FTP/speed correlation

A range would be useless without many other factors taken into consideration.

Try this link to give yourself an idea of the impact of different variables involved.

How big are you?  I'd be averaging 25-26 mph regularly if I had an FTP of 272.

my ftp is about 280 and I average around 25-26 mph in sprints.

I only use virtual power with trainer training and Critical Power metric via 20' and 5' tests.  Before race testing CP is usually in the range of 240w to 255w. I've done 15.4 and 15.9 mile local sprint races in the mid 22 to low 23mph range with solid run pacing. I'm 5'10" and usually mid to upper 170 lbs for races.

This gets into aero optimization, which is something you can work on with a power meter.  With your build and power, there is probably some low hanging fruit.  But I'd like to see what power you end up with on an outdoor 40k time trial.  The really short FTP tests are not that useful in my experience.

speed vs power isn't a linear correlation.  not sure your trend line is very useful in your image

If there's no way you can hold 272w for an hour, then your FTP is not 272.  It's lower.

But another problem with your question is that even if you were able to control for all the different protocols people will give you when they say "My FTP is x", they are not going to be measuring their watts with the same device (or even at the same point--eg, at the hub or at the bottom bracket) which will add additional variation.  For most people, when they say "my FTP is x", it's safe to say their FTP is x +/-5% (and that's probably too generous for the margin of error).

The basic answer for you is that your speed seems slow assuming you are riding on a windless, flat course and your power is anywhere close to 270.  You would have major opportunity to make gains with position and equipment changes.  But throw in some wind a few risers and it's not clear you are terribly far out of bounds--especially if you trim back your estimated power somewhat, as well.

Originally posted by 3mar

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by 3mar I keep track and graph my power vs speed for all my outdoor training rides. Terrain obviously has a lot to do with it. All my rides and races are relatively flat and windy. You mention FTP vs race speed, but not power vs speed, which would make more sense. However if we're talking sprints, then you should be close to your FTP so in that case they'd be one and the same. My highest watts outdoors was 243 where I averaged 24.9 mph. So at 272, I'd be a bit higher. I weigh 158. You also may want to check out this thread on speed vs watts and what that says about how aero you are (http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=540156&page=1#)

Originally posted by mchadcota2 A range would be very helpful. Most of the triathletes I know are pretty consistent with their performances. I'm just wondering if I'm way off compared to others. Like msteiner said, and he may exaggerating, but if someone has an FTP of 272 and regularly rides 24-25 mph for a sprint distance, then there's something I need to correct.

I'd say that someone that is your weight should be in the 24-25 mph range on the bike on a relatively flat course. However, don't forget that triathlon is three sports, so your proficiency in the other two plays a big role in your pacing. ETA: I guess I didn't answer your other question: my FTP based on a 20 minute test is 242.

speed vs power isn't a linear correlation.  not sure your trend line is very useful in your image

I know, but my data is linear. It's likely that there just isn't enough of a spread to see a curve. Point being that non linear data sets can be analyses linearly for short enough segments. Think Simpsons method for integration. I mean, look at the data. Theoretically yeah, it should be a curve, but you know the difference between theory and practice right? In theory they're the same, in practice they're not

I think you just need more data points, particularly in the middle of that graph.  I'd expect your speed in the ~200-220 watt range to be a bit higher, in which case we would see the expected curve.

3Mar is right.  Can't argue with the data!

FTP of 285.  Tested during a 40k TT, which translated to 25.6 mph.  Flat out and back, windy, average road surface most of the way, poor road surface in a couple of sections.  I would probably consider myself very "average" when it comes to aerodynamics overall.  I have most of the equipment dialed in, but my position kind of sucks.

Why bother?  Well, I'd say it's because physics defines what kind of drag you see as velocity increases.  So if your personal data is not corresponding to that, then it's likely that a) you don't have enough data points (which you mentioned already), and maybe b) you ride a little differently at different power output levels and ride lengths, affecting your aerodynamics.

It's also near impossible to control for everything that affects those numbers if you're doing different routes, weather, wind, etc.  The link to the analytical cycling site makes that very apparent.