Trainer Road FTP test results

Three things that I can think of:

1. Ensure that you have specified the correct wheel circumference in TrainerRoad settings and that you have the correct trainer selected.

2. Ensure that the wheels are properly inflated and you have the correct resistance set on the rear wheel/trainer.

3. Do the 20 minute test

Answer: TrainerRoad's FTP is not accurate for a lot of trainers. It is allegedly better for the Kurt Kinetic, but it's not guaranteed to be power-meter accurate.

FWIW - my Cycleops Fluid2 gave me an FTP 40 watts higher than my recently acquired Powertap. That's a huge difference.

However, though, there has been no change in my Trainerroad workouts - reset the power level to the lower one if I'm going thru powermeter and it feels exactly the same as before.

So, don't assume your TR 'superman' power is real.

As already stated, it doesn't matter too much, as long as you use a consistent setup and compare yourself against yourself.

But the 360-370w efforts over 2 x 8 mins seem a bit optimistic, based on your bike and run times. A pretty good rule of thumb, which I think is due to RChung (as good a data nerd as you'll find on BT or ST) is that 

Bike FTP (in w/kg) = Run FTP (in m/sec)

e.g., a person who can ride at 4.0 w/kg for an hour is likely to sustain roughly 4 m/sec in a 1-hour run, i.e., 14400 meters, or about 9 miles. By the same reasoning, a person with a bike FTP of 4.5 w/kg is likely to run a shade under 60 minutes for 10 miles. I find that this conversion works eerily well for me, assuming bike power numbers derived from my KK (a non-trivial assumption, I know). Based on your bike/run times, I'd guess that the 20-minute Computrainer test is closer to where you stand, likely below 4.0 w/kg, but not too far below that. That's not at all bad, and with good bike position can get some nice bike splits.

Dave Luscan won his state TT with an FTP of 350ish at 29mph.  If you had an FTP of 330 you'd know it, and so would everyone that you ride with.  As a rough guess given your bike speeds it is much more likely your FTP is in the 250-275 range.

I know one guy with a W/kg like that and he terrorizes Cat 1 bike races.

What are the assumptions here?  Similar time/effort training each sport i'm sure (both current and in the past).  Is the run m/sec off the bike, or standalone?

If this is true, I am lopsided towards the run and need to improve my bike power.

'Course I don't have a power meter, but I used this site to guesstimate:

www.bikecalculator.com

I appreciate the responses.  And I figured what nearly all of you are suggesting would likely be the case.  I thought the numbers to be, in my power uneducatedness, remarkably high.  I had heard the coveted 4 watts per kg was stellar and I made a few assumptions myself..........That something was wrong with the test and/or the setup.

A possible problem is that I have the wrong trainer but I believe I am 95% certain that it's correct.  I bought the trainer used with no paper work.

I will plan to use those numbers for the WO's on Trainer Road and also plan to do a 20 minute test in the coming days.

Not sure if an online calculator is really worth anything towards this. And generally it's used for comparing threshold power/speed though it can work off of that. I also might look at it more as doing a bit more to train the one that is "behind" the estimate. So if you get an actual power meter and find that is less than the run speed would predict, then consider training on the bike more, depending on how different it is and what goals you have. I actually need to get a move on with the bike according to this.

The assumptions here are based on standalone efforts, and based on comparable training and aptitude on the bike and run. Since FTP doesn't take into consideration equipment, position, handling skills, etc., it's easy for a runner with good fitness to underperform in terms of bike times. My bike performance is always weaker than my running, except when climbing, which is where my less-than-ideal equipment, position, and handling skills have less impact. But when I ran the numbers I found that the w/kg and m/sec estimates were remarkably close - within around .03 of one another.

So, if I'm doing the math right, the 4 watt/kg guy would run ~41:xx for a 10K.  Is that right?  Or does  the calculation only kick in once you hit 60 minutes?

Yes, that's a fair ballpark estimate. Probably the 4 w/kg person would be a bit faster over 10k, assuming that s/he'd be a bit faster over 40 minutes than over the full hour. 

Mine came in about the same as yours.  I've been riding for about a year (cycling wise, doing tri's for 5 years).  I was surprised how long my number was when the same week I was able to ride next to a buddy doing 230ish and we talked the whole time.

As long as you keep everything consistent its a great training tool.

Interesting. My first reaction was no way, the bike side is WAY harder to hit. But that is for me.

I plugged in the numbers for a pro who is a great biker and good runner and sure enough he would seem to do better on the bike.

So I guess this is one way of determining strength and weakness.

By the way, a 4w/kg bike would translate to a 1:30 open HM according to Daniel's. I think the later is much easier to achieve.

Holy mother of....

And here I was celebrating breaking 300w on the 20 minute FTP test I just finished a few minutes ago.

Do the longer test. I'm betting that it's a combination of TR virtual power reading high and you having a decent amount of anaerobic capacity confounding the shorter test. I know my VP readings are very close to the real deal, I've cross checked them with a power tap, but it's going to vary from setup to setup.

1:30 open HM is wAYY easier than 4w/kg for sure. I've gone well under 1:30 in the past, and sit right on 1:30 open right now, but am still a good ways from 4w/kg. And I tend to finish slightly higher on the bike than I do on the run in Oly tris.

Yes, for you maybe (like me). But other people the opposite would be true. A light cyclist from non running background would probably hit 4w/kg easier.

Are you running at or better than a 40min 10K in the Oly's?

Well, I'm glad to hear that.  I don't really know anything about how power numbers related to real world cycling, until I started hearing some of the numbers tossed around here and felt like, "damn, I suck."  So good to know that I'm hopefully comparable to you and 230 would be easy for me.  What also gave me hope was the power to running speed comparison, and based on that 208 I did, that would say I could do 5 miles in 60 minutes, which would be absurdly slow for me, since I could do closer to 7.  And I"m stronger cycling than running. 

I have. I also didn't have power at the time I broke 1:30 for an open HM, but based on my progress since then don't think I was at 4w/kg even though I've always been noticeably better on the bike than run.

I agree. I'm 4.2 W/Kg (not a 'light cyclist' at 64 Kg) and have yet to run a 40 min 10K or 1:30 HM. I'll admit, I've never run an open 10K or open HM though. I'm too busy riding my bike.