Power numbers by racing category

[wattsup?]

I found some really interesting numbers posted by Dario Frederick who, among other things, has written for VeloNews and cyclingnews.com. This particular info should be credited to cyclingnews.com. I found it on nyvelocity.com, which actually has some really interesting stuff on it, particularly in some of the rider's journals with respect to training with power. I copy and paste with due credit:

Maximal steady state (MSS) power to weight ratios for men's road cycling categories to be competitive in sustained climbing situations (>10min)*:

Cat 5: 3.0 - 3.4
Cat 4: 3.5 - 3.8
Cat 3: 3.9 - 4.3
Cat 2: 4.4 - 4.8
Cat 1: 4.9 - 5.3
Pro National-level: 5.3 - 5.8
Pro World Class: 5.9 - 7.0
*Values expressed in Watts per kilogram of body weight)

Here is the link to the original post if anyone is interested in further great reading:

http://www.nyvelocity.com/content.php?id=88
http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2004/letters09-06#Power


Cheers,

Ethan

 

[the holster]

I found some really interesting numbers posted by Dario Frederick who, among other things, has written for VeloNews and cyclingnews.com. This particular info should be credited to cyclingnews.com. I found it on nyvelocity.com, which actually has some really interesting stuff on it, particularly in some of the rider's journals with respect to training with power. I copy and paste with due credit:

Maximal steady state (MSS) power to weight ratios for men's road cycling categories to be competitive in sustained climbing situations (>10min)*:

Cat 5: 3.0 - 3.4
Cat 4: 3.5 - 3.8
Cat 3: 3.9 - 4.3
Cat 2: 4.4 - 4.8
Cat 1: 4.9 - 5.3
Pro National-level: 5.3 - 5.8
Pro World Class: 5.9 - 7.0
*Values expressed in Watts per kilogram of body weight)

Here is the link to the original post if anyone is interested in further great reading:

http://www.nyvelocity.com/content.php?id=88
http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2004/letters09-06#Power


Cheers,

Ethan

those seem far to low.

 

[whoawhoa]

those seem far to low.

Agreed. Extend that out to an hour or so and it would be more realistic.

 

[wattsup?]

those seem far to low.

According to the article, these numbers are taken from actual racing power profiles of hundreds of riders in actual races. I think it is an interesting comparison to Coggan's power profiling chart in that these tests naturally take into account the context of a race environment as opposed to simply a dedicated, all-out effort for a specified period of time.

To illustrate my point: If a rider were to warm up, do a long, hard climb of >10 minutes, and then go home, his power number is likely much higher than that of the same rider on that same long, hard climb on the 3rd lap of a road race after numerous short, intense efforts, perhaps after a breakaway, and perhaps after helping to chase to bridge back to a break, to name a few very common scenarios. And these don't take into account factors such as nerves, energy conservation, on-the-bike nutrition, etc. that are all considerable in a race scenario.

Unfortunately, climbs of >10 minutes in races here in the states are pretty rare. I'll be doing Boulevard RR in San Diego in February as a Cat IV, and I believe there is 3K feet of climbing for 2 laps, and I'll be using my PT to measure the festivities. I've heard there are a lot of short rollers and stairstep climbs, so it will be difficult to draw a solid comparision, but the numbers should be interesting nonetheless.

I checked out the available sample files on the CyclingPeaks website, and none of the climbs were >10 minutes, but the AP for each were all >400w. But, as we all know, 400w for 3.5 minutes is vastly different than 400w for 20 minutes.

What'll be cool is as training with power becomes more mainstream, the pool of data from which we can draw will increase and the information available will be much more accurate, along with having better power meters with increased functionality to which RDO has eluded. Of course, as more riders train with power, those numbers will also go up as the effectiveness and efficiency of training with power makes us all stronger riders.

The article also talks about the fact that these are merely numbers, and that there are really strong riders by the numbers who fail to do well in races, and conversely riders with less w/kg that are successful. Just because a rider is strong doesn't mean he/she can make it to the podium. I know I've learned a great deal about racing in the short time I've been doing it, and I can only imagine the vast amounts I still have to learn.

Besides all of that, I like these numbers because they make me look good relative to my category...

Cheers,

Ethan

 

[joule]

Agreed. Extend that out to an hour or so and it would be more realistic.

I have to agree that these are too low. My only guess is that the watts being measured are using an SRM verses a PowerTap. I've read the readings between the two are different due to the wattage being monitored at different sources (cranks vs hub). I'm a lowly cat 5, soon to be cat 4 and I commonly average 4.0 w/kg on my 60 - 120 minute training rides. From competitions, I'm a pretty good cat 5 but I'm certainly no cat 3 (based on the numbers presented).

 

[beerco]

I commonly average 4.0 w/kg on my 60 - 120 minute training rides. From competitions, I'm a pretty good cat 5 but I'm certainly no cat 3 (based on the numbers presented).

Dude, if you can't win cat 3 races with a threshold of 4 w/kg, fitness isn't your problem.

 

[Squint]

I've always read that article as being 30 min power even though it says >10 and 10 vs. 30 min power is going to be quite different. It does say that the data is gleaned from both testing and racing.

I live close to a long and popular climb in CO and judging from their speeds, I think very few people are climbing at more than 4 W/kg. This is quite a contrast from the Internet where everyone's FTP is 5-5.5 W/kg.

 

[peterpen]

I'm a lowly cat 5, soon to be cat 4 and I commonly average 4.0 w/kg on my 60 - 120 minute training rides. From competitions, I'm a pretty good cat 5 but I'm certainly no cat 3 (based on the numbers presented).

While I also agree these seem a bit low, being able to sustain 4 w/kg should do you fine into the 3's. I see virtually no difference between cat 4 and 5 - just 10 mass starts - and very little between 4 and 3 - chiefly positioning and sprinting knowledge. Look at times for TT's and hill climbs - quite often the top 10 in cat 4 are roughly equal to those in the 3's. Sometimes in mass start hill climbs they're even faster - because the 3's will actually engage in tactics. The biggest difference with the 3's is that it is much harder to upgrade to cat 2 (and many don't ever want to) which means the talent pool is deeper.

caveat: this is the opinion of a cat 4 who just started racing last year. The rest of my team are 3's and I have no problems training with them or finishing with them in hilly twilights races we do together.

I look at w/kg numbers as reducing my excuses for not doing well - with a 4 w/kg ratio there's no reason why I can't make the selection in any Cat 4 RR with a few hills. If I don't, I'm doing something else wrong. But while W/kg numbers are great for setting training goals, it's what individuals do with those numbers that gets them results. Unless you're a Justin England, who comes late into the sport with incredible fitness and ability, you won't just ride your way to cat 1 based on w/kg. And even England would get caught in crits!

 

[Smartt/RST]

Maximal steady state (MSS) power to weight ratios for men's road cycling categories to be competitive in sustained climbing situations (>10min)*:

In "defense" of my local comrade...Dario defines MSS as a power output that can be sustained for >30min, so I would say that the article is a typo.
I think you will find that the numbers make a lot more sense that way and are very similar to Coggan's and RST's data as well.

 

[RapDaddyo]

In "defense" of my local comrade...Dario defines MSS as a power output that can be sustained for >30min, so I would say that the article is a typo.
I think you will find that the numbers make a lot more sense that way and are very similar to Coggan's and RST's data as well.

Obviously, there are going to be large regional differences, but the numbers look like to me about what I would expect in my region for FTs by cat. Anyway, some day we'll have a large number of actual PM ride files to peruse for important races, by cat. It would be interesting to see not only the total ride NP but also the short-term NPs at key points in a race (e.g., climbs).

 

[mises]

Since it's from race data are they using total bike/rider/clothes/bottles, etc. kg or just the rider kg? That would dilute the watts/kg quite a bit.

 

[joule]

Well I've only done 9 mass start races and admit to not knowning a lot about tactics. I do know that when training with a couple of cat 3 guys they pretty much eat me alive. I can keep up, but they do the pulls ... I can just barely hang on. But I enjoy riding with people better than me as it give me more motivation to push the limit, more than I would have done solo or with some lesser riders. I guess this year will be an education for me since I expect to advance to cat 4 early in the season.

Dude, if you can't win cat 3 races with a threshold of 4 w/kg, fitness isn't your problem.

 

[BlueJersey]

Couple of things are misleading here. Power to ratio maybe relevant on a hilly course. Who do we skinny dudes kidding about? A 130lb rider with 4.4w/kg just can't ride as fast as a heavier rider with the same power to weight ratio. On a flatter course, the lighter rider just can't win the race by his or her power to weight ratio alone. I think the chart is pointless though.

I found some really interesting numbers posted by Dario Frederick who, among other things, has written for VeloNews and cyclingnews.com. This particular info should be credited to cyclingnews.com. I found it on nyvelocity.com, which actually has some really interesting stuff on it, particularly in some of the rider's journals with respect to training with power. I copy and paste with due credit:

Maximal steady state (MSS) power to weight ratios for men's road cycling categories to be competitive in sustained climbing situations (>10min)*:

Cat 5: 3.0 - 3.4
Cat 4: 3.5 - 3.8
Cat 3: 3.9 - 4.3
Cat 2: 4.4 - 4.8
Cat 1: 4.9 - 5.3
Pro National-level: 5.3 - 5.8
Pro World Class: 5.9 - 7.0
*Values expressed in Watts per kilogram of body weight)

Here is the link to the original post if anyone is interested in further great reading:

http://www.nyvelocity.com/content.php?id=88
http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2004/letters09-06#Power


Cheers,

Ethan

 

[joule]

And that's the rub... I weigh in at 130 lbs and probably on a good day do 4.2 w/kg for a 40k time trial. While I can hold onto (just barely) some cat 3 guys on some pretty tough climbs, I cannot compete otherwise. I've done a few training rides with them and I'm sure they could drop me anytime they wanted to outside a climbing area. When they are in the mood and do some hard pulls on the flats, I do my absolute best just to stay on their wheel.

... Power to ratio maybe relevant on a hilly course. Who do we skinny dudes kidding about? A 130lb rider with 4.4w/kg just can't ride as fast as a heavier rider with the same power to weight ratio. ...

 

[beerco]

And that's the rub... I weigh in at 130 lbs and probably on a good day do 4.2 w/kg for a 40k time trial..

Which powermeter are you using to get that 4.2 w/kg number?

 

[joule]

PowerTap SL. Have had it about 8 weeks now. Here is a recent interval session I did on my Kirk Road Machine (trainer). Effort was definitely below TT pace and filled with strength focused intervals. Average power is pretty low for me on this interval, assuming due to the lower than typical power during rest intervals. Generally average about 205 for average power and 240 - 250 for normalized power for my 1 hr interval training sessions. 4.2 number is estimated potential based on this training session which came to 4.1 w/gm at my slightly elevated weight of 135 lbs and a seven minute warmup at the start. Estimate my threshold power to be 260 watts at this time. Race age for 2006 season: 49. Cat 5 with 9 mass start races behind me. Via some testing and some data on the web, seems my power ratios are typical for someone of my years. Best comparative performance on 5 min efforts. Worst comparative performance is on sprints, thus my current focus on increasing my short term power. Max power over 2 seconds right now is only 980 watts. Max heart rate overall is 188 bpm with a LT at about 164 - 167 bpm.

Duration: 1:01:08
Work: 690 kJ
TSS: 92.5 (0.962)
Norm Power: 250
Distance: 17.125 mi

Power: 0 (min), 705 (max), 192 (avg) watts
Heart Rate: 119 (min), 183 (max), 158 (avg) bpm
Cadence: 31 (min), 93 (max), 66 (avg) rpm
Speed: 2.8 (min), 29.8 (max), 17.1 (avg) mph
Torque: 0 (min), 166 (max), 67 (avg) lb-in

Which powermeter are you using to get that 4.2 w/kg number?

 

[whoawhoa]

strength focused intervals.

What do you mean by this?

 

[Squint]

For W/kg comparisons, don't use NP. NP is more appropriate for comparing your workouts. To the best of my knowledge, NP was not used to create those W/kg tables.

Try not to estimate. If using the numbers in the original post, go climb for 20-30 mins and look at average power (with zeros).

PowerTap SL. Have had it about 8 weeks now. Here is a recent interval session I did on my Kirk Road Machine (trainer). Effort was definitely below TT pace and filled with strength focused intervals. Average power is pretty low for me on this interval, assuming due to the lower than typical power during rest intervals. Generally average about 205 for average power and 240 - 250 for normalized power for my 1 hr interval training sessions. 4.2 number is estimated potential based on this training session which came to 4.1 w/gm at my slightly elevated weight of 135 lbs and a seven minute warmup at the start. Estimate my threshold power to be 260 watts at this time. Race age for 2006 season: 49. Cat 5 with 9 mass start races behind me. Via some testing and some data on the web, seems my power ratios are typical for someone of my years. Best comparative performance on 5 min efforts. Worst comparative performance is on sprints, thus my current focus on increasing my short term power. Max power over 2 seconds right now is only 980 watts. Max heart rate overall is 188 bpm with a LT at about 164 - 167 bpm.

Duration: 1:01:08
Work: 690 kJ
TSS: 92.5 (0.962)
Norm Power: 250
Distance: 17.125 mi

Power: 0 (min), 705 (max), 192 (avg) watts
Heart Rate: 119 (min), 183 (max), 158 (avg) bpm
Cadence: 31 (min), 93 (max), 66 (avg) rpm
Speed: 2.8 (min), 29.8 (max), 17.1 (avg) mph
Torque: 0 (min), 166 (max), 67 (avg) lb-in

 

[joule]

What do you mean by this?

Let's see. (3) 1 minute ILTs (1 min left left only, 1 min right leg only) 52/12 gearing at about 200 watts, (5) 1 minute intervals 52/14 gearing with 1 min RI between, (4) 30 second intervals 52/12 gearing with 1 minute RI, (1) 4 minute interval with 4 min RI, (3) 1 minute intervals 52/12 gearing, 45 seconds standing, 15 seconds sitting, no rest interval. A couple more intervals in that set, not sure since not at home at this time. I vary things a bit to keep me focused ... ie not bored. Tend to do 60 min interval sessions with interviening days hosting 90 min endurance sessions (constant effort).

 

[joule]

Well that was the default setup (normalized power / kg) from the software, but point taken. I have yet to get a good TT session since getting the PT. About the best at present is a 20 min session at the end of one of my one hour interval trainer sessions. There, I did 250 watt average over the 20 min TT effort (TSS 31.5 (0.972), HR 167 (avg), Cadence 90 (avg), 190 (min), 390 (max) watts.

For W/kg comparisons, don't use NP. NP is more appropriate for comparing your workouts. To the best of my knowledge, NP was not used to create those W/kg tables.

Try not to estimate. If using the numbers in the original post, go climb for 20-30 mins and look at average power (with zeros).