Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages - Page 120 - 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
  #1191  
Old 09-15-12, 01:14
luckyboy's Avatar
luckyboy luckyboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 7,350
Default

No that data is the average w/kg in Grand Tours since 2000. List above is the Vuelta since 2000.
__________________
in the drops

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackcat View Post
you must respect the Cobra, a man who can give himself his own nickname. he trancends hubris.
Reply With Quote
  #1192  
Old 09-15-12, 01:42
JRanton JRanton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyboy View Post
No that data is the average w/kg in Grand Tours since 2000. List above is the Vuelta since 2000.
So it's pretty meaningless then given the differences in parcours etc? There was a post by the inner ring a few days ago suggesting that the Vuelta had the highest w/kg of all the grand tours this year and yet the list on the last page shows Wiggins 2012 Tour higher than Contador 2012 Vuelta.
Reply With Quote
  #1193  
Old 09-15-12, 02:14
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,484
Default

It's a terrible way of looking at things.

The Tour there were probably only three climbs they looked at (none of which had any resemblance to Vuelta/Giro climbs). The Vuelta it was probably 7. The Giro they soft-pedalled the first 4 meaningful climbs so it brings the average well down not to mention overall stages being much harder.

Last edited by Ferminal; 09-15-12 at 02:17.
Reply With Quote
  #1194  
Old 09-15-12, 21:50
goggalor's Avatar
goggalor goggalor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,246
Default

Vaughters thinks those numbers should be "HUGE news"... even though a guy like Flandis is way down in 34th, and Wiggins 2012 beats Lance anno 2000 and 2002.
__________________
"After studying my own case, I know the possibility of eating meat contaminated with Clenbuterol is very small but it is possible because farmers always want to boost animal growth." ~Alessandro ColÚ
Reply With Quote
  #1195  
Old 09-16-12, 01:17
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goggalor View Post
Vaughters thinks those numbers should be "HUGE news"... even though a guy like Flandis is way down in 34th, and Wiggins 2012 beats Lance anno 2000 and 2002.
It cracks me up how you guys lap this sh!t up. Did you not understand the above posts that said it is a meaningless way to analyze performance?

besides if you check the actual link it is a post made by same random on a Finnish website 2 days ago. So where does Vaughters say "those numbers" and is specifically referring to the post on www.fillarifoorumi.fi?? It's certainly not something that I would bet on unless I had spent time doing a thorough analysis to first check and see if that poster has done it correctly to begin with. It seems clear they are using VAM to determine w/kg but have they corrected for altitude and gradient for example?

On doping matters I would take whatever Ferrari says with a grain of salt, but on pure performance matters I can see no reason to dispute the below....

Quote:
VAM: Effects of Gradient & Altitude
By: Michele Ferrari
Published: 19 Jun 2009

When evaluating the VAM of a certain climbing performance we need to consider wind, drafting, asphalt conditions but also average SLOPE GRADIENT of the climb and the ALTITUDES at the start and end of the ascent.

There is quite a difference between a VAM obtained on an average gradient of 10% than one with the same value but obtained over a climb at 7%.
Over the years I have been putting together and using a simple formula which is useful when comparing VAM's expressed over different gradients.
For example, a VAM=1800 m/h corresponds to a different value in watt/kg, depending on the average gradient of the climb:

- gradient 11% 1800/3.1 = 5.80 w/kg
- gradient 10% 1800/3.0 = 6.00 w/kg
- gradient 9% 1800/2.9 = 6.20 w/kg
- gradient 8% 1800/2.8 = 6.42 w/kg
- gradient 7% 1800/2.7 = 6.66 w/kg
- gradient 6% 1800/2.6 = 6.92 w/kg

It is therefore simply enough to subdivide the VAM value with a certain number, between 2.6 up to 3.1, in accordance with the steepness of the climb (from 6% to 11%).

At higher ALTITUDES, barometric pressure and the partial oxygen pressure (PpO2) reduce by about 6% every 500m of elevation.

A very interesting study (J.Appl.Physiol. 1996;80:2204-2210) verified in laboratory how 11 elite cyclists (VO2max = 77ml/kg/min) presented an average decrease in their VO2max by 6.8% at an altitude of 580 m, compared to sea level values.

53x12.com
Reply With Quote
  #1196  
Old 09-16-12, 11:05
goggalor's Avatar
goggalor goggalor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
It cracks me up how you guys lap this sh!t up. Did you not understand the above posts that said it is a meaningless way to analyze performance?

besides if you check the actual link it is a post made by same random on a Finnish website 2 days ago. So where does Vaughters say "those numbers" and is specifically referring to the post on www.fillarifoorumi.fi?? It's certainly not something that I would bet on unless I had spent time doing a thorough analysis to first check and see if that poster has done it correctly to begin with. It seems clear they are using VAM to determine w/kg but have they corrected for altitude and gradient for example?

On doping matters I would take whatever Ferrari says with a grain of salt, but on pure performance matters I can see no reason to dispute the below....
https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/246703068903788545

The full tweet has a link to http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/s...52#post1906952.
__________________
"After studying my own case, I know the possibility of eating meat contaminated with Clenbuterol is very small but it is possible because farmers always want to boost animal growth." ~Alessandro ColÚ

Last edited by goggalor; 09-16-12 at 11:12.
Reply With Quote
  #1197  
Old 11-14-12, 12:17
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,484
Default

Climbing performances of the top3 from each GT (used Scarponi instead of TDG) on final climbs.

Data from this thread, Vetoo and jens. W/kg is Ferrari calc.



Cervinia 6.76%
Resinelli 7.86%
Giau 9.36%
Pampeago 9.90%
Stelvio 7.17%

Belles Filles 8.53%
La Toussuire 6.08%
Peyresourde 6.92%
Peyresourde 7.32%

Arrate 8.28%
Gallina 8.03%
Ancares 8.20%
Covadonga 8.85%
Pajares 7.00%
Cuitu Negru 13.32%
Bola del Mundo 8.60%

Last edited by Ferminal; 11-15-12 at 04:06.
Reply With Quote
  #1198  
Old 11-15-12, 04:09
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,484
Default

2011 very scattered, a brutal Giro, crazy tactics in the Tour and then pure power in the Vuelta.



Etna 1208m 6.36%
Kasereck 607m 9.63%
Zoncolan 1194m 11.94%
Gardeccia 618m 10.00%
Macugnaga 277m 5.54%
Finestre 1694 9.18%

Luz Ardiden 979m 7.36%
PdB 1245m 7.88%
Galibier 587m 6.83%
Galibier 1139m 6.82%
Alpe d'Huez 1119m 8.11%

La Covatilla 645m 8.10%
Manzaneda 271m 6.80%
Somiedo 521m 8.70%
Angliru 1194m 10.30%
Pena Cabarga 550m 9.20%
Reply With Quote
  #1199  
Old 11-15-12, 07:08
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,484
Default

So far it's looking like 2010 > 2012 = 2011.



Terminillo 1133m 7,55%
Monte Grappa 1466m 8.14%
Zoncolan 1194m 11.94%
Mortirolo 1289 10.88%
Tonale 311m 6.22%

Avoriaz 831m 6.10%
Madeleine 1607m 7.08%
Croix Neuve 312m 10.10%
Bonascre 664m 7.46%
Bales 1178 6.10%
Tourmalet 1387m 7.46%

Xorret del Cati 440m 11.58%
Vallnord 655m 6.55%
Pena Cabarga 550m 9.20%
Covadonga 708m 8.85%
Cotobello 813 8.13%
Bola del Mundo 963m 8.60%

Last edited by Ferminal; 11-15-12 at 07:11.
Reply With Quote
  #1200  
Old 11-15-12, 07:13
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,703
Default

Impressive work, Fermi. Are you going to do 2009 as well? The year of the coming of Wiggo?
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
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 10:23.


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.