Avg power for those with power meters? (Page 2)

No doubt!  I didn't mean to imply that the classes were a 'scam' of some sort.  The numbers are what they are.  I'm just trying to explain why they look bigger than many people (especially those who have been training with power for awhile) might imagine.  If you learn to suffer more in a class environment then there is certainly training value in that.  Group dynamics can be quite beneficial. 

I dont know why you wouldnt believe it. I am not God so I dont know for sure if the CT is 100% accurate, they seem pretty consistant, I ride them 4x a week.

I went from cycling occasionally, at this point I hadnt ridden in a month (since end of last tri season).  I rode a class or 2 there at a wattage my coach estimated, and then tested. 

I dont think 219 was accurate but it was probably me that was the inconsistant factor. The CT read 219 and I believe thats what I did.  Now I was not very familiar with pushing maximum wattage for 30 minutes, and how to pace myself. I am now very good at testing, hence 276, and since all my training is based off that number, I have a hell of a time keeping up in class, much harder now than it ever has been!

I dont think I'm the only new cyclist that didnt know how to push his/her body 100% for 30 minutes. So even though my first number should have been slightly higher, I still think I owe my improvement to training with a PT/CT because it helped me train more accurately.

I believe that a 25% improvement is possible in the conditions you described.  As JohnnyKay and Jack discussed, there are a lot of other early adaptations that can lead to increased power output than just pure fitness gain.

Fact is, the CT may or may not be accurate, but the accuracy doesn't matter one bit.  Precision does.  If it can provide to you an concise reading from workout to workout, then the numbers are helpful to train by.  If it's off by ~10% each time, then it starts to become difficult to consistently train. 

i didn't really say i don't belive it.  like the folks above me have said its very possible it could be early adaptation, some incorrect testing etc. 

what is your weight?  and have you done a race outside after testing at 276w?  usually that can amount to a pretty good clip considering a good position and aero goodies.  just curious.

LOL.... is it any wonder why I am confused... I will read the book this week and continue to collect data while I try to figure this out...

For the 1 hour TT.... I assume to get a good result you need a relatively flat course on a low wind day?

Thanks for the inputs... it confirms my initial impression... I suck on the bike at this point...

But to an individual, wouldn't just the raw FTP be just as (or more) useful as a measure of fitness gains? I can drop 20 pounds and have my power fall, and in the end have my power-to-weight increase. Am I more "fit"?

Read the books. You don't have to do a 1-hour TT, just like you don't have to do a one-hour test for LTHR. Allen and Coogan spell out a protocol that involves a warm-up, 5-minute all-out effort, recovery, then a 20-minute effort, then taking 95% of the avg. power in the latter effort to approximate your FTP.

Flat course is preferred but I had a thread concerning the wind earlier...

Hopefully that provides more motivation to go out and train!

Can I get an example of where the fastest time was not awarded the win due to thier high power and effort levels?

Exactly.  I think the point everyone is trying to make is that regardless of the power output, efficiency and effort, the person with the fastest time wins!

I agree with the bolded.

Yes, it's true that power numbers don't matter (eta...when determining the winner of a race)...but your original post suggested that you NEED to have lower power and lower effort to win.  If I put out 5000 more watts than you, and beat you by 1 second.  I still win.  Agreed?

Fred - you know I disagree with you a bit on this one.  Absolutely, you get the most benefit from knowing your watts and watts/kg to see your own progression, and build your workouts appropriately.  But whenever you want to pull out the yardstick and compare with someone else, knowing the numbers helps.

i.e.  If I race against someone else and we're using the same brand PM, we'll see some power number differences, but all things being equal the numbers shouldn't be too far off (assuming we've both calibrated).  Now if he rides at 22mph and I ride at 20mph, and we end the race with similar watts/kg numbers then this tells me something.  His position, bike, wheels, helmet, whatever is making him more aero and he's clearly benefiting from doing something that I'm not.  I can take that info and look to get more aero and concentrate on watts/CDA (sound familiar).

Second point - look at Coggans comparisons.  You get a good sense of where you may be in terms of power against similarily ranked racers (cyclists).  It's very general, but still a good measure.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/media/69406/powerprofiling_v4.xls

My 2 cents.