FTP remains one of the most popular and widely used metrics in cycling. Coaches rely on it, training apps rely on it, platforms rely on it — and almost every rider who has ever done an FTP test treats it as an important benchmark. But the more we try to apply FTP as a one-size-fits-all indicator for every type of race, the clearer it becomes: FTP is important, but very limited. It is definitely not a universal measure of cycling performance.
Why FTP Doesn’t Reflect Real Racing Fitness
FTP measures the power a rider can sustain for roughly one hour in a steady state. On paper, it sounds convincing: if you can hold, say, 300 watts for an hour, you should be strong in any race… right?
In practice, the body behaves very differently depending on the demands of the event: its duration, intensity, terrain, and the pattern of efforts.
Change the Distance — and Everything Changes
An hour-long, steady-state effort does correlate well with FTP. But take those same numbers into a criterium, and suddenly two riders with identical FTP can perform completely differently. One survives dozens of sharp accelerations; the other gets dropped on the fifth surge. Short, punchy races depend far more on peak power, repeatability of efforts, and the ability to recover quickly — areas where FTP tells you almost nothing.
In long endurance events, the opposite is true: efficiency, ability to ride below threshold, metabolic flexibility, heat tolerance, and the capacity to hold power after three to four hours become far more important. In those situations, your “hour power” is just a small piece of the puzzle.
Terrain Breaks the FTP Illusion Even More
FTP doesn’t explain how a rider will perform in the mountains. Uphill, watts per kilogram and the ability to produce power at low cadence and low speed matter much more. On flat terrain, however, absolute power and aerodynamics dominate. A rider with an excellent aero position and a lower FTP can easily ride away from someone with 20–30 more watts but a less efficient posture.
Body Mass and Muscle Composition Change Everything Too
FTP in watts and FTP in watts per kilogram describe two different realities. A lightweight climber may dominate on ascents but struggle on flat roads. A heavier, more powerful rider might suffer on climbs but excel in flat races.
Add to this the influence of muscle fiber composition. Explosive athletes can post impressive FTP test numbers but struggle to sustain steady efforts. More endurance-oriented riders can hold power longer but lack peak explosiveness. These traits influence real racing performance far more than a single FTP value.
The Most Underrated Factor: Fatigue Resistance
One of the biggest blind spots in amateur and even competitive cycling is how differently riders lose power over time. Some are brilliant on fresh legs but lose a third of their power after three hours. Others barely fade. This ability — fatigue resistance — often predicts performance in long races much better than FTP does.
Two riders may have identical FTPs, but after 120 km one can still hold 80–85% of threshold, while the other is stuck around 65%. In a real race, that difference is decisive.
So Is FTP the Main Metric?
FTP is a great baseline. It shows where your aerobic system stands, helps structure training zones, and tracks long-term progress. But when it comes to actual racing, FTP alone is nowhere near enough.
Performance is shaped by a complex mix of qualities: anaerobic capacity, sprint ability, recovery between efforts, efficiency, aerodynamics, metabolic flexibility, pacing strategy, heat tolerance, durability over long durations, and overall resilience. Together, they paint a far more accurate portrait of a rider than any single metric.
FTP is a useful tool — but it’s the whole athlete, not the number, that wins races.