Training Peaks estimated FTP vs TR Ramp Test

I am due for a ramp test and just got an updated FTP (6 watt bump!) from TP based on some power PR numbers from the club ride today. Part of me just wants to accept the new number and keep training and the other part thinks that is pretty lazy. There is a third part in there somewhere that doesn’t really like doing the ramp test :grin:

Does anyone have experience comparing the Training Peaks estimated FTP against a TR ramp test?

It’s doesn’t matter where you get your FTP from. It only matters if your FTP is set appropriately for the TR workouts. All other things being equal, if workouts are challenging but doable per the IF then you know you have the correct FTP.

TR is moving towards a day of not needing to perform FTP tests through virtual learning, but an experienced cyclist can already determine this by how workouts feel.

4 Likes

My TP suggested FTP is about 30W lower than my TR FTP. In the past, TP FTP tracked closely with outdoor testing, but I probably just don’t have enough max efforts outdoors these days for it to be accurate.

How does TP estimate FTP? Are they still using 95% of your best 20 minute power?

Believe so, yes. I’d have to go into my TPU files to be sure.

That is what it says on their website

1 Like

Going forward with the number may be a problem: it’s outside not inside (most people have significant differences). Also, there is value in having a repeated test setup throughout your season/career.

Ok shameless plug: Intervals.icu does FTP estimation using whatever max efforts are available, not just 95% of 20m power. Basically a generalisation of the 95% of 20m rule or the 75% of 5m or whatever. If all your data is on Strava it will give you a decent number very quickly.

2 Likes

Intervals.icu does a great job - only a couple watts off my last ramp test.

Do you have insider knowledge?

I am an experienced cyclist but a realtive newcomer to intervals.icu.

My current TR FTP is 261 having gone up 5 watts on my last ramp test a week ago. I did feel then I could have got a few more watts out.

Anyway last night doing my regular outside 4 minute vo2 max efforts. 3x4 minute efforts.

I banged these out at 345 watts average which is far higher than previous efforts which were around 320 watts.

Intervals.icu now gave an estimated FTP of 273 based on these efforts.

How accurate is this estiamte and should I knock my training FTP up a little or to the suggested mark? It would be a significant increase.

Or does it just mean my vo2max power has gone up significantly based on doing more of it, and I now need to continue to work on sustained power to make the most of it?

Advice please?

If your ramp test a week ago gave you 261 and you think you could have done better and now Intervals.icu says 273 maybe pick number in the middle? If you can still get then TR workouts done then it’s ok or maybe can go up a bit more. Your FTP is a baseline for training zones more than anything.

Intervals.icu might over estimate if you are good at short duration stuff in which case make the “Min eFTP seconds” in /settings longer to only consider longer efforts. However if you did 3 x 4m at 345w average then thats probably good because you did manage 3 of them and Intervals.icu doesn’t give you credit for that.

2 Likes

Thanks for the reply David. The ramp test was last week in a recovery week so I haven’t yet done a TR session at the new figure. I will see how I get on and nudge the FTP up a little at a time if I find it manageable. It went up 5 watts from the previous test so adding a further 12 watts seems a leap!

Pretty happy with those repeatable numbers though.

My experience with intervals.icu eFTP and TR Ramp FTP.

Did my ramp test and a week later attacked a local climb, basically a 6 minute all out effort… my TR Ramp FTP and Intervals.icu eFTP matched exactly.

Of course it should go without saying, same Quarq power meter used in both cases.

2 Likes