Virtual power is an uncalibrated guess, I would have no expectation of that number being anything close to reality. If it is, that’s a happy coincidence.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Have you tried doing a 3x12 test at 250w using the Vectors yet? If not try it out and you'll quickly find out if the previous virtual power ftp results were correct or not.

It is definitely not uncommon for virtual power to be a bit more ego boosting compared to an actual power meter. Search on here and you will find many examples.

I was going to do that test this morning but set up, my inability to find my iPad, etc, cut into my time to do it. Just did the ramp test and then followed up with some zone 2 to ride it out but even those numbers were tougher, and my HR was up quite a bit

My FTP took a dive when i stopped testing with the Bkool power and used my new power2max powermeter on the bkool trainer. Quite devestating to the ego think i went from 252 or so to 220-225.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but virtual power numbers are notoriously high vs true power. Use that for motivation to get training.

I've recently done a couple of FTP ramp tests (using TR& Vector 3) and suffered a real shock at first as i was 70W down on my peak FTP of 330W from March this year. I thought i'd be down a bit due to a period of hardly training due to a crash injury, but this surpised me. I've not had the balls to do a full FTP test again as they are so horrible, but based on how hard/easy workouts are i'd guess my FTP around 300W.

V3 pedals was pretty consistent with a Stages PM and Wahoo Kickr Snap.

So, my point is... are you sure that the discrepancy is due to the pedals and not to the differing testing protocol?

Its difficult to directly compare the values as the testing protocols are substantially different, but if you started the Ramp Test with a predicted FTP of 250 its not a surprise you may have blown at 197.

FTP is useful because it describe the maximum power you can hold for any significant period of time without suffering a large drop in power over time. You would expect that exceeding your FTP by 5% or more will be unsustainable so if you set your goal too high to start with and went off to hard you will fail earlier. Its not different than really badly pacing any effort. I suggest dropping your estimated FTP to around 220 and doing a proper FTP test. I wouldn't really expect the kickr snap to be out by 50 watts but 20-30 watts wouldn't surprise me.

Why were you using virtual power with a Kickr Snap? That makes no sense, and I'm not even sure TR will let you do that. Virtual Power is for 'dumb' trainers that don't measure/report power.

Kickr Snap may not be the most accurate smart trainer, and there's the consistency issue of make sure tire PSI and roller pressure are the same as when you calibrated; but it should at least be in the ballpark compared to an actual power meter. And if you're comparing to single-sided power (Vector 3s), there could be some discrepancy there also. I know my L/R balance runs about 53/47, so single-sided power would tend to over-estimate for me. But I'm left-dominant, for somebody who is right-dominant single-sided power would tend to under-estimate.

I misspoke, its not a virtual power test. it was using the kickr power meter functionality but without it controlling the power so it wouldn't adjust as I increased/decreased my efforts.

good point about the L/R balance. I'm using the 3s so that could impact it.

My GF had a Kickr snap and even with consistent PSI and calibration, the power estimation is crap. Assuming the OP isn't experiencing some weird issue with the Vectors they are reporting accurately. I have my tried and true SRM, a Powertap C1, Powertap Hub, Quarc and a Tacx Neo in the stable to go along with my Vector 3 pedals. They all track very very closely and any differences are mostly due to where they are measuring from.