"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - Quick FTP question...

I got some of the best numbers of the season this past weekend, but before I bump my FTP up in WKO+, I wanted to some numbers past BF.

Best 20': 327 watts
Best 60': 305 watts

This came after 2 hours into the local hammer ride, doing a bunch of pacelining, hammering up hills, and some vo2 intervals off the front.

So when calculating my FTP, at this far into the ride, would I use the best 60', best 20', or .95 * best 20'?

How have you been estimating your FTP in the past?

305

What was your normalized power for the ride?

.95 of 327 = 310

thats probably a bit low, since you said it was in the middle of a two hour ride.. so you could be 315-320...

I'd go with the higher and then see if your intervals are too hard... If you set it low you might not be pushing yourself enough... either way you should know pretty quickly after your first interval.

If you take the 327 and apply the .95 multiplier, that gets you 310w. I, as well as a few others I know of, am closer to .92 multiplier since I appear to have a higher Anerobic Capacity. If you took .92, you'd be at 300w. Some people are .90, some are .97.

I personally would go with 305, it's close enough. But do a fresh test and see where that gets you.

A couple estimates were based on 2x20's @ 95% of the 2nd interval. I also based one of them on a 95% of a hard tt effort during a race.

NP was around 250-260 for 4+ hours.

The most important aspect of estimating FTP for training purposes is to be consistent.

So if you've used the 2x20' in the past, then do it again.

Well what is your highest AVG on a 2x20?

I'd have to look at WKO+, but I think it was 311 watts... been a while since I did a true 2x20 test though. I will have to test Thursday or Saturday this week I suppose.

310. see how your workouts feel off that number.

Well what is your highest AVG on a 2x20?

You might want to look into the seven deadly sins. http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/05/seven-deadly-sins.html

Was your instrument calibrated?

I dont think powertaps can be calibrated, so I dont think this is an issue.

How about looking at NP for the peak 60' and trying off that?

I dont think powertaps can be calibrated, so I dont think this is an issue.

Sure, they can be miscalibrated, or the zero offset can be wrong. You can check the zero offset by making sure it is 0 when you coast, and you can check the calibration with a static torque test. You can't fix the calibration if it is wrong though, but at least you would know... it's certainly not not an issue.

Doesn't really matter. The choice of numbers (305 vs 310) makes so little difference to your training zones that you could go with either. If you go to high, you can brag but will hae a b!tch of a time with intervals. Go too low and your HR will never come up. I would err on the conservative, because there is little to be gained ecept for frustration if you overestimate.

Doesn't really matter. The choice of numbers (305 vs 310) makes so little difference to your training zones that you could go with either. If you go to high, you can brag but will hae a b!tch of a time with intervals. Go too low and your HR will never come up. I would err on the conservative, because there is little to be gained ecept for frustration if you overestimate.

+1

dont be so pedantic about such things.

So when calculating my FTP, at this far into the ride, would I use the best 60', best 20', or .95 * best 20'?

You do realize that these two are, for all intents, exactly the same?

Ok, it's zero'd out when I coast, so it's 'calibrated' to the best of my knowledge.

Ok, it's zero'd out when I coast, so it's 'calibrated' to the best of my knowledge.

The zero can be correct but the "slope" can be wrong. If it is measuring torque wrong then the faster you pedal the more the final answer is incorrect...

You do realize that these two are, for all intents, exactly the same?

Ha, yep.

I'm going to try 310 and see how that feels. I put in a decent but short SST ride in, 257 average / 261 normalized, for 75'. RPE felt on target for tempo, maybe even on the low side, although this may change once I have daylight enough to stretch that out to 120'.

Thanks for the input everybody...

Ok, so how and when do I need to get this calibrated? I've only had it for two months?

I doubt it needs to be calibrated, but you can check with a 'stomp test'. Basically you're putting 100% of your body weight on a pedal at 90 degrees from vertical. Google it for more info.

Ok, so how and when do I need to get this calibrated? I've only had it for two months?

Not saying it needs to be calibrated necessarily, just saying that they are not perfect, the calibration can be off. It's always a good idea to check the calibration on a power meter, and if you ever have any sudden gain the first thought should be whether the calibration is off...

I got some of the best numbers of the season this past weekend, but before I bump my FTP up in WKO+, I wanted to some numbers past BF.

Best 20': 327 watts
Best 60': 305 watts

This came after 2 hours into the local hammer ride, doing a bunch of pacelining, hammering up hills, and some vo2 intervals off the front.

So when calculating my FTP, at this far into the ride, would I use the best 60', best 20', or .95 * best 20'?

What was your IF? As you approach 1.3 your result is less indicative of your true FTP. I use a climb to set mine as my IF is typically close to 1.0. Something to consider.

What was your IF? As you approach 1.3 your result is less indicative of your true FTP. I use a climb to set mine as my IF is typically close to 1.0. Something to consider.

Did you mean VI?

Doing a calibration test tonight.

Did you mean VI?

Oops! I wrote that BEFORE my morning cuppa joe. Yes, I meant VI. BTW congrats on the surviving Boulevard! That looked nasty. :eek:

didn't... flatted