Results 1 to 94 of 94
  1. #1
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711

    Whats your current 30 minute TT power average?

    Just did a 30 min TT last week outside on the road bike with my new powertap. This was my first TT using power. I averaged 200watts for 30 minutes/157 HR. This seems weak, no? In my defense, I'm out of shape and just started base.

    I finished off my season well in sport and am going to expert so just curious about what numbers others like me (I'm 39) are hitting right now. I don't really have anything to compare at this point.
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Relentless forward motion
    Reputation: strat819's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    354
    Access your watts/kg data on your PT... start with this chart... perhaps it will give you just a point of reference...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Whats your current 30 minute TT power average?-power-weight-chart.png  

    "Racing cyclocross exposes the truth, it's the biggest reason many people do not race it"

  3. #3
    mnoutain bkie rdier
    Reputation: rydbyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,822
    my lthr was at 186 bpm avg for 20 min on last test fwiw...no pm for wattage..

    i will do test again to verify soon..

    used j. friel method for lthr fwiw..

  4. #4
    Sweep the leg!
    Reputation: Caffeine Powered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,805
    You are weak and should rightly be ashamed of those numbers!

    But really, What Strat said. Check your preferences in the Power Agent and if you have the time, give the CycleOps help desk a call. They're really good at making sure you get the most from their product.
    Authorities speculate that speed may have been a factor. They are also holding gravity and inertia for questioning.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,001
    Sounds like something is off on the PT or software. Unless you're about 100#?

    Edit: was it rolling terrain or did it include any stops? If so you may want to check out the normalized power instead of average?

  6. #6
    CB2
    CB2 is offline
    Jam Econo
    Reputation: CB2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,214
    My power for a 30 min TT?
    No idea, and I don't know if your number is good or bad .
    But! Remember mountain bike racing is about more than just power or power/weight ratio; there is also a skill and handling component, so don't get too hung up on numbers.


    Oh yeah, one more thing, those guys in Cat 1 that say they are such roadies and suck at the technical stuff are lying.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,396
    I'm about 165 right now. I did 4X15 minute OU intervals of ~250W pushing pretty good last week (outside on roads with longer constant grades; up and down). With practice, my downhill power has gotten a lot better. 200W is my tempo target when I'm fresh.

    But then again, in early December, ~200W was my threshold when not riding for a month after a broken wrist. And I was 172. I struggled to push 130W for a hour on the trainer.

    BTW, I train at elevation. One week I trained in Vegas...... man, what a great instant power boost!!!
    Last edited by Poncharelli; 02-01-2012 at 09:16 AM.
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  8. #8
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by miss rides a lot View Post
    Sounds like something is off on the PT or software. Unless you're about 100#?

    Edit: was it rolling terrain or did it include any stops? If so you may want to check out the normalized power instead of average?
    It was cold and I had full winter gear on and I'm out of shape so I think I'm just weak right now although it does sound low-I won my division in sport last season. I cant find normalized power on the power agent 7.

    I did have 2 roll through stop signs and it was a bit hilly.

    I should try and upgrade the software or do a reboot of the cpu to make sure power is accurate.
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  9. #9
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,694
    Sounds like you are out of shape. Numbers move quickly when you are out of shape, so don't worry. But make sure you start training.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SnowStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    172
    Yeah....what everyone else said. Be very careful looking at raw wattages. The top of my endurance zone power is right at 215W. At my weight, I can hardly climb a mole hill at that power. For reference, my last 20min TT effort was right at 350W (rolling terrain...but no stops). I think I could possibly do 15-20W faster on a completely flat course, or better yet, a 2% incline course.

  11. #11
    Registered Dietitian
    Reputation: tommyrod74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,600
    Quote Originally Posted by SnowStorm View Post
    Yeah....what everyone else said. Be very careful looking at raw wattages. The top of my endurance zone power is right at 215W. At my weight, I can hardly climb a mole hill at that power. For reference, my last 20min TT effort was right at 350W (rolling terrain...but no stops). I think I could possibly do 15-20W faster on a completely flat course, or better yet, a 2% incline course.
    I think your zones aren't set quite right, if that's your best average power for a 20 minute TT... 243 watts or so should be the top of your endurance zone (zone 2).
    Registered Dietitian, Cycling Coach, Ascend Nutrition and Coaching

    www.ascendthepeak.com

    www.facebook.com/ascendthepeak

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    Sounds like you are out of shape. Numbers move quickly when you are out of shape, so don't worry. But make sure you start training.
    This. I wouldn't put too much stock in this # if you're untrained. If you're embarking on a training plan that involves a conventional base building period at first, then you'll be doing zone 2 and zone 3 type riding, where you can let RPE be your guide rather than wattage test #s.

    A more meaningful test value would be to do the test following a 'rest' / 'recovery' week following your first month of building up.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    321
    I can do about 300 an hour so probably around 600 for 30 minits

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    What head unit are you using with your Powertap? When you connect the head unit to your computer copy and paste a copy of the original ride file into a folder on your computer so that it's available later. You can then put the same file into several different programs to see which you prefer.

    The software that you use to look at your files makes quite a big difference to how useful the power meter data is. I'd suggest that you use Golden Cheetah 3.0 (beta development version) or WKO+ 3.0 in preference to CycleOps Poweragent.

    The newest version of Golden Cheetah 3.0 (beta development version) looks really good. It's also free. The latest version includes Normalized Power, TSS and IF metrics, along with a calendar, GPS map of your route where you can read off power readings for sections on the map, best interval power outputs for individual sections etc.

    I was trying it out now and it's much better than the previous Golden Cheetah 2.0. (hold down shift and left mouse drag on the ride screen to zoom in and out, hold left mouse and drag to create a new interval selection which you can then edit or delete from the intervals tab on the left hand side.) You have to spend a little time in Tools - Options choosing what you want displayed (NP, TSS, IF, w/kg need adding to the Summary Metrics and Interval Metrics displays manually). You still can't change the scales of individual traces though which is a major drawback.

    Golden Cheetah 3.0 (latest development build) free download
    Golden Cheetah – Development Builds - Remember, these are "release" builds of the current development code.

    WKO+ 3.0 costs money but is useful for looking closely at your files and working with the data. The graph section is still more versatile than Golden Cheetah. The downside of WKO+ 3.0 is that it hasn't been updated in well over a year and a lot of the report sections aren't great. It's been neglected in favour of the online Training Peaks website which is a shame. Despite that it's widely used and quite useful. You get a free trial so you can download it to have a look.

    WKO+ 3.0 trial version download:
    TrainingPeaks :: Download Software : WKO+, ERG+, CRS+, Real3D

    Pictured below: Golden Cheetah 3.0. Have the sidebar displayed to quickly jump between settings and individual intervals
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Whats your current 30 minute TT power average?-golden_cheetah_3.jpg  


  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u View Post
    Just did a 30 min TT last week outside on the road bike with my new powertap. This was my first TT using power. I averaged 200watts for 30 minutes/157 HR. This seems weak, no? In my defense, I'm out of shape and just started base.

    I finished off my season well in sport and am going to expert so just curious about what numbers others like me (I'm 39) are hitting right now. I don't really have anything to compare at this point.
    Another way to compare your data with other people would be to upload some of your power files to Strava.com. You'll need a GPS enabled head unit for that but then it allows you to see what times other people did for the same sections of route. Bear in mind that power on Strava is only a rough estimate unless there's a small lightning icon next to the power numbers. That's a sign that the data is from a power meter.

    Running and Cycling GPS Tracking, Performance Analytics, Maps and Competition

    .

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: aussiebullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Combatcm View Post
    I can do about 300 an hour so probably around 600 for 30 minits
    He he, yeh right!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SnowStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyrod74 View Post
    I think your zones aren't set quite right, if that's your best average power for a 20 minute TT... 243 watts or so should be the top of your endurance zone (zone 2).
    Yes, I am actually going for retesting this week. The endurance number was set about 2.5 months ago. I had been off the bike entirely for about 4.5 months and then only back on the bike for a week or two when I did that first test.

    I feel like my real endurance pace should be around 240-250W. At 215W I literally don't even work up a sweat.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Quote Originally Posted by Combatcm View Post
    I can do about 300 an hour so probably around 600 for 30 minutes
    Different people have different strengths so there isn't really a set rule that applies to everyone. When you get past the very shortest durations the power outputs tend to become closer together. With an FTP of 300 watts you'd maybe be looking at a estimated best of around 315 watts for 30 minutes. You should be able to read the actual figures off from your power data. In WKO+3.0 you can set a graph to show your best power outputs at different durations to see how they change over time.

    PowerTap Disc

    The graph below shows my best power outputs from 2011. It's a shortened graph to make it a bit clearer without as many different durations as I normally have visible. The best power outputs are fairly closely grouped and my trend is very much the other way. I'm not great at shorter durations but then there isn't that much drop off in power outputs over longer periods. 180 and 240 minutes are lower but still in the same sort of area also.

    Pictured below: My best power outputs from 2011. Estimated weight of 149lbs/ 67.59kg for the w/kg figures but I was lighter than that for some of the year. Edit: Fixed typo
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Whats your current 30 minute TT power average?-best-power-outputs-2011.jpg  

    Last edited by WR304; 01-30-2012 at 06:07 PM.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    51
    Speaking of which:

    Training with Purpose

  20. #20
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by jared_j View Post
    This. I wouldn't put too much stock in this # if you're untrained. If you're embarking on a training plan that involves a conventional base building period at first, then you'll be doing zone 2 and zone 3 type riding, where you can let RPE be your guide rather than wattage test #s.

    A more meaningful test value would be to do the test following a 'rest' / 'recovery' week following your first month of building up.
    Right, I've noticed using PE for zones 1 and 2 in base works really well. The power and HR numbers don't match up well with PE on the trainer so as of now I'm tracking power and HR but using PE as the guide.
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtncampbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Combatcm View Post
    I can do about 300 an hour so probably around 600 for 30 minits
    When will we see you in Le Tour? And what team are you riding for?

  22. #22
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by WR304 View Post
    Different people have different strengths so there isn't really a set rule that applies to everyone.

    Pictured below: My best power outputs from 2011. Estimated weight of 149lbs/ 67.59kg for the w/kg figures but I was lighter than that for some of the year. Edit: Fixed typo
    Thanks for the recommendations. I'm just starting out with power so this is cool info. I will try out the other programs for power. It looks like your 30 min TT power is about 30w more than mine. I was on rolling hills with winter clothes and out of shape. I'm sure I'll have better numbers in a month.
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u View Post
    Thanks for the recommendations. I'm just starting out with power so this is cool info. I will try out the other programs for power. It looks like your 30 min TT power is about 30w more than mine. I was on rolling hills with winter clothes and out of shape. I'm sure I'll have better numbers in a month.
    If you're not that fit at the moment then you should be able to improve quite a lot over the course of the season. It's one of the good things about a power meter as you can track your peaks and troughs. If you look at my top 10 power bests in post #18 the majority of power bests are concentrated between March and August 2011. There weren't many power bests set early in the year. I'd guess that you'll probably see a similar pattern develop.

    Your choice of route will make a big difference to this sort of test as well. Rolling hills aren't ideal as your power tends to drop on downhill sections, dragging your overall average power down. A route that's totally flat, or a constant climb (if you're lucky enough to have 30 minute plus climbs nearby) is likely to result in higher power numbers than over a rolling course. I'd try doing tests over different routes to see how the power outputs compare.

    Don't get too caught up in "chasing numbers" though. It's easy to focus on trying to improve a particular best power output, rather than working on other aspects of your riding. WKO+ 3.0 and its power profiles (as linked in post #2) are particularly bad for that because it only looks at short 5 second, 1 minute, 5 minute and 20 (or 60) minute durations. If you train for those specific durations it makes for a better profile but can be at the expense of doing more volume work. I ended up doing that a bit last year.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by mtncampbell View Post
    When will we see you in Le Tour? And what team are you riding for?
    Next year, unattached

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,961
    It is always interesting to see other peoples numbers. Today I did a 20 minute tempo session at 260w (after blowing up in some 4 minute intervals, first 4 minute was 360w, second one Allison kicked my arse). Finished off with three 1000w peak sprints. It was a hard day...
    Try to be good.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,034
    Wish I had a power meter myself... the closest I have is a Kurt Kinetic fluid trainer, which has a power-estimation formula based on speed. Based on that, a 30-minute ballpark stat for me is 293 watts @ 168bpm average. I'm 42 and currently 157 pounds with a target weight of 150, got a ways to go.

    Anyway OP, keep up your program and have an awesome season

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Alexgonzalezmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    172
    Actual watts doesn't matter. It's the watts per kilo that counts. My FTP is 4.57w/kg. I'm starting competitive mountain biking this year aftrer years of road cycling and long distance triathlon.

    For those of you with a power meter on your mountain bike, do you find it valuable when you ride? I dont feel like I have the time to look down to watch my 3s power like I do on my tri or road bikes. I'll probably still do all my intervals on the road. So how do you use it on your mountain bike?

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    649
    Ryan Trebon usually averages between 470 and 485 watts for one of his 60 minute cyclocross races. That's a good point of reference to work towards.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wetpaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    313
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexgonzalezmi View Post
    Actual watts doesn't matter. It's the watts per kilo that counts. My FTP is 4.57w/kg. I'm starting competitive mountain biking this year aftrer years of road cycling and long distance triathlon.

    For those of you with a power meter on your mountain bike, do you find it valuable when you ride? I dont feel like I have the time to look down to watch my 3s power like I do on my tri or road bikes. I'll probably still do all my intervals on the road. So how do you use it on your mountain bike?
    I have a Powertap on my mountain bike and an SRM on my road bike. I really like having it since the pacing feels completely different than the road, it helps keep my efforts in check.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexgonzalezmi View Post
    For those of you with a power meter on your mountain bike, do you find it valuable when you ride? I dont feel like I have the time to look down to watch my 3s power like I do on my tri or road bikes. I'll probably still do all my intervals on the road. So how do you use it on your mountain bike?
    I've used it for trail intervals (hill repeats, same as on road, only don't have to worry about cars) and it can be useful for post-ride analysis on courses, etc. or for training races.

    That said, I'm racing 29 this year and right now don't have mine built up on a 29" wheel, so likely won't have any offroad power this year. #pagingwhybotherme!

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexgonzalezmi View Post
    Actual watts doesn't matter. It's the watts per kilo that counts. My FTP is 4.57w/kg.

    Totally agree...hearing someone's power numbers alone isn't really that helpful.

    When I started out a friend of mine was putting out 255 Watts threshold power. I was really impressed as I was only able to do 211. My goal was to get to 255 W in order to be competitive with him. Once I got even to 240 I noticed that I was getting much faster than he was and that's when the watts/weight analysis really hit me.

    I'm now 165, or 75kg, and have threshold of 255, or 3.4W/kg.

    My friend is 195, or 88kg, and has threshold of 255, or 2.89W/kg.

    I started riding in July of 2011 and used the TCTP to get my wattage from my initial base of 211W and 2.63W/kg to my current 255W 3.4W/kg level.

    I can only dream of getting to 4.57 like Alexgonzalezmi but have set my goal to 4.0W/kg by the end of the year.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexgonzalezmi View Post
    For those of you with a power meter on your mountain bike, do you find it valuable when you ride? I dont feel like I have the time to look down to watch my 3s power like I do on my tri or road bikes. I'll probably still do all my intervals on the road. So how do you use it on your mountain bike?
    The power meter is quite useful for looking back at what you did during offroad rides. Often the limiting factor isn't how hard you can pedal but how much of that available power you can actually deliver whilst riding offroad on mixed terrain. There are some offroad power files and links in this thread:

    MTB power meter thread.

    When riding offroad it's not really possible to look at the head unit display all the time. It's more a case of a quick glance whenever possible, adjust pace slightly, ride along, quick glance, adjust pace slightly, ride along and so on. The harder the route the less you look at the display. I have one display on my Garmin Edge 500 set so that it only displays two items - 3 second power at the top of the display and then ride time below it. The larger figures make it easier to read whenever you look down. If you have lots of items displayed it makes the Garmin's screen text size too small to pick out.

  33. #33
    mnoutain bkie rdier
    Reputation: rydbyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Stonerider View Post
    Ryan Trebon usually averages between 470 and 485 watts for one of his 60 minute cyclocross races. That's a good point of reference to work towards.
    Cool. I will start learning how to slam dunk over people like Jordan too while I am at it..

    Also, yes, it is about strength/power to weight ratio. Someone racing at 185lbs better have more watts than his fellow competitor at 145lbs!

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,396
    Quote Originally Posted by string_wise View Post

    I'm now 165, or 75kg, and have threshold of 255, or 3.4W/kg.

    My friend is 195, or 88kg, and has threshold of 255, or 2.89W/kg.
    There's a local friend I compare with sometimes. He blows me away.

    We weigh exactly the same, 165, and we'll do these lunch time hammerhead group rides with 30 people. He typically breaks off with some other strong guys (strong Masters, and roadie Cat 1 & 2s), while I'm left in the chase peleton. He has a PT as well and I asked him to email me a file. It blew me away.

    His normalized power for the 40minutes was about 325W. Mine was 270ish. He hit 1350W peak a couple of times (by accident) to break up the group. Over 1000W 5-second. (I mean, this was a road group ride; it's not like he was going out trying to hit his best numbers).

    He''s so f$$king strong. He's a good Cat 2 roadie though.
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  35. #35
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,694
    Often when I am climbing with my wife, between haggard breaths and through the haze produced by lack of oxygen I will look over at her power meter and see 250 watts. Which is really depressing, until I divide 250 by 49, and multiply that by 63, then I feel pretty dam proud of myself.


    Quote Originally Posted by string_wise View Post
    Totally agree...hearing someone's power numbers alone isn't really that helpful.

    When I started out a friend of mine was putting out 255 Watts threshold power. I was really impressed as I was only able to do 211. My goal was to get to 255 W in order to be competitive with him. Once I got even to 240 I noticed that I was getting much faster than he was and that's when the watts/weight analysis really hit me.

    I'm now 165, or 75kg, and have threshold of 255, or 3.4W/kg.

    My friend is 195, or 88kg, and has threshold of 255, or 2.89W/kg.

    I started riding in July of 2011 and used the TCTP to get my wattage from my initial base of 211W and 2.63W/kg to my current 255W 3.4W/kg level.

    I can only dream of getting to 4.57 like Alexgonzalezmi but have set my goal to 4.0W/kg by the end of the year.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u View Post
    Thanks for the recommendations. I'm just starting out with power so this is cool info. I will try out the other programs for power. It looks like your 30 min TT power is about 30w more than mine. I was on rolling hills with winter clothes and out of shape. I'm sure I'll have better numbers in a month.
    With a 4 week training cycle you will see those power numbers jump up quite a bit.

    I was in the same position this year because I took a few months off. After 4 weeks of very easy/quasi-structured training and my power test went up 20 watts.

    I didn't even generate that much weekly TSS because I've been mostly weight lifting. So those early season increases are pretty cool to experience.
    Turning the pedals faster every year.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by madisongrrl View Post
    With a 4 week training cycle you will see those power numbers jump up quite a bit.

    I was in the same position this year because I took a few months off. After 4 weeks of very easy/quasi-structured training and my power test went up 20 watts.

    I didn't even generate that much weekly TSS because I've been mostly weight lifting. So those early season increases are pretty cool to experience.

    I should probably add that my 20 minute power went from 172 to 192 watts at 115 lbs in the time frame.

    As I get into better shape and get into base training, my watts will be in the lower 200's and my weight about 110lbs.
    Turning the pedals faster every year.

  38. #38
    is turning a big gear
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Combatcm View Post
    Next year, unattached
    A team would probably just slow you down anyway.
    Get it unlocked.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    254
    Did a test about a month ago and was @ 255 W for 30 min. I'm de-trained currently. During my peak last summer it was about 308 for 30 minutes and I weighed about 158 lbs. Its funny b/c I can ride @ 215 watts for 4 hrs but can only do 255 w for 1/2 hour. I'm building up my one hr power and AWC right now in preparation for the AZ state road race on April 21st. After though my training will change to get ready for the Barn burner 104 and Leadville.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by WR304 View Post
    Another way to compare your data with other people would be to upload some of your power files to Strava.com. You'll need a GPS enabled head unit for that but then it allows you to see what times other people did for the same sections of route. Bear in mind that power on Strava is only a rough estimate unless there's a small lightning icon next to the power numbers. That's a sign that the data is from a power meter.

    Running and Cycling GPS Tracking, Performance Analytics, Maps and Competition

    .
    BTW Strava power data is soo wrong. I can upload the same file to WKO and to Strava and I dont know what the heck strava does but it always shows the power way low. Its doing some of its own calculations on the raw data for some reason.

    WKO for power in my opinion.

    BTW you want to do 20m FTP test not 30m. Everything is pretty much based on 20m. And as others have said, use normalized power not avg.

    Your power will go up pretty quick the more you ride. At this point I pretty much use it for the IF (PE) numbers when I ride road. It gives you a pretty accurate number to match to what you thought your PE was, and then you can correlate it a little easier in yourself. Then your PE actually gets more meaning after a while.

    Its a tool, only a tool

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtncampbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by zeeke View Post
    BTW Strava power data is soo wrong. I can upload the same file to WKO and to Strava and I dont know what the heck strava does but it always shows the power way low. Its doing some of its own calculations on the raw data for some reason.

    WKO for power in my opinion.

    BTW you want to do 20m FTP test not 30m. Everything is pretty much based on 20m. And as others have said, use normalized power not avg.

    Your power will go up pretty quick the more you ride. At this point I pretty much use it for the IF (PE) numbers when I ride road. It gives you a pretty accurate number to match to what you thought your PE was, and then you can correlate it a little easier in yourself. Then your PE actually gets more meaning after a while.

    Its a tool, only a tool
    Agree. Strava is waaay off if you leave it to calculate/estimate your power. Most of the time it's higher than actual power when I've compared it to my power meter. But I do love Strava overall.

  42. #42
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by zeeke View Post
    BTW Strava power data is soo wrong. I can upload the same file to WKO and to Strava and I dont know what the heck strava does but it always shows the power way low. Its doing some of its own calculations on the raw data for some reason.

    WKO for power in my opinion.

    BTW you want to do 20m FTP test not 30m. Everything is pretty much based on 20m. And as others have said, use normalized power not avg.

    Your power will go up pretty quick the more you ride. At this point I pretty much use it for the IF (PE) numbers when I ride road. It gives you a pretty accurate number to match to what you thought your PE was, and then you can correlate it a little easier in yourself. Then your PE actually gets more meaning after a while.

    Its a tool, only a tool
    I'm using an outline and some workouts for base from Gale Bernhardt's "training plans for cyclists" which outlines doing a 30min Threshold test with a power meter and subtracting 5%. I'll do a 20 minute test and see what the results are.
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Quote Originally Posted by zeeke View Post
    BTW Strava power data is soo wrong. I can upload the same file to WKO and to Strava and I dont know what the heck strava does but it always shows the power way low. Its doing some of its own calculations on the raw data for some reason.
    Uploading Power Data to Different Websites
    Most uploaded files on Strava appear fairly reliable when it comes to timings and speed. There are a few odd uploaded files, especially if you're comparing offroad segments where GPS speed has been used, but the majority of files seem to be about right. Road based rides seem more likely to be comparable than the offroad rides.

    The estimated power figures that Strava produces if you don't have a power meter can be quite inaccurate though. They rely upon the user information entered to estimate power output. My uploaded power meter data in Strava seems to be reasonable. For the files that I've uploaded to Strava the summaries, including power figures, aren't identical but are fairly near to the WKO+ 3.0 figures. I'm using a Garmin Edge 500.

    My Garmin Edge 500 settings for use with a Powertap hub and WKO+ 3.0
    PowerTap Disc

    Correcting Garmin power files in WKO+ 3.0
    PowerTap Disc

    Some of the differences you're noticing are probably going to be because of the way that different programs deal with and interpret stationary time from the raw files. Along with Strava another popular website where you need to pay attention to that is Garmin Connect. Strava and Garmin Connect treat stationary time in uploaded files differently when calculating average power.

    Garmin Connect and Strava
    I uploaded the same Garmin Edge 500 .fit file to Strava, Garmin Connect and also into WKO+ 3.0. The results are pictured below. WKO+ 3.0 (Raw Original) is the unedited file that came directly from the head unit. This includes all stationary time in both the average speed and average power calculations. WKO+ 3.0 (Edited File) is the corrected file where I manually identified stationary time. Total time for the edited file is displayed in brackets and moving time is displayed alongside. I spent around 7 minutes stationary during this ride opening and closing farm gates.

    - WKO+ 3.0 average power including stationary time 154 watts
    - WKO+ 3.0 average power excluding stationary time 160 watts
    - Garmin Connect average power 153 watts (must include stationary time in calculation)
    - Strava average power 161 watts (must exclude stationary time from calculation)

    In WKO+ 3.0 the edited file is used for all the WKO+ 3.0 reports and the Performance Management Chart. If you don't identify stationary time in the file then it skews total riding time, average speed, average power, normalized power, IF and TSS in all your WKO+ 3.0 reports and summaries.

    When you look at the two online ride summaries there are a few noticeable patterns. By comparing the website average watts figure with the WKO+ 3.0 figures you can see whether the website is including stationary time or not. It's important to be aware of this type of difference. Say that you go for a ride with a friend who has a power meter too. Post ride one of you uploads their power file to Strava whilst the other uploads their power file to Garmin Connect. If you were to then compare average power between the two uploaded files it wouldn't be an "apples to apples" comparison. The more time you spend stationary the bigger the differences will be.

    Garmin Connect automatically splits the ride into moving and stationary time for calculating average speeds. It gives you both moving and elapsed time average speeds but doesn't do the same thing for average power. The overall average speed in Garmin Connect summaries is the lower figure which includes stationary time. Average power in Garmin Connect includes any stationary time also. That means average power will always be lower viewed in Garmin Connect than the same ride in Strava.

    Strava automatically splits the ride into moving and stationary time for calculating average speed. It only displays the higher moving average speed. It does the same thing for power also. Average power in Strava is the higher moving average excluding any stationary time.

    The amount of climbing varies between program also. 2225 ft in the orginal WKO+ 3.0 file (based on the barometric altimeter I think) but then it's 2539 ft elevation in Garmin Connect and 2524ft in Strava.

    Golden Cheetah
    Golden Cheetah 3.0 (development build) is different again. In Golden Cheetah 3.0 (development build) your average power doesn't match the average speed. With the same .fit file as above it gives you the average speed excluding stationary time but then the average power includes stationary time. Average speed 13.2mph, average power 154 watts.

    If you're using Golden Cheetah 3.0 (development build) then you can do the same as in WKO+ 3.0 and manually cut out all the stationary time which fixes the file. Go to the edit tab in Golden Cheetah and delete the rows with zero speed (always leave a 2 second gap from stopping before cutting the rows out and leave a 2 second gap just before you set off again.) Save the file after doing that and it sorts out the file statistics. It's a slower process than in WKO+ 3.0 as you have to scroll through all the individual lines of data. Golden Cheetah 3.0 (development build) is a beta version so hopefully it will be fixed for the final release.

    Pictured below: Comparison of the same ride file uploaded into Garmin Connect.com, Strava.com and WKO+ 3.0 (edited and un-edited summaries). An average power of roughly 160 watts indicates that the 7 minutes of stationary time during the ride is excluded from the power calculation. An average power of roughly 154 watts means that the 7 minutes of stationary time is included in the power calculation.

    The same .fit file in Golden Cheetah 3.0 (development build) as it originally appears and then after I've manually edited it to correct the data. Note how the average speed and average power in the original file don't match. It should be either average speed 12.6 mph / average power 154 watts (including stationary time in both calculations) or average speed 13.2 mph / average power 160 watts.(excluding stationary time from both calculations).
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Whats your current 30 minute TT power average?-garmin_connect_strava_wko_28-11-2011.jpg  

    Whats your current 30 minute TT power average?-golden_cheetah_editing_28-11-2011.jpg  

    Last edited by WR304; 02-09-2012 at 04:43 PM.

  44. #44
    Don't be a sheep
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,383
    I understand the importance of power when training but I have to laugh when people start throwing their numbers around. It's just a number and only matters to you and your coach. Want to impress people, link to your USA cycling results.
    "Do not touch the trim"

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexgonzalezmi View Post
    Actual watts doesn't matter. It's the watts per kilo that counts. My FTP is 4.57w/kg. I'm starting competitive mountain biking this year aftrer years of road cycling and long distance triathlon.

    For those of you with a power meter on your mountain bike, do you find it valuable when you ride? I dont feel like I have the time to look down to watch my 3s power like I do on my tri or road bikes. I'll probably still do all my intervals on the road. So how do you use it on your mountain bike?
    Mainly for post-workout analysis. I've found that in short mtn bike races (less than 2 hrs) power between 30 seconds and 3 minutes are the real deal breakers. You really have to be able to surge hard and repeatedly. If you haven't been training your AWC you won't do well. Its not a steady state effort for sure. Racing road crits helps my mtn bike racing (though I despise them).

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivet View Post
    I understand the importance of power when training but I have to laugh when people start throwing their numbers around. It's just a number and only matters to you and your coach. Want to impress people, link to your USA cycling results.
    I agree, results do matter. However it can be far more constructive for an athlete to base their goals off a less subjective measure (like watts).

    I find it interesting to see other peoples numbers for comparison sake. Saw Adam Morkas numbers for some 3 min. Intervals last year and for grins I tried to match his effort...

    I didn't grin much and fell way short of his numbers. :-)
    Try to be good.

  47. #47
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,694
    Quote Originally Posted by chiva View Post
    Mainly for post-workout analysis. I've found that in short mtn bike races (less than 2 hrs) power between 30 seconds and 3 minutes are the real deal breakers. You really have to be able to surge hard and repeatedly. If you haven't been training your AWC you won't do well. Its not a steady state effort for sure. Racing road crits helps my mtn bike racing (though I despise them).
    There has been a lot of debate as the best predictor of performance for a MTB race. My experience is a watts/kg for 20 minutes is a pretty good predictor. 30 second to three minute power is important, but it seems that once you get into a race, those abilities are directly tied to your FTP.

    If you look a race file, the wattages are never that high above FTP. If some one is on top form, after the first 20 minutes the best three minute powers are at most 115% of FTP.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brentos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivet View Post
    I understand the importance of power when training but I have to laugh when people start throwing their numbers around. It's just a number and only matters to you and your coach. Want to impress people, link to your USA cycling results.
    Now that's a good idea.

    People should post their 20 minute power / weight numbers AND race results. Any correlation found could be interesting.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,961
    Quote Originally Posted by brentos View Post
    Now that's a good idea.

    People should post their 20 minute power / weight numbers AND race results. Any correlation found could be interesting.
    I would be willing to bet that it you could predict MOST of the outcomes of races given that information. The exception would be when the best climbers (as designated by power/weight) cannot descend well and are faced with a technical course.
    Try to be good.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by brentos View Post
    People should post their 20 minute power / weight numbers AND race results. Any correlation found could be interesting.
    Or we could cut straight to the chase and just whip out some rulers and measure our junk.

    You cannot control for variation in how athletes test their 20 min numbers (fresh? 5 min blowout like Coggan says? on the flats? on a climb?), variation in competitiveness and field size of the respective races they're doing (insert "Expert in ___ state is sooo much faster than expert in ____ state" claims here), etc. It'd be very noisy.

    But it would be a good chestbeating exercise for those who choose to partake. And you'd get a decidedly nonrandom sample of guys who think they're hot stuff and want to brag about their numbers on the internet.

    Good cross-sectional data on power/weight ratios isn't really publicly available, so ultimately making a decision on the validity of this metric as a lay-person rider is going to be a question of faith, e.g. trusting coaches and researchers who have access to the data and publicly state their conclusions.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Quote Originally Posted by jared_j View Post
    You cannot control for variation in how athletes test their 20 min numbers (fresh? 5 min blowout like Coggan says? on the flats? on a climb?),
    ...
    Good cross-sectional data on power/weight ratios isn't really publicly available, so ultimately making a decision on the validity of this metric as a lay-person rider is going to be a question of faith, e.g. trusting coaches and researchers who have access to the data and publicly state their conclusions.
    That's a good point. Even with just your own tests you're going to see wildly varying ftp test results depending upon the route, and also the test protocol. For example I can achieve a significantly higher 20 minute ftp test result if it's on an uphill course than doing a 20 minute time trial on a flat route.

    About all you can do is try and make sure that your own ftp tests are performed on the same route in the same repeatable manner each time. That should allow you to reliably track your own progress over the year.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    This is an extract quoted from the Google Wattage Group about the best way to test your ftp.

    You have to sign in to view the actual thread:
    Wattage | Google Groups

    -------------------------------------
    "Question for the group...this will be my second year training with power. In the past, I've used the Coggan method for testing FTP (some pre-work followed by a 20min TT, of which I take 95% to be my FTP for that test). As I understand things, the purpose of the abridged testing protocol is to ensure that the athlete maintains focus and to make the test more manageable overall.

    In discussions with teammates, it's come up that this might be returning FTP values that overestimate your (my) true FTP. Basically the questions revolve around the 95% measure and the pre-work adequately simulating a cyclists true FTP over a 1hr TT (from a fresh state).

    The discussion seemed to boil down to "if you're so confident in your (ie: Coggan's) method, jump on the bike and rip off a one hour TT, see if you can replicate your wattage from the Coggan test...

    Any comments, points for or against the Coggan method? Really what I'm asking the group is who uses the Coggan method (the one specified in his book "Racing and Training with a Power Meter") and who uses the traditional 1hr TT method?" EricV


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    "It doesn't matter what method you use as long as you're consistent. The point of having an FTP number is not so you can participate in e-wang internet contests, it's to guide your effort during training and potentially racing if you're doing TTs. As far as training you'll find out soon enough if your method is working as the workouts based on particular FTP will either be too hard or too easy. You'll end up adjusting the target %FTP that you use as needed.

    If you're using 95% of 20min power to determine FTP and you end up not being able to maintain that in a 40kTT then you just make an adjustment for next time. There is no way to know ahead of time what the ratio of 20min to 60min power is until you actually test both. Many people need a race to generate the motivation to go all out for 60min hence the prevalence of shorter tests." Gregf


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    "There are many reasons why there are several methods of testing for FTP (some valid, some less so):

    - there exist a number of published methods that work reasonably well (some are better than others), in particular those presented by Andy Coggan himself

    - some people don't want to go hard for an hour, so are looking for an easier/shorter alternative

    - some don't want to test 1 hour all out all that regularly, or are concerned with testing interfering with training, so look for other ways (e.g. examining race data)

    - some do not have ready access to suitable venues to go quasi steady state hard for an hour (terrain, traffic lights etc make execution difficult)

    - a 1 hour indoor trainer test may not provide a valid result given the often quoted difference in indoor v outdoor power

    - some need the motivation of a race number on their back to perform, but do not have hour long TTs where they live/train

    - some are experienced in training with power and know from their regular training how it's going (e.g. regular interval work is a test method itself)

    - some might be more interested in performance for other time durations relevant for their goal events, but still want an FTP estimate anyway for all the useful things it enables

    - marketing / "branding" of a preferred testing method by a coaching group/personality

    As a result, there will be no consensus. It comes back to what you are doing testing for.

    To know your maximal quasi steady state power that you can sustain for about an hour, well really there is only one test for that.

    But as to what method is preferred to estimate FTP for the purposes of training with power (setting training levels, assessing fitness changes, using the performance manager etc etc), well one has to take into account all the reasons above that apply to each individual when deciding what's the best method for them.

    As a coach I employ several different methods (e.g. longer and shorter TTs, MAP tests, critical power, assessing regular interval and hard tempo training, inspection of race results) depending on a range of factors for each client. But you then try to remain consistent with the testing approach for that client. Circumstances do change though.

    As to the relationship of the outcomes of the Hunter Allen 20-min test 95% = FTP method, well that's been recently and not so recently picked over a gazillion times. I would suggest that it will get you to within a few %, depending on how one performs the pre-test "blowout" effort. As others have said, pick a method and if you find the result seems a bit out of whack relative to your subsequent training ability, well then you adjust accordingly.

    However there is definitely a variance in the relationship between 20- min power (sans blow out effort) and 60-min power, and those who can hold 95% of 20-min power for 60-min are at one end of the bell curve in my experience. More are closer to 90-93%, some less. And the relationship for an individual can vary as fitness changes and/or they learn to pace better." Alex Simmons


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    >Alex, what are your thoughts on the pre-test blowout?

    "Don't have many. I don't use/prescribe it when testing, just a good warm up instead.

    I prefer to know the mean maximal power for any given duration of interest when testing.

    That's not to say it's not a valid test protocol, just not what I prefer to use. I suppose I prefer not to introduce another variable (i.e. "how hard do I ride the blowout coach?"). I use a multiple of sins depending on the individual circumstances. It sounds like a pretty good shorter training session though, which is always a good thing. Toss in some sprints, bit of lactate tolerance work and voila, one for the omnium guys." Alex Simmons

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Alex's Cycle Blog: The seven deadly sins

    .

  53. #53
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711
    I did a computrainer group ride at an indoor facility this Saturday, with my powertap hub on. Weird, huh? I don't know if the results are inaccurate or not using both items but the computrainer and the powertap didn't have the same readings. The powertap was about 25-30watts lower average than the computrainer. It was a great ride but it was set up based on our "guesstimated" FTP so every persons resistance was proportional to their FTP. So 2 guys rode 35-40 miles while others got 25ish. I don't know much about computrainers but we should of all had the same resistance and been able to use our gears.
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  54. #54
    mnoutain bkie rdier
    Reputation: rydbyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,822
    Quote Originally Posted by whybotherme View Post
    I would be willing to bet that it you could predict MOST of the outcomes of races given that information. The exception would be when the best climbers (as designated by power/weight) cannot descend well and are faced with a technical course.
    yep, yeh, yes, ditto +1

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u View Post
    I did a computrainer group ride at an indoor facility this Saturday, with my powertap hub on. Weird, huh? I don't know if the results are inaccurate or not using both items but the computrainer and the powertap didn't have the same readings. The powertap was about 25-30watts lower average than the computrainer. It was a great ride but it was set up based on our "guesstimated" FTP so every persons resistance was proportional to their FTP. So 2 guys rode 35-40 miles while others got 25ish. I don't know much about computrainers but we should of all had the same resistance and been able to use our gears.
    Have a look at the comments about computrainers by daveryanwyoming in this thread:

    SRM vs Computrainer power readings

    Also:
    SRM vs. Computrainer watts discrepancy : Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums

    If it was your own computrainer then you could adjust its slope to make it match your Powertap readings. If you're going to be riding a lot in the same facility then you probably want to try and use the same computrainer each time to ensure consistency.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u View Post
    I did a computrainer group ride at an indoor facility this Saturday, with my powertap hub on. Weird, huh? I don't know if the results are inaccurate or not using both items but the computrainer and the powertap didn't have the same readings. The powertap was about 25-30watts lower average than the computrainer. It was a great ride but it was set up based on our "guesstimated" FTP so every persons resistance was proportional to their FTP. So 2 guys rode 35-40 miles while others got 25ish. I don't know much about computrainers but we should of all had the same resistance and been able to use our gears.
    You can do a static torque test with your powertap to verify it's accurate. Basically you hang a weight from the pedal axle (I use 25lb plate) and look at the torque reading on the PT. I have a spreadsheet around somewhere that calculates it's accuracy, based on torque reading, weight used, gear ratio, and crank length. I check it once a year or so to make sure it doesn't drift.
    On the computrainer I find it's necessary to repeat the spin-down calibration test after at least 10 minutes of warmup in order to get accurate readings. Mine's also calibrated to match my powertap. From the factory the older models were all over the place, but I hear they've gotten better.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Quote Originally Posted by WR304 View Post
    Garmin Connect and Strava
    I uploaded the same Garmin Edge 500 .fit file to Strava, Garmin Connect and also into WKO+ 3.0. The results are pictured below.

    Whats your current 30 minute TT power average?

    Garmin Connect automatically splits the ride into moving and stationary time for calculating average speeds. It gives you both moving and elapsed time average speeds but doesn't do the same thing for average power. The overall average speed in Garmin Connect summaries is the lower figure which includes stationary time. Average power in Garmin Connect includes any stationary time also. That means average power will always be lower viewed in Garmin Connect than the same ride in Strava.
    Since the recent Garmin Connect update moving average speed is no longer displayed. All stationary time is included within the average speed and average power figures, unless you have auto pause enabled or manually stop the timer. Garmin's auto pause can affect the accuracy of the recorded power figures so you don't really want to use it with a Powertap. The picture I posted above is the old Garmin Connect layout.

    This isn't so much of a problem if you never stop, or only briefly. A ride like yesterday's is a good example of how lots of stationary time can make the averages meaningless when you include stationary time though. Yesterday I went down the canal towpath for a quiet ride. That involved regularly stopping to open and close gates. I stopped and took a few photos at one point too. On the way back I also punctured and spent 30 minutes ( ) trying to work out what had caused the puncture. I think it was a thorn attached to a stick that probably went through the tyre but then pulled out again.

    What that meant was the ride ended up being 2h32 ride time and 49 minutes of stationary time. If you were to view that ride in Garmin Connect its average speed and average power would be much lower than the moving averages as a result.

    Garmin Connect isn't that good anyway but if you do use it it's something to be aware of.

  58. #58
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711

    Your power numbers-just curious

    Still having fun with the power meter-it's been a great training tool this season. I just started racing in the expert class getting hammered this season. I don't road race but 1x per year but do train on the road 80% of my rides.

    Anywho, I'm just curious what kind of power numbers my racing peers are putting up and your experience with using power... thrown in some info about yourself like age, class etc.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Whats your current 30 minute TT power average?-power.gif  

    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,201
    I have not tried a 30 minute TT, but I think I can do about 240-245 Watts for 30 minutes, based on a recent interval session as follows:

    16 min at 245w
    3 min at recovery pace
    8 min at 245w
    3 min at recovery pace
    4 min at 245w
    3 min at recovery pace
    2 min at 245w
    7 min at recovery pace
    2 min at 245w
    3 min at recovery pace
    4 min at 245w
    3 min at recovery pace
    8 min at 245w
    3 min at recovery pace
    16 min at 245w

    That is a 85 minute session with 60 minutes at 245w. I am 155 lbs, 50 years old and this was done on a CycleOps 300 Pro.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SL singlespeed
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix SL3 Dura Ace
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    762

    It depends...

    Quote Originally Posted by Caffeine Powered View Post
    You are weak and should rightly be ashamed of those numbers!

    But really, What Strat said. Check your preferences in the Power Agent and if you have the time, give the CycleOps help desk a call. They're really good at making sure you get the most from their product.
    Depends on riders weight

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,396
    Here's some data for ya for comparisons.

    This is the culmination of hundreds of power files, taken from the most ideal conditions for highest power (group rides/races are best). Except that these are at elevation (~4000-6000 ft.)

    -The short power records were either crits or group rides that start on a hill.
    -The 2-4 minute records on a long false flat hill, at start of same weekly group ride.
    -The 5 minute on my rollers during a 5-min power test.
    -The 10-30 minute was a day with strong roadies on a long 10% average climb and I nearly the last one up.
    -The 60 and 90 minute PRs, I flatted at the start of a road race and chased alone for 30+ miles; unfortunately didn't catch anyone after spending a few minutes switching tube.

    I usually weigh around 160 mid-summer. Currently 164.

    Cat 3 road, Cat 1 MTB, and entering Bs for cyclocross, nearly 46 yrs old. My race focus has changed to cyclocross. I'm pretty much done MTB racing.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Whats your current 30 minute TT power average?-power-records.jpg  

    Last edited by Poncharelli; 12-07-2012 at 08:32 AM.
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  62. #62
    mnoutain bkie rdier
    Reputation: rydbyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,822

    20 min

    is the most common way to measure pwr and ftp as far as i recall. right now i am somewhere around 3.8w/kilo. adding intensity and getting down to race weight should help quite a bit.

    btw...currently get my butt kicked as cat 1 in s. california.

  63. #63
    Registered Dietitian
    Reputation: tommyrod74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,600
    I've only ever formally tested 20 minute power. 337 watts as of 3-4 weeks ago.

    143-145 lbs, recently upgraded to pro.

    2 x 20 intervals at ~90% of my best 20 minute power works for me as far as a bread-and-butter workout. I rarely do intervals < 20 minutes anymore for MTB-specific training.
    Registered Dietitian, Cycling Coach, Ascend Nutrition and Coaching

    www.ascendthepeak.com

    www.facebook.com/ascendthepeak

  64. #64
    DLd
    DLd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u View Post
    Still having fun with the power meter-it's been a great training tool this season. I just started racing in the expert class getting hammered this season. I don't road race but 1x per year but do train on the road 80% of my rides.

    Anywho, I'm just curious what kind of power numbers my racing peers are putting up and your experience with using power... thrown in some info about yourself like age, class etc.
    Apparently you and I would have a really close race. I'm within 0.1 of your w/kg on all but 5 sec. and 120min. Some higher, some lower, a few the same. My 60/90/120min numbers are 3.3/3.3/3.2. Those three are all from a recent workout up Mt. Lemmon here in Tucson. 6000' of climbing in 2.5 hours will lead to some solid numbers for those.
    Fall is here. Woo-hoo!

  65. #65
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by DLd View Post
    Apparently you and I would have a really close race. I'm within 0.1 of your w/kg on all but 5 sec. and 120min. Some higher, some lower, a few the same. My 60/90/120min numbers are 3.3/3.3/3.2. Those three are all from a recent workout up Mt. Lemmon here in Tucson. 6000' of climbing in 2.5 hours will lead to some solid numbers for those.
    Very cool...whats your age weight class etc? I'm 40, race expert class, 153#. Looking at your numbers you would probably pull past me after an hour to an hour and a half and beat me by 2-3 minutes in a 2-2.5 hour race
    Last edited by 2fst4u; 12-06-2012 at 05:50 PM.
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  66. #66
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyrod74 View Post
    337 watts as of 3-4 weeks ago, 143-145 lbs.
    Yowsers- that's a lot of power, guess I have some work to do if I want to go pro
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  67. #67
    Registered Dietitian
    Reputation: tommyrod74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,600
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u View Post
    Yowsers- that's a lot of power, guess I have some work to do if I want to go pro
    Don't worry, I have lots of work to do as well. Going to be a challenging first season in the new category.

    When I first did a power test it was ~250 watts for 20 minutes a few seasons ago (I had been riding for several seasons already at that time, but no structured training). I've made slow but steady progress through consistency since then. Focused FTP work this past season really paid off.

    I'm getting very close to my big goal of 5.0 w/kg at FTP... but power is only part of riding a bike fast in the woods.
    Registered Dietitian, Cycling Coach, Ascend Nutrition and Coaching

    www.ascendthepeak.com

    www.facebook.com/ascendthepeak

  68. #68
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    792
    I let myself go after about September of 2011 so my power #'s right now (& weight) are a joke. I'm in the process of rebuilding and getting back to form for next season.

    44 yr old (as of a couple days ago)
    Endurance mtb focus
    15min & 30 min power (Powertap #'s) a couple weeks after last race of 2011 (Breck68) = 286w/15min & 270w/30min (both PR figures)
    3.55 w/kg

    Pretty much a mid-packer in the 40-49 yrs old group in RME series races that I did

  69. #69
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyrod74 View Post
    Don't worry, I have lots of work to do as well. Going to be a challenging first season in the new category.

    When I first did a power test it was ~250 watts for 20 minutes a few seasons ago (I had been riding for several seasons already at that time,

    2 x 20 intervals at ~90% of my best 20 minute power works for me as far as a bread-and-butter workout. I rarely do intervals < 20 minutes anymore for MTB-specific training.
    So your 20 minute test was 250w a few seasons ago, now 337w... big improvement. You rarely do any intervals shorter than your 20m @ 90% ones? This last (and previous seasons) on my tues/thursday workouts I always do intervals, vo2 max and threshold. They are short and intense but in the expert class (just upgraded in 2012) the races are longer than sport and I find I may need a different focus on my training to push higher numbers longer distances.

    Other than your 90%/20m intervals how did you structure your training to improve as you did? Longer rides (duration)? More workouts per week (frequency)? Less intensity with more volume? In other words what worked for you?
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,396
    Quote Originally Posted by MSH View Post
    I let myself go after about September of 2011 so my power #'s right now (& weight) are a joke.
    And it's amazing how quick that happens. Last season I broke my wrist which kept me off bike over a month and started base miles barely pushing 130W in low tempo HR zone. My LT power at that time was probably 200W or less, but it does come back quick.
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  71. #71
    mnoutain bkie rdier
    Reputation: rydbyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,822
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u View Post
    So your 20 minute test was 250w a few seasons ago, now 337w... big improvement. You rarely do any intervals shorter than your 20m @ 90% ones? This last (and previous seasons) on my tues/thursday workouts I always do intervals, vo2 max and threshold. They are short and intense but in the expert class (just upgraded in 2012) the races are longer than sport and I find I may need a different focus on my training to push higher numbers longer distances.Other than your 90%/20m intervals how did you structure your training to improve as you did? Longer rides (duration)? More workouts per week (frequency)? Less intensity with more volume? In other words what worked for you?
    They really need to make the Cat2 and Cat1 distance the same....for so many reasons. Either make the 2 race longer or the 1 race shorter. This ambiguous thought of "Well, the Cat1 guys are pretty fast, so let's just add 5 miles to their race" sorta thing exists nowhere else in racing. It makes it hard for the 2's to figure out how they stack up against the 1's also. That extra lap is a killer the first season as a 1 imo....

    Sorry for the hijack... Tommy...good numbers. Hoping to get there myself.

    Oh, and why the heck are Cat1's racing from longer periods of time (hr more sometimes) than the world cup racers? Haha. Funny really..

  72. #72
    Registered Dietitian
    Reputation: tommyrod74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,600
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u View Post
    So your 20 minute test was 250w a few seasons ago, now 337w... big improvement. You rarely do any intervals shorter than your 20m @ 90% ones? This last (and previous seasons) on my tues/thursday workouts I always do intervals, vo2 max and threshold. They are short and intense but in the expert class (just upgraded in 2012) the races are longer than sport and I find I may need a different focus on my training to push higher numbers longer distances.

    Other than your 90%/20m intervals how did you structure your training to improve as you did? Longer rides (duration)? More workouts per week (frequency)? Less intensity with more volume? In other words what worked for you?
    Very little structure, honestly, until this year. With a young daughter and a full-time job I had to structure thing to be effective.

    I had a very good anaerobic engine already from soccer, running, hard MTB riding, and group road rides/racing. What really needed training was my sustained power.

    This is where most MTB racers are deficient, IMO, the ability to go hard for a long time without coasting or soft-pedaling. Granted, off-road you have to coast a lot due to terrain, so road/trainer intervals helped me a ton.

    I now (during a build period) shoot for 2 high-quality interval workouts per week, plus a long zone 2-3 ride on the weekend. All else is zone 2 or even zone 1. About 8-12 hours total depending on the week.

    I will try for 1 week of 1/2 volume after 3 weeks of work this year to avoid overdoing it. Better to be slightly undertrained and fresh tha the opposite.

    I got very far just riding a ton, with a lot of unstructured hard riding. Now with time constraints I need structure, and structure has benefitted me greatly so far.
    Registered Dietitian, Cycling Coach, Ascend Nutrition and Coaching

    www.ascendthepeak.com

    www.facebook.com/ascendthepeak

  73. #73
    Registered Dietitian
    Reputation: tommyrod74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,600
    Quote Originally Posted by rydbyk View Post
    They really need to make the Cat2 and Cat1 distance the same....for so many reasons. Either make the 2 race longer or the 1 race shorter. This ambiguous thought of "Well, the Cat1 guys are pretty fast, so let's just add 5 miles to their race" sorta thing exists nowhere else in racing. It makes it hard for the 2's to figure out how they stack up against the 1's also. That extra lap is a killer the first season as a 1 imo....

    Sorry for the hijack... Tommy...good numbers. Hoping to get there myself.

    Oh, and why the heck are Cat1's racing from longer periods of time (hr more sometimes) than the world cup racers? Haha. Funny really..
    I agree totally with your points on distance and categories. Our first race of the XC series this season will be 3 hours long. Friggin' DOUBLE a World Cup duration. What is the point?
    Registered Dietitian, Cycling Coach, Ascend Nutrition and Coaching

    www.ascendthepeak.com

    www.facebook.com/ascendthepeak

  74. #74
    DLd
    DLd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u View Post
    Very cool...whats your age weight class etc? I'm 40, race expert class, 153#. Looking at your numbers you would probably pull past me after an hour to an hour and a half and beat me by 2-3 minutes in a 2-2.5 hour race
    Cat 1, 42, 165 pounds currently, but I was down to 158 for race weight last year. Then I sprained my MCL two weeks before the start of the season last year, snowboarding, and didn't race last season. I'm surprised how fast my numbers came back, just got serious again in October. I'm looking forward to seeing how I do in cat 1. I haven't raced in about 10 years, but feel a lot more in shape now with structure and diet.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
    Fall is here. Woo-hoo!

  75. #75
    DLd
    DLd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyrod74 View Post
    I've only ever formally tested 20 minute power. 337 watts as of 3-4 weeks ago.

    143-145 lbs, recently upgraded to pro.

    2 x 20 intervals at ~90% of my best 20 minute power works for me as far as a bread-and-butter workout. I rarely do intervals < 20 minutes anymore for MTB-specific training.
    How much rest between the 2x20's? That sounds like a good workout. I just did some 4x6's, but I'd like to try the 2x20's. I would imagine that working on your 20's all the time would tend to bring up your 20min test power, but it seems like an effective range to train for MTB racing, especially cat1/pro. There's only so much you can do on the short 1 hour weekday workouts.
    Fall is here. Woo-hoo!

  76. #76
    DLd
    DLd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u View Post
    Very cool...whats your age weight class etc? I'm 40, race expert class, 153#. Looking at your numbers you would probably pull past me after an hour to an hour and a half and beat me by 2-3 minutes in a 2-2.5 hour race
    I have a feeling my 120 minute number is partially due to having the terrain suitable to extracting high performance for that length of time, If you had a solid 2.5 hour climb near you, you would probably put up a similar number.

    A lot of the numbers are for time intervals that I don't do intervals for. Like, I don't think I've ever done 5s sprints. Also, I'll do 20s Tabatas sometimes, but I don't think I have any 30sec intervals in my training. I'll rectify that situation in the upcoming weeks. I'll throw in some 5s sprints, some rest, and a 30 sec sprint just so I can see what numbers I'm really capable of. Y'know, for science

    My workout yesterday was supposed to be 3.5 hours at Endurance, followed by 30 minutes at Tempo. I was short on time, so knocked it down to only 2.5 hours at endurance, but I really wanted to see if I could move up my 20 min, so for the first 20 minutes of the Tempo workout, I really focused on being in high Tempo/Threshold. I hadn't looked at what my 20 min was beforehand though, but I figured keeping it above 260 would be good. I didn't have time to download it yet though. My current 20 min was 269, and seems to be from an apparently random training ride last year. It doesn't look I was doing a 20 minute test or anything, so I'm eager to see if I beat it, actually trying to this time.
    Last edited by DLd; 12-08-2012 at 12:02 PM. Reason: I had more to say
    Fall is here. Woo-hoo!

  77. #77
    Registered Dietitian
    Reputation: tommyrod74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,600
    Quote Originally Posted by DLd View Post
    How much rest between the 2x20's? That sounds like a good workout. I just did some 4x6's, but I'd like to try the 2x20's. I would imagine that working on your 20's all the time would tend to bring up your 20min test power, but it seems like an effective range to train for MTB racing, especially cat1/pro. There's only so much you can do on the short 1 hour weekday workouts.
    I usually take 5 minutes between intervals to recover a bit. My second 20 is usually easier than the first (properly warmed up and used to the effort). It's usually a 1-hour workout - 10 warmup, 20 on, 5 off, 20 on, 5 cooldown.

    I occasionally do 1 x 40 instead for variety, it's really not much harder. 90% of my best power for any given duration is noticably easier than 100%.

    Also, any interval of 10 minutes (at least) or greater works threshold directly. My goal is to spend at least 40 minutes in zone 4 during these workouts. I just don't usually break it up smaller than 20 minute chunks.

    I'll do 1 hour straight at 90-95% FTP every now and again as well. You get used to it.
    Registered Dietitian, Cycling Coach, Ascend Nutrition and Coaching

    www.ascendthepeak.com

    www.facebook.com/ascendthepeak

  78. #78
    Bro Mountainbiker
    Reputation: Sheepo5669's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,583
    Why are my numbers so much higher when climbing compared to flat?

    My 5 min hill climb timetrial number is 6.1 w/kg and my 5 min interval on flat is only 5.52 w/kg...

    Is this because I am a better climber than flat TTer? Or because I was racing on the hill climb and training on the interval? Or something else?

    Im still a noob to power. The only test I have done is 5 mins, and MAX power.(for fun)

    I really want to get a solid FTP test, 5sec, and 30sec though. But that wont happen until March or so...
    Raised in a Chicken-Coop by Chickens

  79. #79
    Crazed Country Rebel
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Combatcm View Post
    I can do about 300 an hour so probably around 600 for 30 minits
    umm, no.
    Stupid, but sometimes witty. Occasionally brilliant. Slow and fat though.

    Mike Vandeman Sucks Dong

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheepo5669 View Post
    Why are my numbers so much higher when climbing compared to flat?

    My 5 min hill climb timetrial number is 6.1 w/kg and my 5 min interval on flat is only 5.52 w/kg...

    Is this because I am a better climber than flat TTer? Or because I was racing on the hill climb and training on the interval? Or something else?

    Im still a noob to power. The only test I have done is 5 mins, and MAX power.(for fun)

    I really want to get a solid FTP test, 5sec, and 30sec though. But that wont happen until March or so...
    climbing numbers are generally higher then flat speed numbers for a lot of people. The neuromuscular demand of climbing isnt the same as riding the flats. Wind resistance plays a role as well. Think going down a gentle descent where you try to hit FTP, it feels much harder then hitting FTP going up that same small hill.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: voodoo5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by Combatcm View Post
    I can do about 300 an hour so probably around 600 for 30 minits
    sick watts bro..

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheepo5669 View Post
    Why are my numbers so much higher when climbing compared to flat?

    My 5 min hill climb timetrial number is 6.1 w/kg and my 5 min interval on flat is only 5.52 w/kg...

    Is this because I am a better climber than flat TTer? Or because I was racing on the hill climb and training on the interval? Or something else?

    Im still a noob to power. The only test I have done is 5 mins, and MAX power.(for fun)

    I really want to get a solid FTP test, 5sec, and 30sec though. But that wont happen until March or so...
    What he said. On flat you only have one resistance source really: wind.

    On a shallow hill, you have wind and gravity.

    That is some hella power, BTW. I'm only 4.7 at that time range.
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  83. #83
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by DLd View Post
    A lot of the numbers are for time intervals that I don't do intervals for. Like, I don't think I've ever done 5s sprints. Also, I'll do 20s Tabatas sometimes, but I don't think I have any 30sec intervals in my training. I'll rectify that situation in the upcoming weeks. I'll throw in some 5s sprints, some rest, and a 30 sec sprint just so I can see what numbers I'm really capable of. Y'know, for science
    Same here-most of my numbers are from just riding and one road race. The only numbers I have from a "real" test is the 30 minute TT I did a couple weeks ago.

    I most likely will be testing power throughout all zones soon enough and retest throughout this season for performance markers.
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  84. #84
    Bro Mountainbiker
    Reputation: Sheepo5669's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Devincicx View Post
    climbing numbers are generally higher then flat speed numbers for a lot of people. The neuromuscular demand of climbing isnt the same as riding the flats. Wind resistance plays a role as well. Think going down a gentle descent where you try to hit FTP, it feels much harder then hitting FTP going up that same small hill.

    Thanks, that makes since. KINDA. You would think you could put the same numbers down in the wind or up a hill. Could some of it be mental? I am a poor flat TTer...

    Are those charts comparing power to fitness using hill climb numbers? Or flat TT numbers?
    Raised in a Chicken-Coop by Chickens

  85. #85
    Bro Mountainbiker
    Reputation: Sheepo5669's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Poncharelli View Post
    What he said. On flat you only have one resistance source really: wind.

    On a shallow hill, you have wind and gravity.

    That is some hella power, BTW. I'm only 4.7 at that time range.
    Thanks dude. Im not as fast as those numbers show... First time the borrowed PM read 459w after a 5min hill climb time trial, I thought It was broken. I stole the record by 1 second from a kid who raced for BMC-Hincapie development with that effort

    There is way more to mass start bike racing than that 5 min all out effort. Recovery and repeatability obviously play just as big of a factor.

    I need to get more testing done to figure out what gives and where my weaknesses are. Im still a noob to the sport at just over 1.5 years of racing and 2.5 of riding. I guess a coach would help.
    Raised in a Chicken-Coop by Chickens

  86. #86
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheepo5669 View Post
    Thanks, that makes since. KINDA. You would think you could put the same numbers down in the wind or up a hill. Could some of it be mental? I am a poor flat TTer...

    Are those charts comparing power to fitness using hill climb numbers? Or flat TT numbers?
    My personal experience and others is that yeah, going uphill over a given time/distance will increase watt numbers. it's "easier" to get those numbers cheated up higher by hitting a long climb or series of climbs. My 90 and 120 personal power records are all on hilly courses. Although when doing a lactate test/ TT for testing purposes it should done on a flat course or slight uphill (2.5 grade) to keep it accurate.
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  87. #87
    Registered Dietitian
    Reputation: tommyrod74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,600
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u View Post
    My personal experience and others is that yeah, going uphill over a given time/distance will increase watt numbers. it's "easier" to get those numbers cheated up higher by hitting a long climb or series of climbs. My 90 and 120 personal power records are all on hilly courses. Although when doing a lactate test/ TT for testing purposes it should done on a flat course or slight uphill (2.5 grade) to keep it accurate.
    It's important to remember it's not "cheating up" by having constant resistance, like a hill, headwind, etc. Watts are watts. If you can do it on a hill, you can learn to do it on the flats, or even downhills (as long as you have sufficiently high gearing).

    That said, there's a skill to putting out constant power over varying terrain. It can be done, even on downhills, it just takes more focus and mental attention.

    I do all of my testing and 90% of my intervals on the same indoor trainer. Makes for constant resistance which means I can focus on pushing the pedals and making myself hurt. It also makes my workouts repeatable and consistent.

    I do some longer intervals on rolling and hilly terrain as well to get used to terrain I see in road races.

    If I were looking to set an outdoor power record, though, I'd look for a steady grade that it took me 20 minutes to ascend. None of those nearby, sadly.
    Registered Dietitian, Cycling Coach, Ascend Nutrition and Coaching

    www.ascendthepeak.com

    www.facebook.com/ascendthepeak

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    56
    pre fatherhood: 20 minute pb 353
    Post fatherhood: 20 minute pb 320 :-(

    (weight 68.5 - 72 kg)

  89. #89
    mnoutain bkie rdier
    Reputation: rydbyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,822
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyrod74 View Post
    It's important to remember it's not "cheating up" by having constant resistance, like a hill, headwind, etc. Watts are watts. If you can do it on a hill, you can learn to do it on the flats, or even downhills (as long as you have sufficiently high gearing).

    That said, there's a skill to putting out constant power over varying terrain. It can be done, even on downhills, it just takes more focus and mental attention.

    I do all of my testing and 90% of my intervals on the same indoor trainer. Makes for constant resistance which means I can focus on pushing the pedals and making myself hurt. It also makes my workouts repeatable and consistent.

    I do some longer intervals on rolling and hilly terrain as well to get used to terrain I see in road races.

    If I were looking to set an outdoor power record, though, I'd look for a steady grade that it took me 20 minutes to ascend. None of those nearby, sadly.
    I have a hard time maintaining my watts on shallow downhills! Is this a leg speed issue perhaps? Watts are watts ONLY if you can apply them to various terrains imo.

    Maybe I need to work on leg speed?

    This whole pwr mtr thing is new for me also... Do you feel that most folks try to find a subtle 20 climb to test watts?

  90. #90
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyrod74 View Post
    It's important to remember it's not "cheating up" by having constant resistance, like a hill, headwind, etc. Watts are watts. If you can do it on a hill, you can learn to do it on the flats, or even downhills (as long as you have sufficiently high gearing).

    That said, there's a skill to putting out constant power over varying terrain. It can be done, even on downhills, it just takes more focus and mental attention.

    I do all of my testing and 90% of my intervals on the same indoor trainer. Makes for constant resistance which means I can focus on pushing the pedals and making myself hurt. It also makes my workouts repeatable and consistent.

    I do some longer intervals on rolling and hilly terrain as well to get used to terrain I see in road races.

    If I were looking to set an outdoor power record, though, I'd look for a steady grade that it took me 20 minutes to ascend. None of those nearby, sadly.
    Good point. For me to reach the same numbers on flats (or indoor trainer/rollers) as a viscous climb takes a good deal of focus. On a steep enough hill though, there is no choice for the rider but to put out a very high wattage, other wise the rider would have to unclip and get off and push! This is what I meant by "cheating"... the hill provides the resistance which requires you to push hard on the pedals, you have no choice in the matter but on the flats it's a constant temptation to let off the gas.

    Also, I just got rollers and may need to do a large percentage of this seasons training on them- I like them way more than my trainer and was able to do my last 30m test on them with good results. Your ability to put out some good numbers on your trainer is encouraging.
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,396
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u View Post
    it's "easier" to get those numbers cheated up higher by hitting a long climb or series of climbs.
    When it comes to cheating up numbers, I'm the best.

    This is the formula (for shorter time periods):
    -Uphill
    -Shallow Climb
    -Pretty easy spin and good warmup before hill
    -In a group with guys around your level.
    This is how we start our Tuesday Night Worlds every week; straight into a 4-5 minute hill, where the first pitch is around 10%.

    But if I'm in a group where the riders are too strong (Cat 2+ roadies, Pro XC and up; for me), I wind up overshooting a reasonable power range right off the bat and just blow up, thus giving me lower average for 30s through 4 min time periods. Plus I mentally give up when the guys are too strong.

    If the guys are at my level (other roadie Cat 3s, for me), it makes everything better. I stay in a reasonable power range from the beginning, and I don't give up, since I should be staying these guys. Like hell if I get dropped!!
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  92. #92
    Registered Dietitian
    Reputation: tommyrod74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,600
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u View Post
    Good point. For me to reach the same numbers on flats (or indoor trainer/rollers) as a viscous climb takes a good deal of focus. On a steep enough hill though, there is no choice for the rider but to put out a very high wattage, other wise the rider would have to unclip and get off and push! This is what I meant by "cheating"... the hill provides the resistance which requires you to push hard on the pedals, you have no choice in the matter but on the flats it's a constant temptation to let off the gas.

    Also, I just got rollers and may need to do a large percentage of this seasons training on them- I like them way more than my trainer and was able to do my last 30m test on them with good results. Your ability to put out some good numbers on your trainer is encouraging.
    It's also dependent upon the type of trainer. My Lemond Revolution has a lot of inertia from the large flywheel that kills the "dead spot" in the pedal stroke you feel on most trainers. It feels much more like riding on the road, which means (IMO) that the training is more applicable to real-world riding.

    It's harder to keep wattage up on most (low-inertia) trainers, and I'm not convinced the extra effort translates to riding, due to having to alter the pedal stroke relative to outdoor riding. Unless all of your races are uphill, through muddy grass, with a flat tire.
    Registered Dietitian, Cycling Coach, Ascend Nutrition and Coaching

    www.ascendthepeak.com

    www.facebook.com/ascendthepeak

  93. #93
    Registered Dietitian
    Reputation: tommyrod74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,600
    Quote Originally Posted by rydbyk View Post
    I have a hard time maintaining my watts on shallow downhills! Is this a leg speed issue perhaps? Watts are watts ONLY if you can apply them to various terrains imo.

    Maybe I need to work on leg speed?

    This whole pwr mtr thing is new for me also... Do you feel that most folks try to find a subtle 20 climb to test watts?
    No, it just requires focus to upshift as soon as it gets easier to pedal and ignore that feeling of "I'm already going fast enough, I can soft-pedal a bit". You can do it at a lower cadence with high force or higher cadence with lower force. Sometimes a higher-than-usual gear with lower cadence helps on steeper downhills.

    You need to pedal through the entire stroke a little more on downhills as well, you can get away with "pedaling squares" a bit more on climbs and still keep wattage high, it seems.
    Registered Dietitian, Cycling Coach, Ascend Nutrition and Coaching

    www.ascendthepeak.com

    www.facebook.com/ascendthepeak

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Combatcm View Post
    I can do about 300 an hour so probably around 600 for 30 minits
    :
    Calibrate your equipment :
    watts on earth the simple math formula is as follows :
    ( watts ) x ( seconds ) = ( 1360 ) x ( pounds ) :
    @ 20 mph :
    On a 4.41 % grade :
    Watts is watts : 300
    Seconds is coasting time in seconds to desend 1,000 feet in elevation : 771
    Pounds is total bike & rider weight : 170
    This means you can truly generate 300w if you can truly cover 20 miles in one hour on flat ground :
    Climb that same grade at 20 mph you are generating 600w

Members who have read this thread: 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •