Log in:  

Register

Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

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

Moderators: peloton, Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Tonton, Pricey_sky

Re: Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

08 Sep 2016 17:39

For comparison with similar length effort
http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/25/
Le breton
Member
 
Posts: 1,362
Joined: 10 Nov 2009 20:23
Location: switzerland

09 Sep 2016 12:01

Seems like an ok number. Though commentators made mention of rough road surface especially on the insides of the curves. Also, the pace set by the peloton wasnt huge in the first part of the climb, so I think they could've gone a bit faster.
Kwibus wrote:So much quesions they have. Answers they will never get.
So why questions? If no answers?
-Kwibus, one of the great philosophers of the 21st century
User avatar Red Rick
Moderator
 
Posts: 9,476
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15
Location: Procrastination nation

23 Nov 2016 18:02

New paper for everyone to read (12 pages): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9BaZuAbl3tRSXg0SHdXalFlNVk/view

Estimating climbing performances of professional cyclists: a larger dataset

@ammattipyoraily & @thomaswire

Introduction
The initial work done by @ammattipyoraily and @veloclinic (Dr. Mike Puchowicz) [1] focused on the estimation of the power developed by a cyclist during a climb, either being in competition or in training situation. This first “insight” into the data gathering of well-known power estimation through the use of two different models, Doctor’s Ferrari Formula (DrF) [2] and J.Martin et al. equation [3], over 250 climbs.

Starting from this significant basis and following a relatively similar method, the work presented in here considers a grand total of 1252 climbs of sub-parts of climbs, for which the two models pre-cited are applied. We attempt to verify the applicability of such models, their limits and why, if so, they fail.


I haven't read this yet but it looks interesting so far.
User avatar vedrafjord
Member
 
Posts: 665
Joined: 15 Jan 2013 03:35
Location: Land of Ire


12 Mar 2017 10:24

Fast riding yesterday. Very fast: "Nairo Quintana on Terminillo: ∼6.1 w/kg. Richie Porte on Couillole: ∼6.3 w/kg. Both efforts around 41 minutes."

Estimates courtesy of https://mobile.twitter.com/faustocoppi60 who frequently makes such calculations. Porte's Numbers are close to froome PSM and according to the author would warrant a top 10 all time alpe de huez, ie similar to virenque.
User avatar meat puppet
Member
 
Posts: 1,675
Joined: 29 May 2011 06:57

12 Mar 2017 10:37

With Ferrari's formula, Porte was ~6.1 W/kg (and Quintana a bit below that)
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,099
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

12 Mar 2017 10:47

Still quite impressive, thanks! Did you calculate it yourself?
User avatar meat puppet
Member
 
Posts: 1,675
Joined: 29 May 2011 06:57

12 Mar 2017 10:49

Yes, with vetooo's numbers.

Nairo:
Image
Source: https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/840641324403556353

Porte:
Image
Source: https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/840634462073425922

That is with Ferrari's formula, I'm uncertain if (and how much) it underestimates the performances on such climbs.
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,099
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

12 Mar 2017 12:07

I saw earlier estimations by ammattipyoraily estimating Porte at 5.7 That seems low, though ~ 6.1 seems quite high. The climb was very well paced though. They're good numbers though.
Kwibus wrote:So much quesions they have. Answers they will never get.
So why questions? If no answers?
-Kwibus, one of the great philosophers of the 21st century
User avatar Red Rick
Moderator
 
Posts: 9,476
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15
Location: Procrastination nation

12 Mar 2017 17:37

Any Col de Peille data?
Kwibus wrote:So much quesions they have. Answers they will never get.
So why questions? If no answers?
-Kwibus, one of the great philosophers of the 21st century
User avatar Red Rick
Moderator
 
Posts: 9,476
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15
Location: Procrastination nation

Re:

12 Mar 2017 20:46

Red Rick wrote:Any Col de Peille data?

http://www.climbing-records.com/2017/03/another-contador-show-in-paris-nice.html

Cote de Peille
2017:6,6 km@7,0%---15:42---average speed 25.22 km/h(Alberto Contador)
---16:12---average speed 24.44 km/h(Sergio Henao)
2016:6,6 km@7,0%---16:00---average speed 24.75 km/h(Alberto Contador)-Strava
---17:00---average speed 23.29 km/h(30 riders peloton)-Strava
User avatar Mayomaniac
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,752
Joined: 30 Jun 2014 17:11

Re:

13 Mar 2017 04:07

Netserk wrote:Yes, with vetooo's numbers.

Nairo:
Image
Source: https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/840641324403556353

A 58kg rider + 8kg bike+kit I get 6.4W/kg with zero wind Crr 0.004 and CdA 0.32m^2
6.3W/kg if I drop CdA to 0.29m^2
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,036
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

13 Mar 2017 04:15

VAM and W/kg for a rider of Quintana's weight, in no wind conditions on smooth road:

Image
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,036
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

13 Mar 2017 07:02

I know it's higher for lighter riders, but when it's used as a measuring stick, I think it makes better sense to use a standardized weight (like DrF).
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,099
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

Re:

13 Mar 2017 08:00

Netserk wrote:I know it's higher for lighter riders, but when it's used as a measuring stick, I think it makes better sense to use a standardized weight (like DrF).

That makes no sense if you are seeking to compare physiological performance with the same W/kg measuring stick. If not, then one stick has different increments than other.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,036
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

Re:

13 Mar 2017 18:49

Netserk wrote:Yes, with vetooo's numbers.
....
Porte:
Image
Source: https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/840634462073425922

That is with Ferrari's formula, I'm uncertain if (and how much) it underestimates the performances on such climbs.

The figures given here are at odds with figures announced by ASO for the col de Couillole
Summit at 1678 m
The 15.7 km include a first km at 1.3 or 1.4% and that should be corrected for (depending where the time is measured from, if it's from km 0)
For 15.7 km the alt. difference is 1678 - 550 = 1128 m
For the last 14.7 km, it is 1678 - 563 = 1115 m
Without further precisions from Vetoo it's hard to conclude on <W/kg>
Le breton
Member
 
Posts: 1,362
Joined: 10 Nov 2009 20:23
Location: switzerland

Re: Re:

13 Mar 2017 20:32

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
Netserk wrote:I know it's higher for lighter riders, but when it's used as a measuring stick, I think it makes better sense to use a standardized weight (like DrF).

That makes no sense if you are seeking to compare physiological performance with the same W/kg measuring stick. If not, then one stick has different increments than other.

When wanting to compare different riders on different climbs, making their performances more comparable is important, at least it is for me.

Even if it requires a lower W/kg, I think it's more impressive for an 80kg rider to climb Alpe d'Huez in 40' than it is for a 60kg rider.

I get why some prefer an as precise actual W/kg as possible, but I just want to know who is the better climber/who can climb the fastest.
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,099
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

Re: Re:

13 Mar 2017 21:00

Netserk wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
Netserk wrote:I know it's higher for lighter riders, but when it's used as a measuring stick, I think it makes better sense to use a standardized weight (like DrF).

That makes no sense if you are seeking to compare physiological performance with the same W/kg measuring stick. If not, then one stick has different increments than other.

When wanting to compare different riders on different climbs, making their performances more comparable is important, at least it is for me.

Even if it requires a lower W/kg, I think it's more impressive for an 80kg rider to climb Alpe d'Huez in 40' than it is for a 60kg rider.

I get why some prefer an as precise actual W/kg as possible, but I just want to know who is the better climber/who can climb the fastest.

The better climber is the one who climbs fastest. You need no more information than that.

If you convert each rider's ascent rate into W/kg for a "normalised" 70kg rider with a fixed set of assumptions then all that happens is the faster rider has a higher "normalised" W/kg value, which tells you precisely nothing more than simply knowing the ascent rate. The ranking order for ascent rate will be exactly the same as for W/kg.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,036
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

13 Mar 2017 21:04

So how do you compare different riders *on different climbs* if not by using a normalized W/kg?
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,099
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

Re:

14 Mar 2017 06:35

Netserk wrote:So how do you compare different riders *on different climbs* if not by using a normalized W/kg?

Not sure why you would in the first place since different climbs are, well, different. Compare the same climb and where possible understand what environmental conditions where if not performed on the same day.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,036
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: infeXio, wansteadimp and 8 guests

Back to top