Notices
"The 33"-Road Bike Racing We set this forum up for our members to discuss their experiences in either pro or amateur racing, whether they are the big races, or even the small backyard races. Don't forget to update all the members with your own race results.

Ride Clean

Old 10-13-17, 08:12 AM
  #1901  
Radish_legs
Senior Member
 
Radish_legs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 998
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked 64 Times in 33 Posts
Originally Posted by carpediemracing
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.
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?
Radish_legs is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 08:15 AM
  #1902  
gsteinb
out walking the earth
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lake Placid, NY
Posts: 21,441
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 912 Post(s)
Liked 752 Times in 342 Posts
an arbitrary FTP number without reference to weight is pretty meaningless.

CDR's 300 watts isn't the same as my 300 watts.
gsteinb is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 08:19 AM
  #1903  
globecanvas
Ninny
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Gunks
Posts: 5,295
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 686 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Radish_legs
is 300w FTP within reach to just about every cyclist who is willing to put in the work?
Watts are the wrong metric here, w/kg is better, but if the question is reframed as "can anyone who puts in the work get to 105% of my current w/kg" the answer is still no.
globecanvas is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 08:26 AM
  #1904  
Radish_legs
Senior Member
 
Radish_legs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 998
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked 64 Times in 33 Posts
I'm pretty sure CDR weighs a lot less than me.
Radish_legs is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 08:27 AM
  #1905  
furiousferret
Senior Member
 
furiousferret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Redlands, CA
Posts: 6,313
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 842 Post(s)
Liked 469 Times in 250 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.


Last edited by furiousferret; 10-13-17 at 11:04 AM.
furiousferret is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 08:35 AM
  #1906  
topflightpro
Senior Member
 
topflightpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,567
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1851 Post(s)
Liked 675 Times in 427 Posts
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.
topflightpro is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 08:44 AM
  #1907  
Radish_legs
Senior Member
 
Radish_legs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 998
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked 64 Times in 33 Posts
an alternative explanation is that many cyclists might target 300w as FTP and work a lot to get there. And once they get there, just hold steady and not try to push it further.
Radish_legs is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 08:46 AM
  #1908  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,474

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times in 253 Posts
Originally Posted by globecanvas
Watts are the wrong metric here, w/kg is better, but if the question is reframed as "can anyone who puts in the work get to 105% of my current w/kg" the answer is still no.
The "best" measure is a Strava ~hour climb :-) That may not exactly correlate to w/kg, but close.


OT-Can anyone using the right drugs and training?
Still no.
Doge is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 08:49 AM
  #1909  
furiousferret
Senior Member
 
furiousferret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Redlands, CA
Posts: 6,313
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 842 Post(s)
Liked 469 Times in 250 Posts
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.
furiousferret is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 08:56 AM
  #1910  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,474

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times in 253 Posts
Originally Posted by furiousferret
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.
...
Depends on the definition of anybody. CyclingAnalytics users are going to be to the right of the general population, racers right of that population you showed. My assertion that anyone could beat enough of the worst Cat 2s to get points for the upgrade was thinking of that Cycling Analytics type population.

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.
Doge is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 09:03 AM
  #1911  
furiousferret
Senior Member
 
furiousferret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Redlands, CA
Posts: 6,313
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 842 Post(s)
Liked 469 Times in 250 Posts
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).
furiousferret is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 09:07 AM
  #1912  
miyata man
Senior Member
 
miyata man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,187
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 243 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
miyata man is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 09:13 AM
  #1913  
PepeM
Senior Member
 
PepeM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,861
Mentioned: 180 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2739 Post(s)
Liked 119 Times in 59 Posts
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.
PepeM is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 09:15 AM
  #1914  
Radish_legs
Senior Member
 
Radish_legs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 998
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked 64 Times in 33 Posts
Originally Posted by furiousferret
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).
1 hour all-out is not how 99% of people arrive at their FTP, I believe.

But it's not hard to find a way to do it. You would do it on your trainer.
Radish_legs is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 09:47 AM
  #1915  
caloso
Senior Member
 
caloso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865

Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times in 1,417 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.
caloso is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 10:05 AM
  #1916  
TheKillerPenguin
Nonsense
 
TheKillerPenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 13,918

Bikes: Affirmative

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 880 Post(s)
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.
TheKillerPenguin is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 10:12 AM
  #1917  
caloso
Senior Member
 
caloso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865

Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times in 1,417 Posts
Originally Posted by TheKillerPenguin
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.
That is a really good way to look at it.
caloso is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 10:16 AM
  #1918  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times in 711 Posts
Originally Posted by Radish_legs
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. .
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 10:20 AM
  #1919  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times in 711 Posts
Originally Posted by Radish_legs
1 hour all-out is not how 99% of people arrive at their FTP, I believe.

But it's not hard to find a way to do it. You would do it on your trainer.
Whyyyyy?!!!

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.
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 10:27 AM
  #1920  
globecanvas
Ninny
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Gunks
Posts: 5,295
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 686 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
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.
globecanvas is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 10:32 AM
  #1921  
Grumpy McTrumpy
gmt
 
Grumpy McTrumpy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I don't see a chart. Locked out for non CA users. How about a screenshot?
Grumpy McTrumpy is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 10:34 AM
  #1922  
globecanvas
Ninny
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Gunks
Posts: 5,295
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 686 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I was referring to the screenshots above.

Here's CA's power curve distribution chart which is based on actual data, not self-reported:



globecanvas is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 10:36 AM
  #1923  
aaronmcd
Senior Member
 
aaronmcd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 3,462

Bikes: Cervelo S5, Marin Gestalt X11

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 554 Post(s)
Liked 65 Times in 45 Posts
I can't see the "screenshots" either
aaronmcd is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 10:45 AM
  #1924  
topflightpro
Senior Member
 
topflightpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,567
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1851 Post(s)
Liked 675 Times in 427 Posts
Originally Posted by aaronmcd
I can't see the "screenshots" either
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.



Originally Posted by rubiksoval
Whyyyyy?!!!

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.
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.
topflightpro is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 10:48 AM
  #1925  
furiousferret
Senior Member
 
furiousferret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Redlands, CA
Posts: 6,313
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 842 Post(s)
Liked 469 Times in 250 Posts
Originally Posted by Radish_legs
1 hour all-out is not how 99% of people arrive at their FTP, I believe.

But it's not hard to find a way to do it. You would do it on your trainer.
Trainer puts out about 8% less power, due to various factors, so even then the numbers aren't perfect.
furiousferret is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.