b) some of the stuff it's attempting to measure isn't of that much use or interest to me because of the type of cycling I do (non-racing, hence sprint abilities of low relevance to me, etc).


It's horses for courses innit, and the TR ramp test suits me pretty well. I see it as a pragmatic and practical compromise. Maybe they'll introduce some machine learning down the line that'll be able to discern, to some extent, FTP changes (improvements) from analysis of completed workout data, to enable an even more frequent (continuous) estimation of FTP? That'd be nice.

Vino'sGhost

I did this test and it left me a gibbering mess. I wasn't right for 2 days afterwards absolutely brutal. in the end t was as much a mental as a physical battle.

Its the same way each time. absoloutley brilliant.

kingrollo

OP Here.

Tonight I did a retest.

Trainer : Tacxflow 2240 smart
Calibrated with tacx app & checked twice
Checked trainer road is working in ERG Mode
Couldn't get a connection via BT - So used ANT+ Dongle
Trainer Road Ramp Test

Including the warm up I cycled foe 28 mins covering 7 miles - I stopped when I couldn't hit the power target. It gave me an FTP of 128

I still didn't feel the resistance increase as I went up the steps - I just found it harder to hit the target wattage.
I know I am not that fit as I have been off the bike with a back injury and in case I am a poor asthmatic with a peak flow of 400 on a good day.
On normal rides an average of 15 mph is very good me. so I am happy with the FTP as a starting point - but just don't get why the resistance doesn't seem to increase of what is supposedly a smart trainer.

EDIT - Despite everyone telling me to ensure trainer is in ERG mode - trainer road are saying you should be in resistance mode

https://support.trainerroad.com/hc/en-u ... +increases


EDIT 2 - Had the following response from TR support - which I don't understand


Thanks for reaching out. I took a look at your test and it looks like you were running into what is called a wattage floor for the majority of the ride. The area squared is where it looks like it is happening:

The wattage floor occurs when you're running into the lower mechanical limit of your trainer and it is impossible for you to reach the power target due to this. The good news is that the wattage floor is usually pretty easy to avoid. If you find that you're running into the wattage floor, try shifting into an easier gear. The trainer's wattage floor is lower when using easy gearing combinations, so down-shifting should allow you to reach those low power target. You will also notice the wattage floor less as you raise your FTP.

If you feel like you can start at a higher FTP than you're getting now you may want to consider manually raising your FTP and testing from there. This would allow a wider range of powers to be tested. To manually change, your FTP just hit the Account tab in the app and change it from there.

Let me know if this makes sense and I look forward to hearing from you soon!