I'm thinking of getting all 'modern' with my approach

[Racing roadkill]

I'm no great fan of the majority of bike tech, I find it expensive and largely unnecessary. However, given that we are now in 2017, I'm giving serious consideration to adopting a slightly more scientific approach to my long distance riding. I'm renowned for not being a fan of people who bleat on about "POWWWWERRR" "Cadence" etc. but I have to concede that there is some credibility to utilising something like a power meter, in order to make my distance rides more time / energy efficient. So, my point is, what do folk regard the minimum time to be, in order to get a reasonably accurate determination of Functional Threshold Power, using something like a Wattbike? I reckon that investing in a power meter, may help me judge when I'm riding at zone 2 more accurately than my usual method of waiting till the legs start to wobble a bit, then back off a bit, then hope I make it to the planned feed stop, without bonking, method I tend to employ.

 

[r04DiE]

I would opt for a HRM and use that for your zones.

 

[Racing roadkill]

I would opt for a HRM and use that for your zones.

I'd agree, but if I'm going modern, I want the whole picture. The HRM is actually a poor way of monitoring the output. It's like driving a car from the rear seat, with a blindfold on.

 

[Tin Pot]

So, my point is, what do folk regard the minimum time to be, in order to get a reasonably accurate determination of Functional Threshold Power, using something like a Wattbike?

I use a wahoo speed/Cadence sensor (£40) a normal turbo and trainerroad (refundable). 60 minutes doing their 20min FTP test.

 

[r04DiE]

I'd agree, but if I'm going modern, I want the whole picture. The HRM is actually a poor way of monitoring the output. It's like driving a car from the rear seat, with a blindfold on.

It's a lot more accurate than your present method:

... my usual method of waiting till the legs start to wobble a bit, then back off a bit, then hope I make it to the planned feed stop, without bonking, method I tend to employ.

And much cheaper than a power meter.

 

[Tin Pot]

You can do an FTP test on a wattbike too.

https://cdn.wattbike.com/uploads/uk/file_manager/20-thresh.pdf

It's 20' warmup 20' test.

 

[Racing roadkill]

You can do an FTP test on a wattbike too.

https://cdn.wattbike.com/uploads/uk/file_manager/20-thresh.pdf

It's 20' warmup 20' test.

I got a 'suggested post' on Facebook this morning ( oddly ) offering a Wattbike on 0% finance. I think I'll probably just go to one of my cycle club's Wattbike sessions, and get the FTP done there.

 

[Tin Pot]

I got a 'suggested post' on Facebook this morning ( oddly ) offering a Wattbike on 0% finance. I think I'll probably just go to one of my cycle club's Wattbike sessions, and get the FTP done there.

By all means do this, and don't take this as discouragement:

There is no reliable true FTP score. It's only useful as a repeatable metric, and that means using the same kit every time.

I get a 191W FTP using my wahoo kit and TR virtual power. I might get 205W on a watt bike and a different protocol. I might get 180W if testing using a stages meter.

Having the figure 191 is only really useful when I use the same set up for a training session.

 

[Racing roadkill]

By all means do this, and don't take this as discouragement:

There is no reliable true FTP score. It's only useful as a repeatable metric, and that means using the same kit every time.

I get a 191W FTP using my wahoo kit and TR virtual power. I might get 205W on a watt bike and a different protocol. I might get 180W if testing using a stages meter.

Having the figure 191 is only really useful when I use the same set up for a training session.

I just need a ball park figure, as a guideline, an actual number to be able to aim at 56 - 75 % of. If there is a systematic error, then I can account for that. Once I've got the bike (s) set up, I should be looking at roughly the same set of numbers, even if the actual number itself is not all that accurate.

 

[zizou]

There is 3 minute test option on a wattbike. It's not a proper FTP test as such but strangely the numbers i get from that are closer to what my 'real' FTP is (the one i get outdoors), compared to when i do one of the longer test indoors.

I just need a ball park figure, as a guideline, an actual number to be able to aim at 56 - 75 % of. If there is a systematic error, then I can account for that. Once I've got the bike (s) set up, I should be looking at roughly the same set of numbers, even if the actual number itself is not all that accurate.

Best to test and measure FTP improvements on the same kit but for pacing and measuring effort over a ride then a ball park figure is fine (unless of course one power meter is way off compared to another) - Aiming for 56 - 75% is a pretty big range so being 5-10 watts off either side doesnt need to be a huge issue. For endurance riding it will also help you reign in the efforts early on in the ride when feeling fresh as it can be easy to find yourself going way above a sustainable pace and not noticing straight away in terms of heart rate or perceived effort.

 

[Racing roadkill]

There is 3 minute test option on a wattbike. It's not a proper FTP test as such but strangely the numbers i get from that are closer to what my 'real' FTP is (the one i get outdoors), compared to when i do one of the longer test indoors.



Best to test and measure FTP improvements on the same kit but for pacing and measuring effort over a ride then a ball park figure is fine (unless of course one power meter is way off compared to another) - Aiming for 56 - 75% is a pretty big range so being 5-10 watts off either side doesnt need to be a huge issue. For endurance riding it will also help you reign in the efforts early on in the ride when feeling fresh as it can be easy to find yourself going way above a sustainable pace and not noticing straight away in terms of heart rate or perceived effort.

I've been riding long distances for quite a few years now, and I learned fairly early on that going off too quickly was a bad idea, it will be nice to be able to actually quantify "too quick" with a referenceable metric.

 

[mattobrien]

I had always shied away from power, thinking that I could do it all using my HRM. However in November I bought a new turbo trainer (Elite Kura) which has it's own built in power meter. For me, this has transformed my time on the turbo, helped my establish my FTP, plan training sessions in specific zones and measure improvements in fitness / FTP. I wouldn't now be without it.

So much so, I have now added a power meter to my new bike (when it arrives), as I wouldn't now be without power and am considering retro fitting to one or two of my other bikes.

I think for me it is the difference between thinking I am working hard and actually delivering consistent effort / power. I may think it is hard, but if I start to drop off on the power (hear rate won't fall for a little while though) I can respond as required.

For me though I am using the PM to look to improve my fitness and pace. I am planning on trying to do some TT's this year and want to make a decent effort, so want to be fitter for it and then continue to improve. If I wasn't looking at going quickly, then I probably wouldn't bother with one. I can see that it may be of a lot less benefit for more gentle / endurance rides as you may be riding at a much lower power rate, so are less likely to be power limited / may be able to use heart rate as a relatively reliable gauge.

 

[Racing roadkill]

I had always shied away from power, thinking that I could do it all using my HRM. However in November I bought a new turbo trainer (Elite Kura) which has it's own built in power meter. For me, this has transformed my time on the turbo, helped my establish my FTP, plan training sessions in specific zones and measure improvements in fitness / FTP. I wouldn't now be without it.

So much so, I have now added a power meter to my new bike (when it arrives), as I wouldn't now be without power and am considering retro fitting to one or two of my other bikes.

I think for me it is the difference between thinking I am working hard and actually delivering consistent effort / power. I may think it is hard, but if I start to drop off on the power (hear rate won't fall for a little while though) I can respond as required.

For me though I am using the PM to look to improve my fitness and pace. I am planning on trying to do some TT's this year and want to make a decent effort, so want to be fitter for it and then continue to improve. If I wasn't looking at going quickly, then I probably wouldn't bother with one. I can see that it may be of a lot less benefit for more gentle / endurance rides as you may be riding at a much lower power rate, so are less likely to be power limited / may be able to use heart rate as a relatively reliable gauge.

Power is nothing without Souplesse. I'm going to get the double sided Garmin pedal based power meters. Work on the Souplesse first, then see about determining FTP, then, when I know I'm pedalling as efficiently as I can ( with an actual measurable metric) I can get the rest determined, and then start using actual measured values to make my long rides as efficient in terms of time and energy expenditure as I can.

 

[400bhp]

Power is nothing without Souplesse. I'm going to get the double sided Garmin pedal based power meters. Work on the Souplesse first, then see about determining FTP, then, when I know I'm pedalling as efficiently as I can ( with an actual measurable metric) I can get the rest determined, and then start using actual measured values to make my long rides as efficient in terms of time and energy expenditure as I can.

Wrong way round.

Do the test as soon as you can.

Your FTP is a moveable number and finding that number is the base for almost all power based training.

You may be "inefficient" when you do your first one, but that's one of the great reasons for determining your FTP as you can then build on there. Part of increasing your FTP will simply be down to you learning to do the test and so you just need to do them.

It's good to let the number get into your subconsciousness too. It helps when your doing efforts (outside and in) to tell you how hard (or not) you're pushing yourself.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Wrong way round.

Do the test as soon as you can.

Your FTP is a moveable number and finding that number is the base for almost all power based training.

You may be "inefficient" when you do your first one, but that's one of the great reasons for determining your FTP as you can then build on there. Part of increasing your FTP will simply be down to you learning to do the test and so you just need to do them.

It's good to let the number get into your subconsciousness too. It helps when your doing efforts (outside and in) to tell you how hard (or not) you're pushing yourself.

Aha, therein lies the problem. I'm not remotely interested in "pushing myself". Exactly the opposite in fact. I'm only interested in knowing that I'm doing the distance, in the most efficient way possible. It's like remapping cars. Some are remapped for all out balls out speed, and some are remapped purely to squeeze maximum MPG. Think of it like 'hyper mileing' in a car. I'm just interested in increasing my MPG, if any speed increases happen, that's a by product, not my aim.
Other than determining FTP, in scientifically controlled conditions, it would be a cold day in hell, synchronised with a deep blue moon, before I'll go anywhere near a Turbo Trainer, or any sort of indoor cycling.