So, I'm sure this is a noob question...what what's a reasonable average power output on strava for a ride of about 10 miles?

Just trying to see how far I need to go to avoid embarrassment. ..

by "reasonable" and "average" are you looking for what to expect when you're riding at a "reasonable" and "average" pace or are you planning to go all-out for 10 minutes and want to compare the number you get to others?

With Strava Premium there's an analysis feature that will give you estimated power numbers for various timeframes... Maybe take a look at those of other rider with whom you've ridden and/or feel you can keep up with?

Well i don't ride with anyone right now. Just wondering what would be considered 'respectable' over 10 miles riding solo. Going hard but not to exhaustion.

And obviously I'm looking for gery rough ranges...like 150 250 or 1000?

How about you shoot for 200+ watts and progress from there? Personally, I've just watched the number and compared it to my perceived effort after my rides.

For instance, here's a ~33 mile ride I felt like I put in a good effort on from beginning to end: https://www.strava.com/activities/928617959/analysis

I had a 206W average, according to Strava. So, for me, that's pretty good. Now, of course, if the ride were 1/3rd as far, I could have probably gone harder..

Typically, however, folks are looking to hold a certain wattage for a given length of TIME, not distance. Given the variables involved with terrain and whatnot, it tends to be a more reliable measuring stick.

Of course Strava "power" may or may not have any relationship to the actual power that you produce. It's a guess based on everything except the power that you produce. Sometimes, it gets within 25 or 30%, but it is often a long, long way from accurate.


That's a long way of saying that I'm not sure the answer you get is going to be a real answer, either.

^ completely agree with this. However, if the Strava number is the one you always compare to your own effort level, it'll be the scale you work with. In that way it can be a valuable training metric for an individual without other resources.

Comparing your Strava power numbers to someone else's power-meter numbers, however, could be apples vs. oranges, so resist the urge to do so in all but the most general context.

Well the reason I asked about distance is most of my rides are 10-12 miles, be they commutes or a quick ride after work. Sunday is typically the only day I can get out longer. Already at 200...guess I'll shoot for 250 now haha.

W/kg is going to be the only informative metric. For me, a 70% effort will generally average out around 2.4W/kg. Best recent effort for an hour, 3.2W/kg.




This is of course from a power meter, but Strava had gotten pretty darn close after logging 300+ rides pre-PM. Two to two and a half watts per kilogram is probably right in the middle of an endurance pace for many.

Hrmm ok thanks. I actually feel pretty good about myself haha! Looks like 2.5 watt/kg is something I'm currently holding for a hard 10+miles, 2watt/kg i think I could hold for long distance.

Dial it up to 400 watts.

i find strava power to be generously vanity sized, just like garmin calories.

If you want to look at power numbers, do yourself a huge favor a buy a power meter.

If you want to compare to other riders without a power meter, get the stravistix add in for chrome. it shows your rank and percentile for segments relative to the universe of other people who have done the same segment.

Of course you'll potentially be comparing with everything from pacelining teams to grandma out for a gentle spin, but that is the real world so there it is.

FWIW, in flat Chicago, plain watts is probably more relevant than watts/kg.

Climbs more than 100' vertical, the kg comes into play.

I often forget that not everyone averages 40-50ft/mi of climbing for the entire year. A very flat ride for me will only have 1,000ft of climbing in it.

The 8 mi out and back I do sometimes after my kid goes to sleep has 54 ft of climbing according to strava. i was kindnof shocked it was that much...

I've got 63 feet of vert per mile on the bike this year, and 122 feet per mile on my XC skis.

i think it's accumulating the chicago potholes.

Lol I just looked. It was high. I went on a 34 mi ride last week with 52 ft of climbing

To be fair though, it's not unusual to fight 20mph+ headwinds

It's 50ft of vertical to make it the half a mile to the end of my street.

If you folks wanted to do a Strava Climbing Challenge, how would you even do it?

Lol no. I think it was actually 2 overpasses on the bike trail.

It's next to useless as a training metric as it is heavily influenced by wind unless you're only looking at a segment on a steep hill. Otherwise, it will tell you nothing.

I can't really go anywhere without a 500' climb, & a ride w/ less than 3000' is rare,

but IME it's a lot harder & more painful to get higher power #s on the flats.

going up, you have to put out; on the flats, you have to make yourself do it.

Strava is off by 4:1 for me, based on doing stationary power bike testing.

It does a very bad job of compensating for weight of the rider, and appears to gets more accurate as you get closer to their "ideal" weight

I think i should probably get a real road bike before a power meter lol

I dunno. Maybe it's just from growing up around here...but hills demoralize me. So much effort to go so slow...much nicer to see the effort translate to actual speed on the flats.

200-300 watts would be respectable.