Avg power for those with power meters?

My first piece of advice is to quit worrying about how many watts other people are pushing and focus on increasing your FTP.  Individual power output can vary significantly for people going the same speed.  I can be pushing 100W more than my wife while riding next to each other at the same speed.  We'll go out and ride 3hrs together and our averages will be nowhere close to one another.  Power to weight ratio is a good metric, as is power to frontal area (aerodynamics).  Riders with similar power to weight ratios may have complete different speeds if one is very aerodymic and the other isn't.

As for increasing your ability to put out more power, I suggest buying Dr. Skiba's book on training with a PM and read it a few times.  You'll want to do a test to determine your FTP and then use that number to determine your training intensities.  Very high level, you'll want to do some high intensity intervals to raise your "power ceiling" and then do some moderately high tempo rides to increase the duration that you can hold those higher outputs. 

If you have the PM, take the time to learn how to use it!  You can really make efficient use of your training if you do!

You can follow Jorge's winter training program to increase your power as well.  Just start here:

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=230692&posts=831&start=1

1. This is going to be as meaningful to you as asking, "How fast does the average AGer bike?" Some will be faster, produce more power, others won't. None of that has any bearing on what you do or where you are.

2. Again, the question could just as well be, "How does one get faster on the bike?" The answer, of course is, ride. Lots.

Power is just another metric. I'm just learning the ins and outs myself. If you don't already, learn how to use your power meter. the best resources, from what I hear, are Allen and Coogan's Training and Racing with a Power Meterand Dr. Philip Skiba's The Triathlete's Guide to Training With Power.

Since you asked, I just tested my FTP at 235W and yesterday did a 10-mile TT averaging 260W.

I second get Skiba's book..and I'd recommend getting his first book too. I have read each maybe 10 times? Refer to them often.

Focus on learning how to train with power and go from there.

Power numbers vary from person to person, learn about you and see how much you can improve.

Nice John! I see your FTP going up next time you test...sweet!

Andrew... thanks for the post... interestingly I just started reading that book this week... first... I am not worried about comparing myself to others but more interested in trying to establish a reference point for myself... like a pace in running or swimming... I want to understand my current fitness level on the bike but have zero perspective on it at this point.

Like I mentioned... I have just begun to try and understand the value of training with power and honestly do not completely understand the issue of FTP yet... hopefully the book will shed some light...

On the simplest of terms, FTP is the equivalent to your Lactate Threshhold Heart Rate for those training with a heart rate meter. the heighest average wattage/heartrate you can maintain in an hour-long effort. Like LTHR, it is a number that can be used to determine your training zones.

1. Absolute power is only part of the equation.  Watts/kg is a better comparison.  You can look here to see how you compare to ranges put out by other cyclists for different durations.

2. Train.  Consistently.  Hard when possible. 

OK, here's a question from a relative newbie: If, in triathlon, weight is, as so many maintain, mostly irrelevant, then why is power-to-weight important, or as Johnny says, "a better comparison"?

As bear noted, it's the maximum average power you can sustain for one hour.  That power is correlated to a lot of other things, which makes it useful for setting training zones, tracking workload, pacing, etc.  There are a variety of ways to estimate it.  The best would be to go do a 1hr TT.  But there are other tests you can do to give you a reasonable estimate which you can fine-tune as you ride more and do long, hard intervals with power.

Not so much for time trials it isn't. Watts/cda would be what to look for.  Hence you get fabian cancellara at 6'1" 180lbs dominating time trials like nobody before. 

But not dominating the slopes of ventoux =)

He is mistaken.  The key point here is that, should you be taller and thus heavier, once you are in a good TT position ( and mind you most triathletes are NOT in a good TT position) all of your height has become length, other than you legs.

so you may get 10% heavier due to height, but you will not present 10% more surface area.

and time trials tend not to have massive climbs, and those massive climbs are not desicive (you aren't gapping the peleton on them)

I might be wrong, but when people say this it is in relation to aerodynamics. Weight is irrelevent/less important than aerodynamics in triathlon.

I might be wrong, but when people say this it is in relation to aerodynamics. Weight is irrelevent/less important than aerodynamics in triathlon.

I completely understand the desire to benchmark ourselves versus others.  I just finished a round of FTP testing a couple of weeks ago and one of the first things I did was go check to see how my Watts/Kg compared on a chart similar to what JohnnyKay posted.  FWIW, my FTP Watts/Kg is 3.71.  That's probably pretty poor for a pure cyclist, but from what I've seen is a little above average for a triathlete. 

As Kathy suggested, read that book about a dozen times and implement what it says.  Regardless of where you are now, you can make huge gains over a short period of time if it's focused.  Jorge's training plan is a great start!

If you really wanted to know who the best time trialist (or triathlete cyclist), you would definitely want to know watts/CdA.  However since that's virtually impossible to get data on, and we know that weight is at least looslely correlated to CdA, watts/kg is as close as you can get to 'normalizing' results.  I didn't say it was going to stack rank your finishers in every time trial, but it's generally going to do a better job than going by pure watts (in a broad sample at any rate).

I am not knowledgeable or experienced enough to join into this conversation, so I'll simply stick to answering your original question.

First off I'm not using a PT, I'm using a CT.  At my gym we do 1/2 hour FTP tests, which I believe is just to keep the stress on your body a little lower.  I think the rule is that you take your 1/2 hour FT and multiply it by .95 for your accurate 1 hour FTP number.

Started 20 weeks ago, first test was 219 watts, after 5 weeks I retested at 243, 5 weeks later 276, 5 weeks later (and a week of the flu), I dropped to 275 watts over 30 minutes.

As it has been said before, I think its pretty poor for a cyclist but maybe above average for a triathlete.

I weigh 166 lbs, tests were done on a 2010 felt s32.

I agree that Watts/Kg is a better metric than absolute FTP, but I think that we can do a pretty good job of estimating CdA.  I'm not familiar with the exact tool used (or the margin of error), but I know that last year my coach used frontal pictures of my position to estimate my CdA.  Using that number, with my FTP and a few other data points, I was able to predict my 40k TT time to within 30s. 

Sorry, I haven't been clear.  Yes, you can estimarte your own CdA with reasonable accuracy.  But you can't do so for a large population and get a sense where you 'stack up' on a relative basis.  (Of course, you can race and get a pretty good sense of where you stack up.)  Using watts/kg gives you a ROUGH idea about how you compare to a BROAD sample of other riders.  If you used just watts, you could also get a rough idea but I'd still argue the data will be better using watss/kg.  Only for that purpose, though.  I agree completely with all the other comments made about weight not being nearly as important as aerodynamics.

hate to say it but not sure how accurate those are...25% gain in a span of 10 weeks, either the first test was not accurate or the equipment is not 100%...

I can see that kind of gain when somebody is just starting out with power training and hasn't cycled much.  Figure in fitness, pacing, and good workouts... it could happen.  Probably not a gain like that for someone that's been doing some hard training for a while.  I would think for a beginner maybe.

To answer the original question as best I can.

1. My FTP is roughly 260 watts.  In small local tris, I'm usually in the top 10-15% on the bike, larger tris I'll usually be in the top 20-30%, and for pure cycling time trials, in the top 30-40%.  So I suppose the average AGer, depending at what type of race you show up at, will have an FTP less than 260 (depending on weight, frontal area, etc as mentioned earlier).  If I had to guess some random number...I would say 190-230 would be average.  Yes...I just pulled that out of my @ss.

2. Train with your power meter.  Lots.  Suffer.  Bring the pain.  Hammer time.  .  But yeah...JorgeM's cycling program is a great place to start.  It incorporates both short, medium, and longer power intervals.

I agree.  It's also how a lot of those classes advertise huge gains.  It's not all improved fitness and even some of that is just the low-hanging fruit.

Of course the argument can be made that even if you are just learning to pace, or suffer sufficiently, that is part of fitness too, and no less valuable than more mitochrondia and stronger heart muscles =)