guachi

I've done 89% (normalized) for 105 minutes and then 88% for 115 minutes the next day but couldn't hold it by day three and was down to 78% for 145 minutes for day three.

90% FTP for two hours and rested... probably. 90% for two hours UP A MOUNTAIN.... probably not.

TheKillerPenguin

From experience: he is very not slow. He is also a very nice guy. You'll enjoy racing with him.

gsteinb

He beat me by like 6 minutes on a 30 min-ish climb in 2019. He nearly beat the guy who won, and who set course records on every hill climb he did in 2019 with the exception of mount washington where a doped up danielson holds the record.

burnthesheep

Anyone catch the new Everesting record? Jeeeeezzzzz. Not 300w constant, but basically on/off for 6 hours. Zing.

gsteinb

link?

burnthesheep

https://cyclingtips.com/2021/03/rona...rs-40-minutes/

gsteinb

That's pretty awesome.

I wish I could care about riding that long. Seems like an obvious future for some segment of the sport.

rubiksoval

I've done 89% for three hours. Took a few tries to build up to that, though (mainly figuring out the nutrition), and I was wrecked for a few days afterwards.

Yep

Surprised you think it would be harder up a mountain. I guess the altitude would be an issue, but having the gradient to work against would really help me.

caloso

Same. The only time I came close to 300w for an hour it was up Mt Diablo. Steady 6% with 3000 ft of vertical and since it starts at sea level the altitude isn’t an issue.

Yep

Man, I lived in Sacramento from the time I started riding to doing fast rides (River Ride) and on into dipping my toe in racing. When I left I was probably still a 5, maybe just a 4. Even though that might be 15 years ago now, I’m certainly stronger and I’d love to go back and finish a Saturday ride up front and put in a good time up Diablo.

topflightpro

Grade is a big factor though. For me, if things start going up hill, I have a harder time keeping my cadence up, which means my power drops. I often end up climbing by grinding it out, even in an easier gear, all the way to the top.

caloso

Awesome. I'm hoping to do the RR on Saturday, first time in over a year, now that I have had the vaccine. I think my fitness is decent, but I'm a little unsure of my bike handling in a group, so I will probably just sit at the back first time out. And hope it's not a windy day.

wktmeow

Would love to come back and do Diablo again, and Calaveras, and Old La Honda.

I was barely cracking an hour up Diablo when I left, should be a good deal fitter now. Best up OLH was 19:15 or so, reckon I could maybe get down into the 18s at least?

I'd definitely fare better on the HOP, Spectrum, Alviso rides than I did before

Hermes

I miss the climbing in NorCal. There were so many great climbs and yesterday, I wore my King of the Mountain tee shirt that I got for racing up Sierra Road (I do not miss Sierra Road). I climbed OLH a lot and it was always a solid workout and very picturesque. Soledad Mountain is a very weak little sister compared to OLH.

Yep

Totally. We should all get to go back and do the rides/races and climbs that kicked our asses when we started. In my memory, the Sac Tuesday Worlds was so fast, and so hard that I was over the moon to be able to see the lead group at the finish, but I also sucked. My guess is the reality would be somewhere in the middle; I would hang, but I wouldn't "win" it.

ntnyln

I hear you. I didn't start riding until I moved to NorCal and took it all for granted. It wasn't until I moved back to the DC area that I realized how great I had it and I really should have appreciated those OLH, HWY 9 and Tunitias days a bit more.

burnthesheep

260w, 262w NP for an hour last night on TT bike. Including some intersections and some downhill where I could only manage 200w or so for a short time.

About as close as I could probably get would be 270w without that as that's what I was holding during the moving time.

That's at 68kg.

Edit: to beat the Zwift dead horse some more, I went on zpower and looked at a recent hill climb race. Most B's finished from 1:15 to 1:30 or so. The top 10 B's ALL broke 4w/kg for a whole hour with several doing 300+ for the hour. With weeknight worlds in action now with some 4's, 3's and sometimes a Cat 1 or 2 coming.........it just feels like total bull on Zwift. I'll continue to just train on there. It seems soooooo fake versus real life, not the GUI........the user results seem so fake.

pjcampbell

270 is nearly exactly 4 watts per KG for you ... 300 watts per KG is 4.0 watts per KG for me. On a hill climb we could be neck and neck

burnthesheep

Agreed. For Zwift I guess I lament they don't do a good job on their classifications. So I don't race. It isn't experience/skill/power combo based. I'm basically trying to build my point for Zwift moving to points based racing like USAC has instead of raw w/kg.

I'm kind of over the "it ain't possible, they cheat" mentality and on to "so what, just move to points instead".

Even for group rides that aren't races and choose to not do "everyone together" for listing 3/wkg........you get a bunch of anomalies of folks on the front doing 300w the whole time at 100kg.

I mean, local to me, you'd still be in pretty rare air doing 300w for a full hour. No matter how small/big you are.

himespau 

This summer, the Zwift Classics League was trying to group people based on 1,5,20 minute power and expected time to finish the course, which was better than nothing. They were talking about adding Zwiftpower points into it, but I don't know if they ever did or not. The nice thing was it did autocategorization, so it plopped you in your category and you didn't get to choose to sandbag. Since they have Zwiftpower points for just about everyone who races, I don't know why they can't give you a provisional ranking based on your power for your first 5 (or whatever number you choose) races and then sort you into categories based on Zwiftpower points after that. I like the provisional ranking based on power so the lowest cat isn't always flooded with new high powered racers working their way through and discouraging the weaker folks into dropping out.

burnthesheep

For folks following this one, a gem is winding up on Slowtwitch. If someone posts data, fine. But just even when it comes from a device you have to wonder sometimes. Guy claims to do mid-300's on their road bike for an HOUR on only 7 hours training a week. But, on their TT bike with a pretty good fit can't break mid-25mph in a 40k.

Getting interesting. Personally, I don't question the representation of the data........just the physical source. If you aren't a former pro that took a year off, you won't do 350w for an hour off 7 hours a week training. Much less.........the power figures are inflated somehow somewhere if you aren't wearing a parachute and can't go faster on 330w on the TT bike on flat land than that.

350w for an hour on 7 hours a week.......not being a former pro or crossover pro from running or something..........you've got my attention!

himespau 

Is he a fatty like me? My Zwift-FTP was ~320 (couldn't hold that for an hour, but could do ~300) when I was 105 or so kg (and I was probably doing ~10-12 hours a week). I don't know how much of that was due to using a powertap hub that was 8-10 years old and may not have been accurate. Hub got trashed when I got hit, so, now that I have assioma duos, I can't ride with them both and compare. Not riding for 3 months, having a nagging back injury, and having gained 15 pounds (it was a ****** summer) means that hopping back on the new pedals when I get my new bike built won't be apples to apples comparison.

Honestly, though, miscalibrated powermeter sounds likely.

gsteinb

Not sure why you think you need more than 7 hours to train FTP.

At sub 130 pounds I could hold 300+ for an hour on 7 hours or under.

Also, decided how good someone's fit is sounds like folly, particularly across an internet forum.

burnthesheep

Well 300w is 50w shy of 350w. I could dare say 300 is perfectly believable. 350w for an hour on 7 hours a week just sounds incredibly rare.