We all know that experience from using the FTP generated via the Ramp test can and does vary. The 0.75 reduction doesn’t necessarily “work” for everyone with respect to setting appropriate training zones. There are countless threads related to this discussion, but I wonder if there is a way to mov…

[image] occasionalathlete: I actually thought they were doing something slightly more complex than x0.75 but perhaps not. The main calculation is the best 1-minute power from the Ramp Test, multiplied by 0.75 (effectively 75%). There is a “check” in the system that looks at the prior (or…

I think the issue you would run into with this dynamic flow at estimating FTP is that if you go to .7 - .8 depending on the rider you run into an issue of not being able to fully capture outside stressors which would be massive lurking variables. For example this week I was supposed to do Washingto…

I’m going to use myself as an example for a sec, I definitely do poorly on the ramp, in fact a couple of weeks ago I did a TR ramp in the morning, bailed at 17min (so nominally an FTP in the 250 range when I had finished SSB1 and 2 HV at 285), then in the afternoon I did another ramp test (on a dif…

That’s why I am suggesting a broader review with respect the power curve of the rider, specifically in the recent history. I am not talking about missed or problematic workouts from outside issues. I am talking about a broader, systematic inability of some riders to perform workouts with the 0.75 …

AndrewL: Perhaps this is why it is pushed so heavily at new riders My bet is that the avoidance of pacing is a bigger factor. Doing a proper test effort in the 1x20m or 2x8m tests is far from easy and something of a learned skill. New riders have little to no idea how to do one properly, a…

[image] mcneese.chad: Could using the current or recent power curve of the rider serve as a guide as to whether the the 0.75 is appropriate or a slight adjustment may serve certain power curve profiles better? This may parallel the methods of identifying the “rider type” as done in various test …

Thanks for the consideration. :smiley:

I don’t mind the idea of a “Full Frontal” Test and would love to see if TR wizards could figure out good ranges from it. The issues I see when it comes to best 5 minute and 1 minute power is that they are all relative to other work. I mean one could go all out get a 5 minute PR but then immediately…

I think the potential for messy and incomplete athlete power curves may make implementing such a system difficult. I actually think The Sufferfest might be on the right track with their “Half Monty” test, which there was a big thread about recently. It gives you a similar ramp test to TR, then asks…

Ramp Test, Automatic Adjustment to Rider Profile?

TrainerRoad Software

Bryce July 22, 2020, 7:08pm 16

Really cool idea Chad and I will happily pass this on! With the work we are doing into “smarter” testing and progression, this could certainly be something we look into .

Topic		Replies	Views
Kolie Moore on the ramp test Training	268	12900	February 12, 2022
Why I failed at TrainerRoad (I think) Training ramp-test , ftp-testing , ftp-test	85	10798	January 6, 2022
When the Ramp Test doesn't track well to FTP Training ramp-test , ftp	121	14775	January 2, 2019
Will the need for a ramp test go away in the future TrainerRoad Software	65	4992	October 29, 2020
New TR feature - FTP estimate - thoughts Training	740	36677	July 8, 2022

Ramp Test, Automatic Adjustment to Rider Profile?

Related topics