Power data from TT or road nationals?

bodaciousguy said:

Does anyone out there have any power files or information from nationals. I'd like to see how high the level of riding is and see if it's a reasonable goal.

Or if you can estimate your power average and give your weight and placing.(Ex: top 20, 10, 5) that would be helpful also.

You might want to specify which country. Power profiling might also give you a clue, specially the FTP column:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/profile.asp

Alex Simmons said:

You might want to specify which country. Power profiling might also give you a clue, specially the FTP column:
cyclingpeakssoftware.comprofile.aspOpen ↗

The US nationals. I know that the power profile can give me an idea but it would just be nice to have a definite level of riding. If I had to choose a level then I'd say an FTP in the range of domestic pro.

Plus, I thought others would find this interesting.

I've heard that Tom Zirbel held 360 watts for an hour to win a TT in the Tour of Shenandoah.

bodaciousguy said:

I've heard that Tom Zirbel held 360 watts for an hour to win a TT in the Tour of Shenandoah.

Wasn't (IIRC) the TT there only 15 miles? Is it up a cliff?

bodaciousguy said:

Does anyone out there have any power files or information from nationals.

Yes, from several different countries.

Quoted post said:

I'd like to see how high the level of riding is and see if it's a reasonable goal.

as winning/placing is function of power *and* aerodynamics, wouldn't it be better to see where you currently finish in relation to your peers rather than just ascertaining what your power is (i.e., you could be shaped like a barn door, and need way more power than other similar sized riders, or you could be very aero and need a lot less power than other similar sized riders).

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

Yes, from several different countries.

as winning/placing is function of power *and* aerodynamics, wouldn't it be better to see where you currently finish in relation to your peers rather than just ascertaining what your power is (i.e., you could be shaped like a barn door, and need way more power than other similar sized riders, or you could be very aero and need a lot less power than other similar sized riders).

ric

I don't know how I'd compare myself with others since I don't have a TT bike.
Also, everyone has different aero equipment which can make weaker people appear faster on the results because of a nicer setup.

True, I could test myself against others in a TT and racing the best test of fitness but we're in the off season and my numbers are way better now than during this last season. I'm not ready to drop and bunch of money on equipment just to test myself either. I'm positive that if I have the power, I can translate to a successful TT.

The purpose of this thread for me is to see if my goal of a top 10 at nationals (in either TT or RR) is doable. I'm not too concerned with aerodynamics at this point since I believe power is more important

bodaciousguy said:

I'm not too concerned with aerodynamics at this point since I believe power is more important

🙄 good luck!

bodaciousguy said:

I don't know how I'd compare myself with others since I don't have a TT bike.
Also, everyone has different aero equipment which can make weaker people appear faster on the results because of a nicer setup.

True, I could test myself against others in a TT and racing the best test of fitness but we're in the off season and my numbers are way better now than during this last season. I'm not ready to drop and bunch of money on equipment just to test myself either. I'm positive that if I have the power, I can translate to a successful TT.

The purpose of this thread for me is to see if my goal of a top 10 at nationals (in either TT or RR) is doable. I'm not too concerned with aerodynamics at this point since I believe power is more important

w/kg is a good starting point but on a flattish course speed is dominated by W/CdA.

Domestic pro -- well 5.5 w/kg FTP is midrange.

Above: Tom Zirbels #'s sound low to me. Was there a lot of climbing, descending or technical cornering? IOW, what was NP for that TT?

rmur17 said:

w/kg is a good starting point but on a flattish course speed is dominated by W/CdA.

Domestic pro -- well 5.5 w/kg FTP is midrange.

Above: Tom Zirbels #'s sound low to me. Was there a lot of climbing, descending or technical cornering? IOW, what was NP for that TT?

Thank you rmur17 for posting something actually meaningful.

I just heard those numbers from some other forum. I actually couldn't even find the 1 hour TT that he won in the Tour Shenandoah. I don't know if it was Normal or actual power.

What is Watts/Cda?

No offense, but why would you like to know? [img]cyclingforums.comrolleyes.gifOpen ↗[/img] Previously you said:

"I'm not too concerned with aerodynamics at this point since I believe power is more important"

[img]cyclingforums.combiggrin.gifOpen ↗[/img]

MiSzA said:

No offense, but why would you like to know? [img]cyclingforums.comrolleyes.gifOpen ↗[/img] Previously you said:

"I'm not too concerned with aerodynamics at this point since I believe power is more important"

[img]cyclingforums.combiggrin.gifOpen ↗[/img]

Give the guy a break, if you don't know what CdA is, then you probably don't know it relates to aerodynamics....

CdA is coefficient of aerodynamic drag multiplied by frontal area. It basically tells you how much aerodynamic drag you have to overcome to hold a certain speed on the flats in the absence of wind.

And you really should care if you intend to do flat time trials or solo breakaways since lowering your CdA can allow you to go much faster for the same or lower power output. Play around with different frontal areas and power levels with this on-line calculator: analyticcycling.comForcesSpeed Page.htmlOpen ↗ and you'll see just how important it can be to drop your CdA.

And here's some W/CdA and W/Kg estimates for some very fast riders: biketechreview.composition table.htmOpen ↗

That might help answer your original question though I don't believe those numbers specifically came from last year's nationals.

-Dave

bodaciousguy said:

Thank you rmur17 for posting something actually meaningful.

I can't help but notice that, if you could have been bothered to actually look at the link that was posted in the very first reply to your question, you would have had the exact same information, plus some... 🙄

I haven't abandoned this thread yet. I've been thinking about the responses this week and I have a question. Is the drag coefficient the same as a friction coefficient where it acts as a percentage of energy lost? If it is then I can see a difference as the Cda vary from .19 to .25.

I understand the importance of aerodynamic drag but it would help me so much to have a power file or some information during US Nationals to help make goals. So if anyone out there has this info, please post it. I sound like a power meter nerd but it really is for peace of mind during these winter months. If anyone could help, I'd appreciate it.

bodaciousguy said:

...Is the drag coefficient the same as a friction coefficient where it acts as a percentage of energy lost? If it is then I can see a difference as the Cda vary from .19 to .25. ....

Rolling resistance is linear with speed. Aerodynamic drag is proportional to speed squared(in terms of the force you need to overcome) or speed cubed(in terms of the additional power you have to put out). So aerodynamics quickly become the dominant force to overcome at high speeds on flat roads.

For instance if a rider who weighs ~160 pounds riding a 16 pound bike rides a flat road on decent pavement and puts out a steady 250 watts, his speed on a calm day based on CdA would be:

~ 21.3 mph with a CdA of 0.4
~ 23.3 mph with a CdA of 0.3
~ 26.5 mph with a CdA of 0.2

That's a pretty dramatic difference. Granted a CdA of 0.2 implies a pretty aggressive time trial position and aero kit but check out the table in the link above, it's not unheard of. CdA is pretty important to time trial riders and triathletes and understanding FTP in terms of Watts/CdA is a very good predictor of performance in those events.

-Dave

bodaciousguy said:

I haven't abandoned this thread yet. I've been thinking about the responses this week and I have a question. Is the drag coefficient the same as a friction coefficient where it acts as a percentage of energy lost? If it is then I can see a difference as the Cda vary from .19 to .25.

I understand the importance of aerodynamic drag but it would help me so much to have a power file or some information during US Nationals to help make goals. So if anyone out there has this info, please post it. I sound like a power meter nerd but it really is for peace of mind during these winter months. If anyone could help, I'd appreciate it.

well you asked for a pro level file .. and I guess none of us here are pro's (I'm sure the coaches wouldn't release any such files).

But for a typical flattish-rolling TT course, simply looking at average watts over the duration is more than enough. The minute detail within that file -- especially if you're starting out are just going to confuse the matter.

Anyhow no one here can guess YOUR personal Cda. Apparently you have no TT results with aero kit to judge from ... so the best I can offer is the .xls in the attached zip file. It contains four equations gleaned from the old wattage list (2001-2002?). You enter height, mass, estimated seat-tube angles, torso angles and it will ESTIMATE your CdA.

That'll give you a starting point and you can use the calculators online to figure what power you're going to need to meet your speed goals ...

otherwise as I suggested a while ago if you can sustain 5.5 w/kg FTP -- you should be in there. you want a nice round number? 400 .😄

This may be of interest re CdA .... en.wikipedia.orgDrag (physicsOpen ↗)

Lotsa of stuff available on the web ... it's just physics ...