as we've discussed before, for an athlete of good or better back flexibility, its probably only below-waist size that matters for CdA, so weight by itself doesn't tell you a lot. i will grant that disproportionate shoulder width is likely also relevant since it directly impacts frontal area and the ease of getting the arms to precede rather than "side-car" the torso.

my main cycling partner, despite being the same weight as me, is about an inch taller and has legs that are probably 3-4" longer than mine, along with less back flexibility than i do. that seems to be worth about 20W when we ride. the difference is clearly CdA, clearly not weight. so yes, size matters :)

[reply][reply]
do you know her W/kg? [/reply]
I do. I also know her CdA. My lips, however, are sealed.[/reply]

Oh well as long as you wont say, then thank you for bringing her up as an example in the first place.


.

It does, though, tell you enough that W/kg is, on the whole, a better indicator of even flat-land performance ability that W alone.

I gave you the relevant data, which are her mass (size) and performance ability - I would argue that those facts alone are enough to prove my point.

If you really want to know her W/kg, though, you can probably get a pretty good idea from the fact that she's one of the best road racers in the world, and from the power profiling tables that I've put together. IOW, the former wouldn't be true if she weren't well up the rankings of the latter...

And my mother is still alive and kicking at age 85, despite being a smoker all of her adult life - so what's your point?

"3.5 w/kg for 60 min power is the bare minimum that even a moderately committed athlete under the age of about 45 should achieve"
-------------------
Ahh, another slowtwitch benchmark of mediocrity to add to what I refer to as the Lehner Line, based upon Ken's observation that any healthy male should be able to swim 100 in 1:30. I never did ask whether he referred to meters or yards (probably because I was afraid to know as I am frequently on the wrong side of it if he meant meters).

I'm thinking of yours as the Ashburn Throwdown until a better name comes along.

Very true. I target to never exceed my FTP in a long distance race. I also agree that creating a "triathlete table" would be kind of silly. We typically don't need a large amount of output in the short duration stuff, with the exception of some race courses such as the GFT with several short but *extremely* steep hills (10-20% grade) that flat out force a lot of people with less than 4W/kg to walk. Even with the right gearing it's really hard to stay upright at 3mph...

Anyway, my profile is similar to yours simply because I never train the far left of the plot. I'm at 1100W/640W/390W/315W or 15.07/8.74/5.33/4.27 (can you tell I put that chart into Excel?) for 5s/1min/5min/FTP. Earlier this year I was more like 1100W/550W/320W/250W or 15.07/7.48/4.38/3.40 W/kg. I just simply don't train the 1s-1min range at all, though I do some occasional sprint 0-30mph sort of things just for fun...mostly because it looks so cool on CyclingPeaks.

Interestingly the ~75-80% rule for IM seems to be fairly accurate for me, now that I have a good handle on my FTP. I can do 100 miles at about 240W (76%) and not be toast...so long as I stay hydrated.

---

---

what's your's? that its an anecdote? sure, its an anecdote. except that its an anecdote about two guys riding similar bikes, weighing the same amount to within a pound or so, riding the same ride over and over with each other, with powermeter data. its simply an anecdote to confirm that, for a significant but not huge difference in absolute power levels, CdA can still result in the weaker ride being faster. you knew that, and lots of other people knew that, but even so people often forget it in a rush to get to higher and higher power levels.

;-)

I'm partly using myself as an example. I'm 47 (in a few days), I take at least 4-5 months off the bike every year, and I ride twice a week when I'm "serious" about a race. I get to 3.4 - 3.5 w/kg every season without a whole lot of brain damage (I go from <200 FT to ~240-250). Given that I'm anything but a "natural," I'm inclined to think that most folks can get to the same place.

Hi Andrew,

Sorry to pull up an old thread, but did a bit of searching and couldn't find anything else. Was just discussing the cycling power profiling chart in another group today, and had me thinking of why it hasn't been done for triathletes.

Have you &/or TP's considered doing a Power Profiling Chart for Triathletes? Maybe over 20K, 40K, 90K, 180K ?

If this has been discussed somewhere else please let me know.

Thanks,

---

-Brad Williams
Website | Twitter: @BW_Tri |Instagram: @BW_Tri | Strava | Co-Founder & Coach at: KIS Coaching
Partnered with: Zoot Sports | Precision Fuel &Hydration | ISM

Power profiling has been made largely obsolete by the WKO4 power-duration model and accompanying metrics (e.g., auto-phenotyping, stamina).

Regardless, since the purpose of such calculations and standards is to obtain insight into an athlete's relative strengths and weaknesses, and not for "bench racing", there really isn't much need for triathlete-specifc standards. IOW, comparing yourself against what others can do for various durations while cycling will still tell you how well/poorly you perform while cycling.

P.S.: Trainingpeaks often uses my ideas, but they have essentially no input into such matters.

I think many athletes use the power profiling chart to gain an understanding of where he or she falls in the competitive pecking order for the sport. Those who don't have a great handle on these numbers, those who are new to triathlon, for instance, may want to see what it takes to be competitive in a local race, to be a top amateur/Kona qualifier, etc., not so much the specifics of a personal power curve. My guess is that is the core use case here for those of us who are behind on our auto-phenotyping literature.

It doesn't help me answer much about myself if all I know is that Lionel Sanders and I can both hold 0.89 for 2 hours, because he's 20 minutes up the road based on the other variables that are important (Watts, kilograms...and of course, as has been discussed ad nauseam, CdA). Here's a quick stab

It if is, they're doing it wrong. See the 3rd sentence here:

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/...icle/power-profiling

(which is simply a mirror of the original post from 2003:

http://lists.topica.com/...rt=d&start=11055)