How Many Watts Does a Tour de France Cyclist Produce? Power, W/kg and Comparison With an Amateur

What do watts actually measure in cycling?

Watts measure mechanical power: how quickly a rider is doing work on the bicycle. They are one of the clearest ways to quantify effort because they react instantly when the rider pushes harder or eases off.

In practical cycling terms, power comes from torque applied to the drivetrain and the angular speed at which that torque is delivered. A power meter measures the forces involved and turns them into a number expressed in watts. If a rider accelerates out of a corner, attacks on a climb or launches a sprint, the number rises immediately. If he freewheels downhill, power can fall close to zero even while the bicycle is travelling at very high speed.

That is the first reason why asking for a single “Tour de France watt number” can be misleading. A rider can spend one moment producing 120 W while sitting comfortably inside the bunch, another moment riding at 400 W on a climb, and a few seconds above 1,000 W in an acceleration or sprint. The stage average mixes all of those conditions together.

Power is different from speed. Speed is influenced by wind, gradient, aerodynamics, road surface, drafting, tyre resistance and body mass. Watts describe what the rider is putting into the bicycle at that moment. This is why a professional can travel at extreme speed in the bunch while producing far less power than he would need alone.

Power is also different from heart rate. Heart rate responds with a delay and can be influenced by heat, fatigue, hydration, altitude and stress. Power responds immediately to the external work being produced. Coaches therefore use power to analyse pacing, training load, race demands and the relationship between short bursts and sustainable effort.

The most useful question is not simply, “How many watts does a Tour rider produce?” A better set of questions is: for how long, at what body mass, on what terrain, after how much previous work, and in what tactical situation? Those details completely change the meaning of the number.

How many watts does a Tour de France cyclist produce?

The honest answer is a range, not a single number. Tour riders move through everything from low-power drafting to prolonged high-intensity climbing and explosive sprinting.

Peer-reviewed research gives useful reference points. A study of professional stage racing reported an average of 220 ± 22 W, equivalent to 3.1 ± 0.2 W/kg, across five mass-start stages. In the same dataset, an uphill time trial averaged 392 ± 60 W and 5.5 ± 0.4 W/kg. Those numbers demonstrate how strongly terrain and race format change the power demand.

Another study comparing a professional cyclist with a recreational rider over the Tour de France route found average outputs of 3.45 W/kg for the professional and 1.50 W/kg for the recreational rider. The professional completed the route in 87 hours compared with 191 hours for the recreational cyclist. The comparison is striking because it reflects not only a laboratory test but the ability to repeat work day after day across the same demanding route.

At the higher end of sustained performance, research on WorldTour cyclists has shown that nearly all monitored riders could maintain 5 W/kg in a controlled test, many reached 5.5 W/kg, and a smaller group sustained 6 W/kg for ten minutes. A review of power profiling in cycling also notes that top Grand Tour general classification contenders may need around 5.8 W/kg for 20 minutes on key mountain climbs.

Absolute power can be equally impressive. A 2024 study examining the racing demands of Grand Tour winners reported an FTP of 413 W and critical power of 417 W for the male winner studied. These are not universal values for every Tour rider, but they show the level that can exist at the very top of Grand Tour competition.

At the sprinting end of the spectrum, professional road-sprint research has measured peak power around 17.4 ± 1.7 W/kg in high-level sprinting. For a large 75 kg sprinter, 17.4 W/kg corresponds to approximately 1,305 W. Heavier or more explosive riders can momentarily produce even larger absolute numbers, while lighter climbers generally produce lower peak watts but far stronger relative power over longer climbs.

These figures should be read as scientifically grounded reference points, not as universal limits. A 60 kg climber, an 80 kg sprinter and a 70 kg all-rounder can be equally elite while producing very different absolute watts.

Average watts during a Tour de France stage: why the number can surprise you

Many fans expect a Tour rider to average 400 W all day. That is not how road racing works. Whole-stage average power can be much lower because the race includes drafting, descents, coasting, feeding and tactical pauses.

A stage average compresses a complex day into one number. Imagine a mountain stage with a long neutral tactical phase, several descents where the rider pedals little, a controlled valley section in the bunch and then one final climb ridden near the limit. The decisive climb may require extraordinary power even though the stage average looks modest.

The professional stage-racing study that reported 220 ± 22 W over five mass-start stages is useful precisely because it shows the difference between average load and decisive load. The same riders in the study averaged 392 ± 60 W in an uphill time trial. One number describes the mixture of an entire race day; the other describes a concentrated climbing effort.

Average power also depends on rider role. A protected general classification leader may spend large portions of a flat stage sheltered by teammates. A breakaway rider can record much higher average power because he spends hours exposed to the wind. A domestique collecting bottles and moving through the convoy may have repeated surges. A sprinter may ride economically for most of the day and then perform a series of violent accelerations late in the stage.

This is why comparing average power screenshots without context is dangerous. Two riders can finish together with very different average watts because one rode at the front of the bunch, one drafted deeply, one was in the breakaway and one had a different body mass or aerodynamic position.

There is also a large difference between average power and normalized or weighted metrics used by training platforms. Variable road racing produces repeated surges that can be physiologically harder than a perfectly steady effort with the same arithmetic average. A low-power descent and a high-power climb can average to a moderate number while placing very high demands on the body.

For fans interested in how power translates into road speed, our guide to Tour de France average speed on flats, climbs, descents and sprints explains why the same watt output can produce very different speeds depending on terrain and aerodynamics.

Why watts per kilogram matter more than raw watts on climbs

Absolute watts tell you how much power a rider produces. Watts per kilogram tell you how much power is available relative to body mass. On steep climbs, that difference is fundamental.

The calculation is simple: divide watts by body mass in kilograms. A 60 kg rider producing 360 W is riding at 6.0 W/kg. An 80 kg rider producing 400 W is riding at 5.0 W/kg. The heavier rider produces more absolute power, but the lighter rider has the higher power-to-weight ratio.

On flat roads at high speed, aerodynamic drag dominates. A larger rider can often benefit from higher absolute power because the aerodynamic penalty of a larger body is not proportional to the increase in mass. On steep climbs, gravity makes body mass increasingly important, and high W/kg becomes one of the clearest performance indicators.

That is why climbers are often lighter and sprinters often heavier. The sprinter wants very high absolute power and acceleration. The climber wants to carry as little non-functional mass as possible while maintaining extraordinary aerobic power. General classification riders need a compromise: elite climbing W/kg, enough absolute power for time trials and enough durability to repeat both across three weeks.

Scientific literature on professional cycling commonly uses body-mass-normalized power because raw watts alone cannot fairly compare different rider types. A professional review has described maximal power outputs from roughly 370 to 570 W and power at the onset of blood lactate accumulation from 300 to 500 W across professionals, ranges so broad partly because riders have different sizes and specialties.

W/kg is still not a perfect prediction tool. Gradient, air density, rolling resistance, pacing, drafting, wind and fatigue all matter. Recent research on power normalization has also emphasized that neither raw watts nor simple W/kg captures every external force affecting speed. But for sustained climbing, W/kg remains one of the most useful concepts for understanding Tour performance.

How many W/kg can Tour de France riders sustain on climbs?

On decisive climbs, elite Grand Tour riders operate in a range that is far beyond normal recreational cycling, but duration and fatigue must always be specified.

A useful scientific reference comes from power-profile research: a top male general classification contender may need around 5.8 W/kg for 20 minutes on key Grand Tour climbs. That figure should not be treated as a universal fixed threshold for every climb or every edition, but it illustrates the level required near the top of the sport.

The WorldTour metabolomics study adds another perspective. In a group of 21 WorldTour cyclists, all but one could maintain 5 W/kg in the tested protocol, 14 reached 5.5 W/kg, and three sustained 6 W/kg for ten minutes. The result shows how even inside the WorldTour there is a distribution of capacities rather than one number shared by every rider.

Climb duration changes everything. A five-minute attack can be ridden above the power sustainable for a forty-minute ascent. A rider can produce 6.5 W/kg for a short acceleration but not necessarily hold it for an hour. Conversely, a rider able to sustain 5.8 W/kg for twenty minutes after four hours of racing may be more dangerous in the Tour than someone who can hit a spectacular number fresh in a laboratory.

The gradient also changes tactical meaning. On a shallow climb, drafting and absolute power remain more influential. On a steep climb, speed is lower, aerodynamic drag matters less and W/kg becomes more dominant. This is why the same rider can look comfortable on one ascent and vulnerable on another even when the altitude gain is similar.

Altitude can also reduce available power. Research on stage racing at moderate-to-high altitude has examined how power output, cadence, speed and heart rate change as elevation rises. The highest Tour passes therefore add another layer: the rider is not simply fighting gravity but also reduced oxygen availability.

To understand how this power becomes climbing speed, explore our guide to the most famous and legendary Tour de France climbs.

How many watts do Tour riders produce on flat roads?

Flat-road power is highly tactical. A rider can travel at very high speed on surprisingly modest watts inside a well-organised bunch, while a breakaway rider at the same speed may need far more power.

On flat terrain, most of the rider's work at high speed goes into overcoming aerodynamic drag. Because drag rises sharply with speed, riding alone at 45 km/h is very expensive. Sitting behind other riders changes the equation dramatically. The protected rider experiences less air resistance and can conserve energy while the front riders do much more work.

This creates enormous variation in power data during flat stages. One rider can be at the front producing high steady watts, while a teammate only a few positions back is producing much less. A rider deep in the bunch may alternate between pedalling lightly, coasting and short bursts to close small gaps.

Breakaway riders face a different reality. A group of four or five riders must rotate through the wind, each taking turns at the front. Their average power can be substantially higher than that of protected riders in the main group, even though the race result may eventually bring everyone back together.

Absolute power becomes especially important on fast flat roads. A heavier rouleur or time-trial specialist may produce 400 W or more for sustained periods while benefiting from strong aerodynamics. A very light climber might have excellent W/kg but less absolute power, so he may struggle to match the same solo speed against the wind.

This explains why one cannot rank Tour riders only by W/kg. A complete team needs climbers, sprinters, time-trial specialists, road captains and domestiques with different power profiles. The Tour de France 2026 teams, riders and leaders guide helps show how these different roles fit together.

Time-trial power: where absolute watts and aerodynamics meet

A Tour time trial is not simply a contest to produce the biggest watt number. The winning performance is the fastest combination of sustainable power, aerodynamic drag, pacing and course-specific skill.

The study reporting 392 ± 60 W and 5.5 ± 0.4 W/kg in an uphill time trial is a useful example of the enormous demand of climbing against the clock. On flatter time trials, riders may sustain very high absolute power, but body size, frontal area, equipment and position all influence the speed created by those watts.

Two riders can produce the same 400 W and record different times because one has a lower aerodynamic drag area. Conversely, a rider with lower power but exceptional aerodynamics can sometimes match or beat a stronger rider on a fast course. Teams spend large resources optimizing helmets, skinsuits, wheel choices, handlebar positions and pacing plans because small improvements matter over tens of kilometres.

The 2024 Grand Tour winner study reporting a male FTP of 413 W and critical power of 417 W illustrates the level of sustained power possible in a top Grand Tour athlete. Yet even this impressive physiology does not guarantee time-trial victory without an efficient position and careful pacing.

Course profile changes strategy. A technical urban time trial rewards acceleration and cornering. A flat straight course rewards aerodynamics and absolute power. A mountain time trial shifts the balance toward W/kg. Mixed courses force riders to decide where to spend limited energy.

The same logic becomes even more complicated in a team time trial because riders rotate through the wind. The leader can benefit from teammates' drafting while stronger rouleurs take longer turns. Our guide to the Tour de France 2026 Barcelona team time trial explains how team power and coordination interact.

How many watts can a Tour de France sprinter produce?

Final sprint power is explosive. Professional road-sprint research has measured peak values around 17.4 ± 1.7 W/kg, but the hardest part is producing that power after a long race and a violent lead-in.

For a 75 kg rider, 17.4 W/kg corresponds to about 1,305 W. For an 80 kg rider, the same relative figure is about 1,392 W. Peak sprint values vary greatly between riders, equipment, measurement systems and race conditions, so a single headline number should not become a universal standard.

More important is the context. A Tour sprinter does not perform a fresh gym sprint. Before the final ten seconds, he may have spent four or five hours racing, climbed several thousand metres, fought for position, accelerated repeatedly out of corners and followed a lead-out at very high speed.

Research on professional sprinting has shown that the final minutes contain a greater number of short high-intensity efforts. This means the winning sprint depends on more than peak power. The rider needs enough aerobic capacity to arrive at the finish with anaerobic capacity still available.

Laboratory and repeated-sprint research also shows that prior high-intensity work can reduce subsequent sprint power. In one elite-cyclist study, peak sprint power declined after prolonged work and then stabilized. That idea is central to road racing: durability determines how much of a rider's fresh power remains after two, four or five hours.

A sprinter also needs positioning. A rider producing enormous watts too early in the wind can lose to a slightly less powerful rival who remains sheltered for longer. Drafting, lead-out timing, gear selection, cadence and the ability to choose the right wheel can decide whether raw power becomes speed at the finish line.

Power by duration: 5 seconds, 1 minute, 5 minutes, 20 minutes and beyond

A cyclist's power profile is a curve. The shorter the duration, the higher the power that can be produced. Tour riders are exceptional because the entire curve is high and because it remains high after fatigue.

A five-second effort reflects explosive neuromuscular power. It matters for sprinting, jumping across gaps and accelerating out of corners. One minute involves a major anaerobic contribution and can decide short steep climbs or attacks. Five minutes is heavily aerobic but still above sustainable threshold for most riders. Twenty minutes becomes a key window for mountain attacks and threshold-oriented performance. Several hours describe endurance and durability.

Power profiling research has emphasized that maximal mean power must always be linked to duration. A top general classification contender's relevant twenty-minute power is not the same as a sprinter's five-second peak. Both can be world class in completely different ways.

For an amateur, the lesson is useful: comparing one best twenty-minute test with a professional's race data can be misleading. The professional may be producing his number after thousands of kilojoules of previous work, at altitude, in heat, during the third week of a Grand Tour.

Durability: the hidden power advantage of a Tour professional

The biggest difference between a Tour rider and a strong amateur is often not the fresh FTP test. It is how little performance the professional loses after hours of racing.

This concept is often called durability. A rider may begin the day with excellent short-duration and threshold power, but after 2,500 or 3,500 kilojoules of work his power profile can decline. The rider who retains more of his fresh capacity becomes dangerous in the final hour.

Recent research has increasingly focused on fatigue and accumulated work because fresh laboratory values do not fully explain race success. A systematic review on durability has reported power declines after substantial prior work and highlighted that high-intensity accumulated work can impair later performance with a lower total workload than low-intensity work.

This matters enormously in the Tour. A decisive climb rarely begins after a perfect warm-up and a long rest. It begins after hours of racing, feeding, heat exposure, repeated accelerations and sometimes previous climbs. The race winner is not necessarily the rider with the best fresh five-minute power. It may be the rider who can still access nearly all of that power after a huge workload.

The recreational-versus-professional Tour-route study makes this difference vivid. The professional averaged 3.45 W/kg over the route and completed it in 87 hours, while the recreational cyclist averaged 1.50 W/kg and took 191 hours. This is not simply a snapshot of one maximal effort; it reflects the ability to sustain and repeat output across an enormous endurance challenge.

Durability also explains why professional racing can look deceptively easy for hours. The riders are not trying to prove their maximum power at kilometre 50. They are preserving capacity for the moment that decides the stage. Drafting, nutrition and tactical patience are all ways of protecting the power that will be needed later.

Tour de France professional vs amateur: the real power comparison

An amateur can produce impressive watts, especially for short durations. The gap becomes much larger when power is normalized to body mass, extended in duration and repeated after fatigue.

Published literature often places professional FTP in the broad range of roughly 5–6 W/kg and trained amateur FTP around 3–5 W/kg. These are broad categories, not rigid borders. A very strong amateur racer may overlap with lower professional values in a fresh test, while a world-class Grand Tour contender operates at the extreme end of the distribution and combines it with exceptional durability.

The Tour-route comparison is one of the clearest demonstrations available: 3.45 W/kg average for the professional and 1.50 W/kg for the recreational cyclist over the route, with completion times of 87 and 191 hours respectively. The professional was not merely faster for one climb; he could maintain a much higher relative workload across the entire event.

Body mass matters when comparing absolute power. A 90 kg recreational rider with 300 W FTP produces 3.33 W/kg. A 60 kg elite climber at 360 W produces 6.0 W/kg. The amateur may see only a 60 W difference on the head unit, but the climbing performance gap is enormous.

The comparison should therefore be framed correctly. A strong amateur may produce 1,000 W in a short sprint or 350 W for twenty minutes. That does not mean he is “almost Tour level.” The Tour rider combines high power across many durations with low aerodynamic drag, efficient movement in the bunch, heat tolerance, recovery, nutrition strategy and the ability to repeat the performance for three weeks.

Why body weight completely changes the meaning of watts

A watt is always a watt, but race performance depends on what the rider must move through air and against gravity. That is why absolute power and W/kg answer different questions.

Suppose two riders both produce 350 W. Rider A weighs 60 kg, so he produces 5.83 W/kg. Rider B weighs 80 kg, so he produces 4.38 W/kg. On a steep climb, Rider A has a major advantage in relative power. On a flat time trial, Rider B may still be faster if his aerodynamic position and absolute power-to-drag relationship are better.

Professional cycling specialties emerge from this physics. Climbers carry low body mass and seek extraordinary relative power. Sprinters accept higher mass because muscle can support enormous absolute power. Rouleurs and time-trialists often sit between these extremes, combining large sustainable watts with refined aerodynamics.

Weight loss is therefore not automatically performance improvement. If a rider loses body mass but also loses power, W/kg may stay the same or become worse. Excessive weight reduction can also harm recovery, immunity and training quality. At elite level, body composition must be managed carefully and professionally.

The Tour creates a constant compromise. The general classification contender needs to climb with the best but also limit losses in time trials. The ideal build changes with the route. A Tour with many long steep climbs may reward lower mass; a Tour with long flat time trials may increase the importance of absolute power and aerodynamics.

Why a Tour rider can go 50 km/h on surprisingly low watts

Drafting is one of the reasons power numbers confuse viewers. Speed and watts are not interchangeable, especially inside a dense, fast-moving bunch.

A rider alone must push through the air. At high speed, aerodynamic drag becomes the dominant resistance. Inside the bunch, surrounding riders reduce the effective wind resistance, so a protected rider can travel at the same road speed for much lower power.

The benefit changes with position, wind direction, bunch shape and road layout. A rider near the front may still be exposed. A rider deeper in the group can save more energy, but faces greater risk of crashes, gaps and accordion effects out of corners.

This is why team leaders spend much of flat stages surrounded by domestiques. The objective is not only safety. It is energy conservation. Every unnecessary watt spent in the first four hours is a watt that may be unavailable on the final climb.

The breakaway experiences the opposite. Riders must take turns in the wind, so each one alternates between high power at the front and recovery in the line. A bunch can ride faster than a small escape while many protected riders in the bunch individually produce less average power.

The Tour is therefore not a laboratory ergometer. The winner is not decided by ranking raw power files from highest to lowest. Efficiency, positioning and tactical use of drafting determine how much speed a rider gets from his available energy.

FTP, critical power and threshold: what is the difference?

Cycling discussions often use FTP as shorthand for sustainable power, but FTP, critical power and physiological thresholds are related concepts rather than perfect synonyms.

Functional Threshold Power is commonly described as the highest power a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady state for around one hour. In practice, riders often estimate it through shorter tests, but research has questioned whether different FTP protocols always agree perfectly with critical power or physiological threshold measures.

Critical power comes from the mathematical relationship between power and time to exhaustion across multiple efforts. It represents the boundary between heavy and severe exercise-intensity domains within a specific model. It can be close to FTP in some athletes but should not automatically be treated as identical.

Physiological thresholds can also be defined through lactate, ventilation or other markers. Different methods can produce slightly different numbers. That is why a professional team's performance staff does not base training and race decisions on one test alone.

The 2024 Grand Tour winner study is interesting because it reported both FTP and critical power for the male cyclist studied: 413 W and 417 W respectively. Their closeness in that athlete does not prove universal equivalence, but it shows why both metrics can be useful when interpreted correctly.

For amateur riders, the practical lesson is to use consistent testing methods and track trends rather than obsessing over a single label. If one platform says FTP is 300 W and another method estimates 310 W, the important question is whether training zones, interval execution and progress monitoring are internally consistent.

How to read professional power numbers without being misled

Power data become useful only when duration, body mass, stage context and fatigue are known. Without those variables, a screenshot can create more confusion than understanding.

1. Ask for duration

“He did 500 W” is almost meaningless without time. Five seconds at 500 W is modest for a professional sprinter. Five minutes at 500 W is exceptional. One hour at 500 W would represent an entirely different physiological level.

2. Ask for body mass

400 W from a 60 kg rider is 6.67 W/kg. The same 400 W from an 80 kg rider is 5.0 W/kg. Both can be elite, but they describe different performance profiles.

3. Ask what came before

A fresh twenty-minute test and a twenty-minute mountain effort after four hours of racing are not equivalent. The second may reveal durability far better than the first.

4. Ask whether the data are measured or estimated

Power-meter files are direct field measurements subject to device accuracy and calibration. Climbing-power calculations based on speed, mass, gradient and environmental assumptions are estimates. Both can be useful, but they should not be presented as the same type of evidence.

5. Ask about terrain and drafting

On a climb, W/kg is central. On a flat road, aerodynamics and drafting can dominate. On a descent, speed may remain high at almost zero watts.

6. Do not compare unrelated power meters blindly

Power meters differ in measurement location, calibration and error characteristics. Research on power-meter validity recommends careful attention to metrological properties and testing conditions. Small percentage differences become important when people argue over elite performances separated by only a few watts.

Can an amateur train toward Tour-level watts?

An amateur can improve power enormously, but Tour-level physiology is the result of genetics, years of training, professional recovery, tactical skill and exceptional durability.

The best approach is not to copy a Tour rider's watt numbers. Training should be scaled to the rider's own thresholds, history and goals. An interval that is recovery pace for a professional could be impossible for an amateur, while the structure of the workout may still be useful when expressed as a percentage of personal capacity.

Consistent endurance training improves aerobic capacity, efficiency and fatigue resistance. Threshold and high-intensity work can raise sustainable power and VO₂max when programmed appropriately. Strength training can also support performance in some cyclists. But progress depends on recovery, nutrition and progressive load, not simply chasing a famous number on the bike computer.

For most amateurs, the biggest gains come from consistency. Riding four structured sessions every week for a year is more valuable than one month of extreme training followed by exhaustion or injury. Long endurance rides improve the ability to maintain power late in the day, while intervals target specific parts of the power-duration curve.

Body mass should be managed carefully. Increasing W/kg through better power is usually safer than aggressive weight loss. Riders seeking body-composition changes should protect health, training quality and recovery rather than treating the lowest possible scale number as the goal.

Technique also matters. An amateur can become faster without changing FTP by improving aerodynamics, descending, cornering, pacing, feeding and bunch positioning. Tour professionals are fast because every part of the system is highly developed.

Why power alone does not win the Tour de France

Power is essential, but a three-week race is won by the athlete who turns physiology into speed, tactical decisions and repeatable performance.

A rider can have extraordinary laboratory numbers and still lose time through poor positioning, crashes, technical descents, heat management, nutrition mistakes or a badly timed attack. The Tour punishes small errors because every stage creates a different problem.

General classification contenders need elite climbing power, strong time-trial capacity and durability. Sprinters need explosive power after long stages. Domestiques need repeated work capacity and the ability to recover overnight. Teams need tactical control and riders willing to spend energy for a leader.

This is why the best Tour rider is not automatically the rider with the highest five-second, five-minute or twenty-minute number. Victory requires a complete profile and an ability to express it at the right moment.

The Tour de France 2026 favourites guide explores how different contenders combine climbing, time trials and team strength.

In summary: how many watts does a Tour de France cyclist produce?

There is no single Tour de France watt number. A professional rider's output changes continuously with drafting, gradient, race role and tactical phase. One scientific stage-racing dataset reported 220 ± 22 W and 3.1 ± 0.2 W/kg across mass-start stages, while the same research reported 392 ± 60 W and 5.5 ± 0.4 W/kg in an uphill time trial.

At the top end of sustained relative power, WorldTour research shows that elite riders can operate around 5 to 6 W/kg for meaningful durations, while power-profile literature indicates that around 5.8 W/kg for twenty minutes can be required for top Grand Tour climbing competitiveness. Sprinting is a different world: professional road-sprint research has measured peak power around 17.4 ± 1.7 W/kg.

The amateur comparison is even more revealing when fatigue is included. In a study comparing a professional and recreational cyclist over the Tour route, average power outputs were 3.45 and 1.50 W/kg respectively, while completion times were 87 and 191 hours.

The most important conclusion is that Tour performance cannot be reduced to one FTP figure. The defining qualities are high power across multiple durations, high W/kg for climbs, high absolute power when speed demands it, and exceptional durability after hours of accumulated work.

More Tour de France guides

Power is one part of Tour performance. Explore speed, route, teams, climbs and race rules with these connected guides.

Scientific sources and further reading

↑ Back to the top