• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

VO2 Max and FTP power

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 13, 2009
24
0
0
Visit site
131313...I agree that efficiency cannot be improved by a measurable amount through bike fit, pedaling technique, etc. It may improve your performance on the bike (comfort, symmetry, etc) but actual efficiency has to do with your muscles firing...fast twitch vs slow twitch and muscle contraction velocity, no doubt.

In effect, the "old man strength" we all see probably stems from the gradual improvement in efficiency (slow twitch muscle %) through years of cycling. Not to mention years of FTP development as well.
 
Jul 9, 2009
37
0
0
Visit site
BigBoat said:
I dont know what Hayden Roulston puts out. He has not told anybody of his power files like Zirbel did.

Hello;)
As I'm not the real Hayden Roulston, I don't know... But I would lose about 2' on a 20' TT on him... I weigh about 65kg, so you can calculate yourself what that means! But I have to say I have never raced such talented guy...

Being an Elite rider on a national level, only participating at some small pro races, I can only of the numbers you guys are talking about...

My own FTP would be about 310 Watts for 60' and 340-350 for 20'. That's not a lot, but it's enough to compete on a lower pro level (UCI 1.1/1.2).
My highest V02max was 79 (differes usually between 72 and 75).

The (clean) Pro's I know, achieve about 5.5W/kg for 60' or 6.3W/kg for 20'.

And then what some of you guys underestimate is the difference in accuracy between Powertap and SRM. My experience is, that Powertap shows more Watts than SRM... And even on calibrated trainer for testing, these numbers differ... You really have to compare two tests done on the very same trainer!

And whatsmore, VO2max doesn't say anything about power output and not to mention results... I have seen so many riders with VO2max-numbers much higher than me - and many of them disappointed on the road! The same goes for the opposite! I know a rider who had a VO2max of 57 in winter, and in spring/summer he climbed better then many of the Pro's who had VO2max's of nearly 80!

As far as I can say: All this testing doesn't mean too much... All it does is depressing you, when a teammate achieves higher numbers!;)
 
Jul 13, 2009
24
0
0
Visit site
Hayden Roulston said:
Hello;)

As far as I can say: All this testing doesn't mean too much... All it does is depressing you, when a teammate achieves higher numbers!;)

Bingo...put out big numbers and who gives a ****! It's all about going FAST and winning races. In all reality, in a race situation you VERY RARELY IF EVER do an all out 1 hour effort. Also...I've seen a lot of guys who put out the big watts but don't actually go fast...what's the point in that? When you hit 45km/hr you need to get aero and stay seated not stand up and power down.

All in all this is just for fun:D But it's interesting. Just don't let it get you down.

Again, everyone has different experiences. A PROPERLY CALIBRATED SRM will always read higher than a PROPERLY ZEROED powertap...but you never know the exact case unless you calibrate both powermeters yourself and compare. Hayden Roulston, I've seen that SRM begins to read higher than PT at higher power outputs >360 watts; the "slope intercept" between the two powermeters may lead the PT to read higher than the SRM at lower power output. EX: PT reads higher up to 320 watts, SRM reads higher over 320 watts.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
131313 said:
read what I said. Larger hearts have higher stroke volume. More mitochondria help you utilize oxygen. Lung capacity and blood volume scale almost directly to size. Please let Max Klieber know if you've discovered something different.



Sorry to keep calling you on your BS, but you seem to spout it off as fact enough that some people actually believe some of it. How did you determine this 'vo2 max of 80', because the scientific formulas a) don't really support that answer (it could actually be 80, but it would be at the end of the spectrum, i.e. an inefficient rider with a large difference between vo2 and threshold power) and b) the most accurate formulas out there are accurate within about 10%.

An 80 V02 max at 88 kilos would be the BARE MINIMUM you could push 430 watts for an hour with, With a very high threshold percentage of V02 max. His efficieny would be very good. MAYBE somebody could do it with a 77 but probably not.. You can statistically convert oxygen intake with wattage pretty good, I've seen lots of athletes V02 maxes and what they can push their FTPs to with proper training and no dope. Or with dope. :)

The same goes for the opposite! I know a rider who had a VO2max of 57 in winter, and in spring/summer he climbed better then many of the Pro's who had VO2max's of nearly 80!
He improved his V02 max BIG TIME for the summer! There are plenty of "Veys" to do that. LOL
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,844
1
0
Visit site
Kinda on this topic...I read that Cavendish was ticked off at British Cycling because they gave up on him because his testing numbers were not that good. Does anyone know what his numbers really were? If this is really the case, then it does show that testing numbers (both VO2 max and FTP) should only be used in the most careful manner. Any thoughts?
 
Apr 8, 2009
272
0
0
Visit site
TRDean said:
Kinda on this topic...I read that Cavendish was ticked off at British Cycling because they gave up on him because his testing numbers were not that good. Does anyone know what his numbers really were? If this is really the case, then it does show that testing numbers (both VO2 max and FTP) should only be used in the most careful manner. Any thoughts?
To put it in perspective, winning isn't all about big numbers at threshold.

In the leadout yesterday, Mark Renshaw was putting out 500W for the last km or so. When he hit the front this went up to over 800W and peaked at over 1300. Clearly Cavendish would also be at least as high, although the peak figures are only generated in the 'kick'.

So to win the race they were putting out substantially more than 6W/Kg, more like 15W/Kg.

For my money FTP is only relevant in time trials (mostly) and climbing (often) and crits (sometimes). In other words when the effort is sustained and individual. Other than that the art is in conserving energy as much as possible.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,844
1
0
Visit site
davidg said:
To put it in perspective, winning isn't all about big numbers at threshold.

In the leadout yesterday, Mark Renshaw was putting out 500W for the last km or so. When he hit the front this went up to over 800W and peaked at over 1300. Clearly Cavendish would also be at least as high, although the peak figures are only generated in the 'kick'.

So to win the race they were putting out substantially more than 6W/Kg, more like 15W/Kg.

For my money FTP is only relevant in time trials (mostly) and climbing (often) and crits (sometimes). In other words when the effort is sustained and individual. Other than that the art is in conserving energy as much as possible.

True and spot on!! In the US, there are junior camps across the country where USA cycling look to identify talent. It is based on wattage numbers. However, there is a bias toward larger riders who produce more raw power. For instance a rider can finish overall in 3rd place with a FTP of around 5.2 watts/kg, but will be rated out of the top ten overall because he only weighs 45 kilos. There is a bias for the larger more powerful riders. I don't know if this is right or wrong...but I do disagree with it. Just more info for fodder.
 
davidg said:
To put it in perspective, winning isn't all about big numbers at threshold.

In the leadout yesterday, Mark Renshaw was putting out 500W for the last km or so. When he hit the front this went up to over 800W and peaked at over 1300. Clearly Cavendish would also be at least as high, although the peak figures are only generated in the 'kick'.

So to win the race they were putting out substantially more than 6W/Kg, more like 15W/Kg.

For my money FTP is only relevant in time trials (mostly) and climbing (often) and crits (sometimes). In other words when the effort is sustained and individual. Other than that the art is in conserving energy as much as possible.
Good observations. Agree on that.
 
TRDean said:
True and spot on!! In the US, there are junior camps across the country where USA cycling look to identify talent. It is based on wattage numbers. However, there is a bias toward larger riders who produce more raw power...
One of the big missteps I've seen (and I'm not much of a coach or that connected anymore) is that once these numbers became accessible, the concentration on finding riders with the right mindset became much less of an issue. It was somewhat assumed that if you could find the kid with great numbers, even if he was a weenie and a basket case you'd take him, as coaches are supposed to be part sports psychologist as well, and good enough to overcome that.

The irony is that the most popular cyclist, by far, in the US is Lance, and his numbers aren't that high, but he is an extremely confident, calculating, and driven man. The exact mindset of a champion who will stop at nothing other than winning (I'd just prefer he were more introverted myself. :))

Real good posts here.
 
Jul 9, 2009
37
0
0
Visit site
I read in a study, that Tom Boonen has a 10" Peak of around 1450 Watts... Absolute Peak would be at around 1700! I guess Cav has slightly less power but better accelaration!
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
To put it in perspective, winning isn't all about big numbers at threshold.

In the leadout yesterday, Mark Renshaw was putting out 500W for the last km or so. When he hit the front this went up to over 800W and peaked at over 1300. Clearly Cavendish would also be at least as high, although the peak figures are only generated in the 'kick'.
Even for sprinters.FTP is important because during the race itself, The higher you can push FTP the less times you'll have to "digg" into V02 max and anaerobic power levels to stay with the pack when the pressure goes on.
 
Jun 30, 2009
41
0
0
Visit site
Hayden Roulston said:
I read in a study, that Tom Boonen has a 10" Peak of around 1450 Watts... Absolute Peak would be at around 1700! I guess Cav has slightly less power but better accelaration!

I would have expected more, much more, than 1450W for 10 second MMP from Boonen.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
If it is of any use here are the numbers I calculated for Wiggins in this Tour:

Prologue ITT: 406 W @ 72 Kg = 5.64 W/kg
Climb to Arcalis: 432 W @ 72 Kg = 6 W/kg.

These numbers look to be achievable riding clean.
bumping the thread i stumbled upon. it seems to contain a lot of substantive opinions and data with regard to wiggins discussions currently taking place.
 
Nov 24, 2009
1,602
0
0
Visit site
A moron said:
Like what?

Well it was said super Mario could go near 2000 Watts. I don't know how accurate that is

For reference Craig Mclean who lead out the GB Track Sprint team for some time had a max somewhere above 2200Watts out of the Blocks
 
Feb 2, 2010
79
0
0
Visit site
Excellent topic!! Just playing the devil's advocate here, but if power numbers are that incriminating per se, do you guys really think Pros/teams would be offering their actual numbers or would they be more apt to offer up numbers that make more sense to the 'public', similar to what potential do with making their blood values public. I'm not insinuating anything here, merely trying to keep the thread going:)
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Big GMaC said:
Well it was said super Mario could go near 2000 Watts. I don't know how accurate that is

For reference Craig Mclean who lead out the GB Track Sprint team for some time had a max somewhere above 2200Watts out of the Blocks
I thought Kirsipuu and Cipo broke 2000 watts.
 
If you get launched at 55-60kph, and then pedal 2000W for 10 seconds, what speed does you have across the line? Must be in the highway ballpark. Even if acceleration gets exponentially harder. V in the formula is squared. Air drag itself is worse than that.

One day in my off-season, being a slacker in terms of pro racing, I did some national MTB racing, I tested:
82kg, 506W maximum. This was a ramping up test that took 20-25minutes. I had been averaging 506W or so the last minutes when I gave up during the 520W block. Running shoes on platform pedals, too short cranks, doc wanted a steady cadance so I picked 98 from start, 110 might have been better.

It was not tested in this period, but I was guessing my one-hour power would have been around 400W. I was NOT living like a pro athlete, and barely looking at my diet. 25 y/o. I was figuring I could go over 550W Max with more dedication, 430W or so for an hour effort.
I was not particularly fast though, due to excessively long legs. Too much wind drag. I would make a difference compared to my competitors on light uphills, or at high speeds with tail wind. Head wind was a problem when faced with equal competition. Crits hurt, I was dropped a lot. Ended up TT'ing them at times to stay on the same lap for an hour. On hilly MTB courses where things were gradual yet brutal, I was pretty darn quick.

I believe that with the right genes, good numbers can be reached. There are just too many pro cyclists who think they "deserve" such numbers. No such thing. You make the best of what you're given.
Sports is in the basis not fair.

I'll make a short statement that IMO most pro's fail to set their bikes up correctly. Try to ride up Alps with their Crit slash Classics bike. If that bike is set up wrong to begin with, Alps are going to take some time and teeth gritting. Enjoy the bus.
For a big guy, I could climb with the best of my class. I like that bikes are the same weight, regardless of the rider weight. Less bike weight per kg for the big guy. Another reason a bigger guy with the same VO2max will beat the lighter guy.
Big guys are just told they won't ever be able to climb. TT specialists the same. I don't get the big time diffs in TT's, as the high speeds should even the playing field.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
Steeplechase said:
... But I want to help show that performances of Team Garmin-Slipstream and Columbia-HTC are POSSIBLE, clean, in the first and second week of the Tour.

Explain this. For what purpose do you want to show this? not baiting you, I would just like to understand a bit.

Also, an 88+ VO2 is on the extreme end of the curve. If this is you, then you have many, many more important things to be doing than fecking around on this forum.
 
Mar 13, 2009
683
0
0
Visit site
131313 said:
Lastly, Zirbel was putting out over 5.5W/KG in his first year of racing (since I race up 40 minute climbs right next to him). Yeah, I guess you think he was doping then....

Bet you're regretting ever posting this one hey!
 
Nov 24, 2009
1,602
0
0
Visit site
TRDean said:
Kinda on this topic...I read that Cavendish was ticked off at British Cycling because they gave up on him because his testing numbers were not that good.

From what I ahve heard that was related to his numbers on the static bike, he couldn't push the really big watts, but he had the speed on the track in real life, or something like that.