FTP - Functional Threshold Power....how big is yours!! - Page 3 - boards.ie
Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
05-01-2012, 15:42   #31
tunney
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dublin
Posts: 9,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by T runner View Post
I was thinking about the various distances that people would race and how their specialities would affect how they do in this test?

A person specialising in 60 minute time trials would do better in this test than the same person who specialised in Long stage races, assuming his potential ability in both was similar.

If the test can be applied to correlate to hill running climbing potential is probably a question for a hill running forum although the 1 hour basis is average for hill races here.
The purpose of the test is not to get the best number for the numbers sake but to use that number to guide your training best. unlike HR training there are much more rigid bands of effort versus reward and quantification of what the rewards are, see table 2 here

What you are getting at is more the power profile of a rider which is done by testing 5 s, 1 min, 5 min, and at functional threshold power (see here for more details.

However its not so much 1hr versus longer. A 1 hr time trial will predict performances rather well at longer event. 1 hr is long in bike testing.

Consider a 180km IM bike leg, people typically race it at 75% of FTP, a 20km sprint bike leg would be at or over 100%FTP. So a five hour IM biker versus a 30 minute sprint biker, which one would do better at this test? The one with the higher FTP. FTP is a measure of aerobic not anerobic hence the 5min TT to burn out the legs.
tunney is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
05-01-2012, 16:23   #32
twonpelota
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 80
UserCurrent FTPWatts/kgTarget FTPTarget Watts/kgTestUnit
Jackyback284watts4.17325watts5.00T20Power2Max PM
NWM2285watts3.32310watts3.7T5+T20*0.95Powertap SL2+
pgibbo232watts3.18300watts4.35T5+T20*0.95Power2Max PM
twonpelota250 watts3.2300watts4.4T5+T20*0.95SRM
twonpelota is offline  
05-01-2012, 16:56   #33
jackyback
Registered User
 
jackyback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Swimming/Cycling/Running
Posts: 7,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgunmcos View Post
I'll let you PM guys have this challenge as Im one of the Taxc Flow owners with an overinflated FTP

But at least I did mine off a T60 Damn near saw the pearly gates too
Sure stick it up as it was included for everyone inclusive of turbos. Whilst it may be over inflated at least you recalibrate so there is consistency in your numbers and the repeat tests should show improvement through the season with an ultimate target in mind.

How did your T60 results compare to your T5+T20*0.95 numbers?
jackyback is offline  
05-01-2012, 16:59   #34
jackyback
Registered User
 
jackyback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Swimming/Cycling/Running
Posts: 7,499
UserCurrent FTPWatts/kgTarget FTPTarget Watts/kgTestUnit
Jackyback284watts4.17325watts5.00T20+T20*0.95Power2Max PM
NWM2285watts3.32310watts3.7T5+T20*0.95Powertap SL2+
pgibbo232watts3.18300watts4.35T5+T20*0.95Power2Max PM
twonpelota250 watts3.2300watts4.4T5+T20*0.95SRM

Table amended with test type.

Not many sharers out there either,
A) Too shy
B) Not testing/training with power/turbo
C) Keeping cards close to your chest so a target is not drawn on your back

I will go with B and a sprinkle of C!!

By the way this is a great read and tells you all you need to know.
jackyback is offline  
05-01-2012, 17:13   #35
shotgunmcos
Moderator
 
shotgunmcos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Limerick
Posts: 4,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackyback View Post
Sure stick it up as it was included for everyone inclusive of turbos. Whilst it may be over inflated at least you recalibrate so there is consistency in your numbers and the repeat tests should show improvement through the season with an ultimate target in mind.

How did your T60 results compare to your T5+T20*0.95 numbers?
The mad thing about the over inflated taxc numbers is that if I were to take lets say the 20% probability out it would drop my FTP to about about 250w by your PM standards. That would put me about 35w behind you. Now, considering I'm about a minute slower than this guy over a 15km hilly TT course, I see bright things in your future on the saddle

The 2*T20 was a disaster, went too hard on the first one and died a death on the second, came out with alower FTP than 2010. The T60 was approached more cautiously and although I faded in the last 10 mins I held it together for an improvement on the T5+T20 result at the end of 2010. Which was not bad considering the IM programme was all endurance for me. I barely touched FTP over 80%. Th eimprovement is entirely related to focus on power in the last 2 months

Last edited by shotgunmcos; 05-01-2012 at 17:16.
shotgunmcos is offline  
Advertisement
05-01-2012, 17:21   #36
Nwm2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackyback View Post
Not many sharers out there either,
A) Too shy
B) Not testing/training with power/turbo
C) Keeping cards close to your chest so a target is not drawn on your back

I will go with B and a sprinkle of C!!

By the way this is a great read and tells you all you need to know.
The numbers up so far are probably above average, which may put people with lower numbers off. MCOS is probably well over 300 when he adds it in.

People - don't be shy. I was 223W a year ago, and I would say based on what I read on various forums that there are lots of people at around 200W or lower. I'm guessing there is a big absolute power difference between males and females also.
Nwm2 is offline  
05-01-2012, 17:30   #37
pgibbo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Galway
Posts: 3,184
Send a message via MSN to pgibbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwm2 View Post
The numbers up so far are probably above average, which may put people with lower numbers off. MCOS is probably well over 300 when he adds it in.

People - don't be shy. I was 223W a year ago, and I would say based on what I read on various forums that there are lots of people at around 200W or lower. I'm guessing there is a big absolute power difference between males and females also.
Roll up, roll up......I don't want to be Paddy last!
pgibbo is offline  
05-01-2012, 17:36   #38
duffyshuffle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 608
Waiting on my PT so will update when it arrives and I do some suffering
duffyshuffle is offline  
05-01-2012, 17:37   #39
Notwitch
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgibbo View Post
Roll up, roll up......I don't want to be Paddy last!
Give it a bit of time. Scheduling a test plays a part too.

Also, now with the new '% movement off base' measure, rather than absolute value, the incentive is there to low ball the first number!!
Notwitch is offline  
Advertisement
05-01-2012, 18:34   #40
Fazz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,044
UserCurrent FTPWatts/kgTarget FTPTarget Watts/kgTestUnit
Jackyback284watts4.17325watts5.00T20+T20*0.95Power2Max PM
NWM2285watts3.32310watts3.7T5+T20*0.95Powertap SL2+
pgibbo232watts3.18300watts4.35T5+T20*0.95Power2Max PM
twonpelota250 watts3.2300watts4.4T5+T20*0.95SRM
Fazz255 watts3.76300 watts4.4T5+T20*0.95Computrainer

Is it me or are some folks aiming too high for improvements?
Or else weight loss is a factor!

I think mine are gonna be hard to achieve and 4 watts per kg is my first and main milestone. The 4.4 is a top level goal of 300ftp.

I think the figures should be taken with a relative pinch of salt as calibration is a fair differential from device to device I'd say.
But the improvement tracker is the main aim and I'm going for 10-17%

Next cp20 is next week for me.
Fazz is offline  
05-01-2012, 20:22   #41
tunney
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dublin
Posts: 9,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgunmcos View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackyback View Post
Sure stick it up as it was included for everyone inclusive of turbos. Whilst it may be over inflated at least you recalibrate so there is consistency in your numbers and the repeat tests should show improvement through the season with an ultimate target in mind.

How did your T60 results compare to your T5+T20*0.95 numbers?
The mad thing about the over inflated taxc numbers is that if I were to take lets say the 20% probability out it would drop my FTP to about about 250w by your PM standards. That would put me about 35w behind you. Now, considering I'm about a minute slower than this guy over a 15km hilly TT course, I see bright things in your future on the saddle

The 2*T20 was a disaster, went too hard on the first one and died a death on the second, came out with alower FTP than 2010. The T60 was approached more cautiously and although I faded in the last 10 mins I held it together for an improvement on the T5+T20 result at the end of 2010. Which was not bad considering the IM programme was all endurance for me. I barely touched FTP over 80%. Th eimprovement is entirely related to focus on power in the last 2 months
Up to 20%, yours mightn't be. Although an ftp over 300 should mean/meant a sub five IM bike.
tunney is offline  
05-01-2012, 22:17   #42
jackyback
Registered User
 
jackyback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Swimming/Cycling/Running
Posts: 7,499
@MCOS you are a stronger biker than me at the moment thats for sure but all that will change when i go into a secret training camp and come Barca time i will give you a right doing over. Right enough smack talk
Whilst i came across a large difference on my turbo and PM as Tunney says i would say yours is much less considering you posted a 5:05 (correct me if i am wrong) Given your race weight was probably 7-10kg heavier than me and taking an average aero position your FTP must have been around the 310-320 range on the turbo last year?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tunney View Post
Up to 20%, yours mightn't be. Although an ftp over 300 should mean/meant a sub five IM bike.
Not necessarily though as there are lots of variables as you well know, weight of rider, cda, crr and the the main variable is each individual may pace differently some at 70% others at 75% or 80%.
I know personally for me an FTP of 300 would leave me pacing my IM bike split around 70% for 210watts and as MCOS reckons i weigh the same as a large pigeon it should get me a sub 5 bike split and still have fresh legs to run.
jackyback is offline  
05-01-2012, 22:46   #43
shotgunmcos
Moderator
 
shotgunmcos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Limerick
Posts: 4,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fazz View Post
Is it me or are some folks aiming too high for improvements?
Or else weight loss is a factor!
.
I reckon WL is the defining factor actually

Quote:
Originally Posted by tunney View Post
Up to 20%, yours mightn't be. Although an ftp over 300 should mean/meant a sub five IM bike.
I suspected that I can't be that much off either. My heart rate corresponds generally with the zones, SS, LT, VO2 etc..

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackyback View Post
... come Barca time i will give you a right doing over. Right enough smack talk
I'm going to hold you to this. I now have it saved along side Tunney saying that no adult learner will ever crack 1:10/100m in a pool


Quote:
Originally Posted by jackyback View Post
Whilst i came across a large difference on my turbo and PM as Tunney says i would say yours is much less considering you posted a 5:05 (correct me if i am wrong) Given your race weight was probably 7-10kg heavier than me and taking an average aero position your FTP must have been around the 310-320 range on the turbo last year?
.
Race weight was 76kg. Bike was 5:03. I have never had a bike fit so I suspect there is more to come with a proper fit and being more aero etc..
I didn't really test FTP last winter. I was more concerned about my base fitness than power. I had done about 2 months of power work before the World AGs in Budapest and I had a flyer of a bike on the pan flat course (40kmh+ avg).

In Roth I found myself in pace groups with sub9 guys. I held them on the flats, passed them on descents and where I made my fundamental error was pushing too hard up hills. They were probably 5-6 kg less than me with several IMs under their belt. It was a rookie mistake that I believe together with a couple of other factors lead to my breakdown on the run.

FWIW my current FTP is 318w on the Taxc Flow and based on a T60. That puts me at 4.02w/kg. I have a 2*T20 test coming up this month and while I'd like to move the power in the right direction, I'd be satisfied to have the same output at 2kg less than the last test. I'd like to get my output to 4.5w/kg and realistically that requires an improvement to 330w and a drop of 6kg In reality though I need more than that. I need to spend time on the saddle cycling up hills too!
shotgunmcos is offline  
Thanks from:
05-01-2012, 23:11   #44
nerraw1111
Closed Account
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,813
So how would one go about doing an FTP test on a flow? Calib to zero, go hard for five mins, recover, hard for 20, post results and then wait for Tunney to rubbish it?

Is this how you lads and lasses measure progress?
nerraw1111 is offline  
05-01-2012, 23:49   #45
shotgunmcos
Moderator
 
shotgunmcos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Limerick
Posts: 4,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerraw1111 View Post
So how would one go about doing an FTP test on a flow? Calib to zero, go hard for five mins, recover, hard for 20, post results and then wait for Tunney to rubbish it?

Is this how you lads and lasses measure progress?
Calib to zero set brake to +1 then 3 options

1) warm up 10 mins with some 30sec bursts to raise your HR. Then 5 min TT all out. 10 min easy. 20 mins all out recording avg power and HR

2) warm up same. 20 min TT. 2 min rest. Another 20 min TT. Take average power and HR value of both to score

3) warm up same. 60 mins all out.
shotgunmcos is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet