Hey everyone, long time TR user here. I’ve used the TR ramp test for quite some time now (from beta) and have generally tested pretty consistently with nominal improvement. After spending some time doing weekend zwift races, I found my ftp increased nicely from 208 to 216 (using the same step test),…

That video is fundamentally flawed as a comparison of the tests - the power is being driven by TrainerRoad and both bits of software are just taking the last 1 minute of power and multiplying by 0.75 to get FTP. The Zwift protocol is different and was not tested. On the Zwift screen you can see that…

It’s like weighing yourself on different scales. I think you just have to pick a method that works for you (i.e. has the TR test set your zones accurately so that sweetspot is manageable but uncomfortable, and vo2 is horribly painful but just about possible to complete?), and stick with it.

All good questions, I haven’t side by sided and would love to have those kind of gains, haven’t had that in years. I’d just be shocked if i went from 216 to 230 in 4 weeks. In terms of power, I’ve been using the same PM (calibrated before every ride). Was actually thinking of taking the TR test a…

The difference between the two is only 6% and given that your actual achievable threshold power differs every single day, I would worry about it much. If you go into every workout targeting a precise power number you’ll have days you can hit it and some you can’t. As long as you’re in the ballpark,…

Unfortunately this is an inherent limitation of estimating workloads from a ramp test without physiological data to reveal what is actually happening in the body. The particular peak workload/power you land on will be protocol dependent, therefore so to will be any threshold estimate if it’s based o…

[image] SpareCycles: Shorter stages or higher steps will produce a higher peak power and higher threshold estimate. Longer stages or lower steps will produce a lower peak power & threshold. Assuming both tests use the same percentage of the final step to set your FTP, which I doubt is true. B…

Zwift Starts at 100w after a “free ride” warm up with no set wattage. Uses a fixed 20w step per minute. TR Starts at 52% of starting FTP. Uses 6% of the starting FTP per minute. 20w would be 6% steps for a 333w FTP. In Zwift: If you have an FTP around 100w, you may have real troub…

Why doesn’t someone with Zwift actually try it out. It’s not like you actually have to ride to exhaustion to work out the multiplication factor. As far as I understand from the video the factor is 0.75. Mike

Looking at the TrainerRoad bell curve I’d say 100w isn’t a bad place to start for a lot of cyclists on an FTP test. That is the issue with anything besides an actual lactate test, it’s all in the math and each protocol will be skewed in one aspect or another. No test will make everyone happy. I per…

[image] Tanner1280: I personally am of a mind that ramp tests in general are too biased to short power and reward training plans heavy on HIIT that I don’t like to overemphasize. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Just not for me. That’s not necessarily true. There’s an unofficial ramp test you can dow…

Zwift step test too high vs TR?

Training

CrunchyGears March 13, 2019, 4:53pm 12

Assuming both tests use the same percentage of the final step to set your FTP, which I doubt is true. Both of those protocols may work fine if they are calculated differently to end up at a similar result.

Topic		Replies	Views
Zwift's New Ramp Test (FTP)	108	24682	March 23, 2019
TR vs Zwift Ramp Test Training ftp	5	2486	January 6, 2023
Zwift vs TrainerRoad Ramp Test Training ramp-test	6	5623	August 29, 2019
HPTek step test on Zwift vs. TR's ramp test Training	5	1058	February 12, 2019
FTP Increases TR vs. Zwift Training ftp	21	6067	January 28, 2019

Zwift step test too high vs TR?

Related topics