For reference op , a sub hour 40 km is what's considered good for a hobby cyclist.
That’s 25 mph or a really good hobby cyclist. I never get much over 15 mph on normal roads over an hour long ride. I get 18 mph on a loop road around a nearby park with no traffic and without too much ups and downs. I suppose I’m a bad hobby cyclist.
Not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you agreeing with me? The reference to economy is the equivalent of saying that someone completing an equivalent cycling milestone would have a really good CdA, low Crr and the effort would be low VI, which is kind of a foregone conclusion. I'm assuming that efficiency variables have been maxed out (equivalent to maxing out CdA, Crr and running a low VI effort) leaving ftp (w/kg) as the input.
The variables are CdA (aero), Crr (rolling resistance), VI (effort variability) and watts (power input). Whether weight comes into play is a matter of course profile (power variable would change from gross watts to w/kg depending on profile).
Your watts per kilo numbers snd comparisons to Kipchoge's marathon are debatable. My biggest concern is the calibration. I think many power outputs are exaggerated by 10 to 15%.
For reference op , a sub hour 40 km is what's considered good for a hobby cyclist.
That’s 25 mph or a really good hobby cyclist. I never get much over 15 mph on normal roads over an hour long ride. I get 18 mph on a loop road around a nearby park with no traffic and without too much ups and downs. I suppose I’m a bad hobby cyclist.
A strong cat 1-3 (well-trained, but non-elite) all-around cyclist on a flat course can go 23-24 mph for hours and 25-26 mph for an hour (assumes a really good position and well tuned bike). No TT bike, no drafting. Drafting in race-type conditions you can go 30 mph for hours and if the peloton is well managed, it can be super easy to go these speeds. This is just math, and you can run the calculations (which are quite accurate) online.
I did these numbers daily for years and I had an ftp that peaked around 340w or 4.4 w/kg and I was probably a glorified hobby cyclist. This was enough for occasional regional cat 1-3 results but there were always plenty of much faster guys around (I was cat 2 but frequently raced in mixed cat 1-3 fields). I'm going to put out a wild guess that this is the equivalent of a ~2:45-2:50 marathon - a level that I have never reached in running (I was a far better cyclist than runner). Curious what others would estimate.
These numbers are not even in the ballpark of pro tour guys who have 5.5-6 w/kg ftp. This puts further context on my estimate of 6.25 w/kg (probably 425-440w ftp) for a world-record type effort. I don't really remember, but I could probably pull 440 watts for 5 minutes (maybe, and I weigh more than a pro tour rider, so my w/kg is lower) and this implies being able to do them for an hour, and only slightly less for two hours.
Crank arm length has no bearing on the discussion.
Huh? Foot speed is zero mph. Your foot is on the ground for 0.2 seconds at 13 mph. Your body is being propelled over your foot.
Just reminding you that your original post was nonsense.
Might I remind you that speed is always relative to something. Foot speed relative to the CG of the runner is pretty much equal to the speed of the CG of the runner relative to the ground.
The question doesn't even make a lot of sense, but given that the highest ftp's recorded (to my knowledge) are just sub 6 w/kg, its probably equivalent to a 6.15 w/kg ftp and holding a VI of 1.00 for 2 hours. There isn't as much of a performance (speed) correlation, because CdA or has so much of an impact in cycling (assuming we are talking about a flat course).
Kipchoge's RER would be less than 1.0
He's probably around 90% VO2max for 2 hours, but the so is a well trained Average Joe running 20 miles in 2 hours.
Kipchoge's economy is super high, but his Oxygen consumption is pretty much the same as Average Joe. So his superior economy is a combination of his superior basic speed and training and pacing and footwear.
In other words, everything that has been tested by the Sub 2 project people.
There is zero evidence that "a well trained average Joe" is anywhere near 90%. Show me the evidence to support this.
Your watts per kilo numbers snd comparisons to Kipchoge's marathon are debatable. My biggest concern is the calibration. I think many power outputs are exaggerated by 10 to 15%.
Depends upon where the power is measured. The only power that matters is the power delivered to the road. Different meters measure at the foot, pedal, crank, chain, and wheel hub. I think one also estimates power from wind speed. They will all be higher than that delivered to the road.
Just reminding you that your original post was nonsense.
Might I remind you that speed is always relative to something. Foot speed relative to the CG of the runner is pretty much equal to the speed of the CG of the runner relative to the ground.
Running velocity is relative to ground force applied.
A strong cat 1-3 (well-trained, but non-elite) all-around cyclist on a flat course can go 23-24 mph for hours and 25-26 mph for an hour (assumes a really good position and well tuned bike). No TT bike, no drafting. Drafting in race-type conditions you can go 30 mph for hours and if the peloton is well managed, it can be super easy to go these speeds. This is just math, and you can run the calculations (which are quite accurate) online.
I did these numbers daily for years and I had an ftp that peaked around 340w or 4.4 w/kg and I was probably a glorified hobby cyclist. This was enough for occasional regional cat 1-3 results but there were always plenty of much faster guys around (I was cat 2 but frequently raced in mixed cat 1-3 fields). I'm going to put out a wild guess that this is the equivalent of a ~2:45-2:50 marathon - a level that I have never reached in running (I was a far better cyclist than runner). Curious what others would estimate.
These numbers are not even in the ballpark of pro tour guys who have 5.5-6 w/kg ftp. This puts further context on my estimate of 6.25 w/kg (probably 425-440w ftp) for a world-record type effort. I don't really remember, but I could probably pull 440 watts for 5 minutes (maybe, and I weigh more than a pro tour rider, so my w/kg is lower) and this implies being able to do them for an hour, and only slightly less for two hours.
Crank arm length has no bearing on the discussion.
340 sustainable watts is not a glorified hobby cyclist. 250 watts is a really really good hobby cyclist. Your average hobby cyclist will have an ftp below 200. The percentage of cyclists who even have CAT ratings is tiny.
I do agree crank arm length has no bearing on the discussion.
Your watts per kilo numbers snd comparisons to Kipchoge's marathon are debatable. My biggest concern is the calibration. I think many power outputs are exaggerated by 10 to 15%.
Depends upon where the power is measured. The only power that matters is the power delivered to the road. Different meters measure at the foot, pedal, crank, chain, and wheel hub. I think one also estimates power from wind speed. They will all be higher than that delivered to the road.
This is why the only cycling metric that I use is timing myself uphill.