ReLLiK75

I don't consider myself a weak rider, but I know I'm not the fastest kid on the block either. Today I got around to taking the 8 minute FTP test in TrainerRoad and it gave me an FTP value of 187. This is using a Kurt Kinetic Rock n Roll with the extra flywheel. While I was taking the test, I kept my cadence between 88 and 90 and felt a real good burn in my legs at the end of each 8 minute effort (per the onscreen instructions). I generally ride my trainer twice a week (40 minutes each ride), suffering along with a sufferfest video, and then also get in a good long ride on Saturday. Sometimes I can get a Sunday ride in too. I've seen my performance improve based on distance and average speed for my sufferfest sessions and can normally finish one of my longer rides with a 17 to 18 mph avg speed (which includes around 2500 ft vertical).

So why the extremely poor FTP value? Am I actually that crappy of a rider? Or is TrainerRoad not measuring accurately? I've looked on their knowledge base and they claim the flywheel should not affect power. I was in the 39 x 14 (standard with 11x26 cassette) during these efforts and it was definitely not easy maintaining my cadence for 8 minutes. I really don't see how that flywheel can not be affecting things.

Thoughts?

jmX

If you can only do 19mph for 8 minutes on a KK Road machine (or RnR), then yes your FTP is that abysmal.

Did you feel like throwing up? Were your lungs burning? The fact you were in the little chainring should be a hint that you're either slow or not going hard enough.

Or, if you weigh 120lbs, then the value isn't so bad after all.

Jon

svtmike

When I do the FTP test, there is nothing that I want more in the world than for the FTP test to be over. It shouldn't be just a good burn in the legs, it should be 2 x 8 minutes of hell.

FTP/weight is far more relevant than absolute FTP in judging whether your FTP is "abysmal" or not.

ReLLiK75

Great! I suck! Guess it's time to really up the efforts--considering I have a 11 mile race coming up in 6 weeks. I weigh 177 so that value is pretty terrible. I started off pretty hard in the big chain ring, but after 4 minutes my cadence started to drop significantly so I shifted gears a bit to be able to finish the effort at a fairly constant cadence. No I didn't feel like I was going to throw up, but at the same time I don't think I could have pushed a larger gear and maintain cadence for the entire effort either.

glfguy8

I wouldn't rely on TrainerRoad's Virtual power as an absolute measurement. It's useful only when comparing your FTP to your previous efforts.

When I switched from Virtual Power to an actual direct-force power meter, my FTP went from 197 to 314.

merlinextraligh

It really is an all out effort. In calculating FTP from 8 minute efforts, you take 92% of the average. So that means you need to be working at almost 109% of FTP, which by definition is an unsustainable effort for much more than the 8 minutes.

The reason the bigger flywheel doesn't change power on a continuous effort is that it takes effort to accelerate, but once it's going, it doesn't take more effort to keep going. The flywheel just smooths out the feel similar to riding on the road.

merlinextraligh

And don't worry about what your FTP is. It's just a number. It's a useful number because it allows you to set training zones, and measure progress over time.

But where it stands in relation to others is pretty much irrelevant. What effect your training is having on improving it is what matters.

Most importantly, bike races are won on the road, not on spreadsheets.

jmX

I'm sure trainer road uses something that will calculate out to match Kurt Kinectics published power profile for their fluid resistance unit, seen here:


I've got 3 powertaps, a KICKR, a computrainer, a Quarq, and a KK Road machine and no matter if I'm using a real power meter or KK's published equation, the power is within 5-10% at a steady effort.

If you went from 197 to 314, it means something else was wrong. The trainer may have been way out of calibration, you chose the wrong model for "virtual power" calculation, or your real power meter is out of whack.


ANYWAY, In the OP's case he said he was going about 19mph, which equates to maybe 220w according to the graph from KK. For an 8 minute interval, 220w would put his FTP near what he was quoted.

merlinextraligh

^ +1. When I've compared the KK curve to a Quarq, and Powertap, it's pretty close for sustained efforts.

Haven't used trainer road, but it's based on the power curve data, and the reports from people who use it are that it's pretty close.

glfguy8

Totally possible, I think KK definitely has little more reliable power curve than the Elite trainer I'm using.

The point I was making is that there are far to many variables to use any trainer as reference measure when comparing your FTP to anything other than your own previous efforts.

Campag4life

OP...what do you suppose the max average speed you have held on the road for 8 minutes...or about 3 miles?

Guys,
Any idea what an average pro would do in 2 x 8 minute test in terms of FTP?

RedVVing19

Going by what you've stated that seems really strange, I weigh less than you and have a FTP of 210 with a KK and I am significantly slower on the road than you

Silvercivic27

ReLLiK75

When I can find a flat section, my max average for approx 3 miles is maybe 23ish. The problem here in Vegas is depending on which direction you head out, you're either climbing or descending. On the 3% climb out from my house to a point about 3 miles away, I maintain an avg speed of about 16 mph.

carpediemracing 

FTP tests are like standardized tests. It helps if you learn how to take them.

It's virtually impossible to replicate racing in training if you haven't raced before. I liken it to trying to explain to someone how to drive or about sex. You can read about it, practice, watch videos, but there's nothing like actually doing it. Racing, for many people, pushes them far beyond what they can do in training, at least it does for me. I was absolutely shocked at how fast guys went in my first race (Juniors so Cat 1-4).

Having said that if your FTP really is in the 187w range then it's not very high. Still, though, it's not the end of the world. First off when you do your first race you'll realize just how hard you can go. This will help you really improve your FTP test. It doesn't mean a 100% increase but it might mean a 20-40% improvement, just from knowing how to suffer/test/etc.

I'm just a touch lighter than you and my FTP is in the 210-220w range, which puts me in the Cat 5 level of the chart. However my power curve really spikes in the shorter efforts - a typical good sprint for me is 18-19 seconds and averages 1000-1100w. This is enough to sometimes win or place very high in Cat 3 races, enough so that when I lost an extra 25 lbs in 2010 I upgraded to Cat 2. I'm now 15 lbs heavier and a 3.

hhnngg1

I would actually take your virtualpower with a big grain of salt. KK's have the best reputation of all the trainers, but even on them, I've seen plenty of folks reporting like 40 watt differences in powertap power vs the KK virtualpower.

In either case, 187FTP, while not awesome, isn't terrible at all, and is well above the typical FTP you'll see amongst nonracing recreational cyclists who are closer to 150 and below.

save10

8 minute FTP test? that's like 6 minute abs

Reynolds 

You'll find out at the race.

Urymoto

2 things:

To the op: im skeptical ur ftp is that low, something is awry

second thing, im not sure recreational cyclists who are serious about cycling are close to 150, id put that higher

Urymoto

There u go.

WhyFi

It's your first test. Relax. I'd bet you that, even if you took the test again in a few days, you'd see an increase just because you've got a little bit of experience under your belt. When it comes to pushing yourself - hard enough that you don't have anything left in the tank when you're done, but not so hard as to blow up early - a little experience go a long way.

Kopsis

There's your problem. If you go too hard early in the test, you quickly go anaerobic, fatigue, and then have to drop way back to recover. The test is looking for an output that you can sustain for the duration of the test. Chances are a peak-and-fade interval is going to average out lower than what you could have sustained if you'd started easier.

The problem with tests is they often test your ability to take tests Remember you're trying to find the constant speed where your heart feels like it's going to explode just as you reach the 8 minute mark. Make note of what your speed was at around the 2 - 3 minute mark of your current test and the next time you do the test, get to that speed then immediately back off a gear while maintaining your 90 cadence. If you still don't make it to 8 min without down-shifting, then repeat the back-off process on your next test.

Urymoto

Only 92%?. So if i can do 330 watts for 8 min my ftp is around 300?

svtmike

If you can do it twice with a 10 minute recovery in between, yes, your FTP would be estimated at around 303.

hhnngg1

I can assure you 150 is pretty typical for a typical recreational cyclist. I have a powertap, as do several of the folks I ride with.

An FTP above 200 will make you competitive in the AG realm of triathletes. Sure, that's a much softer standard than racing roadies, but it's still a higher standard by a lot than recreational cyclists. I'd say it was low if OP was a racing roadie, but I didn't see that mentioned.

If you're talking SERIOUS recreational cyclists, ok, I'll give him a low for 150watts. (I was talking about the typical recreational cyclist, that doesn't train hard or all that regularly. Hence recreational.)