I have been taking a computrainer class a couple of times a week and I’m not sure what to do with the data. Once a month we do a 20 minute TT to get our threshold. My threshold has been steadily improving but I’m not sure it’s accurate. There typically aren’t many women in the class for me to compare my numbers to but a lot of the men are averaging between 250-300 and a few are over 300. There are some strong riders in the group but aren’t these numbers pretty high? I ask because I’m going to do a TT on a computrainer but at another training center and I don’t want to blow up if I base what I try to hold on inflated numbers.
Also, something I don’t understand about computrainer data. Shouldn’t the person averaging the highest kg/watt ratio be moving the fastest yet this is rarely the case?
Beyond that, though, I don’t think you can really judge the accuracy of the data w/o performing additional measurements (although I personally wouldn’t put too much faith in CompuTrainer numbers from a multi-user environment, at least not w/o knowing more about the equipment and how it is being used…IOW, lots of room for operator error.)
.
First, 250-300W for a 20min TT isn’t all that much. I’d expect that for a “strong rider.”
The numbers can be inflated if the pre-ride calibration isn’t done properly, or if the system is not re-calibrated after messing with the trainer mount. The calibration accounts for the friction between the roller and the tire, and it can dramatically affect the results.
And, lastly, you mean watt/kg, not kg/watt. For a flat 20 min TT weight will have minimal effect, and it’ll be almost exclusively about raw wattage on a Computrainer. If the TT is uphill, different story.
Definitely room for user error with a Computrainer TT. But FWIW, the last computrainer race we did, I avg’d 330w in 3rd place, 2nd place was at 340 and the winner was at 355w. I’ve had very random/limited training on the bike this winter due to my wife having our second baby in less than 2 years. I’m expecting to be at 350w avg by late March. So 300+ isn’t too hard a target for a stronger male.
They said me at the sports medicine lab where I did some testing that 5w/kg would be a level for a pretty strong rider. According to doctor EPO, Michele Ferrari, the “magic number” for Tour contenders is 6,7 w/kg.
I highly doubt that anyone has ever had an FTP of 7w/kg.
In the real world 5w/kg is kick ass. Here on slowtwitch though, 5w/kg sucks. It’s amazing how many sub 150 pound SlowTwitchers routinely throw down 350 watts for an hour.
I highly doubt that anyone has ever had an FTP of 7w/kg.
In the real world 5w/kg is kick ass. Here on slowtwitch though, 5w/kg sucks. It’s amazing how many sub 150 pound SlowTwitchers routinely throw down 350 watts for an hour.
I suspect that Marcus is Yurrupean, and 6,7 w/kg is his equivalent of our 6.7 w/kg. Commas and decimal points and all that.
I actually do have 5,5 w/kg. That´s lab tested, in two different labs. But that´s for three mins on a concon test, tapered and pushing to the limit.
If these guys are for real and that really is Michele Ferrari he begs to differ on 7w/kg. Yeah, Ferraris adepts are clean of course. http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=forum.thread&id=189
Yes, watt/kg. Oops, thanks. And I guess that’s right, on a flat course that number doesn’t matter, just wattage. That makes sense now that I think about it. So it sounds like I the numbers I’ve been seeing may not be too far off and I can rely on what is my current threshold number when riding on another computrainer system.
I would say the numbers seem about in the right range for guys. I’m a gal and my T1 wattage (where I go from aerobic to anerobic) is currently 180 and my T2 wattage (threshold) was somewhere between 220 and 240.
on a flat course that number doesn’t matter, just wattage.
Not very much, but it matters a little, especially if there are corners where you have to accelerate. And usually there is some correlation between watt/kg and vo2 max measured in ml/kg.
Beyond that, though, I don’t think you can really judge the accuracy of the data w/o performing additional measurements (although I personally wouldn’t put too much faith in CompuTrainer numbers from a multi-user environment, at least not w/o knowing more about the equipment and how it is being used…IOW, lots of room for operator error.)
This chart seems to be different then the one in WKO+. Is there a reason for the difference, or is one chart updated? According to the one in WKO+ Im just barely at Cat 4 status, but that one puts me closer to Cat 3. I am female if that makes a difference. I’m guessing the local cat 4 women could kick my ass as I’m currently around 3w/kg.
This chart seems to be different then the one in WKO+. Is there a reason for the difference, or is one chart updated? According to the one in WKO+ Im just barely at Cat 4 status, but that one puts me closer to Cat 3. I am female if that makes a difference. I’m guessing the local cat 4 women could kick my ass as I’m currently around 3w/kg.
If the charts are different, then you need to update your version (or build) of WKO+. I don’t recall precisely when version 4 of the power profiling tables was released, but it was quite a while ago…
I highly doubt that anyone has ever had an FTP of 7w/kg.
In the real world 5w/kg is kick ass. Here on slowtwitch though, 5w/kg sucks. It’s amazing how many sub 150 pound SlowTwitchers routinely throw down 350 watts for an hour.
Exactly.
Always some serious dick swinging going on when ever the topic of wattage comes up around here…
“on an Ergometer test starting at 100 watts and increasing every 8 minutes by 40 watts - Tornado Tom rode to 460 watts. That’s 8 minutes at 380, 420, 460.”
As we all know, Tom can max about 1700 watts.
I believe Contador has the best power/weight ratio at about 7 watts.
