Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky - Page 35 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #341  
Old 11-04-12, 23:41
simo1733 simo1733 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brunei
Posts: 1,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biker jk View Post
Why doesn't Sky release Wiggins' blood values and have Dr Ashenden examine them? Surely that would help provide transparency?
Better to have them tested by a leading expert who is less concerned about celebrity.
Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 11-05-12, 00:24
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tank Engine View Post
3. Performance levels. These are in no way conclusive of doping, since they are within the acceptable range of athletic performance. This could be seen as evidence of "cleanliness". On the other hand, you might say that of the five Sky riders who have shown a marked improvement in their performance over the last year, four of those belong to the "inner sanctum" (the other being Nordhaug). One of these four, Froome had only previously shown brief flashes of form, but has podiumed 2GTs in the last year. He also suffered from a disease affecting the blood. So where is this improvement from and is the disease a cover up for a crazy passport, one might ask. In the mountains at the TdF he seemed a level above everybody else. It is natural that a cyclist of his age and history should improve, but to that degree after a serious illness?
Ok I will have one last stab at this....

Wiggins has not improved his performance in short ITTs such as prologues compared with Cancellara from 2007 through 2012.

Compare:
TdF prologue 2007 (7.9km)
Cancellara = 8:50
Wiggins @ 23sec

TdF prologue 2012 (6.4km)
Cancellara = 7:13
Wiggins @ 7sec

When you plug these numbers into cyclingpowermodels, assign 7kg as bike weight and equalize wind and gradient to zero for each rider and each prologue (which are assumptions but the best we can do without proper environmental data) and you use the riders own estimated cda (but you use Hincapie's CdA from 2007 instead of Wiggins since in 2007 Wiggins weighed about 78kg which is close to Hincapie's 79) then you get the following estimated power outputs:

2007
Cancellara = 597W
Wiggins = 529W

2012
Cancellara = 583W
Wiggins = 526W

ZOMG! No change!!

A 5% increase in VO2max from doping means that Wiggins should at least have been matching Cancellara's time in 2012 and a 10% increase in VO2max means that Wiggins should have beaten him by about 10sec.

So basically everything hangs on the weight issue. If Wiggins lost power and he went backwards by 10-20sec over 7kms or so, then it looks as though he could have regained that from doping. If Wiggins did not lose power as a result of dropping from 77-78kg (2007) to 71-72kg (2012) then his prologue performances indicate he did not commence a doping program, or at the very least he didn't get much out of it if he did. Furthermore, Wiggins could have lost power, but improved cda or bike handling skills so that his avg velocity for a given power improved slightly. I wonder if Team Sky worked on that sort of stuff over the past 3yrs?

edit: and just in case the following point has escaped you, what the above shows is that 5-10% changes in absolute VO2max and thus peak aerobic power only make about 10-20sec changes in time over these short distances. These obviously extend out to minutes over longer distances eg: 50km but the question is how much do differences in cda and bike handling skills make?

Wiggins did 50.0kph average in stage 19 ITT of the 2012 TdF which says 462W if you apply the default assumptions (eg: zero wind, gradient etc). If you drop the cda down to 0.235 the power drops to 454 and 446 @ 0.23. Those differences are equivalent to changes in VO2max of 1.5% (if we assume that Wiggins rode at 90% VO2max for the ITT). So a drop in cda from 0.2398 down to 0.23 would mean that Wiggins could have a VO2max 3% lower and still go the same speed.

If acoggan is reading this I would be interested to know if that sort of change in cda is possible or reasonable? Is the default value of 0.2398 even correct??

Now the point here going back to the weight loss issue is that Wiggins could lose 3% of his absolute VO2max and still go the same speed in a long (50km) ITT as a result of weight loss (ie: 462 down to 446W), but lets assume 462W is his FTP @ 77.5kg and 446W is his FTP @ 71.5kg. That would change the FTP w/kg from 5.96 up to 6.24.

Comprende? A weight loss of 7kg could be achieved with a corresponding decrease in VO2max power at 3% and this would INCREASE w/kg by a whopping 9.5% but the same person would only need to improve their cda by 0.01 units to maintain ITT performance.

acoggan is the go to guy for this.... how hard is it to alter cda by 0.01 units????????

Last edited by Krebs cycle; 11-05-12 at 02:11.
Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 11-05-12, 00:54
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
Ok I will have one last stab at this....

Wiggins has not improved his performance in short ITTs such as prologues compared with Cancellara from 2007 through 2012.

Compare:
TdF prologue 2007 (7.9km)
Cancellara = 8:50
Wiggins @ 23sec
ie Wiggins needs to produce 13.5% more power to match Cancellara - and has the same (or more) weight as Cancellara
Type this into google: (60*7.9/(8+50/60))/(60*7.9/(8+73/60)))^3

Quote:
Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Cofidis - Le Crédit par Téléphone 17:55
Fabian Cancellara (Swi) Team CSC 18:06
TdF prologue 2012 (6.4km)
Cancellara = 7:13
Wiggins @ 7sec
ie Wiggins needs to produce 4.9% more power to match Cancellara - and now weighs ~10% less than Cancellara
More google math: (60*6.4/(7+13/60))/(60*6.4/(7+20/60)))^3

Quote:
188 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Sky Procycling 17:07:00
197 Fabian Cancellara (Swi) RadioShack-Nissan 17:16:00
I've included start times to show they were 11 and 9 minutes apart - so the conditions should have been remarkably similar.

You can ignore the variables of weight, CdA etc and just calculate the power increase required based on (V1/V2)^3, given they are traveling around 53km/hr and the majority of their power is going into overcoming wind resistance (vs going uphill). Even allowing for a 10% error - you're going from 12.2% to 5.3% for Wiggins which is a relative drop of 7% power required to match Cancellara.

Exactly the same gain Rogers mentioned in the Ride article - my general threshold power is up 5-7%.

How ironically coincidental.

To me it looks like Wiggins gained a lot - particularly considering Cancellara's weight was mostly static and Wiggins dropped 10%.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog

Last edited by Dear Wiggo; 11-05-12 at 01:10.
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 11-05-12, 01:09
Neworld's Avatar
Neworld Neworld is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 744
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snafu352 View Post
Yawn.

So rant rant rant and no verifible facts.
Yes Brailsford did apparently say that they would not hire anybody associated with doping and that clearly changed; it seems you are upset because you didn't get a personal memo detailing why!
(As a matter of interest have you seen what was in the tome as you describe it, i'd be a little careful getting so worked up over a document i hadn't seen...)

I get the whole impassioned outrage thing you are going for, very honourable, then you go and spoil it with the silly bit about Wiggins, over playing your cards there old son.
Since all of the sky firings....are you still yawning?
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 11-05-12, 01:59
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
I've included start times to show they were 11 and 9 minutes apart - so the conditions should have been remarkably similar.

You can ignore the variables of weight, CdA etc and just calculate the power increase required based on (V1/V2)^3, given they are traveling around 53km/hr and the majority of their power is going into overcoming wind resistance (vs going uphill). Even allowing for a 10% error - you're going from 12.2% to 5.3% for Wiggins which is a relative drop of 7% power required to match Cancellara.

Exactly the same gain Rogers mentioned in the Ride article - my general threshold power is up 5-7%.

How ironically coincidental.

To me it looks like Wiggins gained a lot - particularly considering Cancellara's weight was mostly static and Wiggins dropped 10%.
I included Cancellara merely a reference point. But comparing Wiggins to Cancellara in 2012 and saying that "Wiggins needed to produce 4.9% more power to match Cancellara in 2012" is completely meaningless because Wiggins DIDN'T match Cancellara's time in 2012. You need to examine Wiggins' power in 2007 vs Wiggins' power in 2012.

As stated, I used cyclingpowermodels.com and I changed nothing for Cancellara but I altered Wiggins cda value from 2007 through to 2012 because he lost weight. For the 2007 prologue I used Hincapie's cda value because he is the rider that most closely resembled Wiggins at that time (Wiggins: 1.9m, 78kg vs Hincapie: 1.91m, 79kg) whereas I used Wiggins default cda (1.9m, 69kg) for the 2012 estimation. You cannot ignore the cda value because it is a vital piece of the calculation and the weight loss makes a difference to that value, and since you and others have made such a massive deal about the weight loss, then you must factor that into the calculation (otherwise you're just cherry picking numbers to suit yourself instead of trying to be objective).

When you do that, Wiggins' estimated power in the prologues is the same (almost) in 2007 as it is in 2012, however cyclingpowermodels assumes no change in positioning on the bike which is a missing piece of the puzzle, so any improvement in bike position could affect ITT performance.

Now check my edit above..... a 7kg drop in weight with a corresponding drop in VO2max of 3% would INCREASE w/kg by 9.5%, ie: good for the mountains when you're going slow, however the same decrease in VO2max could be accounted for by a 0.01 units improvement in cda as a result of better bike position.

The important point here is that the weight loss makes a much bigger increase to performance in the mtns than it does a decrease in performance in long ITTs.

Last edited by Krebs cycle; 11-05-12 at 02:18.
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 11-05-12, 02:07
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Also, I'm using the following formula for power vs VO2

VO2 = 0.01141 x (watts) + 0.435

Hawley and Noakes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1505544

I assumed that event duration in the range 7-8min is 10% anaerobic and 90% aerobic
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2759974
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11547894

and I assumed that long ITT performance occurs at 90% VO2max
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 11-05-12, 02:20
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
Cancellara is merely a reference point. Saying that "Wiggins needed to produce 4.9% more power to match Cancellara in 2012" is completely meaningless because Wiggins DIDN'T match Cancellara's time in 2012. You need to examine Wiggins' power in 2007 vs Wiggins' power in 2012.
Yes, I can see he didn't match Cancellara's time - that is quite obvious - I am glad we are in agreement there. To say that this meaningless is wrong, as all the CdA and weight and environmental conditions are already wrapped up in the result.

But if he had wanted to match Cancellara's time, on the day, he definitely WOULD have to increase his power 4.9%, given the speed indicating a flat course (> 50km/hr).

If you are arguing the laws of phsyics do not count, I welcome your reasoning.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 11-05-12, 02:28
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
Yes, I can see he didn't match Cancellara's time - that is quite obvious - I am glad we are in agreement there. To say that this meaningless is wrong, as all the CdA and weight and environmental conditions are already wrapped up in the result.

But if he had wanted to match Cancellara's time, on the day, he definitely WOULD have to increase his power 4.9%, given the speed indicating a flat course (> 50km/hr).

If you are arguing the laws of phsyics do not count, I welcome your reasoning.
Yes I agree. So what is your point? If Wiggins wanted to break the speed of sound he would have needed to increase his power by 10000000%. I'm sure we can all agree on that too.

It is the laws of physics whom are on my side of this debate. A small decrease in VO2max power resulting from a 7kg weight loss makes less difference to velocity when you are smashing along the flat at 50kph (because cda reduces as a result of that weight loss and therefore partially offsets the decrease in power), but that exact same weight loss makes a rather large impact on hill climbing performance when you're going at 15kph and the effect of wind resistance is vastly reduced.

edit: This is probably the reason that all of the world's best cycling time trialists are not 95kg and 2m tall with VO2max values of 6.5-6.7 L/min

Last edited by Krebs cycle; 11-05-12 at 02:41.
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 11-05-12, 02:39
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
Yes I agree. So what is your point? If Wiggins wanted to break the speed of sound he would have needed to increase his power by 10000000%. I'm sure we can all agree on that too.
So my point is - the difference in TT prolog times is small - but so is the distance. The difference in speed is enough that the power required from 2007 - 2012 drops significantly.

To do a bunch of calculations incorporating someone else's CdA based on someone else's weight, etc, etc, to calculate power required then show that there was not a lot of difference, etc - when the course in 2012 had many corners and 180 degree bends and the 2007 course was in LONDON - home ground advantage anyone? - seems less reliable than doing a straight out speed difference ^ 3 ~= power difference required for the same rider.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 11-05-12, 03:51
dsut4392 dsut4392 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedzero View Post
Well, if you cheat and win, by accepting your victory you are (1) layering a lie on top of your cheating and (2) denying a prize to someone else who might have deserved it. So, yeah, cheating and winning (and claiming the win) is worse than cheating and coming in 65th.
If cycling were an individual sport your argument would have merit, but it (cycling) isn't (an individual sport), so it (your argument) doesn't (have merit). The doper coming in 65th is working his backside off trying to help his team leader win. e's claiming his share of the glory on the finish line, his share of the prize purse, and getting a boost to his contract value.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.