*POLL* What is your current W/Kg *POLL*

Results
1

Just curious where everyone stands right now. Results will remain anonymous, please vote honestly.

  • 0 - 2.0 w/kg
  • 2.1 - 2.5 w/kg
  • 2.6 - 3.0 w/kg
  • 3.1 - 3.5 w/kg
  • 3.6 - 4.0 w/kg
  • 4.1 - 4.5 w/kg
  • 4.6 - 5.0 w/kg
  • 5 w/kg +

0 voters

1 Like
2
5 Likes
3

And the deeper dive / more segregated data:

1 Like
4

I couldn’t vote…didn’t see an option for “pathetic”. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

6 Likes
5

3.05 left me nowhere to vote, so I rounded down :-). The 0.1 gaps in the poll should be closed.

3 Likes
7

Not really. It’s a relatively limited metric for predicting performance. Interesting is about the some of it with no further context or direction.

8

Would be interesting for the TR team to share the distribution of the user universe from their big data view of things (if that hasn’t been shared already). Although I don’t know if that would be more motivating or discouraging personally:)

Edit: newbie mistake; didn’t read the whole thread. I see Chad already linked to his histograms of the data. Good stuff.

1 Like
9

Need two polls. What is your smart trainer measured w/kg and what is your actual w/kg…?

Edit, it’s probably worth mentioning that most are not very honest about their weight…so the poll might not be that accurate. Even the bell curve of cyclist data that TR has assumes everyone is inputting their current and correct weight, I’d guess most don’t.

1 Like
10

That rabbit hole is wide when you consider that some smart trainers or power meters have varying levels of accuracy. Couple that with the fact that the weight is self-reported, and we get a mess.

Such is life and you won’t get much better data without far more work and likely a much smaller group size. As it stands, it’s largely irrelevant (as mentioned above) and not a real determinant of success or failure.

Point being it is interesting, but also needs to be seen in the limited context and with a large grain of salt.

1 Like
11

Thanks Chad, you just summarized at length what I said. :grinning:

1 Like
12

An API to fetch data from Trainerroad would be awesome. I do some Knowledge Engineering when I don’t learn work-related stuff and combining cycling with learning new stuff would be awesome. Highly doubtful to see this feature though.

13

Could I add a further option?

Who cares?

It’s really not very relevant other than for humble brags and stroking egos. It’s the changes that people experience that’s the really important thing, not the absolute value.

6 Likes
14

I’m a “details” person and usually spend too many words along the way :stuck_out_tongue:

15

In the long thread, you can see the similar requests to access… and IIRC the denials too :stuck_out_tongue:

16

I have a decent W/KG at 4.3 (aiming to get it closer to 5 over the winter but who know how well that will go) but I know for a fact that my race craft is abysmal. I am fine being in a group and all but I have an amazing tendency to burn everything long before the finish by launching hopeless attacks and just having terrible tactics.
Something to work on but I still have fun so :man_shrugging:

2 Likes
17

W/KG is a lot more relevant than FTP in a contextual sense. If you have a 60kg dude listening to a 100kg’er bragging about his 300W FTP… well you get it. W/KG is a good metric in a way, the point of all the discussion above is that there is still way too much machine and human error for it to be reliable as well.

18

Can another option be what is your w/kg on Zwift (Too controversial? :stuck_out_tongue: )

20

I’m dead on 4.0 right now. I’ve tested higher in the past, but I “feel” better now than I ever have before. In the past I’ve had difficulty completing the vo2 max stuff, but I’ve been killing ALL of my workouts lately. “A” race is three weeks out!

3 Likes
21

Always round up brother :wink:

2 Likes
22

Sorry, I don’t think my point came across well. What I meant was a poll asking for what everyone else’s w/kg is pointless.