@apc I don't get it either.
Spookily: 65/54 = 195/162 =~ 120%
TSS = (sec x NP x IF)/(FTP x 3600) x 100
where: IF = NP/FTP
So TSS is pretty much time * NP^2 / FTP^2
Assuming your FTP is the same for both of those, I'd expect a 20% increase in NP to be 24% higher TSS than a 20% increase in time.
1 * 1.2 * 1.2 = 1.44 vs 1.2 * 1 * 1 = 1.2
65 * 162 * 162 = 1705860 54 * 195 * 195 = 2053350
Are you sure 162W and 195W are your NP values and not AP or some other 'similar' measure like xPower/Daniels EqP/etc?
you are right, I was looking at AP, used the formula above and got the same figures TP reported, I guess the perceived effort of ride 2 was much greater and the AP difference threw me off.
sorry guys, as you were.
@Greenbank started
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@apc I don't get it either.
Spookily: 65/54 = 195/162 =~ 120%
TSS = (sec x NP x IF)/(FTP x 3600) x 100
where: IF = NP/FTP
So TSS is pretty much time * NP^2 / FTP^2
Assuming your FTP is the same for both of those, I'd expect a 20% increase in NP to be 24% higher TSS than a 20% increase in time.
1 * 1.2 * 1.2 = 1.44 vs 1.2 * 1 * 1 = 1.2
65 * 162 * 162 = 1705860
54 * 195 * 195 = 2053350
Are you sure 162W and 195W are your NP values and not AP or some other 'similar' measure like xPower/Daniels EqP/etc?