Ride Clean
#1901
I would love to see what it's like to have a higher FTP, like 300w or something. I figured a Tues Night would be the place to try such a thing, nothing on the line, I could sit up before the last lap. I'm pretty sure that I'd approach racing differently with a +100w FTP.
#1903
Ninny
#1905
Senior Member
The thing is, FTP isn't really a fixed number across the populace. If you're over 6 ft, 300 is probably easy to hit. If you're 5'5, its not. Below is the average watts for CyclingAnalytics users. Roughly 20% are over 300, and I'd wager about 5% are fudged since 300 and 250 are an abnormal distribution.
Last edited by furiousferret; 10-13-17 at 11:04 AM.
#1906
I like how there is a spike at 300w, where as the rest of the plot pretty much fits a to-be-expected bell curve.
Makes me wonder if there are some artificial numbers at 300.
Makes me wonder if there are some artificial numbers at 300.
#1908
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,499
Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753
Liked 380 Times
in
259 Posts
OT-Can anyone using the right drugs and training?
Still no.
#1909
Senior Member
For additional reference, this is w/kg. Yes, the line is me. I'm a bit fat and still getting my legs under me =]
Last edited by furiousferret; 10-13-17 at 11:03 AM.
#1910
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,499
Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753
Liked 380 Times
in
259 Posts
The thing is, FTP isn't really a fixed number across the populace. If you're over 6 ft, 300 is probably easy to hit. If you're 5'5, its not. Below is the average watts for CyclingAnalytics users. Roughly 20% are over 300, and I'd wager about 5% are fudged since 300 and 250 are an abnormal distribution.
...
...
FTP is often calculated and I think that is where it breaks down. For a trained rider, the 20 min effort to hour calculation works. For the untrained rider I think the calculated values would be more often higher than what could be held for an hour.
You met me. 6'2" big guy, later 50s. I put out age correct racer power in the anaerobic range. But once it really gets aerobic, I can't hold it. As I used to do lots of long distance, and just seeing the results of miles in my kid, I think I could increase my FTP (don't know what it is) by just doing more miles. But I guess my calculated FTP would be quite a bit higher than it is now.
Last edited by Doge; 10-13-17 at 10:49 AM.
#1911
Senior Member
Some set 300 as a goal and some just set it there are hope to hit the numbers in training (more than likely they're close). At this point its really just a number to set your base for training intervals. If those intervals are easy across the board, people up it.
I think if we all used the standard 1 hour all out, those averages would drop drastically. To be fair though, its pretty hard to find a road to do an hour all out. Now some do a 30 minute test, 20 minute, there's even an 8 minute test now. Others even guess (which has its merits).
I think if we all used the standard 1 hour all out, those averages would drop drastically. To be fair though, its pretty hard to find a road to do an hour all out. Now some do a 30 minute test, 20 minute, there's even an 8 minute test now. Others even guess (which has its merits).
#1912
Honest accounting flatters itself. I appreciate you posting these screenshots of their entire user base. One thing that jumps out is if these were predominantly racers knowing their data was being collected the anomalies would be on the other end. That is the type of ftp and w/kg that wins races. The ones that can sell lower efforts as nearer maximal.
#1913
If we go by those plots, I am decidedly average.
I haven't tested in a long while though, I'm sure I am a bit lower right now. Also when I test, I test to exhaustion and I do it on the trainer.
I haven't tested in a long while though, I'm sure I am a bit lower right now. Also when I test, I test to exhaustion and I do it on the trainer.
#1914
Some set 300 as a goal and some just set it there are hope to hit the numbers in training (more than likely they're close). At this point its really just a number to set your base for training intervals. If those intervals are easy across the board, people up it.
I think if we all used the standard 1 hour all out, those averages would drop drastically. To be fair though, its pretty hard to find a road to do an hour all out. Now some do a 30 minute test, 20 minute, there's even an 8 minute test now. Others even guess (which has its merits).
I think if we all used the standard 1 hour all out, those averages would drop drastically. To be fair though, its pretty hard to find a road to do an hour all out. Now some do a 30 minute test, 20 minute, there's even an 8 minute test now. Others even guess (which has its merits).
But it's not hard to find a way to do it. You would do it on your trainer.
#1915
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,863
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Liked 3,111 Times
in
1,418 Posts
A few years ago I was trying to do Mt. Diablo in under an hour. This is before I had a PM. I put the numbers in an online power calculator and it worked out to be roughly 4w/kg. Since I weighed 75kg, it followed that I needed to do at least 300w for just under an hour. When I got a PM I redid the climb and it turned out to be pretty accurate and I used 300w as my FTP to start, adjusting up and down based on testing.
#1916
Nonsense
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 13,918
Bikes: Affirmative
Liked 541 Times
in
237 Posts
I tend to think the main limiter with amateurs is the amount of time and focus they are willing and/or able to dedicate to the sport. It takes so, so much work to hit your genetic potential, and the amount of time it takes to get there is so unreasonable that most people don't do it. Pursuing it with all you've got it probably takes like a decade plus to get there. It's seriously stupid to do it unless people give you money to ride a bike, and even then you're not exactly raking it in.
If we don't factor in anything besides genetic potential, I would be amazed if most people aren't capable of much more than they think they are. If we factor in that real life is a thing and making money is a necessity and drinking beer is fun and training when it's 20 degrees out sucks, then I guess there are plenty of people right at their limit.
If we don't factor in anything besides genetic potential, I would be amazed if most people aren't capable of much more than they think they are. If we factor in that real life is a thing and making money is a necessity and drinking beer is fun and training when it's 20 degrees out sucks, then I guess there are plenty of people right at their limit.
#1917
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,863
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Liked 3,111 Times
in
1,418 Posts
I tend to think the main limiter with amateurs is the amount of time and focus they are willing and/or able to dedicate to the sport. It takes so, so much work to hit your genetic potential, and the amount of time it takes to get there is so unreasonable that most people don't do it. Pursuing it with all you've got it probably takes like a decade plus to get there. It's seriously stupid to do it unless people give you money to ride a bike, and even then you're not exactly raking it in.
If we don't factor in anything besides genetic potential, I would be amazed if most people aren't capable of much more than they think they are. If we factor in that real life is a thing and making money is a necessity and drinking beer is fun and training when it's 20 degrees out sucks, then I guess there are plenty of people right at their limit.
If we don't factor in anything besides genetic potential, I would be amazed if most people aren't capable of much more than they think they are. If we factor in that real life is a thing and making money is a necessity and drinking beer is fun and training when it's 20 degrees out sucks, then I guess there are plenty of people right at their limit.
#1918
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
Have you ever tried to reach that kind of FTP? I got just below 290w this year. This could be another debate point--> is 300w FTP within reach to just about every cyclist who is willing to put in the work? Or are there genetic limiters that would prevent x% from reaching 300w FTP?
I think Andy Coggan asserted that just about any healthy individual could hit ~4.0-4.2 w/kg.
Something like that. And if that's correct, than 300 should be possible for just about anyone over 75 kgs. .
#1919
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
Some people would (and may even do better). I bet most people would absolutely not, and if they did, would not be close to what they could do outside. I'm one of those people.
#1920
Ninny
Funny charts. There is clearly a preference for self-reporting FTP in watts as a nice round number (200, 250, 300). The weight distribution chart is steppy at 5kg intervals as well Those two non-smooth graphs get smoothed out when combined to make the w/kg chart.
#1924
It was there before, when I first commented. Now, I can't see it either.
GC's screenshots seem to show average FTP of 300w and probably 4 w/kg.
Trainer efforts generally come in 10-15% below on-road efforts. There are several reasons for this, but it is a widely known discrepancy. Hunter Allen even did a video explaining a lot of it.
GC's screenshots seem to show average FTP of 300w and probably 4 w/kg.
Trainer efforts generally come in 10-15% below on-road efforts. There are several reasons for this, but it is a widely known discrepancy. Hunter Allen even did a video explaining a lot of it.
#1925
Senior Member