Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Le breton]

So what was Froome's W/kg during the Ventoux run leg?

I guess the emoticone is the most important part of your message

[Fergoose]

Any chance of a calculation for todays last climb by Bardet and peloton? Or a comparison to any previous years on the same climb? It looked very ordinary and believable to me (with the exception of a couple of riders that I personally don't buy) and I'd be pretty surprised if it was over 6.0 w/kg despite being relatively short. Its the first climb of this years TdF where we've had the peloton going full tilt from early on and didn't seem as wind affected as other mountain stages, so it might be a suitable one for comparisons.

[Netserk]

Any chance of a calculation for todays last climb by Bardet and peloton? Or a comparison to any previous years on the same climb? It looked very ordinary and believable to me (with the exception of a couple of riders that I personally don't buy) and I'd be pretty surprised if it was over 6.0 w/kg despite being relatively short. Its the first climb of this years TdF where we've had the peloton going full tilt from early on and didn't seem as wind affected as other mountain stages, so it might be a suitable one for comparisons.

The 14th fastest did 6.0 W/kg (see vetooo). Several riders did a fair bit more than that.

[Fergoose]

Darn. Cheers, will check that out.

[adamfo]

Highest watts 2016 Tdf : Bardet 444 W on Le Bettex

[Tonton]

Highest watts 2016 Tdf : Bardet 444 W on Le Bettex

I saw this graph today in Vayer's article in Le Monde. Since 2010, only Wiggo, Froome, Quintana, Nibal had been above the 410W-suspicious mark, and this year there were nine suspicious riders - the ones in yellow on the graph. Vayer made it very clear that he believes Bardet doped.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

So on average the fastest riders in this tour were 100 seconds (7%) slower than Pantani et al.
Ranging from 42 to 160 seconds slower.

Why is 410W suspicious?

[Le breton]

So on average the fastest riders in this tour were 100 seconds (7%) slower than Pantani et al.
Ranging from 42 to 160 seconds slower.

Why is 410W suspicious?

It's not the 410 W per se that Vayer deems suspicious, but 410/70 = 5.86 Watts/kg on the LAST climb of a heavy mountain stage. 70 kg = weight of std cyclist.
This for a 30-40 min. effort.
See here
http://sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2013-vs-2014-Tour-power-outputs.png
Cheers
PS : Ventoux should have been excluded from the average I think (wind)

[Alex Simmons/RST]

So on average the fastest riders in this tour were 100 seconds (7%) slower than Pantani et al.
Ranging from 42 to 160 seconds slower.

Why is 410W suspicious?

It's not the 410 W per se that Vayer deems suspicious, but 410/70 = 5.86 Watts/kg on the LAST climb of a heavy mountain stage. 70 kg = weight of std cyclist.
This for a 30-40 min. effort.
See here
http://sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2013-vs-2014-Tour-power-outputs.png
Cheers
PS : Ventoux should have been excluded from the average I think (wind)

I see nothing particularly convincing.
First time I've heard that <5.9W/kg for half an hour triggers some doping suspicion radar. Next year Vayer will tell us that 5.4 is the new 6.4 because he'll probably need the attention he seems to crave.

[SeriousSam]

Alex, if you had to guess, who has the better aero coefficient with full TT equipment, Froome or Dumoulin?

[Tonton]

So on average the fastest riders in this tour were 100 seconds (7%) slower than Pantani et al.
Ranging from 42 to 160 seconds slower.

Why is 410W suspicious?

It's not the 410 W per se that Vayer deems suspicious, but 410/70 = 5.86 Watts/kg on the LAST climb of a heavy mountain stage. 70 kg = weight of std cyclist.
This for a 30-40 min. effort.
See here
http://sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2013-vs-2014-Tour-power-outputs.png
Cheers
PS : Ventoux should have been excluded from the average I think (wind)

I like his calculation method as described/detailed in "Not Normal", which I keep in that special folder with the Pinot studies . Some disagree with the accuracy, but it's proven to set a realistic bar, and from year to year compares apples to apples.

If only 4 riders were flagged from '10-'15 and 9 this year, I wonder: has something changed in '16? It seems like the bikes are being scanned seriously at the Tour, so I would discard mechanical doping. Is there a new product or cocktail in town? It would explain how some get sick, some over-perform 9as in respond well), and some look weak: are they on last year's stuff and it's not enough? Or on (more or less) nothing and they will be out of cycling in two years? Is a new era of doping beginning before our eyes?

[Tonton]

Addendum: maybe others figured out Sky's recipe, and the recipe proves not to fit everyone?

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Alex, if you had to guess, who has the better aero coefficient with full TT equipment, Froome or Dumoulin?

On current/recent form Dumoulin has better W/m^2 (he was a minute faster in stage 13 TT), but parsing out how much of that is down to CdA alone is hard to say. The eye makes for a poor wind tunnel.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

So on average the fastest riders in this tour were 100 seconds (7%) slower than Pantani et al.
Ranging from 42 to 160 seconds slower.

Why is 410W suspicious?

It's not the 410 W per se that Vayer deems suspicious, but 410/70 = 5.86 Watts/kg on the LAST climb of a heavy mountain stage. 70 kg = weight of std cyclist.
This for a 30-40 min. effort.
See here
http://sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2013-vs-2014-Tour-power-outputs.png
Cheers
PS : Ventoux should have been excluded from the average I think (wind)

I like his calculation method as described/detailed in "Not Normal", which I keep in that special folder with the Pinot studies . Some disagree with the accuracy, but it's proven to set a realistic bar, and from year to year compares apples to apples.

Vayer sometimes has trouble with basic maths. I struggle to take anything he says as anything more than publicity seeking click bait. We all know doping is and has been a big problem. A monkey can throw a dart at a board full of rider's names and have as good a chance of picking dopers as Vayer.

But looking at the table, all the top riders this year were substantially slower (on average 7%) than the Pantani et al crowd. Which tells us that (i) they were slower and (ii) absolutely nothing wrt their doping status.

The minimal time gaps on mountain stages tells us that the top rider's W/kg are all very close. It was the time trials that made the difference and is where the best aero prepared GC contender did the vast bulk of the damage to his opponents.

[Tonton]

I don't know of a method to separate the wheatdopers from the chaffclean wrt ITT .

I studied Vayer quite a bit, and after "Not Normal", he got on my nerves, try to remain relevant. Yet, he leaked the Froome watts on Ventoux, so I tend to perceive him as part of the solution vs. part of the problem.

Good point: grouped, watts can go up, vs. a solo attack when you take all the wind and so forth.

Having said that, Nibali was horrible until his resurrection and I had visions of Landis. Aru has been bad all year, pretty much. Quintana didn't look like Quintana at this TdF. was it the real Quintana and other riders were Pantani , yet Valverde was Valverde (give him a tylenol, he'll respond well ). TJVG was atrocious, Porte did well. Pinot left his guts on the road, Seb R. got a top-15. On and on and on...

I have a tough time figuring this out. Then I see values that seem quite high, which triggers a doping alert.

If it makes sense.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

This was the 3rd slowest TdF since 1998. Only 2000 (just) and 2007 were slower, on average.
Not that it means much given year to year variability.

[bikenrrd]

Moved this here from the "Random French Guys" thread as it seems more relevant here.

One thing I've never understood about Vayer's method (and something that leads me to believe it's ill-formed) is that he computes a single figure for wattage that he considers suspicious - i.e. 410W, as above.
Now, I understand that he computes a W/kg ratio and multiplies it by a standard weight to attain the watts, no matter how heavy a rider.
This is flawed in another way, but I really want to know why he doesn't use the temporal aspect of the data. All of the climbs are timed, so why not express the figure in W/kg/s i.e. watts per kilogram per second, aka Joules per kilogram?

Anyone who's used Strava or Training Peaks or worked with a coach knows the power distribution graph which gives you the estimated power output over a certain time period. A climb that lasts for 20 minutes can be climbed at a higher power than one that lasts 30 minutes, and so the time should be taken into account.

Before I get flamed - I think his method (for calculating power, not identifying dopers) has merit but I'd like to see more scientific rigour attached to it. Openly publishing the method, for a start, and an exploration of the sensitivity of the method to the values chosen for the parameters (rolling resistance being one).

[bikenrrd]

This was the 3rd slowest TdF since 1998. Only 2000 (just) and 2007 were slower, on average.
Not that it means much given year to year variability.

I've wondered whether it's possible to take into account amount of climbing when comparing Tour speeds across the years? Average gradient or some such could be used, but you'd have to retain the average speed as well.

[biker jk]

This was the 3rd slowest TdF since 1998. Only 2000 (just) and 2007 were slower, on average.
Not that it means much given year to year variability.

I've wondered whether it's possible to take into account amount of climbing when comparing Tour speeds across the years? Average gradient or some such could be used, but you'd have to retain the average speed as well.

Don't forget taking into account tailwinds in the fast and/or hard years.

[vedrafjord]

Moved this here from the "Random French Guys" thread as it seems more relevant here.

One thing I've never understood about Vayer's method (and something that leads me to believe it's ill-formed) is that he computes a single figure for wattage that he considers suspicious - i.e. 410W, as above.
Now, I understand that he computes a W/kg ratio and multiplies it by a standard weight to attain the watts, no matter how heavy a rider.
This is flawed in another way, but I really want to know why he doesn't use the temporal aspect of the data. All of the climbs are timed, so why not express the figure in W/kg/s i.e. watts per kilogram per second, aka Joules per kilogram?

Anyone who's used Strava or Training Peaks or worked with a coach knows the power distribution graph which gives you the estimated power output over a certain time period. A climb that lasts for 20 minutes can be climbed at a higher power than one that lasts 30 minutes, and so the time should be taken into account.

Before I get flamed - I think his method (for calculating power, not identifying dopers) has merit but I'd like to see more scientific rigour attached to it. Openly publishing the method, for a start, and an exploration of the sensitivity of the method to the values chosen for the parameters (rolling resistance being one).

Yep, one good thing about veloclinic is he always includes the time element, e.g. this graph comparing Froome 2013 to Nibali 2014: