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.

20 Nov 2012 18:24

Dear Wiggo wrote:Still waiting Krebs. And acoggan you're here, you can have a go as well.


Compare the physiological demands of a 4:15 IP to a 3:55 TP and you have your answer. The TP is a completely different event to what it was even 10 years ago.
...[Walsh] thinks we're ahead of the curve. But think about it for a sec. We're building long-lasting, trusting relationships with people who are spending a lot of money - Coke, Nike, Subaru. If we're f***ing lying, we can kiss it all goodbye. And if we were lying we'd do some stupid stuff to try to cover it up, wouldn't we? Does anybody think for a second that a secret that big wouldn't come out? Bill Stapleton
User avatar will10
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6,013
Joined: 27 Dec 2010 14:08

20 Nov 2012 20:25

acoggan wrote:Uh, no, you've got that bass-ackwards. Early on, Krebs cycle speculated that British Cycling knew Wiggins' MAOD, and I pointed out that having an adequately high MAOD is necessary to be a good pursuiter (IP or TP). Subsequently, however, it was brought up/out that JV indicated that Wiggins apparently derived more of his energy during a pursuit aerobically than is typical, i.e., his VO2max is seemingly quite high while is MAOD is unexceptional (for someone who can ride a really fast pursuit, anyway). If true - and I see no reason to dispute it - then Wiggins potential as a GC contender would be even greater than if it were not true. To achieve that potential, however, he'd have to train more like a dray horse and less like a thoroughbred.


Uh no, I haven't.

Krebs definitely did not speculate anything about the BC knowledge of Wiggins MAOD at first.

And if he's deleted posts to make this look like it is now the case that he did, then bully for you, but you forget, I was the one doing the discussion, so I am well aware of the timeline and what was said / claimed.

And Krebs Cycle STILL hasn't explained WHY he deleted that post.

Come on Krebs, are you scared or something?
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
User avatar Dear Wiggo
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6,450
Joined: 29 Sep 2012 10:11
Location: Sunny Australia

20 Nov 2012 20:37

will10 wrote:Compare the physiological demands of a 4:15 IP to a 3:55 TP and you have your answer. The TP is a completely different event to what it was even 10 years ago.


From 2004-2008, Wiggins is not that good at prologue or longer TTs - rarely podiuming when the TTers are there.

eg: in 2006, Wiggins is dedicated to the road, can't do a 4.1km prologue to save himself - 21st.

Any time he gets soundly beaten in a TT, the explanation is always "oh he was concentrating on the track", or "ARE YOU TELLING ME road training and pursuit training are THE SAME??" (obviously implying they are different) - Krebs loves that one. Despite the fact acoggan's IP training slides indicate very similar training to road cyclists, and Aussie enduros do around 30,000km training on the road.

Then in 2011, Wiggins rides the TP to 3:55 and 3 weeks later comes 2nd in a 27km TT to Tony Martin, coming 3rd overall at Paris Nice.

Marginal gains?

Can't wait for all the Wiggins defenders to explain this one away.

2004-2008 Oh he couldn't TT / autobused it coz he was concentrating on the track.
2009: Oh he has (allegedly) low MAOD and high VO2max - no wonder he came 4th at the Tour.
2011: Oh he can ride a TP coz he's training on the road now. Only needs 3 track training sessions. Oh look, then he podiums Paris Nice 3 weeks later.

Should be good.
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
User avatar Dear Wiggo
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6,450
Joined: 29 Sep 2012 10:11
Location: Sunny Australia

20 Nov 2012 20:52

Dear Wiggo wrote:I am well aware of the timeline and what was said / claimed.


Then why are you attempting to put words in my mouth? A bit like Alex, I initially assumed that, as World Champion in the pursuit, Wiggins must have a very high anaerobic capacity. JV's assessment then surfaced, which actually makes more sense given his ability in road TTs. At no point, though, did I argue that having a high anaerobic capacity (as measured by MAOD) plays a role in TTing (since it doesn't).

Have I pointed this out before? Boardman averaged 84% of his WR pursuit power while setting the hour record. Assuming Wiggins could do the same, and that he did indeed achieve his target power of 570-580 W in Bejiing, then he should be able to maintain ~480 W for an hour on the road. The fact that his hour power is "only" ~450 W is consistent with 1) his ability as a TPer (vs. Boardman), and 2) his reported weight loss.

Either way, the fact remains that if you can ride a really fast 4 km, you have lots of potential as a road TTer.
acoggan
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,811
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 11:33

20 Nov 2012 21:00

acoggan wrote:Then why are you attempting to put words in my mouth?


Huh? :eek:

Why crap on about what Krebs was saying when your beef is with my interpretation of what you were saying?
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
User avatar Dear Wiggo
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6,450
Joined: 29 Sep 2012 10:11
Location: Sunny Australia

20 Nov 2012 21:33

Dear Wiggo wrote:Uh no, I haven't.

Krebs definitely did not speculate anything about the BC knowledge of Wiggins MAOD at first.

And if he's deleted posts to make this look like it is now the case that he did, then bully for you, but you forget, I was the one doing the discussion, so I am well aware of the timeline and what was said / claimed.

And Krebs Cycle STILL hasn't explained WHY he deleted that post.

Come on Krebs, are you scared or something?
I don't recall deleting any post about MAOD. You're just making up a lie and repeating it over and over. Pretty much what you always do. If you want me to clarify something about MAOD just ask and I'll give you a straight up answer.

What I can say is that acoggan is correct. From the very beginning of this debate I speculated that, not specifically just Wiggins, but ANY world class individual pursuiter that had an exceptionally high aerobic energy contribution to a 4min maximal effort (eg: 90% as opposed to say 80%) would have the right genetics to be successful at road cycling. To anyone who understands human physiology, this would immediately imply that such an individual would have 1) a very high VO2max, 2) rapid oxygen uptake kinetics, 3) a high lactate threshold, AND 4) an AVERAGE or BELOW AVERAGE anaerobic contribution as estimated by MAOD for a world class pursuiter. Get it? Low anaerobic contribution compared to his closest rivals in the IP. The total anaerobic energy yield however would still likely be high compared to a GT contender as a consequence of the training required which is DIFFERENT to the type of training required to prep for a GT. However if you did an MAOD test on Wiggins right now though over 4km, his total anaerobic energy yield would be way down and his time would be well below his best 4km. This is because physiology CHANGES as a result of changes to the training stimulus. You seem to think that Wiggins' training program has not changed from 2004 through 2012 but that has to be the most idiotic assertion that anyone ever made on this forum. Of course it changed, and that is a big reason why he wasn't as successful on the road up until 2008. You and others keep referring to his poor road results but you completely ignore the fact that he wasn't even training to be successful on the road. It beggars belief that this crucial point doesn't enter your reasoning.

All this stuff is exercise physiology 101. The fact that you have not learned it yet and cannot understand it is the root cause of your continual errors that you make. Your massive ego is the root cause of your stubborn refusal to accept that what myself and acoggan are saying is based on science, not emotional bias for or against any particular cyclist.
Krebs cycle
Junior Member
 
Posts: 818
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 04:34

20 Nov 2012 22:35

sittingbison wrote:although this belongs in the Sky thread, and has been discussed at length there, I again make the observation that on his own admission Wiggo went full retard celebrating after the Beijing Olympics, and had less than six months to prepare for the 2009 TdF. After which he dramatically improved from GT results 123rd 123rd WD 134th 71st to 4th behind AC, Schleck and Armstrong, then back to 40th and 23rd in 2010.

So prey tell how he managed to fit in the requisite diligent and different training to overcome a decade career at 4km pursuits (that up until then are given as the reason for his lack of success on the road) and join the heads of state (two of whom at least were doped to the eyeballs?). And this diligent and different training was under the auspices of the BC track set up of Ellingsworth (sic) in Manchester, NOT under JV and Garmins road program.

As above and as stated many times over.... the training stimulus is of critical important to performance outcome. If you had a VO2max of 98 but you did crossfit for 4yrs would you win the TdF? No of course not.

I accept that those palmares look dodgy but only if you make the assumption that Wiggins was specifically training for road racing and to be successful in GTs from 2004-2008. If you don't train specifically to be successful in road stage races then you won't be successful in road stage races. If you are employed as a flatland domestique you won't place highly in stage races either will you? Just be realistic. You are way more sensible that poor wiggo.

Just be realistic also regarding the timeline from 2008 Olympics (August) to 2009 Giro (May) to the TdF (July). You say that he only trained for 6months leading up to the 2009 Tdf. That would imply he did no training whatsoever from Sept 2008 until Jan 2009. A full 4 months off doing no training? That would only leave 4 months to prepare for the Giro. Like I said.... you are more sensible than poor wiggo, so don't make up completely ridiculous unproven assertions like this because you are only lying to yourself and you know it. I don't know for sure either, but my guess is that he probably took all of Sept 2008 off and began serious base training in October 2008. I am guessing this because I have worked with athletes over 3 olympic cycles and I know how long they generally take off. If he started base training in Oct, that would be a full 9 months of prep.... wow what a coincidence, that is exactly the length of time that Wiggins himself said that he trained for leading up to the 2009 TdF.

So is 9 months long enough to convert from world beating individual pursuiter to 4th in the TdF? Seems like a short duration to me and back in 2009 I was highly suspicious, but now that I have looked more closely at the actual climbing speed Wiggins was doing in the 2009 tour which are not beyond what you would expect, in addition to the fact that both his short and long ITTs did not improve markedly, then my suspicion index has resided.

I'll give you another tidbit of wisdom that I have picked up over the years. When a dramatic shift in training stimulus occurs, what seems to occur is that you get one good year from that shift (since a change to the stimulus is what is important) but then it levels out. The same goes for suddenly dropping overall volume and doing more intensity. You get improved performance for maybe one season at best and then the drop in volume comes back to haunt you the following year and you simply cannot maintain the same level.

This observation seems to fit many athletes that I have worked with over the years and it fits the stories of those whom I haven't worked with. It fits Wiggins change from 2008 to 2009 and beyond..... a seemingly big improvement in performance in 2009 (which IMO was likely coincident with a big increase in base training volume), then a leveling off thereafter punctuated only by "marginal gains".


edit: but anyway, I agree with you, enough of this Wiggins repetition and let the thread return to power estimates. Apologies for the tangent to ferminal who has done a great job of compiling data and putting it into a graph.
Krebs cycle
Junior Member
 
Posts: 818
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 04:34

21 Nov 2012 01:34

speaking of Ferminal, who also posted some climbing times in the Cadel thread:

Are you trying to get some kind of corroborative data to compare pre-epo power vam time etc to now? My question is, is there data available from late 80s thats usable? times/gradients/lenghts/heights etc but also looking at what went on during the race?

One thing I noticed the other day, someone posted a pic of Lemond on twitter - maybe RR?- riding round a bend up a hill with other GCs. What struck me was they were all alone. The biggest difference pre Big Mig was that teams and domestiques were not able to offer the same level of support as USPS/Sky so the Badger/Lemond/Fignon were often at the front alone. So this would presumably have an effect on their performance ability.

A guy like Evans has not had a team like Armstrong and Wiggo, but because he is a wheel sucker (haha) he has always managed to latch on to the others and get some benefit from them.
“Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves Moriarty? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”
User avatar sittingbison
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,228
Joined: 05 Jul 2012 08:11
Location: Perth WA

21 Nov 2012 01:49

Krebs cycle wrote:I don't recall deleting any post about MAOD. You're just making up a lie and repeating it over and over. Pretty much what you always do. If you want me to clarify something about MAOD just ask and I'll give you a straight up answer.


Given I have already quoted the deleted post and linked to a post quoting the deleted post previously, your personal attack - yet again - on my honesty seems very suspect.

Here are the pertinent details, yet again, for you to perhaps refresh your memory:


It's the post that has been part-quoted here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=956871&postcount=3709


Don't jump on the bandwagon dude. You evidently know more about physiology than some of the trolls around here, but you made some assumptions in your post earlier that were incorrect, specifically the bit about high VO2max and high % type II fibres. Learn and understand what MAOD is first then read the following.....


As for the straight up answer - I think you mean, "just ask me and I will post links to studies". But thanks for the offer.
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
User avatar Dear Wiggo
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6,450
Joined: 29 Sep 2012 10:11
Location: Sunny Australia

23 Jan 2013 15:17

halamala wrote:Richie Porte

Volta ao Algarve 2012, Stage 3, Final Climb, Alto do Malhão

Elevation / Höhenmeter [m] : 227 m
Distance / Streckenlänge [Km] : 2.4 Km
Time in seconds / Fahrzeit in Sekunden [sec] : 429 = 7 min 9 sec = 7:09


Thomas on Corkscrew 6'46" 205m.
Ferminal
Senior Member
 
Posts: 16,748
Joined: 03 Jul 2009 09:42

23 Jan 2013 15:37

How many w/kg is that?
User avatar iZnoGouD
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,251
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 21:39

23 Jan 2013 16:26

The numbers will be nonsensical - the first 1km of that climb is not even 2% and being in the peloton at 50 km/hr provides an inhuman advantage from drafting. To get an accurate number we would need to find out exactly where he attacked and then derive a w/kg from that.
V3R1T4S
Junior Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 28 Jul 2011 22:14

Drafting example

23 Jan 2013 16:44

Here is an example of why only accurate calculations can be made on ultra-steep climbs (9% or greater) for solo efforts.

Take the Kitzbüheler Horn stage of the Tour of the Austria. The full climb according to Strava is 7.72km and 924.5m for 11.8%; the last 6.73 km is at 12.6%. I have found online calculators to be spot on (within 1-2 watts) at these gradients and with accurate masses for riders and bikes.

In 2011 Fredrik Kessiakoff won the stage by climbing the full climb in 31:05 for 5.9 w/kg (assuming 70kg rider weight and 8kg bike weight, but it doesn't really matter for w/kg on this steep of a climb). Second place was 1:14 behind him and Carlos Sastre finished 1:22 back. He did this by attacking and riding solo for the final 5.71km and 674m in 23:35, which gives 5.4 w/kg.

For those first 6.5 minutes the peloton was still together with Leopard-Trek setting a stiff pace trying to set up Rorhregger. Even on this ultra-steep climb you can see unzipped jerseys near the front flapping in the wind whereas guys who have unzipped jersey in the pack are not flapping.

Because of drafting, Kessiakoff probably did only ~5.5 w/kg for the entire 31:05 versus 5.9 w/kg if you assumed it was just him and no peloton. A 0.4 w/kg difference at climbing threshold is massive! Over 7% improvement.

With shorter, shallower climbs and higher speeds the errors grow exponentially.
V3R1T4S
Junior Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 28 Jul 2011 22:14

Geraint Thomas Corckscrew

23 Jan 2013 16:49

iZnoGouD wrote:How many w/kg is that?


Plugging in 3.65km and 248m at 71kg and 8kg equipment weight in 6:46 yields 686.2w or 9.6 w/kg. Nonsensical.

Source: http://www.rst.mp-all.de/bergauf.htm
V3R1T4S
Junior Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 28 Jul 2011 22:14

Geriant Thomas Corckscrew estimate

23 Jan 2013 16:58

iZnoGouD wrote:How many w/kg is that?


With all that being said, here is an estimate. At first I thought Ferminal quoted 250m (the full climb including the shallow part is that) but he said 205m. Very roughly it is the last 2.4km that gain 205m in elevation, so I'm going to use that.

Assuming 2.4km and 205m in 6:46 at 71kg rider weight and 8kg equipment weight gives 465w or 6.5 w/kg. These are some big assumptions though until someone can confirm the exact distance and elevation traveled in that time.

Source: http://www.rst.mp-all.de/bergauf.htm
V3R1T4S
Junior Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 28 Jul 2011 22:14

15 Feb 2013 12:53

anyone has data from yesterday?
User avatar iZnoGouD
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,251
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 21:39

21 Mar 2013 12:50

What is a trustworthy site with a decent w/k formula?
The Hitch wrote:All the trolls always did a tailwindhome off the forum when faced with that counterpoint. By which I mean a mysterious tailwind would blow them home and they would reappear only when the question blew over.
User avatar Fearless Greg Lemond
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,649
Joined: 20 Apr 2012 15:07
Location: Netherlands

21 Mar 2013 13:37

Fearless Greg Lemond wrote:What is a trustworthy site with a decent w/k formula?


This one calculates power based on various inputs, one of which is rider weight, from where w/k is easily derived.

http://www.bikecalculator.com

It seems pretty accurate at replicating the quoted w/k for Lance and Pantani et al on Alpe D'Huez. I guess it's never going to be totally accurate, due to unknowns such as wind, drafting, variations in pace etc.
Wallace and Gromit
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,288
Joined: 17 Jul 2012 14:31

21 Mar 2013 13:58

Fearless Greg Lemond wrote:What is a trustworthy site with a decent w/k formula?


You don't need a trustworthy site. The calculation itself is trivial. Knowing the input variables is the problem.

See eg. here for the simplified equation.
"It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."
_frost
Junior Member
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 10 Jul 2009 12:30
Location: Finland

19 Apr 2013 20:09

Has anyone calculated nibali's numbers for today?
User avatar Parrulo
Senior Member
 
Posts: 10,121
Joined: 05 Aug 2010 01:42

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mayomaniac, ScienceIsCool and 22 guests

Back to top