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: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re:

16 Jul 2016 12:22

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:So what was Froome's W/kg during the Ventoux run leg? :D

I guess the emoticone :D is the most important part of your message :)
Le breton
Member
 
Posts: 1,382
Joined: 10 Nov 2009 20:23
Location: switzerland

22 Jul 2016 21:54

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.
Fergoose
Member
 
Posts: 454
Joined: 19 Aug 2011 12:43

Re:

22 Jul 2016 22:34

Fergoose wrote: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.
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,997
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

22 Jul 2016 23:07

Darn. Cheers, will check that out.
Fergoose
Member
 
Posts: 454
Joined: 19 Aug 2011 12:43

25 Jul 2016 15:47

Highest watts 2016 Tdf : Bardet 444 W on Le Bettex

Image
adamfo
Junior Member
 
Posts: 133
Joined: 04 Jan 2013 15:56

Re:

25 Jul 2016 21:50

adamfo wrote:Highest watts 2016 Tdf : Bardet 444 W on Le Bettex

Image

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.
User avatar Tonton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,143
Joined: 17 May 2013 18:59

25 Jul 2016 23:30

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?
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,275
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

Re:

26 Jul 2016 06:38

Alex Simmons/RST wrote: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)
Le breton
Member
 
Posts: 1,382
Joined: 10 Nov 2009 20:23
Location: switzerland

Re: Re:

26 Jul 2016 11:41

Le breton wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote: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.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,275
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

26 Jul 2016 15:52

Alex, if you had to guess, who has the better aero coefficient with full TT equipment, Froome or Dumoulin?
User avatar SeriousSam
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,221
Joined: 31 Aug 2012 00:06
Location: Now here

Re: Re:

26 Jul 2016 22:30

Le breton wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote: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?
SOLO LA VITTORIA È BELLA
User avatar Tonton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,143
Joined: 17 May 2013 18:59

Re: Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

26 Jul 2016 22:35

Addendum: maybe others figured out Sky's recipe, and the recipe proves not to fit everyone?
SOLO LA VITTORIA È BELLA
User avatar Tonton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,143
Joined: 17 May 2013 18:59

Re:

26 Jul 2016 22:44

SeriousSam wrote: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.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,275
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

Re: Re:

26 Jul 2016 22:54

Tonton wrote:
Le breton wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote: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.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,275
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

Re: Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

26 Jul 2016 23:17

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 :eek: , yet Valverde was Valverde (give him a tylenol, he'll respond well :D ). 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.
SOLO LA VITTORIA È BELLA
User avatar Tonton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,143
Joined: 17 May 2013 18:59

27 Jul 2016 00:29

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.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,275
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

27 Jul 2016 09:26

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
New Member
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 19 Aug 2015 15:06

Re:

27 Jul 2016 09:30

Alex Simmons/RST wrote: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.
bikenrrd
New Member
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 19 Aug 2015 15:06

Re: Re:

27 Jul 2016 09:43

bikenrrd wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote: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.
User avatar biker jk
Member
 
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Apr 2009 06:03
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re:

27 Jul 2016 10:19

bikenrrd wrote: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:

Image
User avatar vedrafjord
Member
 
Posts: 861
Joined: 15 Jan 2013 03:35
Location: Land of Ire

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], sommarkatt and 38 guests

Back to top