therhodeo

How many feet of climbing over that 60 miles?

Radish_legs

about 3000 feet.

greenlight149

the general consensus for hill climbing is that you use a power output that is sustainable, rather than going in at 180% ftp.

if you support doing 400 watts for one minute then dialing it back to 150 then thats your choice, but you will get dropped.

chaadster

If it's a 1min climb and I can do 400w for 1 minute, I don't see the problem.

As for getting dropped, if all you can muster is 150w, then yeah, I see why you're having that problem.

greenlight149

you have to dial it down just to recover, and everyone else is doing 240 watts passing you, you WILL get dropped....didnt know this was up for debate.

Radish_legs

400w to stay with group. Then 220w off the back.

chaadster

You have to recover at 150w after a 1min 400w effort?

greenlight149

If I'm doing 180% ftp, then ya I would have to dial it down a lot after that one minute effort. Maybe you can still motor along at 90% ftp after 180% ftp for a minute, but I can't.

And 400w for you isn't the same as for someone else. It's all relative.

RShantz

To me none of this makes sense.

If the OP's FTP is 230, I find it hard to believe that 400w for a minute is no biggie on a spirited group ride. If the group is strong enough to require you to put out 400w for a minute to keep up while climbing a hill, I'd bet you'd be dropped pretty soon thereafter with a 230w FTP. I believe that he can put out 400w for a minute, but multiple efforts like this on a fast ride with only 230 FTP???

For his friend to struggle as suggested with an FTP of 260 - unless he's pretty heavy or extremely fatigued he's not going to struggle on the first hill. I've seen/known guys who get their FTP's from trainers and like to "brag" about the numbers. One day I took my bike outfitted with a Power2max powermeter and rode it on their trainer. My power reading was over 10% less than their trainer reading.

In the end, none of this seems realistic based on my experience.

caloso

There is steady state FTP and there is surge/recover/repeat FTP. If you only have the former, you can do time trials on flat courses but you'll be dropped in the hills or in crits.

Radish_legs

Here's an example of one of his latest trainer rides, that I think I would struggle with. Yet I don't think he could stay on a hard group ride with me.

silversx80

That is one weird cadence profile when compared to the power and speed.

HOWSER

That was my first thought as well. He's a masher.

therhodeo

Meh, depends on the workout. My average cadence on an outdoor ride is right at 100 but some of my trainer workouts are set up to do high resistance/lower cadence.

Radish_legs

So here are the two strava profiles for the same ride we did. I have power data, he doesn't.

caloso

I dunno. Maybe he was having a bad day. It happens.

Riveting

Maybe there's a setting in your friends trainer software (and mine also) to calibrate/scale down the power data to better match reality?

The FTP on my trainer last winter was reporting about 290w, but on the road in early spring, my Cycleops heart rate strap (that outputs power data via a reliable algorithm based on rate of rise of the HR) showed an FTP of 240w (on a comparable effort FTP test ride). 50w is a big difference (~20%). I don't have and actual force meter, but others in my group do (of similar weight/size), and my heart rate strap seems to be closer to reality than my trainer. Your friend may have been simply basing his perceived fitness on inflated FTP numbers, and simply wasn't as fit as he thought (compared to you or others in that group). If that group were actually putting out 20% more watts/kg, then they would essentially be riding 20% faster, right? And would be at the top of the first hill, while he was still at the 80% mark.

Or he had an unconditioned core from so much stationary training, and got exhausted quickly from overworking those weakened muscles.

Or it was simply one of the other physiological factors mentioned here already. And you can't judge a riders fitness based on one or two rides, in case they were just in a slump that day.

caloso

It does seem odd to be so invested in another rider's ride and power data.

Radish_legs

Because it goes to the point of whether we have a (near-) future of riding together.

And my curiosity as to the benefits of a trainer. He and I are at opposite poles. I do almost no trainer riding. He does 90% trainer riding.

I've told him what to do. Go on the group rides. Start with the slower one and work your way up.

anotherbrian

I vote for his FTP being badly overestimated (you could lend him your powermeter long enough to do a trainer ride if you wanted to be sure). Virtual power numbers from trainers come from wheel speed, and (at least in my experience with a KK trainer) it is the pressure of the roller against the tire that really dictates the Watts. Unless the pressure is set precisely/consistently the power numbers end up being meaningless, even comparing day to day.

anotherbrian

And use a real outdoor ride with real "hills" as a measure of suitability, not graphs from Strava.

silversx80

Trainers have their place in any well-conceived training plan... along with rollers. With a trainer, I'm in a controlled environment in which I can work on specific goals, and with my Kickr I can hit specific power numbers for specific times. For a personal anecdote, I find that I tend to push my power and cadence a bit higher on the trainer, enough so that I've gone to no power meter for outdoor rides.

The rollers help me train my smoothness in pedal stroke along with my ability to hold my line. Nothing has improved my stability on the bike more than rollers.

Outdoors are all about the enjoyment of it, bike handling skill, dealing with uncontrollable variables, and perceived effort. Over the years I've found that the only time I really stick with relying on power data is when my perceived effort is higher than I expect (usually a head or cross wind), or when I'm doing intervals (which for me, are only done indoors now). My HRM and clock are the only real metrics I monitor outdoors.

Now, when I want to ride outdoors, but for reasons of uncontrollable variables I can't, Zwift and CycleOps Virtual Training have been fantastic.

Radish_legs

I have solved it. I asked him directly. Despite appearing to be real watts on Strava, they are actually virtual watts calculated by the trainerroad app.

So they mean nothing. And probably have inflated his numbers for 20%. So that's why he is doing trainer rides that appear really strong, yet he is off the back on the first hill.

Mystery solved. And why is trainerroad recording them as real watts instead of estimated watts?

anotherbrian

Only when Strava makes up the power numbers for you based on the grade/speed/weight/gear are they shown as Estimated.

If you really want to buff your stats, add a couple hundred pounds to your body weight measurement on Strava and let it do the estimating.

tanguy frame

um - ride with him if you want his friendship, otherwise, don't.