"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - FTP from NP60

There was a short discussion on the Wattage forum about deriving FTP from NP60. What are your thoughts on this? My best 20-min test result was 235watts, 95% of which gives me an FTP of 223.25W. However, on one of my training rides where I was really hammering it, I got a normalized power of 235w for a 1-hour time period, with a VI of 1.09.

223.25 watts from the 20min test (done indoors on a trainer)
235w NP for 60 minutes hammering outdoors, VI of 1.09.

Which is more accurate/reliable?

Since neither are in the list of 7 deadly sins, I personally wouldn't use either of them.

Since the average for your 235 NP is only 215ish, I'd devalue its ability to be a reflection of FTP.

Do you think you can consistently do your 20+ min intervals 10 watts higher?

i can try

Motivation and psychological factors at each instance of test can have a huge effect on results of those tests. So, the question is, how does one test at the highest motivational level and with as consistent a psychological frame of mind as possible? Psychotropic drugs... no, umm... how about testing is racing and racing is testing.

It would make some sense that you'd see a higher NP number in a fast group ride or a race.

You've now got a target to shoot for on your next 20 minute interval. Maybe you can beat the 235... :)

245w for 20 minutes sounds doable. i'm gonna need a fan though.

5-10mg/kg of caffeine say you can do it too :D

at 67kg, we're talking about 670mg caffine. isn't that a lot?

The point of FTP is really only to establish intensity levels to be used in subsequent training, right? Therefore, I would use 225 watts as your FTP because as you start doing 2x20s or 3x20s it will become apparent whether or not you are able to sustain that wattage over multiple intervals.

I personally have defined FTP as 0.95 of my monthly 20-minute test because I can tell you that doing a fully motivated 1-hour TT every month would be REALLY hard to get up for. Until my USA Cycling license requires me to certify my FTP, it's just for my own training purposes anyway and 20 minutes hurts bad enough as it is.

--Steve

at 67kg, we're talking about 670mg caffine. isn't that a lot?

Yes. About 3 No-Doz. Or 4 cups of drip coffee...

There was a short discussion on the Wattage forum about deriving FTP from NP60. What are your thoughts on this? My best 20-min test result was 235watts, 95% of which gives me an FTP of 223.25W. However, on one of my training rides where I was really hammering it, I got a normalized power of 235w for a 1-hour time period, with a VI of 1.09.

223.25 watts from the 20min test (done indoors on a trainer)
235w NP for 60 minutes hammering outdoors, VI of 1.09.

Which is more accurate/reliable?

I think you're confusing IF (intensity factor) and VI (variability index). If your IF is consistently greater than 1, then your FTP is probably set too low.

VI refers to the variability in power, where a TT is around 1.0 and a hilly crit is 1.3, etc.

Pete, I know, but I included the VI to illustrate a fairly consistent effort for the hour.

zimbo: I'm also using my FTP to pace myself for a 30km TT coming up.

zimbo: I'm also using my FTP to pace myself for a 30-mile TT coming up.

30-MILE TT. You said MILE?! That's crazy.

--Steve

sorry, i mean km

I'd go with the NP60. It's higher, and more likely to represent your race-day effort.

I'd go with the NP60. It's higher, and more likely to represent your race-day effort.

I'd agree. And I'd train based on your outdoor ride numbers rather than indoor trainer numbers, unless you do your training indoors on the trainer. Mine outdoor and indoor numbers are pretty far apart.

I'm not totally familiar with your PM computer, but I'd be inclined to do the TT on the "average" screen vs. trying to ride just off the immediate wattage readings.

The point of FTP is really only to establish intensity levels to be used in subsequent training, right?
Not really. An accurate FTP is also necessary for calculating TSS which leads to accurate CTL, ATL, and TSB, all of which are very helpful in planning training volume and periods of superior performance.

the cycling peaks guidelines drive me crazy, I dont understand how I can be at the bottom of the scale(should be fetching water for cat5 riders) in 5s and 1m power but low cat2/top of cat3 by the 5m and ftp. All this compounded by the fact that numbers and a scale does good for training but squat in a race.

Also as others have stated, my indoor numbers are quite a bit lower than outdoor numbers by almost 70w. This could be mostly due to a lack of motivation on the trainer, something about being a hampster dosen't get me spinning. So I would go with your outdoor numbers

the cycling peaks guidelines drive me crazy, I dont understand how I can be at the bottom of the scale(should be fetching water for cat5 riders) in 5s and 1m power but low cat2/top of cat3 by the 5m and ftp.

1) sounds like you fit more of a TT profile (see the various profiles on the WKO+ pages)

2) CP data contains Track specialists as well. They are able to put out MUCH more power than the average roadie for short periods of time. Thus, you would likely stack up well with cat 5 track events - not necessarily road events.

Thus, you would likely stack up well with cat 5 track events - not necessarily road events.

Other way around, but yeah.

--Steve

on-road test is more accurate

Other way around, but yeah.

--Steve

Sorry. Tired.

:)