If you’re dealing with courses that are hilly w/KG will be big influence on who is near the front vs not. Heavier riders even with high W output are going to pay a price for that weight and dragging it around with them all day. But on flat ground, maybe with a headwind/crosswind, lighter riders even with a decent w/KG will be no match for someone with big W. Their weight simply isn’t the same penalty, and they can drive through winds easier and not be pushed around as much.
I would posit that CdA matters far more than mass. Any time you are going 15mph+ overcoming air resistance is where your power goes. Optimize FTP against CdA.
There are very few races that are pure hill climbs with very low speeds. In those events w/kg matters the most.
In almost everything else CdA matters more. Takeaway in my mind is optimize FTP without letting weight get out of control. Losing weight is fine, but don’t drop 3kg just to see 25w of power evaporate, it won’t be worth it.
If it were as easy as hopping on the scale to determine CdA, I think we’d be talking about it much more.
Oops, I see the previous poster posted a better version of this chart
I can top that.
ETA: This is the most recent version (8) as used by WKO4. Really, though, the tables/the notion of power profiling has been made obsolete by the introduction of power-duration profiling.
So for anyone wondering what Chris Froome’s actual FTP is, the ridiculous answer is right here: 6.60*66kg=435w, not 420 as published. Im reading between the lines since these charts are based on real data.
Ferrari’s magic number was 6.8 for 30 minutes…Froome would pass the test.
That’s funny. Froome’s actual FTP on the specific days he really kills it - would be off the charts. Temporary of course. He’d also probably be 5 or 8 lbs lower than expected.
there’s a large group of people on Zwift who have “proven” your table to be shite, because they can regularly do the world class wattage despite being Cat 5 or below. (and yes, they will make that argument).
