Home› Ironman Texas (2011)› Group Discussion-Ironman Texas (2011)

FTP test?

cinco_the_dogcinco_the_dog
in Group Discussion-Ironman Texas (2011)

Looking ahead to Wed. and saw the FTP test. An FTP test 3.5 weeks out? Really? The time is for 75 minutes. So, do the FTP test and then ride EZ for another 15-20 minutes?

Comments

  • GMAN 19030GMAN 19030
    The main goal is to get that 42 minutes of ass kicking in and any additional time is gravy.

    I'm going out of town this weekend so I'm doing my long ride on Thursday. There won't be any testing done on Wednesday for me.
  • Paul TakacPaul Takac
    FTP test done (sadly after a long day and yet again hooked to a trainer indoors). A decent (almost 5%) improvement and numbers were very consistent (see below). I covered up watts on LYC and just focused on holding cadence. Serious suffering last 10 minutes. I'm not sure what this will translate to outside but will calculate target watts using the spreadsheet and (hopefully, if the weather cooperates) give it a go on the RR this weekend.

    Week 9 FTP test
    First 20' (in 5 min increments): 264, 271, 272, 270 [269 total]
    2' break: 142 average
    Second 20' (in 5 min increments): 264, 270, 270, 272 [269 total]
    NP: 266
    VI 1.01
    84 RPM
    Weight: 183
    Weight/KG: 3.2

    Good luck to everyone else who is testing! Let us know how it goes.
  • Tom GlynnTom Glynn
    I see the FTP test as a way to dial in numbers. I'm not doing one as I feel pretty comfortable with my FT numbers now. I did a race rehearsal a couple of days ago, rode a very consistent 0.715 IF, felt good when I was done, so I'm good to go. Now on to swim practice!
  • Paul TakacPaul Takac
    @Tom: Agreed. I wasn't at all surprised by the results - in fact it was only a couple of watts off the slight bump I'd already built into the threshold workouts. But now I feel like I have a rock solid number for the race calc worksheet.

    Which leads to another question: a relatively big variable in the spreadsheet is estimated time for the bike. Can you wicked smart Texas folks who've done any of these Texas races or routes maybe comment on likely finishing times to use? I'm thinking 5:50 but Austin results suggest could be as low as 5:30.

    Ironman Texas 70.3 (Galveston), April 2010
    Time: 3:02
    NP: 192
    IF: 74.2
    VI: 1.03
    Notes: on a road bike. First HIM. Easy, straight out and back and so was able to be very steady.

    Ironman Austin 70.3 (Galveston), October 2010
    Time: 2:42
    NP: 194
    IF: 79.8 (yes, FTP was a bit lower than in April)
    VI: 1.11
    Notes: on my tri bike. Really didn't like this course. Roads were poor and winding. At least that's why I tell myself that the VI sucked.

    So based on just tested FTP (266), goal TSS (278), and SWAG of 5:50 bike, I come up with goal watts of 184. My thinking is that anything faster than 5:50 at the same watts just lowers my TSS which can only be a good thing on a hot, humid day for which I haven't been able to replicate in training here in the Northeast.

    Thoughts?

    Thanks!
  • GMAN 19030GMAN 19030

     @ Paul:

    184W is ~ 69% of your FTP so that's right in that IM range.  That was about where I was at for IMFL last year.  I think I finished in 5:40 there but that included four bathroom breaks and a near five minute stop at the SN bag pickup.  Granted, comparing watts from one person to the next is apples to oranges.  The IMTX course isn't as flat but it was windy at IMFL and it was cold.

    My goal for IMTX is around 200W.  My NP at Galveston this year was 224W so I'm pretty confident I can hold 200W -- which is about 10% less.  I'm hoping to finish the bike in 5:20.  Wind obviously a variable for that time.

  • Tom GlynnTom Glynn
    I think the TX course will be fast based upon my experience at the Rally. My FT is around 300 and I expect to ride a NP of 210 - 215 and IF of around 0.71. My wild guess is that this nets me somewhere around a 5:15 - 5:20, but wind and humidity pay huge factors. I will watch watts only and let time just fall out of the equation.
  • Paul TakacPaul Takac
    @Tom, @Bob:
    Thanks guys.. that helps a lot. Based on what you're saying, I'm pretty sure that I'll just dial in the .69 IF (184 watts) based on a "worst case" of 5:50 - at least for planning purposes. That gives me some leeway just in case it takes a bit longer (due to wind, course, etc) and should be a manageable IF given the heat, provided that I pay good attention to hydration and nutrition. And hey, if the actual time shakes out to be faster than 5:50, all the better since that will just lower my TSS and leave me better prepared for the marathon.
Sign In or Register to comment.