This makes some sense. I believe I am pretty much an "average joe" and am in the range of 3 to 3.2 now and believe that next year's training, which will have a HEAVY bike focus will push me up in power to hopefully an ftp in the range of 275 with a weight drop to 70 kilo, which would be 3.9...with a few more years of work, I should be able to go plus 25 watts and - 2 kilo for 300 / 68 = 4.4 watts / kg...

Will have to update in 2 years or so if I am there.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

few more years? why do you think it would take that long?

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

I don't know why 2 years was what I threw out, but will try to provide a rationale below.

I figured I wouldn't be able to go from 240, which is where I guess I would be now, to 300 in one year.

My training, which will be bike heavy, also isn't focused on specific workouts such as I would get in "training and racing with power", which I do plan to buy.

Instead, I am cycle commuting to / from work in the mornings, which is 40km round trip on a heavy steel bike (may add my powermeter over to this bike...), which will get me 200 km / week + the Saturday or Sunday long ride....

As the training isn't specifically designed to raise FTP or Vo2, I don't know what gains I can expect on the plan in the short-medium term and don't want to invest much more into the bike than this, as outside of the cycle commuting, I plan to do shorter, but more frequent / consistent, running this year, and to do a more focused swim training regiment, which will involve a coach / lessons to improve in the water, which is my biggest detriment / downfall.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

You may be hard pressed to improve at all with a cycling schedule like that. Unless you build some sort of structure/focus into your commute, you're not going to see continued improvement because you won't be applying any sort of progressive overload on that schedule.

Andy,

Very spot on with your calculations.

I'm a 51 year old [Canadian] Joe with a real job which calls for lots of travelling. After an intensive effort of training I managed to get 250 watts for my FTP. With my 65 kg weight that is 3.85 W/kg. My tested VO2 max was 48 - not far from the 50 you get with your formula. So why did I pay for testing :-)

I have never understood why watts/kg are talked about so much if weight isn't a big deal in tt's. Is it just a way of talking about power numbers....or does weight now matter? I can see the weight for a guy trying to rage up the Pyrenees at 15mph, but not how it adds up in a tt if weight is indeed not a big deal?

I'm a moron in the power game, just looking into a wired PT and getting my nomenclature down.

Straight watts means nothing

w/kg means a bit more than nothing

w/cda means even more

It's called "allometric scaling".

Bigger people tend to have bigger hearts, bigger muscles, etc., and hence on average can produce more power. However, they also punch a bigger hole in the air. Thus, even in a flat TT power expressed in W/kg is a better predictor of speed than power alone.

If that doesn't make sense, here is another way of expressing it: speed in a flat TT is most closely correlated with W/m^2 of CdA. Most people, though, don't know their CdA, so how do you estimate it? Various formulae exist, but as it turns out, they all include body mass as a measure of overall body size.

Tell that to all the petite women who can TT at 45-50 km/h while producing only ~250 W...

Good goal for an average joe would be sub hour 40k TT.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Weight doesn't matter for a TT, however, the larger you are the more air you have to push so therefore someone who is 100kg will need more power to sustain the same speed as someone who is 60kg because they will have a much larger frontal area. This is a general correlation and obviously someone who is 68kg could have a lower CdA than someone who is 66kg.

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

Would a better correlation be to height? I can gain a bunch of weight but it isn't going to increase my heart.

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

Within a given individual, height would undoubtly be better (since it is essentially constant). We're not talking about intra-individual comparisons here, though, but inter-individual ones, so my answer would be "not necessarily".

You know what I meant.

Really? 50km/hr on 250 watts?!? I'll give you 45 but calling bs on 50. Prove me wrong.

In his pursuit presentation he shows ~50k/hr @ ~420W

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

1. Average speed during a pursuit is well below the "cruising speed" due to the time lost on the 1st lap (half-lap, actually).

2. Petite women generally don't make very good pursuiters.

It was a ballpark range, but consider this: a small, aerodynamically-gifted woman (or man, for that matter) can easily have a CdA of only 0.180 m^2, sometimes even less. Combine that with a functional threshold power of ~5.5 W/kg, and you've got quite the "pocket rocket".

(Colby Pearce is ~67" and ~135 lbs, and his CdA is only ~0.200 m when using frop bars.)

I was looking at the individual data points of speed and power to negate the standing start/average speed issue. While a pursuiter is not a petite mara abbott it is also a pretty aerodynamic position. and to go 420W to 250W that would be a 40% reduction in CdA from the most aerodynamic pursuiter on a track bike just by being smaller and with a less aero bike. That seems a stretch to me.

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

If you were looking at raw data then it was my wife's...and she's hardly petite:



(Photo from the UCI World Cup race in Montreal in 2002.)


At (a claimed) 120 lbs, Mara Abbott also isn't petitie.


Run the numbers that I provided, and you'll see that the end result is smack-dab in the middle of the 45-50 km/h range I originally stated.

I'm an average Joe who's worked his ass off. No previous history of biking (other than riding a bike as a kid) as of 3 years ago and the last time I did an FTP test I was around 4.3w/KG.

Ken

---

"the trick is to keep losing weight until your friends and family ask you if you've been sick. then you know you're within 10 pounds. if they start whispering to each other, wondering if you've got cancer or aids, you're within 5. when they actually do an intervention, you're at race weight." - Slowman

Ok so, since we're Facebook friends and I am a bit lazy and hungover this morning....how much faster would I be with the same 350 watts and the same position if I dropped from 82 kg to 70 kgs? Very roughly of course.

If you want to be real specific, this could be modeled on the Stony Creek (VA State Champ) TT course, out and back 40k with 100 feet of elevation gain or so on the way out. 51:29 and 46.5kph @351 watts and 180lbs. I think you raced this course a long time ago.

Just paypal me your fees ;>)

I’m bringing up the dead with this thread but it came up when looking at 4w/kg.

Fwiw I started riding 1.5 years ago. First year was 666 miles, yes, mark of the beast. This year? Trying for 4000 by year end. May make it with a pair of centuries in Dec.

I do my numbers in 20min because that’s the plans I follow for my zones. For me 95% is about dead on from doing long hard hour intervals a couple weeks after a test. As a change over time it’s still same change.

Started: 185w and 82.3kg or 2.24
Last week’s test and weigh in: 255w and 74.8kg or 3.4

I can stand to get to 70kg no issue. I don’t see reaching 270w by next years first race too hard. That would be at 3.85 in 2 years from nothing. 3.65 for the hour folks. On 5-6hrs a week. That’s literally nothing against a traditional LSB approach. I’d say a legit hour 4.0 could be done on 6-7hrs a week and within 4 years of riding, from nothing.

But you better get used to some punishing intervals.

I say swap to the hour for stronger than Cat 4. That fitness is very applicable to the race length. Many 5 and 4s race 90min. How is an hour really helpful there? For 3 and faster or tri? Yup, hour.

I’m mostly doing the Time Crunched Cyclist plans when more organized.

Among seasoned riders who train and race, 4w/kg can be very “meh” depending on your region. A flat uncompetitive area a 4w/kg could be god like as the rider is like 75 to 80kg and the competition is lax. Mountain areas like Asheville or California? Not special. A 4.0 may be a min to not get dropped as a 4.

I’ll also throw out that your power profile matters. Having a 4.0 in Tri isn’t the same as a RR 4.0 isn’t the same as a crit 4.0.

So having a 4.0 means very different things in different races.

I have got a question. I m new to Cycling’. I’m 5’4.5 and did a ftp test on the indoor trainer. Wahoo kicker and it gave me a 138 that is cray low and I did a ride on zwift and that honestly about right. Oh my weight is 135lbs . Can someone help me out with this . If it is so low then could I ever become a cat 2or 1 rider. Since I’m stating so low. I don’t know how to start a forum with this question so I just sent it as a replay

Only one way to find out. If you're brand new then you'll probably make some large strides quickly. Either way, I would think about some intermediate goals because Cat 2 is probably ~5 years away if things go well, and really enjoying races and being competitive in your current category should be front of mind.

FWIW I am same height and weight as you when I was bike racing . . . was a good cat 3 @ ~265W 2x20 power. I upgraded to Cat 2, but then quit racing pretty much right after. At that power I was pack fodder in flat races and unable to hang in anything that had hills. Pure speculation, but I think I would have needed to push my power profile up ~10% to be somewhat competitive (i.e. actually finish a race other than giant flat criteriums) -- I had been racing a long time by that point, wasn't clear I could accomplish that without a very serious increase in commitment.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan