Home› General Training Discussions

Is it possible to have an IF of 1.02 for 1hr?

tim cronktim cronk
in General Training Discussions

My understanding has always been NO....

If FTP is your maximum 60min power.... And IF is percentages of that 60min power.... Then the highest achievable IF for 1hr is 1.0... Or 100% of FTP...

This came about thru a discussion with a friend who brought up a 60min TR ride called Striped with an IF of 1.02....

http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/workouts/1799-Striped

Comments

  • Al TruscottAl Truscott
    Agree with your logic. While the TR analysis is probably accurate ... Meaning the NP produced during that hour was 102% of the FTP @ the start of the ride ... once this session is over, the cyclist has a new FTP, which is the NP produced during that ride, 2% higher than the old one. The rules for determining FTP do not stipulate that the power production must be steady, or have a VI below an arbitrary ceiling? Only that it is the power one can "sustain" for 60 minutes.
  • MattAaronsonMattAaronson
    I'm not a TR member so can't see the workout. By definition it is impossible although I can imagine some really high VI workouts with some really high-output intervals could result in a really high NP that the same rider could not sustain for a 60' effort at much lower VI.
  • zwubazwuba

    Fully agree to what Matt and Al already said!

    If I would have found myself doing such a workout giving me IF >1.0 it's time to RETEST!!

  • Edwin CroucherEdwin Croucher

    No doubt, if you are holding that IF, then your FTP is higher than you thought.

  • Coach RichCoach Rich

    I don't know much about TR or how accurate it is compared to a real powermeter, but it's possible to put up and IF greater than 1.02 for a 1hr ride, if:

    • You're outside
    • Course is very hilly, especially short, sharp hills
    • You're absolutely murdering yourself
    • You've gained fitness since your last

    Regardless, I know I would sure as hell adjust my FTP upwards after a ride like that .

    Yesterday, during my club's annual Resolution Ride (basically anything and everything up and steep in the Pasadena area), my IF was about .92 after about 2:20 of riding. And we weren't absolutely crushing it either. It's amazing the IF you can put up on the right course with the right headset and riding partners. The ride resembles a street fight but it's fun.

  • tim cronktim cronk

    For those that couldnt see the wko in question... This is what striped looks like.... the white like would be your FTP.... so you can see its a bunch of very short intervals ranging from 15 sec at 160% to 60 sec at 140%....... So the general consensus seems to be that its possible but if you do your FTP is probably actually higher.... Which to me still means its impossible....  If it is possible then there is something wrong with the math correlation and definitions of FTP and IF.....

    The only other thought that I have is that its possible for some type of riders and not others.... Those with higher V02 ratio's to there FTP and sprinters for example.  Diesel engines not so much.... 

  • William JenksWilliam Jenks
    The answer to this question is "it depends".

    Mathematically, it is possible to construct all kinds of anti-intuitive results, including a workout for an hour that has an IF of 1.02, yet is "doable." IF, TSS, etc, after all, are just mathematical models meant to APPROXIMATE equivalent amounts of work. TSS (and NP and thus IF) especially rewards high intensity...hence Rich's remarks.

    The other thing is "How do you define FTP?" If you define FTP as the absolute max you could go for one hour, then the 1.02 IF workout for an hour demonstrates either an artifact of the IF/TSS model (e.g., by having wicked high intensities) or that the FTP setting is wrong.

    There are certain members here that (I assume unintentionally) routinely report workouts whose TSS/IF indicate that their FTP setting is wrong (i.e., the ride looks "epic" by those standards)...but I don't think this is what you're referring to.
  • RumpoleRumpole
    The way I looked at this one is whether it's worth a bump. FTP -has- to equal the sustainable 1hr power (otherwise, none of this makes any sense to me). Now the difference between the real world and the definition is something else, and the application of the definition to an individual is something else again. (in other words, some people generate higher test numbers going uphill, etc).

    For example, if FTP = 200, and you went 1.02 IF, that means you did 204. Is that 4 watts worth bumping? Certainly you could bump the interval targets four watts if you wanted to. You'll know if that's wrong. After using the PM for a while, you get a pretty good feel of where the FTP line is and when to bump. My own personal rule of thumb is five watt increments (unless I'm desperate to see improvement, in which case hell yes I'll take the four.) :-)
Sign In or Register to comment.