strava FTP estimate
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,039
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1279 Post(s)
Liked 1,393 Times
in
711 Posts
strava FTP estimate
did some searching on this, and there is understandably a LOT of discussion about how "accurate" strava's FTP numbers are.
a lot of the discussion is based on the fact that strava will estimate power without a power meter. e.g. this thread https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycl...ispreloading=1
setting that aside, assuming a good power meter used correctly over a long period of time, does anyone know how strava actually makes this estimate? lots of people say it's the usual fraction of your 20 minute best effort, or 60 minute best effort, but that doesn't seem to be what it's doing in my case. it thinks my FTP is HIGHER than the strongest sustained hour i've ridden lately, and also stronger than the strongest 20 minutes i've ridden lately. is it smart enough to know that in an all-out, uninterrupted, well rested condition i'd do a little better? or is it also including performance on other durations, maybe longer ones? my power for short periods is very low, but pretty good out to 3 or more hours. does their algorithm care?
a lot of the discussion is based on the fact that strava will estimate power without a power meter. e.g. this thread https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycl...ispreloading=1
setting that aside, assuming a good power meter used correctly over a long period of time, does anyone know how strava actually makes this estimate? lots of people say it's the usual fraction of your 20 minute best effort, or 60 minute best effort, but that doesn't seem to be what it's doing in my case. it thinks my FTP is HIGHER than the strongest sustained hour i've ridden lately, and also stronger than the strongest 20 minutes i've ridden lately. is it smart enough to know that in an all-out, uninterrupted, well rested condition i'd do a little better? or is it also including performance on other durations, maybe longer ones? my power for short periods is very low, but pretty good out to 3 or more hours. does their algorithm care?
__________________
#2
...
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Whitestone and Rensselaerville, New York
Posts: 1,518
Bikes: Bicycles? Yup.
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 482 Post(s)
Liked 1,593 Times
in
739 Posts
Testing on the trainer about every 6 weeks I find Strava's estimates are very close to my test results. I see FTP as a training indicator not an on-road performance metric. So the number isn't very important to me, just the trend; increasing, flat or decreasing. In summary, be happy about 237 and shoot for 250!
All good, BT
All good, BT
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 884
Bikes: Lemond Zurich/Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked 772 Times
in
404 Posts
If your asking about Strava estimating without you having a power meter, in my experience - the strava numbers are way off,
My typical 17-18 mph ride is 180w+/- on my road bike with a power meter. My cross bike, same speed with fat tires and no power meter - strava estimates 135w for the effort. Not even in the same ballpark.
Even with my power data, for some reason Strava isn't 100% in sync with my Garmin. My last ride Garmin showed 200w avg, 215 normalized power (eliminating stops and times of 0 power) - Strava showed 168W. Sometimes max power is dead on, sometimes not.
My typical 17-18 mph ride is 180w+/- on my road bike with a power meter. My cross bike, same speed with fat tires and no power meter - strava estimates 135w for the effort. Not even in the same ballpark.
Even with my power data, for some reason Strava isn't 100% in sync with my Garmin. My last ride Garmin showed 200w avg, 215 normalized power (eliminating stops and times of 0 power) - Strava showed 168W. Sometimes max power is dead on, sometimes not.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Northern NY...Brownville
Posts: 2,574
Bikes: Specialized Aethos, Specialized Diverge Comp E5
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 242 Post(s)
Liked 455 Times
in
266 Posts
They are all marginally accurate but there so many variables that it should only be an estimate.
#5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,039
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1279 Post(s)
Liked 1,393 Times
in
711 Posts
If your asking about Strava estimating without you having a power meter, in my experience - the strava numbers are way off,
My typical 17-18 mph ride is 180w+/- on my road bike with a power meter. My cross bike, same speed with fat tires and no power meter - strava estimates 135w for the effort. Not even in the same ballpark.
Even with my power data, for some reason Strava isn't 100% in sync with my Garmin. My last ride Garmin showed 200w avg, 215 normalized power (eliminating stops and times of 0 power) - Strava showed 168W. Sometimes max power is dead on, sometimes not.
My typical 17-18 mph ride is 180w+/- on my road bike with a power meter. My cross bike, same speed with fat tires and no power meter - strava estimates 135w for the effort. Not even in the same ballpark.
Even with my power data, for some reason Strava isn't 100% in sync with my Garmin. My last ride Garmin showed 200w avg, 215 normalized power (eliminating stops and times of 0 power) - Strava showed 168W. Sometimes max power is dead on, sometimes not.
__________________
Likes For mschwett:
#6
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,421
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked 1,156 Times
in
494 Posts
That's interesting. I've never dived into the Strava FTP estimate so I don't know -- but it looks like you're using an 11-month data window? What happens if you reduce the width of the window? Does the FTP estimate change?
#7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,039
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1279 Post(s)
Liked 1,393 Times
in
711 Posts
i set the window to that specific time frame because i made some methodology changes that slightly affected strava’s power curve display - and maybe the actual data. long story but the app that i use (cadence) stored milliseconds in the GPX file, which amazingly caused strava’s power over time curves to be way off, because the time values were scaled by 1.2-1.5x! the app maker updated the app to output whole seconds only and i reuploaded going back in time… then got tired of it. so i keep the curve display limited to the last 11 months. i don’t think the power estimate uses data older than that - but it could. i’d wonder if that could account for the higher value but it’s actually gone up over the time period, not down.
__________________
Last edited by mschwett; 06-14-23 at 10:48 AM.
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,039
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1279 Post(s)
Liked 1,393 Times
in
711 Posts
the curve is from strava - i think it's part of the subscription plans.
here's the last 6 weeks vs the range i used previously. the relationship between the estimate the curves seems about the same - around 100% of 15 minute power, and 106% of 60 minute power.
__________________
Last edited by mschwett; 06-14-23 at 11:03 AM.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 884
Bikes: Lemond Zurich/Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked 772 Times
in
404 Posts
The Garmin connect app estimates my FTP and other metrics from the power curve/rolling data.
I know I could do a 20 min test and raise my FTP calculation - but I also know there is no way in hell I could ride a solid hour at my current FTP setting, let alone a higher one.
Our power curves are similar +/- and my calculated FTP is similar to the results you show.
Is the calculated data really accurate? I don't know.
#11
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,421
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked 1,156 Times
in
494 Posts
actually, i have to take it back! i just fiddled with it and the estimated FTP does appear to be for the entire time window displayed - or at least, it's affected by the time window displayed.
here's the last 6 weeks vs the range i used previously. the relationship between the estimate the curves seems about the same - around 100% of 15 minute power, and 106% of 60 minute power.
here's the last 6 weeks vs the range i used previously. the relationship between the estimate the curves seems about the same - around 100% of 15 minute power, and 106% of 60 minute power.
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,039
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1279 Post(s)
Liked 1,393 Times
in
711 Posts
i do ride with a HR sensor, always. my HR is very low, so maybe it's assuming i'm never actually trying hard!?!? or maybe it's also factoring in longer than one hour efforts.
__________________
#13
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,421
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked 1,156 Times
in
494 Posts
yep, changing the timeframe of the graph changes the estimate, and definitely isn't 100% of 60 minutes or 105% of 20! i found as high as 253 and as lows as 223 depending on the window, which is in part explained by a different bike and PM for 2021, and the millisecond glitch for early 2022. but since fall 2022 the data is clean and always the exact same equipment.
i do ride with a HR sensor, always. my HR is very low, so maybe it's assuming i'm never actually trying hard!?!? or maybe it's also factoring in longer than one hour efforts.
i do ride with a HR sensor, always. my HR is very low, so maybe it's assuming i'm never actually trying hard!?!? or maybe it's also factoring in longer than one hour efforts.
#14
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,039
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1279 Post(s)
Liked 1,393 Times
in
711 Posts
__________________
#15
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,039
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1279 Post(s)
Liked 1,393 Times
in
711 Posts
Do you have a garmin or wahoo type device? What are they telling you?
The Garmin connect app estimates my FTP and other metrics from the power curve/rolling data.
I know I could do a 20 min test and raise my FTP calculation - but I also know there is no way in hell I could ride a solid hour at my current FTP setting, let alone a higher one.
Our power curves are similar +/- and my calculated FTP is similar to the results you show.
Is the calculated data really accurate? I don't know.
The Garmin connect app estimates my FTP and other metrics from the power curve/rolling data.
I know I could do a 20 min test and raise my FTP calculation - but I also know there is no way in hell I could ride a solid hour at my current FTP setting, let alone a higher one.
Our power curves are similar +/- and my calculated FTP is similar to the results you show.
Is the calculated data really accurate? I don't know.
__________________
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 884
Bikes: Lemond Zurich/Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked 772 Times
in
404 Posts
looking at some stronger efforts with sauce, i see quite a few fairly uninterrupted 20 minute efforts with NP in the 235-250w range. it's hard to find a full uninterrupted hour, but as an example here's one with an unweighted average power (including perhaps 5 minutes of descending, intersecting, manuevering, etc) of 224w and an NP for that time of 236w. obviously my 1 hr FTP shouldn't be LOWER than an amount i actually output over an hour, so that sets a floor in the 220s. an average HR (as below) of 122 is VERY high for me, approaching maximum effort. so maybe strava's current 237w is a pretty good number.
Likes For Jughed:
#17
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,421
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked 1,156 Times
in
494 Posts
it's hard to find a full uninterrupted hour, but as an example here's one with an unweighted average power (including perhaps 5 minutes of descending, intersecting, manuevering, etc) of 224w and an NP for that time of 236w. [...] an average HR (as below) of 122 is VERY high for me, approaching maximum effort. so maybe strava's current 237w is a pretty good number.
#19
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,039
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1279 Post(s)
Liked 1,393 Times
in
711 Posts
It would be sort of surprising if Strava were using NP as part of their FTP estimation algorithm, but it does seem closer than a fixed percentage of 20 minute or 60 minute power. You know how the estimated FTP varied with window size? If you narrowed the window way down (and the FTP changes) does the max NP still come close to the new estimated FTP?
__________________
#20
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,039
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1279 Post(s)
Liked 1,393 Times
in
711 Posts
i think my preliminary conclusion is that they're using more data than just the 20 minute or 60 minute average power or normalized power for any one ride in the time period, but that the number is not far off from the true straight-average power i could comfortably sustain for an hour or more in ideal circumstances. so, a useful number to set zones by.
__________________
#21
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,421
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked 1,156 Times
in
494 Posts
i think my preliminary conclusion is that they're using more data than just the 20 minute or 60 minute average power or normalized power for any one ride in the time period, but that the number is not far off from the true straight-average power i could comfortably sustain for an hour or more in ideal circumstances. so, a useful number to set zones by.