yeah i did that when I first saw it, likely will not be selecting again.
3 Likes
Yeah, no surprise here. The longer the higher the percentile for me. For the sake of padding my ego, I wouldn’t mind seeing 120min, 180min, etc.
1 Like
Power ranking is interesting but is of pretty limited utility without knowing what group I’m being compared to. Based on my ranking, it does seem like an appropriate group, whatever it is.
1 Like
Totally agree on this. Whilst TR may be protective of giving away too much granularity from their accumulated dataset, Nate himself has shared charts before, on other threads, that break out power distributions by both age and M/F, so I don’t see why the same can’t be done here to at least help us understand what the ‘other athletes like yourself’ description is referring to.
This new feature doesn’t look accurate. In the power profile section all my 2024 power records are time stamped 8/30/24 but I didn’t ride that day. I went on a hike. Not sure where the data is coming from but it’s higher than anything I’ve recorded on a ride.
That is just for this year (“2025”). I’d imagine a lot of people are not too heavy into training right now. All-time tab probably gives a more accurate picture. (At least it does for me).
2 Likes
The chart makes me feel like I hit the genetic lottery being in the top 10% across the board. I don’t know if I am genetically gifted but I’m flattered.
Although in my age grouping on intervals.icu I’m top 85% average across the board. 40-49, I’m 41 at the moment.
I am assuming “other athletes like myself” means “grumpy old perimenopausal women who are way past their prime” because the figures I am getting if it is compared to all other TR athletes including boys make absolutely no sense 
9 Likes
I found mine in the personal records…133W!
Do I win something…?
I’m assuming the rankings for this year are “season to date”. My 60 minute power this year is lower than my 60 minute power last year, but I’m showing a higher percentile. That’s probably a good way to look at it, but initially a little confusing for me. I’ll have to remember to do a ride at midnight next year on January 1 2026 and then screen shot my rankings immediately after, could be sitting alone at the top and bottom of the curve (not sure how that would show up)…
Also, I’m with the others on the power spike. Has me categorized as a sprinter for my all time efforts in the 96th percentile and I’m a pure diesel with no sprint. But the data is the data, I should go delete the workout with that spike.
Would also love to see this extended to 3, 5, 10 hours for those of us focused on long events. Seems these events have grown in popularity quite a bit with the growth of gravel racing and marathon MTB, so probably relevant for a lot of us.
One thing that looks questionable in the data -
If I compare “all time” to “last year”, I’m about 10% higher percentile for last year compared to all time (for my 20 and 60 minute power). Unless the general population was just weaker last year, that doesn’t make sense. Maybe last year was comparing against age group and all time was comparing against everyone. Maybe as TR has grown, they had a larger population of beginner cyclist last year pulling the averages down (and thereby pushing me up). Not sure.
I like this kind of data though, good to be able to see where you stand compared to your peers when you might be lining up against them.
2 Likes
Wow, this is a cool new feature, and quite depressing for us mere mortals. I am in the top 75% for 5 second power, but am in the bottom 22% for pretty much everything else. At least I have the “sprinter” phenotype! Of course, with my other crap numbers, I’ll never make it to the end of the race to actually sprint. But at least I know where I stand. Ugh!
1 Like
You monster 
This is part of what currently makes the new feature not particularly helpful. I’m a true all rounder in reality and I win sprints out of the breakaway, and have won a couple of full bunch sprints. But TR has me as a “time trialist” as my 5s ranks 7ppts lower than all my other durations and I suspect it’s just down to all the power spikes in TR’s dataset.
Intervals.icu has me as an all rounder or puncheur depending on period selected. It also shows the group of athletes I’m compared against and the number of athletes in that group. It would be hard to recommend using TR’s current execution of power ranking when a much better, free alternative exists.
Based on others’ answers I’m assuming the comparison is filtered by sex and age group. @Nate_Pearson can you confirm this?
If there is any filtering applied, it would be great to have that stated plainly on the page rather than the ambiguous implication currently seen.
11 Likes
I definitely haven’t got sidetracked from real paid work to check this out! Very nice.
A couple longer intervals would be cool (as noted above).
It would also be good if when selecting a last year/this year if we could see the delta from the other time ranges to see how I’ve improved (or not).
2 Likes
They’re just following industry standards. “Look! our training got you into the top 5% of similar cyclists” is right in line with “…5 watts faster than leading competitors.”
That may be true, but I will place that in the same bin of info that lacks enough context to have any chance at being meaningfully understood (ignored garbage).
In the old days, TR used an Litmus test of “How does this make me faster?” for consideration of new features/functions. No idea if they still do that, but data without proper context is not only potentially useless but maybe even misleading to the point of causing problems in some cases. We’ve already seen confusion about the info and relations offered and lack of clarity about population sets.
They can do what they want, vague info may be fine for marketing but I’d rather have more grounded info for anything that has an intended benefit.
8 Likes
Another, potentially easier, option would be to have all there time periods as a drop down and have 3 narrower columns for each interval.