Power Meters / Powermeters (SRM, Powertap, Quarq, Ergomo, Vector, Stages, power2max, P2M, 4iii, InPower, Cinch)

I'm in no position to talk as I've not actually done a proper test this year!

However- you should test when you are rested and fresh, threshold is your maximum sustained power, right on the edge of what you can deliver.

You simply cannot do it if you are already tired.

So I would think it's a bit higher.

Anyway, I'll test mine when I have two legs again.

Well it was useful to try the test out.

Basically I had a 45 minute window so I hit the gym. Beasted myself in the weights room (no leg work). Then I came home to find out that Mrs Smallfurry was putting the eldest to bed. So suddenly I had an hours window to do the test. Thats kinda how training works when you have small kids.

I averaged 310 watts in the warm up 5 minute effort. Went out quickly at the start of the 20 minute test period, then fell apart, then recovered, and finished with a 400 watt sprint, which I probably should'nt have managed. Messy as feck.

My heart rate zones are lower than I know they should be. So maybe it was a poor test. Or maybe thats the difference between runnning and cycling.

http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/293764?best=1471793

As Isaid. Doing a 60 minute sufferfest vid, with my FTP set to 240 watts, was about as hard as I'd like. SO it isnt going to be much higher under more ideal conditions.

Running HR is (in my experience) higher for the same perceived effort than cycling.

I would guesstimate my threshold heartrate while running to be 160. Its not a very comfortable pace, but I dont need to slow down just HTFU, so to speak. I was holding 160 BPM on a 15minute 8% hill climb on Sunday.

My threshold from the test was 150. That seems low to me.

Depends on your own physiology so one persons experience won't be the same as yours- my threshold heart rate is around 170, for example, but that may be meaningless.

150 bpm would be "trying but not flat out" if constant for the duration of the session.

Actually my heart rate drops from 159 to 81 in 7 seconds, in the middle of the test 20mins. I recover quickly. But I'm thinking there just might be a glip there. Its also where my power dropped to 31 watts. Which I thought was a result of shifting down a gear, because of my over enthusiastic start.

Depends on your own physiology so one persons experience won't be the same as yours- my threshold heart rate is around 170, for example, but that may be meaningless.

Not at all meaningless. I'm approaching 38. So my HRmax is going to be a load lower than yours. I'm guess 10 is in the right ball park.

You'll get the hang of pacing efforts as you do more. It's just the way it is. We don't 'know' what our max is over a period of time until we've done it and most likely done it a few times.

"averaged 310 watts in the warm up 5 minute effort"
That doesn't sound like a warmup unless you're doing a prologue.
Find a warmup protocol and stick to it (again, you'll nail it the more you do it)

Here's some overly complicated ones..
http://www.o2endurance.com/content/?cid=42&cat1=371&cat2=286&cat3=0&level=2&id=286

Not at all meaningless. I'm approaching 38. So my HRmax is going to be a load lower than yours. I'm guess 10 is in the right ball park.

You are a year older than me.

You'll get the hang of pacing efforts as you do more. It's just the way it is. We don't 'know' what our max is over a period of time until we've done it and most likely done it a few times.

"averaged 310 watts in the warm up 5 minute effort"
That doesn't sound like a warmup unless you're doing a prologue.
Find a warmup protocol and stick to it (again, you'll nail it the more you do it)

Here's some overly complicated ones..
http://www.o2endurance.com/content/?cid=42&cat1=371&cat2=286&cat3=0&level=2&id=286

As it turns out, 133% of my FTP. Although I was expecting a higher score. Something that would have put it at 110% (280 watts).

You are a year older than me.

Feck. Thats that excuse out.

Well it was useful to try the test out.

Basically I had a 45 minute window so I hit the gym. Beasted myself in the weights room (no leg work). Then I came home to find out that Mrs Smallfurry was putting the eldest to bed. So suddenly I had an hours window to do the test. Thats kinda how training works when you have small kids.

I averaged 310 watts in the warm up 5 minute effort. Went out quickly at the start of the 20 minute test period, then fell apart, then recovered, and finished with a 400 watt sprint, which I probably should'nt have managed. Messy as feck.

My heart rate zones are lower than I know they should be. So maybe it was a poor test. Or maybe thats the difference between runnning and cycling.

http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/293764?best=1471793

As Isaid. Doing a 60 minute sufferfest vid, with my FTP set to 240 watts, was about as hard as I'd like. SO it isnt going to be much higher under more ideal conditions.

SF do you have a PM to corroborate the results from TR VP, or you just going by the values fro trainerroad. I'm wondering as I use the same turbo as you and I get the feeling it's massivley overestimating my FTP.

I know it's not important, but it's just one of those things I don't know the answer to, so it irritates me.

If you have problems pacing the 20min test do the 8min one, I think it's good enough for dicking about on the turbo. My problem with the 20m is boredom to be honest.

I only have a PowerCal. Which is yet another guesstimate method.

Since resetting my FTP I've done 2 workouts where the IF has come out over 1 for an hours work out. So I'm suspicous that I've done a poor test. I accidently started the 20min test, right in the middle of the test period, when setting the laptop up. Which made a big dip in the power, and HR curves, when I did the test properly. Not sure of the effect of this. Calculations from hill repeats give me a FTP of 275 watts, and my TrainerRoad 20min test gave me 235 watts. My gut says 250 watts.
The TrainerRoad power curves match the CycleOps curves really well. At least in the important regions. But how accurate the CycleOps curves are is another question. Which setting are you using?

I plan to save data rom the road, separatly to turbo data. So I wont be comparing them directly. Its probably a good idea to separate indoor and outdoor efforts anyway I guess. Absolute values are'nt really of importance to me. So long I can gauge improvement areas.

At the end of the day TrainerRoad gives the power your rear tyre patch puts on the turbo. A power meter gives the power your legs put out. I watch the flywheel put out 100 watts after I've climbed off the bike ;)

Yeah I've seen the powercal and I've concluded that I'm better off saving toward a powertap or power2max. Power2max looks good to me.

I'm using the CycleOps Magneto [Cycleops] curve now as it was recently updated from the beta version. The only difference is that the Watts at higher speeds look to follow the Cycleops published curve better. (I have the Magneto which is the same as the road curve on the Supermagneto.)

As for the tests, I would say you really need make sure you are rested so you do a good effort, it's all a bit pointless otherwise.
You know you've done a good test when you do you first session at a new FTP and you're a mess by the end. Try matthes, if you're not a gibbering wreck by the end then you're doing it wrong.

That 100W of flywheel power comes in handy some times .

Yeah I've seen the powercal and I've concluded that I'm better off saving toward a powertap or power2max. Power2max looks good to me.

The selling point with the PowerCal is the fact that I can chuck it on whatever bike I'm riding.

I do have serious bike lust for the Power2max though.

I'm using the CycleOps Magneto [Cycleops] curve now as it was recently updated from the beta version. The only difference is that the Watts at higher speeds look to follow the Cycleops published curve better. (I have the Magneto which is the same as the road curve on the Supermagneto.).

I'm using the 'Interval' setting. Seems to be easier to follow intervals that way. Virtual power over estimates power below 200watts. But then my turbo work is all interval work. So its not an important area. Long efforts will be done outside with the powercal. I get the impression the powercal is better for longer less varible efforts anyway.

http://blog.trainerroad.com/cycleops-supermagneto-pro-added/

Cheers, so the VP fit seems reasonable, guess we'll just have to wait till someone comes along with a power meter know the reality of it all.

Power2max is my next bit of bling for sure, need to save for a while yet though :(

Looks the part at least....

The point of 'knowing' your FTP when it's all based on guesstimates is... ?

The point of 'knowing' your FTP when it's all based on guesstimates is... ?

Well mine is guesstimated through TrainerRoad, and TrainerRoad sets my powercurves for indoor workouts. I follow these curves using TrainerRoad virtual power. So even if its 200 watts out it makes no difference. If I suffered during the test, I will suffer accordingly during my training. So its perfectly accurate for its use.

I used bike-calculator for my hill repeats estimates. If I can do a climb of a certain percent, at a certain weight, in a certain time. Then scale that down to FTP. Thats a good guide to climbing pace. I did an 8 minute climb at 310 watts, which is a FTP of 275 watts. Thats a pretty decent number for similar use. Such as calculating the speed I should attack a different climb.

If use my powercal for a 2 hour ride, and check the average. I can use that to guage effort on my next long ride.

All very useful in heir way. But not in anyway universal. Which I guess is why a power meter can be marketed at £1000.

You're working out your FTP based on the workouts you are doing, not testing your ftp and setting up the workouts. So any FTP figure is irrelevant as you already do the workouts at intensity/duration x.

Why not use the Powercal for everything so at least it's consistent?

You're working out your FTP based on the workouts you are doing, not testing your ftp and setting up the workouts. So any FTP figure is irrelevant as you already do the workouts at intensity/duration x.

Not so. I did a test where the powercurve to follow was based on a FTP of 200. Which is what TrainRoad set as default. I then ignore the levels during the test, and just guage my own effort. After that TrainerRoad adjusts each workout I start to my current FTP setting.

As I said I'm getting 115% intensity for 60 minute work outs (showing that I'm not merely following the workout blindly if I have a bit more to give). So I fecked the test somewhat. But the principle works.

Why not use the Powercal for everything so at least it's consistent?

I will use the PowerCal for all my 'real' rides, including hill repeats. But when I'm doing intervals on the trainer, virtualpower works much better. As theres no lag.

Comparing the results from the two is probably terrible. But meh, I'm getting the guidance I need to get shit done.

TSS etc looking better now with the new guestimated FTP:

http://tpks.ws/kJg1

Quite a bit of over-threshold stuff:

That still seems high. I've got 3hr rides that include a 25mi TT that aren't that many TSS points.

I can nudge the FTP up a bit more which will bring the TSS down, but it feels like vanity (if you see what I mean), without having done a test to back it up.