Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

FTP - Functional Threshold Power....how big is yours!!

24567…13

Comments

  • #32
    twonpelota
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭twonpelota


    User|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
    Jackyback|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20|Power2Max PM
    NWM2|285watts|3.32|310watts|3.7|T5+T20*0.95|Powertap SL2+
    pgibbo|232watts|3.18|300watts|4.35|T5+T20*0.95|Power2Max PM
    twonpelota|250 watts|3.2|300watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|SRM


  • #33
    hf4z6sqo7vjngi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,454 ✭✭✭hf4z6sqo7vjngi


    shotgunmcos wrote: »
    I'll let you PM guys have this challenge as Im one of the Taxc Flow owners with an overinflated FTP :rolleyes:

    But at least I did mine off a T60 :P 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?


  • #34
    hf4z6sqo7vjngi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,454 ✭✭✭hf4z6sqo7vjngi


    User|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
    Jackyback|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20+T20*0.95|Power2Max PM
    NWM2|285watts|3.32|310watts|3.7|T5+T20*0.95|Powertap SL2+
    pgibbo|232watts|3.18|300watts|4.35|T5+T20*0.95|Power2Max PM
    twonpelota|250 watts|3.2|300watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|SRM


    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:p

    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.


  • #35
    shotgunmcos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭shotgunmcos


    Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »
    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


  • #36
    Nwm2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Nwm2


    Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »
    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:p

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    pgibbo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,377 Mod ✭✭✭✭pgibbo


    Nwm2 wrote: »
    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! :D


  • #38
    duffyshuffle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 767 ✭✭✭duffyshuffle


    Waiting on my PT so will update when it arrives and I do some suffering


  • #39
    Notwitch
    Registered Users Posts: 157 ✭✭Notwitch


    pgibbo wrote: »
    Roll up, roll up......I don't want to be Paddy last! :D

    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!!


  • #40
    Fazz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭Fazz


    User|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
    Jackyback|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20+T20*0.95|Power2Max PM
    NWM2|285watts|3.32|310watts|3.7|T5+T20*0.95|Powertap SL2+
    pgibbo|232watts|3.18|300watts|4.35|T5+T20*0.95|Power2Max PM
    twonpelota|250 watts|3.2|300watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|SRM
    Fazz|255 watts|3.76|300 watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|Computrainer


    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.


  • #41
    tunney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,584 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    shotgunmcos wrote: »
    Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    hf4z6sqo7vjngi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,454 ✭✭✭hf4z6sqo7vjngi


    @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?

    tunney wrote: »
    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.


  • #43
    shotgunmcos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭shotgunmcos


    Fazz wrote: »
    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
    tunney wrote: »
    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..
    Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »
    ... 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 ;)

    Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »
    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 :eek: In reality though I need more than that. I need to spend time on the saddle cycling up hills too!


  • #44
    nerraw1111
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭nerraw1111


    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?


  • #45
    shotgunmcos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭shotgunmcos


    nerraw1111 wrote: »
    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.


  • #46
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    tunney wrote: »
    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

    Not even mathematics really uses numbers just for numbers sake Tunney!

    No, this test can also be used as a comparison to previous tests to check progression or regression. Surely you note progression from one test to next and dont just use it solely to plot out a spectrum of general training intensities? Feedback is a vital part in guiding your training, and shouldnt be ignored.
    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.

    I disagree. All things otherwise being equal the cyclist whose specific event involves racing at 100% FTP will have a higher FTP than if his specific event involves racing at 75% FTP. It cant be any other way.


  • #47
    pgibbo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,377 Mod ✭✭✭✭pgibbo


    shotgunmcos wrote: »
    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.

    I think setting the brake to +1 after calibration is key. I've found having both the output of the P2M and the flow visible that when you go to +1 on the brake that the power output figure for the flow reduces whereas it increases with the P2M. Jsut an observation and a sa result I think a brake of zero definitely gives more inflated figures.

    2 & 3 above are just sadistic Mike! :D


  • #48
    hf4z6sqo7vjngi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,454 ✭✭✭hf4z6sqo7vjngi


    pgibbo wrote: »
    I think setting the brake to +1 after calibration is key. I've found having both the output of the P2M and the flow visible that when you go to +1 on the brake that the power output figure for the flow reduces whereas it increases with the P2M. Jsut an observation and a sa result I think a brake of zero definitely gives more inflated figures.

    2 & 3 above are just sadistic Mike! :D

    +1 on the slope setting its a more accurate reading on the turbo and the numbers go up to a level that compares with outside riding on the power meter.
    Just on testing, options 2 & 3 are fine as once off tests but not repeat tests as they are too taxing on the body especially in the midst of heavy training and your sessions will suffer as a result.

    @MCOS i was doing some rough calculations and you would probably need to be hitting about 220/5watts for a sub 5 bike with the 11kg weight deficit to a large pigeon like myself:).
    Bringing it back to FTP's 300watts for me and 320watts for your good self and thats pacing at 70%.

    Just seen my plan for next week, perfect timing with a T5+T20 coming up:)


  • #49
    tunney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,584 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    Miles Embarrassed Ubiquity wrote: »
    +1 on the slope setting its a more accurate reading on the turbo and the numbers go up to a level that compares with outside riding on the power meter.
    Just on testing, options 2 & 3 are fine as once off tests but not repeat tests as they are too taxing on the body especially in the midst of heavy training and your sessions will suffer as a result.

    @MCOS i was doing some rough calculations and you would probably need to be hitting about 220/5watts for a sub 5 bike with the 11kg weight deficit to a large pigeon like myself:).
    Bringing it back to FTP's 300watts for me and 320watts for your good self and thats pacing at 70%.

    Just seen my plan for next week, perfect timing with a T5+T20 coming up:)

    Sub 5 can be done on <210 watts for someone weighing around 68-70kg with a reasonable position.


  • #50
    tunney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,584 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    T runner wrote: »
    Not even mathematics really uses numbers just for numbers sake Tunney!

    No, this test can also be used as a comparison to previous tests to check progression or regression. Surely you note progression from one test to next and dont just use it solely to plot out a spectrum of general training intensities? Feedback is a vital part in guiding your training, and shouldnt be ignored.

    Main goal is guiding training. training with power is very different to training with HR. Progress is interesting, especially in a historical context but main goal is present training
    T runner wrote: »
    I disagree. All things otherwise being equal the cyclist whose specific event involves racing at 100% FTP will have a higher FTP than if his specific event involves racing at 75% FTP. It cant be any other way.

    Agree to disagree.


  • #51
    nerraw1111
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭nerraw1111


    About to stick up my flow figures. Did T5 + T20 test on a flow and in doing so, I will lift Pquibbo from paddy last.

    Quick question, when people say T5 + T20 * 0.95, are you adding the watts from T5 and T20 together and then multiplying that total by .95?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    pgibbo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,377 Mod ✭✭✭✭pgibbo


    nerraw1111 wrote: »
    About to stick up my flow figures. Did T5 + T20 test on a flow and in doing so, I will lift Pquibbo from paddy last.

    Quick question, when people say T5 + T20 * 0.95, are you adding the watts from T5 and T20 together and then multiplying that total by .95?

    Just take the average of the T20 and multiply it by 0.95. So if you have 245W from the T20, you're FTP is 232


  • #53
    tunney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,584 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    nerraw1111 wrote: »
    About to stick up my flow figures. Did T5 + T20 test on a flow and in doing so, I will lift Pquibbo from paddy last.

    Quick question, when people say T5 + T20 * 0.95, are you adding the watts from T5 and T20 together and then multiplying that total by .95?

    No, just the T20 x 0.95


  • #54
    nerraw1111
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭nerraw1111


    User|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
    Jackyback|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20+T20*0.95|Power2Max PM
    NWM2|285watts|3.32|310watts|3.7|T5+T20*0.95|Powertap SL2+
    pgibbo|232watts|3.18|300watts|4.35|T5+T20*0.95|Power2Max PM
    twonpelota|250 watts|3.2|300watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|SRM
    Fazz|255 watts|3.76|300 watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|Computrainer
    Nerraw|216 watts|3.33|280 watts|4.3|T5+T20*0.95|Tacx Flow


    You're welcome pqibbo. ;)

    My target watt I simply made up on the spot as I don't know enough about testing/my cycling to put down a more specific target. Definitely an honest test, as I was wrecked after the T5.

    Still, according to Tunney, I can do a sub 5 Ironman bike with a good position ;)


  • #55
    mloc123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭mloc123


    nerraw1111 wrote: »
    Still, according to Tunney, I can do a sub 5 Ironman bike with a good position ;)

    Well if you were to race an IM at FTP, you could.

    Your IM pace would be more like 155watts


  • #56
    shotgunmcos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭shotgunmcos


    User|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
    Jackyback|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20+T20*0.95|Power2Max PM
    NWM2|285watts|3.32|310watts|3.7|T5+T20*0.95|Powertap SL2+
    pgibbo|232watts|3.18|300watts|4.35|T5+T20*0.95|Power2Max PM
    twonpelota|250 watts|3.2|300watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|SRM
    Fazz|255 watts|3.76|300 watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|Computrainer
    Nerraw|216 watts|3.33|280 watts|4.3|T5+T20*0.95|Tacx Flow
    shotgunmcos|318 watts|4.02|330watts|4.4|T20,2,T20|Tacx Flow


  • #57
    pgibbo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,377 Mod ✭✭✭✭pgibbo


    How do people propose progress gets tracked with this table? I retest this week and am wondering if I overwrite my current entry or add a new one?


  • #58
    nerraw1111
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭nerraw1111


    mloc123 wrote: »
    Well if you were to race an IM at FTP, you could.

    Your IM pace would be more like 155watts

    Way to burst my bubble. I'd be barely moving at that rate.


  • #59
    tunney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,584 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    User|Starting FTP|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
    Jackyback|284watts|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20+T20*0.95|Power2Max PM
    NWM2|285watts|285watts|3.32|310watts|3.7|T5+T20*0.95|Powertap SL2+
    pgibbo|232watts|232watts|3.18|300watts|4.35|T5+T20*0.95|Power2Max PM
    twonpelota|250 watts|250 watts|3.2|300watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|SRM
    Fazz|255 watts|255 watts|3.76|300 watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|Computrainer
    Nerraw|216 watts|216 watts|3.33|280 watts|4.3|T5+T20*0.95|Tacx Flow
    shotgunmcos|318 watts|318 watts|4.02|330watts|4.4|T20,2,T20|Tacx Flow


  • #60
    duffyshuffle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 767 ✭✭✭duffyshuffle


    No PT yet. I've done the wind gate(?) (3 min incremental power increases) bike test in TCD and have gotten HR/Power @ Lactate Threshold (2mmol)

    Is this the same as FTP or will it give a different reading if anyone has done T20*.95 and lab testing to compare?

    Should it give the same result?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    pgibbo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,377 Mod ✭✭✭✭pgibbo


    User|Starting FTP|Current FTP|Watts/kg|Target FTP|Target Watts/kg|Test|Unit
    Jackyback|284watts|284watts|4.17|325watts|5.00|T20+T20*0.95|Power2Max PM
    NWM2|285watts|285watts|3.32|310watts|3.7|T5+T20*0.95|Powertap SL2+
    pgibbo|232watts|260watts|3.56|300watts|4.35|T5+T20*0.95|Power2Max PM
    twonpelota|250 watts|250 watts|3.2|300watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|SRM
    Fazz|255 watts|255 watts|3.76|300 watts|4.4|T5+T20*0.95|Computrainer
    Nerraw|216 watts|216 watts|3.33|280 watts|4.3|T5+T20*0.95|Tacx Flow
    shotgunmcos|318 watts|318 watts|4.02|330watts|4.4|T20,2,T20|Tacx Flow


Advertisement