Another silly pedaling musing from me

[FrankDay]

Eddy did produce 450 watts in the lab for 60min in Belgium after he broke the World Hour Record.

Did Merckx use a PM in either his daily training or racing? The fact that he went to the lab once or twice for physiological testing is not evidence he used that data to help him get to where he was?

The question is not whether the number is interesting but, rather, does having the number help one to do better?

 

[CoachFergie]

Did Merckx use a PM in either his daily training or racing? The fact that he went to the lab once or twice for physiological testing is not evidence he used that data to help him get to where he was?

They didn't have on board power meters back then. But that power data does provide the best evidence that Eddy was one of the greatest riders of all time rather than just the best of his time.

The question is not whether the number is interesting but, rather, does having the number help one to do better?

Staggering that people confuse training methods, dietary practice, motivation, technique, tactics and skills with how these practices, equipment choices, positional choices are assessed.

 

[FrankDay]

They didn't have on board power meters back then. But that power data does provide the best evidence that Eddy was one of the greatest riders of all time rather than just the best of his time.

You needed a power test to affirm that judgement for you? "the best evidence"? Really?

Most people are able to make that judgment without even knowing he ever had a power test done.

 

[Martin318is]

Frank, to be fair, it is an entirely appropriate question to ask whether you have any other metrics other than time and finish position to compare between the two races. The most obvious would be time based power outputs

The events are a year apart. If you dont know his exact power outputs before each event, how can you claim that the result will be interesting with regard to crank lengths etc? Clearly any improvement could very easily be explained away due to any or all of:
Weather,
nearby competitors,
improved fitness,
better nutrition,
pacing,
experience of having done the event in the past

Good luck to him for the event but with respect to crank ength etc it won't be interesting without that data

 

[CoachFergie]

You needed a power test to affirm that judgement for you? "the best evidence"? Really?

Most people are able to make that judgment without even knowing he ever had a power test done.

How?

Maybe the competition back then was crap and his win record reflects this. We can compare his power with champions of today.

How can we compare speed when the bikes have changed, roads are better, training is (in theory and I'm not convinced that we have made great advances in this area beyond having a better measure of specificity of training), recovery methods are better (we think, the evidence is pretty sketchy on that one), the nutrition is better and the measurement is better. Rather than going to the lab 2-3 times a year, every training ride is a lab test and out in the field is more valid than any lab test. Reliable as well. The watts I generated on a 60km ride this morning are the same as the watts Eddy generated 40 years ago. Although between you and I me I think he produced a little more than me.

 

[CoachFergie]

Sorry folks I have been caught in a lie.

In my previous post I said I had ridden 60km. It felt like 60km but on viewing my power meter file I can see it was in fact 59.855km. My extreme apologies for misleading people by not providing factual information in one of my posts. I have learned a valuable lesson to not trust subjective measures of performance.

 

[Tapeworm]

But it felt like 80km I bet.

 

[CoachFergie]

But it felt like 80km I bet.

If I judged the intensity of the ride by speed I would be way off because it was pretty windy.

If I judged the intensity of the ride by heart rate it would be way off because it was hot and I couldn't find my summer leg warmers and had to use the winter ones.

If I judged the ride by cadence I wouldn't have a clue how hard I was going as I tend to self select what feels good.

Because I went by feel I only spent 40% of the ride in the target power zone. 20% above and 40% below. How can I blame my coach if I don't follow instructions

That's one of the biggest benefits of the power meter. Keeping me honest as a coach! "Hey Coach I'm not getting in better"! "What do you mean you went 20minutes faster over that course than last year" "Shoot Coach, I have a years more training, my diets better, I know the course, I'm riding in a different grade, I'm using a better bike and wheels but hey coach the power meter says no different to last year". DOH!!!

 

[oldborn]

Fargo, if you need PM to be honest coach than it is better to find another job
What did you done to clients before PM? I am sure you did fine

 

[FrankDay]

I got this back from Drew last night: ""awesome time on the 110s Frank. felt good yesterday and had the ride of my life today. i felt the best that i have ever felt up on these monster climbs. kept the cadence up around 75 sometimes even 80-90 and this seemed to keep the power up."

Overall, Drew took 1'20" off of last years time, so it is a substantial improvement overall. Of course, arch cleats are not the only change he made.

Anyhow, I think he is saying here that his second day of this epic event was much better than the first. I had earlier theorized that the big benefit of arch cleats would come from saving energy and we might see their advantages on the second day. Perhaps that is what we are seeing here. I will try to get more information.

 

[CoachFergie]

Overall, Drew took 1'20" off of last years time, so it is a substantial improvement overall.

One wee hitch to that yarn is that they run the course in reverse for stage 1 this year.

http://www.everestchallenge.com/pdf/EC2011updateSIX.pdf

 

[FrankDay]

One wee hitch to that yarn is that they run the course in reverse for stage 1 this year.

http://www.everestchallenge.com/pdf/EC2011updateSIX.pdf

Hard to imagine riding backwards would result in a 1'20" difference but maybe so. And, it does seem he thought he did much better on stage 2 than 1. I guess we will have to look at how everyone else did before one can make any determination. Isn't that the way it always is, nothing ever as easy as we would like it to be.

 

[CoachFergie]

Saw a few names I know in the results for last year including one person I coached who now lives in LA. One chap sent me his power files from 2010 and 2011.

Stage 1 was 141km this year and last year 160km. His power output did not differ greatly between years (4 watts at most) and his overall time was an hour faster over both days. Looking at the difference in weather (Weather Underground) last year was 5-6 degree (C) hotter which would have had an effect on outcomes as well.

Can also look at power over each climb or over the sections of the event to see how well paced the ride was as pacing will affect the results.

This year one group had a cat 3 rider who was a Elite MTB rider who didn't have the road points to go in an appropriate grade so drilled it on the front of his bunch till they caught the the Pro grade and they rode together. Makes comparisons on time alone pretty pointless.

If one is going to make performance improvement claims it pays to have an accurate measure of performance!

 

[FrankDay]

Saw a few names I know in the results for last year including one person I coached who now lives in LA. One chap sent me his power files from 2010 and 2011.

Stage 1 was 141km this year and last year 160km. His power output did not differ greatly between years (4 watts at most) and his overall time was an hour faster over both days. Looking at the difference in weather (Weather Underground) last year was 5-6 degree (C) hotter which would have had an effect on outcomes as well.

Can also look at power over each climb or over the sections of the event to see how well paced the ride was as pacing will affect the results.

This year one group had a cat 3 rider who was a Elite MTB rider who didn't have the road points to go in an appropriate grade so drilled it on the front of his bunch till they caught the the Pro grade and they rode together. Makes comparisons on time alone pretty pointless.

If one is going to make performance improvement claims it pays to have an accurate measure of performance!

An hour faster is not 1'20" faster. Anyhow, when we see all the official results we will be able to make a better determination as to any difference in performance. (edit: even if there is no improvement in relative performance I believe we could conclude that the 110 mm cranks did not hurt his performance.)

I don't know if you have noticed this or not but in races where we don't have every ones power files (most races) comparing times is all we have to go on. And, since we don't know the weights of the different riders, even if we did have the power files, comparisons would be pretty worthless. When evaluating race performance the time from point a to point b and relative postion are the usual metrics that most people use to judge performance.

 

[CoachFergie]

An hour faster is not 1'20" faster.

Very good Frank, good to see you can count. Can you apply your mathematical prowess to the difference between 160km and 141km?

Anyhow, when we see all the official results we will be able to make a better determination as to any difference in performance. (edit: even if there is no improvement in relative performance I believe we could conclude that the 110 mm cranks did not hurt his performance.)

Results would only be a reflection of any difference in performance if the course was the same (not), weather was the same (not), race dynamics were the same (not) and the riders were the same (for the rider who supplied me with his data he was 3-4 watts better this year).

Hmmmm who does dropping a bundle on shorter cranks for no performance gain benefit?

I don't know if you have noticed this or not but in races where we don't have every ones power files (most races) comparing times is all we have to go on.

This was a race, results are all that counts. They don't get any more money if they win by 10mins than if the win by 10 sec.

For those who may have experimented with training, diet, recovery, position, equipment, pacing, tactics etc it pays to have a valid and reliable measure to see if their performance did or did not improve.

And, since we don't know the weights of the different riders, even if we did have the power files, comparisons would be pretty worthless.

Goss darn, ya know, weight is so hard to measure!

When evaluating race performance the time from point a to point b and relative postion are the usual metrics that most people use to judge performance.

Staggering that people confuse the difference between race results and race performance.

 

[FrankDay]

Saw a few names I know in the results for last year including one person I coached who now lives in LA. One chap sent me his power files from 2010 and 2011.

Stage 1 was 141km this year and last year 160km. His power output did not differ greatly between years (4 watts at most) and his overall time was an hour faster over both days. Looking at the difference in weather (Weather Underground) last year was 5-6 degree (C) hotter which would have had an effect on outcomes as well.

Can also look at power over each climb or over the sections of the event to see how well paced the ride was as pacing will affect the results.

This year one group had a cat 3 rider who was a Elite MTB rider who didn't have the road points to go in an appropriate grade so drilled it on the front of his bunch till they caught the the Pro grade and they rode together. Makes comparisons on time alone pretty pointless.

If one is going to make performance improvement claims it pays to have an accurate measure of performance!

So, the results are finally posted. I have compared all of the riders who did both this year and last year who finished near or above Drew last year to see how things compare. I also confirmed with the race director that the course change did shorten the course some, although this was not published anywhere.

Anyhow, I found 13 people including Drew. Here are the comparative results and times.

Name*****************2010 2011 diff 2010 2011 diff
English 10:02:35 9:55:16 7min 1st 1st 0
Prado 10:44:03 10:06:50 29min 5th 2nd +3
Walker 10:39:10 10:18:19 21min 4th 7th -3
Rand 10:55:21 10:16:12 39min 8th 5th +3
Burnham 11:01:47 10:20:58 41min 9th 8th +1
Moskowitz 11:07:08 10:42.16 25min 11th 24th -13
Amelburu 11:12:25 10:23:32 59min 12th 10th +2
Chauner 11:22:39 10:36:28 46min 15th 22nd -7
Dapice 11:41:31 10:29:29 72min 21st 14th +7
Cody 11:46:13 10:15:32 91min 23rd 4th +19
Hornbeck 11:46:39 10:27:31 79min 25th 13th +12
Peterson 11:47:30 10:22:22 85min 26th 9th +17
Breck 11:48:00 10:54:11 54min 27th 28th -1

50 minute average improvement
average place improvement 2.5

Now this is a little less than the 60 minutes your athlete reported for the "same" power but perhaps this is because this is the pointy end where absolute improvements are always less for any change like this.

No athlete was slower than the year before, English the fellow who won was only 7 minutes faster. Of particular note only 4 of the 13 were more than an hour faster than the year before with the biggest improvement going to Cody with a 91 minute improvement in time and moving from 23rd to 4th place. Peterson had the second largest improvement in this group with 85 minutes and moving from 26th to 9th overall. As an indication that competition might have been tougher this year Chauner improved his time 46 minutes but dropped his placing from 15th to 22nd.

Anyhow, I think it would be hard to argue, based upon these results that Peterson did anything but improve between 2010 and 2011 and that short cranks and arch cleats did not hurt his performance although one cannot say for certain, from this data alone, these changes account for his improved performance.

 

[FrankDay]

Saw a few names I know in the results for last year including one person I coached who now lives in LA. One chap sent me his power files from 2010 and 2011.

Stage 1 was 141km this year and last year 160km. His power output did not differ greatly between years (4 watts at most) and his overall time was an hour faster over both days. Looking at the difference in weather (Weather Underground) last year was 5-6 degree (C) hotter which would have had an effect on outcomes as well.

Can also look at power over each climb or over the sections of the event to see how well paced the ride was as pacing will affect the results.

This year one group had a cat 3 rider who was a Elite MTB rider who didn't have the road points to go in an appropriate grade so drilled it on the front of his bunch till they caught the the Pro grade and they rode together. Makes comparisons on time alone pretty pointless.

If one is going to make performance improvement claims it pays to have an accurate measure of performance!

So, the results are finally posted. I have compared all of the riders who did both this year and last year who finished near or above Drew last year to see how things compare. I also confirmed with the race director that the course change did shorten the course some, although this was not published anywhere.

Anyhow, I found 13 people including Drew. Here are the comparative results and times.

Name................2010...............2011...........diff......2010.....2011......diff
English..........10:02:35...........9:55:16.........7min.....1st.......1st.........0
Prado............10:44:03..........10:06:50......29min.....5th.......2nd......+3
Walker..........10:39:10..........10:18:19......21min.....4th.......7th........-3
Rand.............10:55:21.........10:16:12.......39min.....8th.......5th.......+3
Burnham........11:01:47.........10:20:58......41min.....9th.......8th........+1
Moskowitz......11:07:08.........10:42.16.......25min....11th.....24th......-13
Amelburu.......11:12:25.........10:23:32.......59min....12th.....10th......+2
Chauner.........11:22:39.........10:36:28.......46min....15th....22nd.......-7
Dapice...........11:41:31.........10:29:29.......72min....21st.....14th......+7
Cody ............11:46:13.........10:15:32.......91min....23rd.......4th.....+19
Hornbeck.......11:46:39.........10:27:31.......79min....25th.....13th.....+12
Peterson........11:47:30.........10:22:22.......85min....26th.......9th.....+17
Breck............11:48:00.........10:54:11.......54min....27th......28th......-1

50 minute average improvement
average place improvement 2.5


Now this is a little less than the 60 minutes your athlete reported for the "same" power but perhaps this is because this is the pointy end where absolute improvements are always less for any change like this.

No athlete was slower than the year before, English the fellow who won was only 7 minutes faster. Of particular note only 4 of the 13 were more than an hour faster than the year before with the biggest improvement going to Cody with a 91 minute improvement in time and moving from 23rd to 4th place. Peterson had the second largest improvement in this group with 85 minutes and moving from 26th to 9th overall. As an indication that competition might have been tougher this year Chauner improved his time 46 minutes but dropped his placing from 15th to 22nd.

Anyhow, I think it would be hard to argue, based upon these results that Drew Peterson did anything but improve between 2010 and 2011 and that his use of very short cranks and arch cleats did not hurt his performance. Of course, one cannot say for certain, from this data alone, these changes account for his improved performance.

 

[CoachFergie]

I also confirmed with the race director that the course change did shorten the course some, although this was not published anywhere.

This was seen in the power meter data.

Now this is a little less than the 60 minutes your athlete reported for the "same" power but perhaps this is because this is the pointy end where absolute improvements are always less for any change like this.

Athlete didn't report, he had a valid and reliable measure of.

Rider in question was a Cat 3. If you had a Pro, Cat 3 and Cat 5 where would you expect to see the greatest potential for improved times?

No athlete was slower than the year before, English the fellow who won was only 7 minutes faster.

Different course, different weather and year apart. If power meter data showed power for 2010 and 2011 races you could claim that performance improved.

A rider could have physically performed better but have let himself down in other areas (Cancellara in Worlds TT nearly crashing, Schleck's in TdF TT not learning the course). This event has neutralised sections mid race and in one of the grades had an elite MTB rider riding in a lower road category because he didn't have the points to ride in an appropriate grade.

I think it would be hard to argue, based upon these results that Drew Peterson did anything but improve between 2010 and 2011 and that his use of very short cranks and arch cleats did not hurt his performance.

So still no evidence that short cranks, Gimmickcranks, arch mounted cleats or lucky red socks actually improve performance. The only benefit I see is to your bank balance.

Even if he had used a power meter to measure his work performed you couldn't separate which factors caused any claimed improvements. Which is why we run studies that show Gimmickcranks, Crank Length or Arch Mounted Cleats improve power delivery or improve efficiency/economy.

Of course, one cannot say for certain, from this data alone, these changes account for his improved performance.

You haven't shown an improvement in performance. The chap who supplied me data improved by 60min from 2010 and produced 4.5 more watts. That figure would be well within the TEM of a power (Quarg in this case) meter.

 

[FrankDay]

I responded to Fergies post on the crank length thread since it reproduces his reply to my similar post there and his response here has nothing to do with cleat position but is just his usual ranting. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[CoachFergie]

This...

So still no evidence that short cranks, Gimmickcranks, arch mounted cleats or lucky red socks actually improve performance. The only benefit I see is to your bank balance.

and...

Even if he had used a power meter to measure his work performed you couldn't separate which factors caused any claimed improvements. Which is why we run studies that show Gimmickcranks, Crank Length or Arch Mounted Cleats improve power delivery or improve efficiency/economy.

You were saying?

 

[FrankDay]

Fergie, I apologize for missing those very germane references to this topic. Sometimes my eyes just glaze over.

 

[Martin318is]

Anyhow, I think it would be hard to argue, based upon these results that Drew Peterson did anything but improve between 2010 and 2011

yes you could argue that - given the size of the time improvement is larger than most other factors would account for. Well done to Drew for a hard year of training.

and that his use of very short cranks and arch cleats did not hurt his performance. Of course, one cannot say for certain, from this data alone, these changes account for his improved performance.

Not sure if you are noting this yourself here in the non-bold part, but actually there is nothing in his ride that negates the possibility that the cleats hurt his performance. We have no way of knowing whether he would have ridden a further 10mins faster with standard cleats.

This is the problem with single person single event 'studies'. I am not suggesting that I would argue that the arch cleat did hurt his performance, I am merely pointing out that the argument is unhurt by his performance in this race.

"If a straight line fit is required, then obtain only two data points"
- I think that was attributed to Voltaire?

 

[CoachFergie]

"If a straight line fit is required, then obtain only two data points"
- I think that was attributed to Voltaire?

Which is why we measure as many valid and reliable variables as we can.

Not only do I have the two race files (both days) for 2010 and 2011 but an excel chart with all the climb files and metrics for both days since 2008.

Wattage, power to weight, HR, cadence, feet climbed and speed. While this chap did not increase his power by a big margin he was 2kg lighter so power to weight improved.

So while weather, bunch dynamics and the whole course for one stage may change the rider can determine if their performance improved. It may have been a stinking hot day and everyone gone a hour slower overall but the power meter would show if wattage had improved.

What the assessment of one ride can't show is why something improved. So many confounding variables can affect the result like weather, bunch dynamics, course being different and 19km shorter, greater or fewer neutralised sections, training levels of riders from year to year, experience levels of riders from year to year, weight of the rider, ability to commit to the challenge changing from year to year, other equipment decisions, wearing of lucky red socks of taking a chance with blue ones because you want to be different and so on.

Times and placings from year to year tell us very little about the performance. Looking at the breakdown of power on the climbs and for the whole stages tells me so much more.

 

[Martin318is]

Which is why we measure as many valid and reliable variables as we can.

Yeah, I know. Thats the whole basis for the joke

 

[CoachFergie]

Yeah, I know. Thats the whole basis for the joke

Yes, I got it, just had some more information to submit as evidence your honour thanks to the excel chart I had received.