Are these watts right? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2015-03-11 11:29 AM in reply to: Donto |
439 nashville, Tennessee | Subject: RE: Are these watts right? I may try that. Thanks! |
|
2015-04-18 8:54 PM in reply to: #5098475 |
439 nashville, Tennessee | Subject: RE: Are these watts right? So I did my second FTP test today after a month of trainerroad and my new estimated FTP is 272. Just does not make sense. I have done several spin down calibrations over the last month so there's nothing else I can do. I should be a lot faster if that's my FTP. I guess I should forget about the number and just be happy with the improvement. |
2015-04-19 5:34 AM in reply to: mchadcota2 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Are these watts right? Originally posted by mchadcota2 So I did my second FTP test today after a month of trainerroad and my new estimated FTP is 272. Just does not make sense. I have done several spin down calibrations over the last month so there's nothing else I can do. I should be a lot faster if that's my FTP. I guess I should forget about the number and just be happy with the improvement. what duration did you do and what were the watts for that duration ? |
2015-04-19 7:33 AM in reply to: #5109164 |
439 nashville, Tennessee | Subject: RE: Are these watts right? I did the 8 min test. So two 8 min intervals with 10 min between. The first interval was 314 and second was 291. |
2015-04-19 8:08 AM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Are these watts right? Originally posted by mchadcota2 I did the 8 min test. So two 8 min intervals with 10 min between. The first interval was 314 and second was 291. that test is a pretty bad way to estimate ftp, but a person with an ftp of 272 could certainly do better than that on the 2nd interval with that much rest. Edited by marcag 2015-04-19 8:18 AM |
2015-04-19 9:05 AM in reply to: #5097971 |
439 nashville, Tennessee | Subject: RE: Are these watts right? Shouldn't trainerroad say in the description of the 8 min test that "this is not a good way to measure FTP". They act like its a good estimate. |
|
2015-04-19 9:31 AM in reply to: mchadcota2 |
Extreme Veteran 1986 Cypress, TX | Subject: RE: Are these watts right? FTP is simply the max power you can hold for one hour. The further away from one hour, the less reliable and realistic the test. 8 minutes is nowhere near 60 minutes. Anyone can be a stud for 8 minutes. This is why I put very little stock in FTP numbers, especially for HIM and IM racing. People take a number they got from an 8' test and then try to extrapolate that out for pacing purposes to a 112 mile bike ride that could take 5-7 hours. My guess is that you have one of the KICKRs that's reading high. If it's 5-10% off then you're talking about your 8' FTP being more like 250. I take it you do not own another power meter to compare? Wahoo just released a new beta firmware that supposedly solves some of the KICKR reading high problems. This was posted on ST last week: OK, First we just wanted to say sorry for being a little quiet in here we had a lot of stuff in the works and attacking KICKR firmware from many different angles at the moment. We have been running a lot of closed beta testing and 100's of hours of robot testing, we really wanted to wait until we had the full picture before letting everyone here know. |
2015-04-19 9:32 AM in reply to: mchadcota2 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Are these watts right? Originally posted by mchadcota2 Shouldn't trainerroad say in the description of the 8 min test that "this is not a good way to measure FTP". They act like its a good estimate. they should say that. Anyone training with power for a while will tell you that 8 minute tests don't correlate well with 60min tests. At least do the 20min tests as suggest by others in this thread. |
2015-04-19 10:26 AM in reply to: marcag |
Extreme Veteran 1986 Cypress, TX | Subject: RE: Are these watts right? Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by mchadcota2 Shouldn't trainerroad say in the description of the 8 min test that "this is not a good way to measure FTP". They act like its a good estimate. they should say that. Anyone training with power for a while will tell you that 8 minute tests don't correlate well with 60min tests. At least do the 20min tests as suggest by others in this thread. The 20' test will certainly be better but it's still way off, IMO. The 60' test sucks. Did it one time and will never do it again. I prefer the 2x20' (2' rest) test. Thing is once you get some "FTP" number whether it's 8/20/40/60 minute test, the real trick is training with it for the distance required of your race. A 20' test might be a real good predictor of power pacing in a sprint race. It's probably not so good at pacing an IM, without the 4-6 training rides to back up the numbers. So if the OP went out right now and rode 56 miles at 80-85% of that 272 FTP number my guess is he'd be fried. Same for trying to ride 112 at 70% of that 272 number. I'm veering off into kind of a separate discussion here but it's overall relevant to what we're talking about. The numbers are a good base from which to start. Problem is a lot of people take them as some gospel truth and go ride themselves into proverbial brick walls. What I think the OP is facing is 1) his KICKR is reading high, and 2) the 8' test inflates the FTP number. So his testing is giving him a number that is probably 20 watts or more on the high side. It's good that he's questioning it. Thing is absent another power meter for outdoor riding the FTP number is meaningless for racing and outdoor training purposes. I'd suggest he downloads the new firmware for the KICKR and see what that does. Then I'd suggest doing the 20' test. See how the numbers start to shake out. |
|
| |||
|