I’m interested in how many folk use results from FTP tests undertaken on a trainer to pace their races vs outdoor testing.
I did Ironman NZ last March and used an FTP number derived from a 20 min test on my indoor trainer. I reckon it was (a lot) lower than I would have been able to generate outdoors. I used 75% of this number as my target for the day. Result: slowish bike (5:50ish) but a fantastic (for me) run of sub 3:30.
I’ve now found a great spot (outdoor velodrome) to test outdoors, but am actually wondering whether i’d be slower overall if I ride an (effectively) higher IF ride and then have a slower run.
So, for people who race to power and use the 70-75% target for IM, is that generally off an indoor or outdoor test and how has that worked for you?
I can only tell you my experience which is limited. Background: started biking 2 yrs ago, got a PM one yr ago, and i do most of my ridding indoors (i live in the northeast). All my FTP test have been indoors, overall i have found overall my numbers seem to be higher outdoors then indoors, which other people on ST seem to confirm. In races i have typically aimed at my upper ends of my zones, example if half goal would be 75-85% of FTP i am going to aim at 83-85% of FTP, this seems to work well for me so far. Interesting question that i myself have wondered.
Maybe you just got lucky, but pacing an IM using a percentage of a 20 minute test is just about the most foolish thing I’ve ever heard of.
I generally pace long course racing based on how I handle long training rides. Ride at the power I can generally handle during training and feel like I can still run well afterwards. I’ve never used a percentage of FTP, or any other test.
But then again, you had a good IM run, and I had a terrible one…so what do I know?
While i much better base number of my athletes on there outside training and long rides, it s not very complicated to base it over a FTP test. Image a case where someone would exclusively ride inside during canadian winter and do a early spring race in southern hemisphere.
I would aim at a conservative % of FTP and use RPE half way into the ride to reevaluate if the effort is right. Would work very well and not as foolish as you think…
I’ve done testing over the years, but have found the best gauge of what to target for watts in a race is consistent riding during training. Look at what watts you are pushing day in and day out and base your racing on that.
I’ve seen a bit of a discrepancy in indoor vs outdoor FTP, but it’s gotten smaller as I’ve learned to push myself more. My highest 5’ power was indoors, while my highest 20’ test was outside. It’s pretty hard for me to find somewhere outside where I can punish myself for 5’ min without having to worry about cars and road conditions. It’s easier to just dig and focus on the trainer (at least for me).
Regarding your question on indoor vs. outdoor power, this month’s Velo magazine (p. 60) has an article on indoor training that states “WorldTour coaches have reported that their cyclists’ stationary time-trial power can be 30-50 watts lower.” So assuming pro FTPs are ~400w, about 10% lower than outdoors.
I only test indoors. I use that to give me a guide for long rides, and that along with Oly and HIM race wattage will give me an idea where to pace.
Fantastic run, did you negative split the bike?
I don’t think so, but I think the wind was a bit stronger on the second leg back into town (a real disadvantage to us MOPers). I think from a power perspective, my ride was actually pretty consistent on both legs.
I do pay reasonably close attention to the power from my long rides (did a reasonable number of them) and the target was probably consistent with those too. But it was ‘set’ from the test.
Just interested as I start to think about the next one (2016) and really want to improve the bike. I think I have some big gains to make there, but also want to preserve my run. It’s going to be an interesting exercise and love hearing how others strike their balance.
Just learning to pee on the bike would help - I had to stop 4 times!
I’ve frequently heard anecdotal evidence of this as well, both of pros and age-groupers.
But why is this the case? Is it largely a physical phenomenon, or is it partly due to lesser motivation on indoor FTP tests?
I believe there has to be something to do with the physics behind the bike flex and your more dynamic position on the road? Just a thought.
Its interesting point to bring up though. Test indoors and even though you might be slightly lower than actual power outside, you ride a bit more conservative and can back your run a bit better.
But I mean most age groupers never over bike right?
I’m interested in how many folk use results from FTP tests undertaken on a trainer to pace their races vs outdoor testing.
I did Ironman NZ last March and used an FTP number derived from a 20 min test on my indoor trainer. I reckon it was (a lot) lower than I would have been able to generate outdoors. I used 75% of this number as my target for the day. **Result: slowish bike (5:50ish) but a fantastic (for me) run of sub 3:30. **
I’ve now found a great spot (outdoor velodrome) to test outdoors, but am actually wondering whether i’d be slower overall if I ride an (effectively) higher IF ride and then have a slower run.
So, for people who race to power and use the 70-75% target for IM, is that generally off an indoor or outdoor test and how has that worked for you?
Sounds to me like you paced it pretty well. You feel it was a slowish bike based on?
I only test indoors. Outdoors, I have to ride 18 miles to reach a road suitable for testing. I have one other, but would need to make a U-turn near the end. All others have downhills too steep to sustain FTP watts and too much shifting with rolling hills for a good test.
So I only test indoors. Better controlled conditions. I race partly by pace, partly by feel. You have ultimately go with what your legs give you that day while holding some in reserve for the run.
I’m interested in how many folk use results from FTP tests undertaken on a trainer to pace their races vs outdoor testing.
I did Ironman NZ last March and used an FTP number derived from a 20 min test on my indoor trainer. I reckon it was (a lot) lower than I would have been able to generate outdoors. I used 75% of this number as my target for the day. **Result: slowish bike (5:50ish) but a fantastic (for me) run of sub 3:30. **
I’ve now found a great spot (outdoor velodrome) to test outdoors, but am actually wondering whether i’d be slower overall if I ride an (effectively) higher IF ride and then have a slower run.
So, for people who race to power and use the 70-75% target for IM, is that generally off an indoor or outdoor test and how has that worked for you?
Sounds to me like you paced it pretty well. You feel it was a slowish bike based on?
A desire for it to have been a faster bike… Would like to be closer to 5 hours than 6. Lot’s of work to do.
I’ve been doing a few intervals on the outdoor velodrome and comparing that to similar efforts on my trainer (20 min efforts).
The thing is, my heart rate (say, 150 bpm) seems to buy me similar power indoors and out. BUT the RPE feels completely different. I honestly feel like I am going to fail to finish the interval inside and hope a tree comes through the roof to put me out of my misery whereas at the end of the interval outdoors, I feel like I could get a few more laps in (and have on occasion). At the same heart-rate.
Inside, I sit there struggling to undersand why I feel SO bad when my heartrate is similar to what I sit at all the time outside.
That’s pretty much normal for trainer riding. Boredom, lack of cooling and ventilation, etc all makes indoor riding seem much harder than the numbers say it is.
Is it really the most foolish thing you have ever heard of?
(chart from Coggans fb page)
Yes…it is. Please keep in mind you are referencing a chart based on FTP, or 1 hour power, not 20’ power like the OP is referencing. He is inferring FTP based on a 20’ test, then inferring IM power off of that.
Secondly, would you agree that the difference between pacing an IM bike by a difference of 4-5% of FTP (or roughly 12-15 watts) would be HUGE as far as the end result on the run? That’s what that chart doesn’t clearly show. It’s looks like a nice tight pattern, but the scale of the chart doesn’t let you know how much discrepancy there is between those who can sustain say 70% of FTP for 5.5 hours vs those who can sustain 74%.
Really no different than running. It’s okay to “generally” guide your marathon pacing off a one hour effort…like a 12-15k max effort…or roughly 1/3 of the marathon distance, but even then it’s not exact. Pacing a IM bike off a 20’ test is sort of like pacing a marathon off your best 3k effort. Maybe it works out, but blindly trusting some formula that someone else created and was not based on your background or training is foolish. I’d rather pace myself based on my personal efforts of similar distances or duration.
I actually agree with you on that point. I trained with power for two years before that IM (my first) and was pretty confident I wasn’t overbiking. Plenty of six hour plus rides and also runs off four hour rides, etc.
In fact, the opposite, I am worried that I underbiked.
Your post also raises another of my curiosities (perhaps a topic for another thread). How many people have actually managed to ride 95% of their peak 20 min power for 60 minutes?
There is NO FREAKIN WAY I could do that. I can’t imagine even coming close. 20 minute sweet spot efforts are hard enough work.
Your post also raises another of my curiosities (perhaps a topic for another thread). How many people have actually managed to ride 95% of their peak 20 min power for 60 minutes?
Has anyone actually done it?
iSam,
It’s not that unusual for those athletes whose muscular fiber distribution favors them with a larger than average percentage of slowtwitch fibers to have flatter power duration curves than we less fortunate souls. IIRC there are a sprinkling for “naturals” who can maintian ~ 97% of their 20 minute power for a whole hour. On the other end of the spectrum are those who have to work their butts off to approach holding 90% of their maximum 20 minute power for an hour.
