the holster said:those seem far to low.
According to the article, these numbers are taken from actual racing power profiles of hundreds of riders in actual races. I think it is an interesting comparison to Coggan's power profiling chart in that these tests naturally take into account the context of a race environment as opposed to simply a dedicated, all-out effort for a specified period of time.
To illustrate my point: If a rider were to warm up, do a long, hard climb of >10 minutes, and then go home, his power number is likely much higher than that of the same rider on that same long, hard climb on the 3rd lap of a road race after numerous short, intense efforts, perhaps after a breakaway, and perhaps after helping to chase to bridge back to a break, to name a few very common scenarios. And these don't take into account factors such as nerves, energy conservation, on-the-bike nutrition, etc. that are all considerable in a race scenario.
Unfortunately, climbs of >10 minutes in races here in the states are pretty rare. I'll be doing Boulevard RR in San Diego in February as a Cat IV, and I believe there is 3K feet of climbing for 2 laps, and I'll be using my PT to measure the festivities. I've heard there are a lot of short rollers and stairstep climbs, so it will be difficult to draw a solid comparision, but the numbers should be interesting nonetheless.
I checked out the available sample files on the CyclingPeaks website, and none of the climbs were >10 minutes, but the AP for each were all >400w. But, as we all know, 400w for 3.5 minutes is vastly different than 400w for 20 minutes.
What'll be cool is as training with power becomes more mainstream, the pool of data from which we can draw will increase and the information available will be much more accurate, along with having better power meters with increased functionality to which RDO has eluded. Of course, as more riders train with power, those numbers will also go up as the effectiveness and efficiency of training with power makes us all stronger riders.
The article also talks about the fact that these are merely numbers, and that there are really strong riders by the numbers who fail to do well in races, and conversely riders with less w/kg that are successful. Just because a rider is strong doesn't mean he/she can make it to the podium. I know I've learned a great deal about racing in the short time I've been doing it, and I can only imagine the vast amounts I still have to learn.
Besides all of that, I like these numbers because they make me look good relative to my category...
Cheers,
Ethan