Coggans chart vs this one?

[Quadsweep]

Finally got Dr. Coggans power book.

Charts 4.1 and 4.2 in the book differs from the one below. In the one below the the FT column is called 20 minute power and not FT. This seems to jive with the the other columns as they are all based on time.

So this may be a stupid question but is the FT column in chart 4.2 of Dr. Coggans book actually 20 minute power and not FT power? Maybe the "FT" is a misprint and if not then where the heck did the chart below come from (what publication)?(I picked it up off this forum)

 

[RapDaddyo]

Finally got Dr. Coggans power book.

Charts 4.1 and 4.2 in the book differs from the one below. In the one below the the FT column is called 20 minute power and not FT. This seems to jive with the the other columns as they are all based on time.

So this may be a stupid question but is the FT column in chart 4.2 of Dr. Coggans book actually 20 minute power and not FT power? Maybe the "FT" is a misprint and if not then where the heck did the chart below come from (what publication)?(I picked it up off this forum)

A quick look suggests that the columns of each chart are accurately labeled. FTP is 60min power and is typically ~95% of 20min power. This is probably an older version of the chart. The one in the book is more useful because most people know their FTP and FTP is the basis for all of Andy's training levels.

 

[acoggan]

Finally got Dr. Coggans power book.

Charts 4.1 and 4.2 in the book differs from the one below. In the one below the the FT column is called 20 minute power and not FT. This seems to jive with the the other columns as they are all based on time.

So this may be a stupid question but is the FT column in chart 4.2 of Dr. Coggans book actually 20 minute power and not FT power? Maybe the "FT" is a misprint and if not then where the heck did the chart below come from (what publication)?(I picked it up off this forum)

I've revised the tables three times since first developing them, as more data have become available (and they need to be updated one more time to be 100% accurate). The tables in the book, in the program, and at the CyclingPeaks website are the most recent - the one you posted is the prior version. If you compare the two, you'll see that not only has the heading of the 4th column been changed, but so have the actual values. Thus, you'll get essentially the same "profile" using either one, as long as you use the appropriate values (i.e., functional threshold power for the most recent, 20 min power for the previous).

 

[joemw]

I've revised the tables three times since first developing them, as more data have become available (and they need to be updated one more time to be 100% accurate). The tables in the book, in the program, and at the CyclingPeaks website are the most recent - the one you posted is the prior version. If you compare the two, you'll see that not only has the heading of the 4th column been changed, but so have the actual values. Thus, you'll get essentially the same "profile" using either one, as long as you use the appropriate values (i.e., functional threshold power for the most recent, 20 min power for the previous).

Meaning somebody went off the top of one of the columns? Who? Which column? By how much?

 

[RapDaddyo]

Meaning somebody went off the top of one of the columns? Who? Which column? By how much?

I'm guessing that he means he simply has more data. Eventually, as power meters become virtually universal, I hope we have this sort of data for specific races by category. But then, of course, I will want to see AP, NP, matches and time by level for all categories.

 

[Quadsweep]

I If you compare the two, you'll see that not only has the heading of the 4th column been changed, but so have the actual values. Thus, you'll get essentially the same "profile" using either one, as long as you use the appropriate values (i.e., functional threshold power for the most recent, 20 min power for the previous).

I tried that and it results in lower placing in the categories.

ie: in the old system my buddies 380 watts at 80 kilo's puts him smack in the middle of the Cat 1 level for 20 minute power. That same 4.75 watts per kilo in the books table puts him lower, at the botom of Cat 1 and top of Cat 2 as far as his FTP is concerned. That doesn't make any sence to me. If he is smack in the middle of Cat 1 for 20 minute power, shouldn't that translate to smack in the middle for FTP too.

 

[RapDaddyo]

I tried that and it results in lower placing in the categories.

ie: in the old system my buddies 380 watts at 80 kilo's puts him smack in the middle of the Cat 1 level for 20 minute power. That same 4.75 watts per kilo in the books table puts him lower, at the botom of Cat 1 and top of Cat 2 as far as his FTP is concerned. That doesn't make any sence to me. If he is smack in the middle of Cat 1 for 20 minute power, shouldn't that translate to smack in the middle for FTP too.

It's really a function of a rider's power profile. Not every rider is going to be on the same line. Andy even characterizes several different rider profiles on the website and in the book. And, what is your buddy's FTP as % of his 20MP?

 

[whoawhoa]

I tried that and it results in lower placing in the categories.

ie: in the old system my buddies 380 watts at 80 kilo's puts him smack in the middle of the Cat 1 level for 20 minute power. That same 4.75 watts per kilo in the books table puts him lower, at the botom of Cat 1 and top of Cat 2 as far as his FTP is concerned. That doesn't make any sence to me. If he is smack in the middle of Cat 1 for 20 minute power, shouldn't that translate to smack in the middle for FTP too.

Your buddy probably has good AWC which contributes to his higher relative 20 minute power. But, the charts have probably changed some w/new info. Also remember that the category guide lines are of limited use and really just for "fun," not the main purpose of the chart.

 

[Quadsweep]

It's really a function of a rider's power profile. Not every rider is going to be on the same line. Andy even characterizes several different rider profiles on the website and in the book. And, what is your buddy's FTP as % of his 20MP?

He says it's about 95%

 

[Quadsweep]

Your buddy probably has good AWC which contributes to his higher relative 20 minute power. But, the charts have probably changed some w/new info. Also remember that the category guide lines are of limited use and really just for "fun," not the main purpose of the chart.

I see your point.

 

[acoggan]

Meaning somebody went off the top of one of the columns? Who? Which column? By how much?

1. Yes.

2. Sorry, but to encourage people to share their data with me I don't "kiss and tell".

3. 5 s for men.

4. Only by a small percentage.

(Note that I still need to do some verification before making this official.)