Age based rankings

I wouldn’t say that it is important to compare yourself against the current level of the other riders, but to the average of the age group. So longer time frames for power curves would be a good thing from my perspective.

Not sure about the usefulness of 60 minute power. By default, it shouldn’t be higher than your FTP, for most people it will be lower, as - like you said - they don’t go all out for one hour very often.

I’ve seen a similar discussion on Xert, I believe, where this also came out. As my profile is ‘TT specialist’ (mind you, I cannot hold a candle to the big guys), my one hour power actually is the same as my FTP.

Hi David: the features you have been adding are amazing. They make this one of the most interesting sites for puddling around in one’s data.

I have two questions about these rankings, however.

First, I use Chrome. [I also got the same result from Firefox.] See screenshot. The table on the left does not have any lines or dots on it. Is this because I am so bad or is there another reason?

Second, the table with my watts/kg indicates that 0% of riders have lower numbers than me for all intervals and all seasons. Yet if I read my [say] 5-second power from the table on the right [8.24], then the table on the left indicates that 50-55% of riders have a 5-second watts/kg less than that. And the same for the other interval lengths and seasons: the table on the left indicates that I’m 55% or so ‘up’, but the table on the right indicates that I’m on the bottom.

I suspect that the comparison groups must be different for the two tables. If that is so, can you add a note to the descriptions of these tables to indicate that?

Thanks for all your work. This must be occupying a lot of your time!

Michael

How can I make my table with the power profile more like yours? :slight_smile:

First, you will have to age about two decades :joy:

Second, more seriously, I would think that you would need to shift your (cycling profile) focus. Obviously, your age group’s metrics are different from mine, although I guess there will be similarities.

So, looking at tour numbers, you would need to work on your sustained power capabilities. There are several ways to do this, which is probably not up to me to try and advice you about.

My training is mostly threshold and sweet spot, which make up for about 60% of my training. And btw, my current season ‘sprint’ numbers look like shit, because I haven’t been outside yet and I hardly pull any sprints on my Neo.

look good to me @david

3 Likes

Wouldn’t you like to look at my plan and trainings?
Maybe it could be improved. I would be grateful.
Time is about an hour a day a week and on Saturdays more. I think I’m training honestly, I’ve been riding for two years and I’ve been training since October 2019.
Translated by a translator, so if something is incomprehensible forgive :slight_smile:

https://intervals.icu/?invite=2itgdg7orwfip48p

I don’t mind, but I’m NOT a coach, so anything I would tell you, would be based on my own (extensive, but rather single focused) experience :sunglasses:

You would need to tell me/us more about what you’re training for and/or what your (short-ish term, i.e. between 3 and 6 months from now) goal(s) is/are.

I would think that in order for you to improve your sustainable power, you will either need to train longer, or more intense. Both require different approaches.

I don’t know where you get your current plan from, if any, but it might be worth looking at one or the other paid service to get guidance.

This can be anything, from Garmin (actually free, but limited), to Strava Summit (very generalized), to TrainerRoad or TrainingPeaks and any other (Sufferfest, Zwift).

If you’re not attached to the, as of yet, ‘standard’ training methods, you might want to check out Xert.

(Not sure why, but your invite doesn’t return anything for me - I’ll start a chat)

Tx! Its lots of fun writing this stuff and I am learning a lot.

:slight_smile: No someone else had this problem and it turned out that he didn’t have gender set on Strava so Intervals.icu didn’t rank him. Its likely the same problem with you. I am going to add a note to that effect in the UI.

You can set your Strava gender here: https://www.strava.com/settings/profile

It will update in Intervals.icu when your next ride syncs.

This will be the case in Xert, WKO5, and any other of the systems that are now using short duration power for FTP modeling.

My feeling is that most are very generous estimates, but typically ballpark. Where the break down seems to be is for anyone doing traditional low intensity base training, MAF, and the like where they aren’t ever going all out. Without short, maximal efforts to fill out the curve between 5sec-5min, the program can’t effectively do its job and compare you to other curves with any degree of accuracy.

Try adjusting the duration of eFTP in settings to something much longer than 180s and you’ll likely line up. I pushed mine out to 300s and it’s still higher than the FTP I train with, but I have pretty decent short power.

1 Like

I have implemented the gender check:

I could certainly do with those numbers!

1 Like

Thanks, David. Perfect - I’m in the middle of. the pack!

1 Like

I have added histograms. Same data just visualised differently. Also 3h and 4h options.

Screen Shot 2020-03-15 at 14.12.27

7 Likes

Neat. However, could you make the ~4hr histogram and table include rides of more than or equals 4 hours? [I’m peeved because a 5+ hour ride that I did on 7 March is not included!]

This site is becoming a fantastic resource.

Michael

1 Like

Hmm. The data is computed from the complete power duration curve so if your 5h ride provides your best 4h power it should count. Please send me a link to the ride.

Thanks. https://intervals.icu/activities/3164298190.

Ah if you look at the power curve for that ride it only goes out to 2h. Intervals.icu “restarts” the power-duration calculation if you stop for more than 10 minutes.

Understood – even if not agreed! Thanks, David.

Any particular reason for that?