FTP aero vs up
Folks...I am having yet another argument with Scott Bowe. He is a stubborn bastard and is just killing me. So either I am just plain wrong or he is. There is no middle ground any more. He is possibly more stubborn than me.
Here is the scoop. A few weeks back Scott and Matt worked on my bike a bit and dropped me down about 8cm and moved my seat forward. I did not really ride aero since then. Last Monday I did my bike test. FTP 305 - I was sitting in the attack bars almost the entire time.
Sunday we had a planned ride on a somewhat flat course. It was a TT race and it was windy. this was my first real shot in the new aero position...I was happy and disappointed. I was happy because I was only 2-3 minutes behind Matt who is damn fast. I was a little over 4 minutes who is damned faster. Normally I'd have been farther back.
I was unhappy becase I only held about 264 watts...that is a BIG drop. In all honesty I do not feel I put my best effort forward. It was my first time on this course, first time riding in the cold, it was freaking windy, and there were some fast sections where my power was low.
Here is the argument.
I looked at the workout for today and it is 3x8 at FTP. 24 minutes. I have a FTP spinnerval testing video that has a 1x20 test and some other harder efforts. All told the time spent at FTP between the two workouts is off by maybe a minute or two. So the workouts are about equal. My thought was to do the FTP test in the aero bars so I know that number. That way I know my FTP both sitting upright and in the bars. To me it is a win-win situation.
Scott is being very stubborn and says that the outdoor ride is essentially my FTP in the aero bars and that I don't need to test. He concedes that the two workouts are roughly the same however thinks my plan is unnecessary. He also thinks that I should be riding in the aero bars more ( I agree) as that is how I will race.
I truly feel that my ftp in the aero bars will be higher than 264, but maybe not. there is only one way to tell. I also realize that this was my first ride of length in this position and it will come up quickly as I acclimate. Scott says my FTP is what it is and I need to deal with it. The real-world results are in my face and I need to not focus on the number being lower than I wanted it to be. Here is Scotts analogy......
rewind 10 years and I'm swimming. Coach says, "eric...we're doing 4x500 today and I want you to hold 5:30s." Would I be so willing to say..."Coach, I really screwed up at my race this weekend in the 1,000. Would it be alright if I swim 2x1000's instead." for some reason that argument aggrivates me to no end.
So anyway...what say you fine folks of EN. Is my idea valid, does it make sense. Or is Scott correct and I just need to freaking deal with a low aero FTP and let my training do the talking. So if I ride and my RPE is low...start bumping it up.
Comments
Think of it like this. If you were to somewhat able to hang with them at 264, then think what happens when you raise it with training(hoping they take the winter off which is unlikely) This is week two of OS. The long WI winter will soon be here... No need to rush things because nothing is going to happen overnight. So I say just ride and everything will sort itself out in 20 weeks.
Do you think you are faster in aero at 264 vs. on the hoods @ 305? I mean if that was the case why not race with a road bike?
BTW, many of us train all winter on the road bike on the hoods, training at the 'higher' number, and deal with the drop in the aero position come spring. It works for many (not necessarily all). It's not at all uncommon to see drops of about 10% from hoods to aero, for some even bigger. For many of us, 3-4 weeks in the aero position, and it comes back up. That's why I train on the road bike (at the higher numbers) all winter.
I know I'll be faster more aero. that is a given. I just want to make sure that when I am doing my intervals I can choose to sit up or be aero and have an accurate number to strive for. Afterall, if I do 3x8 today and decide #2 will be aero...holding 305 is probably not realistic, right? At least not yet. If I want to hold z4 for an interval while aero I need to know what that # is.
So to me...the question is more along the lines of...is Scott correct and that I should not bother with the 1x20 and just do the workout as planned using 265. 265 is what I did and that is all that matters. What I think I can do is irrelevent. Or is my line of thinking correct in that I can easily do the 1x20 instead of the 3x8 and get a number I can use until my next test. And since the workouts are roughly the same I won't be sacrificing any future workouts to do it.
My point being that I agree with you. They are two seperate #'s. It isn't that I am upset the aero # was lower...I just think I should know what the aero number is as accurately as possible.
Does that make sense?
Get Strong - During the OS everything I do is on the trainer. I test sitting up to get the highest number I can and then I try to hold that number in all workouts, even if I am in the aero bars. Typically I can do this for the short intervals, but once they get long I end up starting in the aerobars and sitting up towards the end. First priority is to complete the workout, second is to stay in the aerobars as long as I can.
Transition and start racing - After the OS is over I move outside and start the HIM plan or whatever I am focusing on first. I now test outside and typically sitting up. I get a high FTP number (typically my highest of the year), but now I do most of the workouts 100% aero. The first 4 weeks suck and I can't hit the targets but I typically start to get there. I will still sometime ride my roadbike or sit up on the tri-bike.
A-race build up - The final 8-12 weeks before my race is differnent. I now test and train 100% the way I want to race. This means tri-bike in the aero bars 100% of the time.
Basically, when training I test to get the highest number I can and I could care less what my aero FTP is. When it gets to be race prep time, I test and focus on my aero FTP and could care less what I am capable of sitting up as it wont do me any good in a race. The late spring/early summer is the gray area where I do a little of both.
Otherwise, suck it up and use the 264 aero number. How far off do you really think that number is between the outside TT and a true inside FTT on the trainer anyway? Maybe off by 5%? Heck, the OS intervals usually have a 5-10% range in them anyway- you've got plenty of room for error here to work with.
Yes, it makes sense.
No, I would not test, for the reasons Nemo and I stated. You're close enough. There are many folks here (myself included) who've gotten all spun up about getting a number "as accurately as possible", and lost the forest for the trees.
Remember, this is field testing, not lab testing. We are very happy to live with 'close enough' here. If you tested, and discovered that your 'actual' number in the aero position was 271, instead of 264, you would probably consider it a victory. However, in terms of the impact on your training, it's in the noise. Unless you think that you had such a bad day that it should have been over 290, leave 'close enough' alone.
Outside, in the wind, on the terrain, different cadences....the number is going to reflect and be affected by the variables. The indoor trainer takes all of that out.
Thanks!
Elly
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/05/seven-deadly-sins.html
We use our test because it is harder to 'fake' it, ie. Overachieve and overestimate your FTP. It is a bit easier to overachieve if you do the 20min test * .95.