Racing power levels



wiredued said:
Is this better?:)

...
24.8mph=422.44w
24.9mph=426.51w
25mph=430.62w
25.1mph=434.75w......Lance Armstrong FTP maybe
25.2mph=438.91w
25.3mph=443.10w
...
Hey, I could keep up with LA for a minute and a half. That's something!:D

wiredued said:
If it's a 2.4 wireless you might need it again:) Thanks for the help.
Nope. Good old fashioned wires all over the frame. Actually I haven't installed them yet. So far I only cleaned the bike and put the wheel on. Tomorrow - wires and CPU. This weekend - either training on the PT-empowered bike or doing Ric's wheel throwing/kicking core exercises. :)
 
wiredued said:
Find your FTP and do 3x20s at 91% to raise it when you can't raise it any more you may be close to your genetic limit 2x20s at 100% FTP would probably maintain it and 2x20s between 100% to 105% would peak your FTP.
I've been reading these forums quite a bit and this is the first time I've heard these guidelines. May I ask from whence they came?

I'm also interested in more details on the last part, like how soon before your peak event do you start doing 100-105%?
 
Uhl said:
I've been reading these forums quite a bit and this is the first time I've heard these guidelines. May I ask from whence they came?

I'm also interested in more details on the last part, like how soon before your peak event do you start doing 100-105%?


He might have extrapolated from this....

" Still, I don't think one can assume that just because the TSS is 35% larger for 3 x 20' @ 95% than it is for 2 x 20' @100% that you automatically get 35% greater benefit. In fact, for someone who has already pushed their functional threshold power fairly high relative to their personal limit, the former is unlikely to result in any further increase, whereas the latter still may (based on my personal experience, anyway)." A Coggan.
Re: your second question....LONG before. Should be doing "a little" in late winter....at 100%.
It is the VO2 max work that you should start a few weeks before your first races, along with the 100-105% FTP threshold work in conjunction with each other that help the most.

VO2 to raise the threshold ceiling and intense threshold work to force it up. But if you are doing significant VO2 work then you don't need to do much 100-105% threshold work...at least at first.
Be careful with the Threshold work at 100-105%...it can kill you off if you get carried away with it.
The VO2 work will also be best for building mitochondria and the vasculature needed to feed them and this will also help raise FTP. It will also help boost stroke volume and this too will hep raise FTP.

To peak you do MORE.... or you can do two day blocks of VO2 max work. and keep L4 fairly high....and reduce total ride volume per week.....and then taper for 14 days with at least a 40% reduction in volume while maintaining or slightly increasing intensity. In peak and taper you can add a perhaps 5 days of pure L6 work(real L6 intervals) to give a little boost to your anaerobic work capacity.
 
If Lance never goes higher than his FTP for a minute and a half you've got it made:)

Piotr said:
Hey, I could keep up with LA for a minute and a half. That's something!:D
 
I like to make statements I think are true in order to get the experts to chime in one way or another:) Timan is right it probably came from AC or was it RD?

Uhl said:
I've been reading these forums quite a bit and this is the first time I've heard these guidelines. May I ask from whence they came?

I'm also interested in more details on the last part, like how soon before your peak event do you start doing 100-105%?
 
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?p=3169568#post3169568

RapDaddyo Quote

"My response to this question is, "It depends on how far up the curve I am relative to my (perceived) maximum attainable FTP." Let's say that I am relatively detrained and that my FTP is <90% of my max attainable FTP (in my opinion). In this scenario, I will see good FTP improvement with L4s at anything around 90%FTP and the major consequence of doing my L4s at >=100%FTP is that my efforts are shorter in duration. OTOH, let's say that I am relatively trained and that my FTP is >95% of my max attainable FTP (again, in my opinion). I would increase the intensity of my L4 efforts to the 100-105% range, to extrapolate this last 5% of my FTP potential, at the expense of shorter L4 durations. As to L4 time relative to other intensities, I would inrease L5-L7 as I get within ~6-8 weeks of a target event. But, even in the last few weeks before a target event, L4 would still make up ~50% of my high-intensity training time."
 
I remember RDO's post but didn't file it (in my head). I do agree with TiMan's suggestion on using VO2 work to "raise the ceiling".

Thanks guys, that helps!
 
Uhl said:
I remember RDO's post but didn't file it (in my head). I do agree with TiMan's suggestion on using VO2 work to "raise the ceiling".

Thanks guys, that helps!
Hey Uhl, I've been reading your blog long before I came to this forum. Since you originally inspired me to get more "technological" with my training, I'm assigning an arbitrary 10% blame on you if my PT doesn't work. :D

See you on the road to Suncrest sometime (north side of course) :cool:.
 
Piotr said:
Hey Uhl, I've been reading your blog long before I came to this forum. Since you originally inspired me to get more "technological" with my training, I'm assigning an arbitrary 10% blame on you if my PT doesn't work. :D

See you on the road to Suncrest sometime (north side of course) :cool:.
Glad I can inspire someone! :rolleyes:

Not sure when I'll be riding down there again, but whenever I do I'll definitely bring my 12-27!
 
Don't forget that those KK values assume a 1% uphill grade. If you take that out of the equation, it takes a lot less power to go at those speeds.
 
Piotr said:
Your values are slightly off. I believe you're using .01968 for B value instead the correct .01917 (it was probably a rounded up .019168). I believe they they made a typo.

Correct watts at 20 MPH should be 258.2. Just FYI, this table (bottom of page) shows correct values:

http://www.kurtkinetic.com/pdfs/Power_Curves419.pdf
How much do you think those values would differ if you were on a hardtail XC race bike...with semi-slicks...that weighs 25lbs? haha I know that question is a long shot, but does anyone have any ideas for the variance? 10W? 20w? 5w?

any ideas would help out, because I train by HR right now, but I like to think more in terms of power
 
K50 said:
How much do you think those values would differ if you were on a hardtail XC race bike...with semi-slicks...that weighs 25lbs? haha I know that question is a long shot, but does anyone have any ideas for the variance? 10W? 20w? 5w?

any ideas would help out, because I train by HR right now, but I like to think more in terms of power
On the Kurt Kinetic, the power required should be the same unless one tire slips more or less than the other. Also, you will have somewhat higher rolling resistence on the mtb tire so it will take a little more power to turn the rollers at the same speed as a good road tire. You can't use those power/speed numbers for outdoor riding.
 
K50 said:
How much do you think those values would differ if you were on a hardtail XC race bike...with semi-slicks...that weighs 25lbs? haha I know that question is a long shot, but does anyone have any ideas for the variance? 10W? 20w? 5w?

any ideas would help out, because I train by HR right now, but I like to think more in terms of power
One more thing, here is some information that might help you quantify the difference in rolling resistance between tires:

http://www.discoveryride.com/human/rolling.html

It's actually a pretty complicated subject so I'm not sure what conclusions you could draw without measuring it with a powermeter yourself.
 
cclarke said:
One more thing, here is some information that might help you quantify the difference in rolling resistance between tires:

http://www.discoveryride.com/human/rolling.html

It's actually a pretty complicated subject so I'm not sure what conclusions you could draw without measuring it with a powermeter yourself.
Yeah thanks man. That test wasn't highly accurate, but still gives some insight.
 
A 165 lbs rider also so for me at 196 lbs it feels more like .75% grade level would or something like that. It's more difficult than the rail trail but a little easier than a road ride around where I live it is hilly.

Yojimbo_ said:
Don't forget that those KK values assume a 1% uphill grade. If you take that out of the equation, it takes a lot less power to go at those speeds.
 
K50 said:
Is that because there's no air resistance factored in?
There is air resistance factored into the calibration KK chose which is why it rises exponentially but the power/speed curve will theoretically only match an outdoor hypothetical 165 lb rider who is riding up a 1% slope and that's not even considering the other variables described below.

So when you are outside riding, you'll almost certainly have different air resistance based on your actual size and positioning on the bike. Plus there are variable atmospheric conditions like barometric pressure and wind to consider. You'll be going up and down and not just up a 1% grade per the KK calibration so that'll change the power required to go a certain speed. In addition, your bike and tire set up and quality of road surface can dramatically alter the power required to go a certain speed.

Check out analyticcycling.com for some cool tools which will give you an idea about how much these variables change the power requirements to go a certain speed.
 
1st post here and I was dismayed to see how many watts to get 25mph, and analytic shows about 100w less. I did a flat road and it was much less. I can do 25 for an hour, but have an FTP around 250 at the moment. I can get to 300, but no way 400. Just read around here as well that 400w for a half hour would keep you in the climbers bunch of the TDF, so no way is that chart close.
 
Why are the watt numbers from KK so much higher than analytic cycling. It shows over 400 watts to go 25mph. No way did I average over 400 watts in my last 40k. Analytic puts it closer to 300w which would make sense. Tell me I only have to bring my watts up only 50 until race day, and not 150:)
 
marko16 said:
Why are the watt numbers from KK so much higher than analytic cycling. It shows over 400 watts to go 25mph. No way did I average over 400 watts in my last 40k. Analytic puts it closer to 300w which would make sense. Tell me I only have to bring my watts up only 50 until race day, and not 150:)
You have to remember that the KK numbers are based on a hypothetical 165 lb rider going up a 1% grade and I'm guessing they didn't base the expected air resistance on a rider in aero position. So how many watts does it take you to go 25 mph slightly uphill while riding on the tops? Can you sustain 25 mph on the kk?

On the flats with aero bars, it takes me about 250 watts to go 25 mph but I'm sort of small.

I think it's sort of hopeless and pointless to try to guess your wattage outdoors or speed outdoors from the speed of the kk, except under a very narrow set of conditions. Also, I have noticed divergance between my powertap readings and the expected kk power at higher power levels which I believe has to do with power losses between the tire and the roller (i.e. slippage). My pt reads pretty much spot on with the kk until about 230 watts and then reads progressively higher as power rises. I believe the extent of this divergance depends on tire choice, inflation and tension on the roller so, if you keep those factors constant, you can tell whether your getting stronger or weaker by the speed of the kk.