Rower-Cyclist wrote: ↑December 26th, 2021, 4:06 am
Thats a good rough equation to know. Do you know if theres been any research done on that or just something that appears to come up quite often?
I've never seen a study that did power profiling over 1min, 5min, 20min, and 60min with athletes who were equally trained (or equally untrained) in both sports.
Sustainable power outputs on the erg are lower than on the bike due to the differences in leverage, the length of the recovery period, and the lower cadences (try doing a 2 x 8min power test on the bike at 65rpm -- you'll end up quite a few watts lower than at a self-selected cadence somewhere between 90-105...I don't want to get into the physiological weeds of it, but low cadence/higher force component reduces the ability to withstand fatigue).
Just like for cyclists, ergers power profiles are going to vary, with some skewed more towards the 1-4min end of the spectrum (what Coggan called the "pursuiter" power profile in cycling) and some skewed more towards the 60min end (the TT'er profile). All those erg predictor calculators are based on averages, and ok, if you happen to be in the middle of the bell curve, the predictor, or "Paul's Law" is going to be accurate, but if you're not, it's not.
I started training on the bike with an SRM in '98, and I've various powermeters ever since, I've done more lab tests than a care to remember since 1984, and I've made out programs for cyclists. From that, I'd say that:
* FTP is not 95% of 20min power, it's not 60min power, it's not the result from a Monod Critical Power curve. For some sprinters, it's the highest steady state they can hold for about 30-35min. For some really fatigue-resistant TT'ers, it's the highest steady state they can hold for 75, even 80min. 50-60min is the Maximal Lactate Steady State duration for most -- but, like those erg watts calculators, that works if you're in the middle of the bell curve, and is well off if you're not.
* The dang 20min test requires a 5min *all out* effort beforehand. That's the Coggan and Allen protocol. So it's not a 20min test. It's a 5min test, followed by a recovery period, then a 20min test. So all those cyclists who warm up and then do a 20min test and figure that 95% of that is their FTP need to go out and do some 40, 60, and 70min tests to really get a better idea of what that 20min without the "blowout" before it means.
Two examples. My 1min power is laughably low -- barely 500w now at 55, and at 35 it was less than 30w higher. My :05 sprint couldn't break a windowpane. So, my 20min without the blowout is actually right at 95% of my 60min power. with the blowout, my 20min is 98% of 60min. On the other hand, a guy I coached on the road for a few years, who went on to become a Masters World Champion in the team sprint, could crank out nearly 750w for 1 min at 72kg, but his MLSS duration was about 32 minutes, and his MLSS power was a little less than 90% of his 20min test, with the blowout effort.
On the rowing side, unlike cycling there's no place for the specialist sprinter or the big 1-2 minute puncher. 2k is the race distance. So, that sport is going to select for athletes who are skewed towards high-capacity aerobic glycolysis, what in cycling would be "puncheurs" -- the big 4-8 minute "VO2" athletes. Since most research and testing has been done with competitive rowers -- most at a pretty high level -- the testing pool is going to be skewed to athletes who, in cycling parlance, would be "all rounders" on their power profile. So, comparisons between cycling and rowing power profiles are instantly going to be a bit distorted, because there is going to be a wider range of variance in the road cyclists and endurance trackies than there will be among the rowers.
A rower should be able to do good power on the bike right away. For a cyclist, it's all going to depend of how weak their back and core are from riding the bike, and what their hip and hamstring mobility are like. N=1, but I still can't come near my 60min bike power for a 2k on the erg because, although my hip and hamstring mobility are good, I have the core and back of a cyclist -- really good and stable for directing power in to the pedals, but weak when it comes to generating force through my trunk in a dead lift or in the rowing stroke. So I still have a flattish force curve, and my bike and erg watts differ by about 75w for almost any duration (I can do 390w for 7-8 minutes on the bike, but only 320 for a 2k; likewise, I can do 350 for an hour on the bike, but I'd be hard pressed to manage 275 on the erg -- 250 *might* be my limit right now).
Comparisons between the two sports are nifty, and I've wasted a huge amount of time and words blabbing on about it in this post. In the end, I don't think it matters much. Your watts are your watts. The relationship between the two sports is going to depend on a lot of variables, and in the end you have to work on whatever your weaknesses are, in either or both activities (a six-four, 200lb rower is going to be able to put out hella watts on a bike, but he's going to get dropped like a stone on the first real hill, and he's going to have the aerodynamics of a barn; a 140lb climber may be able to whip out nearly 6 w/kg at MLSS, but he's not going to have a lot of meat for the boat, where absolute power beats relative power, even among lightweights -- both of those athletes will have to work on some weaknesses and learn to work within their limiters).