IF Values

that's a bit high, but look at it this way:

if your FT is hour power, or hour NP, or 2 x 20 power (which your's is), then that means that AWC contributes only about 5-10W to your FT. therefore, you should theoretically be able to put out 260-10=250W for a couple of hours if you're nourished well and push it hard. on top of that, you have to leave some room for imprecision, so i'd say your situation is conceivable.

if you get hr NP from a hard race, that'll confirm or deny.

jws said:

therefore, you should theoretically be able to put out 260-10=250W for a couple of hours if you're nourished well and push it hard.

I admit still being in the process of learning power based training.

I have a hard time trying to conceive that one could ride 3.5 hours at .96 (250 of 260FTP).

I am not arguing, but would probably need more information.

Of course properly tapered, one can accomplish miracles but during normal day-to-day training situation 😕

It sounds to me like your FT is higher than you are guessing there. What sort of TSS are you showing for these 3.5 hr rides? If it is very high, like quite a bit above 300, yet you are not totally whipped the next day, that would also make me think your FT is underestimated.

3.09 ride gave me 280 TSS on Sat - but I am whipped today and will also take Mon off. PE was very high on the ride - felt like a race almost.

Congratulations mate ! well done !

Peter, what was your best 1 hr NP for the ride? Get this from a mean maximal graph of NP for the ride and hovering over the 60 min. point. If this is 270W or more then that's a good sign your FT is set low, but you should be able to confirm it by repeating it, or getting similar numbers using other methods.

Solar, I agree IF 96% for 3.5 hrs is up there, but consider that NP can overshoot FT by maybe 5% or even more in rare situations. Also, if he was on a very good day, he could hit big numbers. If he routinely does it, then it's time to test FT again.

jws said:

Peter, what was your best 1 hr NP for the ride? Get this from a mean maximal graph of NP for the ride and hovering over the 60 min. point. If this is 270W or more then that's a good sign your FT is set low, but you should be able to confirm it by repeating it, or getting similar numbers using other methods.

Solar, I agree IF 96% for 3.5 hrs is up there, but consider that NP can overshoot FT by maybe 5% or even more in rare situations. Also, if he was on a very good day, he could hit big numbers. If he routinely does it, then it's time to test FT again.

I get a Max NP for 60 mins of 269w after about 35 mins of riding time (climb)

TSB was around 0 but I am only just beginning to increase fitness and CTL is still only ~57

Peter,

Your TSB will be off if your FT is set wrongly, and since that's in question I wouldn't trust your PMC values 100% now. Try to use another method to test, maybe a Monod CP test, i.e., all-out efforts of 3 and 12 min. or 4-12, 4-10....

Is it Spring-like there yet?

jws said:

Peter,

Your TSB will be off if your FT is set wrongly, and since that's in question I wouldn't trust your PMC values 100% now. Try to use another method to test, maybe a Monod CP test, i.e., all-out efforts of 3 and 12 min. or 4-12, 4-10....

Is it Spring-like there yet?

I am pretty comfortable that with a 60 min Max NP of 269 during this ride, that FTP is around 270 and so will adjust to that. Because I use AP values in the monod test I never get much of a meaningful figure for FTP out of it - ~240ish. I reckon if I was fresh and pushed hard that I could complete 2 x 20 at 270w NP however.

Funny you should ask, but it has just begun to feel spring like.. getting a bit lighter in the early morning (making those 5.30 rides a bit more palatable) and the temp right now at 8am is around 18 deg - what a relief after a fairly rough winter.

Did you live here ?

peterwright said:

Do IF values of .93 - .95 for 3.5 hour hard team ride seem reasonable ?

It's possible on a rolling, hilly ride where the riders were very aggressive on the climbs. What was the VI?

VI was 1.21 with AP 202 and NP 246

It was rolling and hilly with 5 10-15 min climbs in it and I was pretty agressive on the first 2 and more steady paced and tired on the back few. We worked hard in paceline formation on most flat parts at above FTP.

Interestingly enough, the VI on the last 3 weeks team rides over the same course was nearer 1.34.

Those climbs are a little longer than I expected, but that's the type of ride where people seem to feel that the NP algorithm can overstate what a rider could produce on a more even ride (by 1-5%). I wouldn't adjust your FT based on that ride alone, but would suggest testing/checking your FT using one of the other methods to try to confirm your suspicions.

The more typical higher VI rides had lower IFs?

frenchyge said:

Those climbs are a little longer than I expected, but that's the type of ride where people seem to feel that the NP algorithm can overstate what a rider could produce on a more even ride (by 1-5%). I wouldn't adjust your FT based on that ride alone, but would suggest testing/checking your FT using one of the other methods to try to confirm your suspicions.

The more typical higher VI rides had lower IFs?

Yes - nearer .87

Worth noting that the PE of this ride was the highest however, I really felt it during and after and was pleased to see that at least the NP and IF reflected what I felt.