Brad Wiggins Power data [2009]

chase196126 said:
Thanks for the info.

Wiggins power numbers appear to be bigger for the Verbier than in the TTT in the Tour. Let's assume that Wiggins did a good amount of work in the TTT. So the power should be on the high end for him. In the Verbier he was about ~60-70 watts higher. Now the time efforts are slightly different because the time trial was 33 minutes and the Verbier was an effort of around 22 minutes. The question now is if the time difference makes up for the power difference?
 
Jul 7, 2009
209
0
0
Escarabajo said:
Thanks for the info.

Wiggins power numbers appear to be bigger for the Verbier than in the TTT in the Tour. Let's assume that Wiggins did a good amount of work in the TTT. So the power should be on the high end for him. In the Verbier he was about ~60-70 watts higher.
Are you talking about avg or peak power? In a TTT, avg power would likely be lower, but peak power should be higher.
 
May 26, 2009
502
0
0
Escarabajo said:
Average power.
I think that if you look at TTT average power for the strongest rider in the group you won't get his max. achievable average power since he isn't doing an all-out performance. He might even have to hold back a little during his own pulls in order to not drop the weakest rider in the group. A solo TT would IMO be much closer to the numbers you see in the mountain climbs (though you rarely have climbs as long as TTs...)
 
Aug 17, 2009
99
0
0
power numbers

Escarabajo said:
Thanks for the info.

Wiggins power numbers appear to be bigger for the Verbier than in the TTT in the Tour. Let's assume that Wiggins did a good amount of work in the TTT. So the power should be on the high end for him. In the Verbier he was about ~60-70 watts higher. Now the time efforts are slightly different because the time trial was 33 minutes and the Verbier was an effort of around 22 minutes. The question now is if the time difference makes up for the power difference?
Sources of variance
We dont have actual power numbers for Verbier only estimates.
Climbing most riders can achieve higher average wattage. Wiggins uphill in prologue vs downhill shows this to be true for him too
TTT power is varied and less average power can be put out when it is inconsistent. It is harder to produce as high wattage in the draft versus into the wind also.
Verbier he would have been more tired from the run in

Not sure how much difference the time would make between 22 and 33 wouldn't think it would be huge.
 
RdBiker said:
I think that if you look at TTT average power for the strongest rider in the group you won't get his max. achievable average power since he isn't doing an all-out performance. He might even have to hold back a little during his own pulls in order to not drop the weakest rider in the group. A solo TT would IMO be much closer to the numbers you see in the mountain climbs (though you rarely have climbs as long as TTs...)
You make a good point. Besides, if he was already thinking about targeting GC then that would explain more the saving energy theory. That also explains (in part) why HESJEDAL had bigger power than Wiggins. You want to burn your "Domestiques" first to protect the GC riders.
 
cyclingmad said:
Sources of variance
We dont have actual power numbers for Verbier only estimates.
...
This is from a previous thread. You can be the judge.

Input Parameters:

Wiggins (Minimum - Most Likely - Maximum):
Weight, kg: 69- 71- 75
Drag factor reduction, percentage: 10% - 0%- 3%
Head Wind, km/hr: From -20 to 0 flat
Drafting, time %: 30% -50% - 70%
Rolling Resistance (Includes Bearings and Chain) : 0.0035 - 0.0050 - 0.0060

Contador (Minimum - Most Likely - Maximum):
Weight, kg: 59- 61- 63
Drag factor reduction, percentage: 10% - 0%- 3%
Head Wind, km/hr: From -20 to 0 flat
Drafting, time %: 25% -30% - 45%
Rolling Resistance (Includes Bearings and Chain) : 0.0035 - 0.0050 - 0.0060
Now after I insert these numbers I run the calculations from the cycling equation of state to up 10,000 iterations. More than that is waste of time. As you can see I have covered all the cases from total tail wind to no tailwind. So if somebody were to tell me that they wanted some head wind during the climbs then that would make the power numbers even higher and a little bit on the impossible side. You have to remember that this numbers are averages and not specific numbers at one point on the climb. So "zero" wind means ~50% 5 kph head wind and ~50% -5kph tailwind. Same thing with the other parameters. So the minimum case uses a -20 kph tailwind on average, which I believe it is the absolute minimum. So whatever number we get for power, it would be "near impossible" to be below those numbers. Same think with the weight. I put a range so I can satisfy everybody in this Forum.

Here are the results:
Contador Numbers
Prob. ---------- W/kg ---------- Watts ---------- VO2 Max
P100 ---------- 6.26 ---------- 375.60 ----------
P90 ---------- 6.42 ---------- 390.63 ----------
P80 ---------- 6.48 ---------- 395.22 ----------
P70 ---------- 6.54 ---------- 399.11 ----------
P60 ---------- 6.60 ---------- 403.09 ----------
P50 ---------- 6.67 ---------- 407.14 ----------
P40 ---------- 6.75 ---------- 411.67 ----------
P30 ---------- 6.83 ---------- 416.63 ----------
P20 ---------- 6.91 ---------- 421.70 ----------
P10 ---------- 7.00 ---------- 427.71 ----------
P0 ---------- 7.23 ---------- 445.89 ----------



Wiggins Numbers
Prob. ---------- W/kg ---------- Watts ---------- VO2 Max
P100 ---------- 5.84 ---------- 408.50 ----------
P90 ---------- 5.99 ---------- 426.27 ----------
P80 ---------- 6.03 ---------- 430.45 ----------
P70 ---------- 6.06 ---------- 433.78 ----------
P60 ---------- 6.10 ---------- 436.80 ----------
P50 ---------- 6.13 ---------- 439.75 ----------
P40 ---------- 6.17 ---------- 442.74 ----------
P30 ---------- 6.21 ---------- 445.80 ----------
P20 ---------- 6.26 ---------- 449.54 ----------
P10 ---------- 6.31 ---------- 454.58 ----------
P0 ---------- 6.50 ---------- 476.20 ----------
How do we read these values. Easy. P100 means that there is 100% certainty that all numbers will be above these results. P0 means that it can not be higher than this number. In the engineering consulting for the oil industry we most of the times like to use the P50 results as our target for economics. So from these range of results you can conclude that there is more than 70% probability for Contador that all his power numbers are above 400 W or 6.54 W/kg. You know what that means. As for Wiggins there is more than 70% probability that all his power numbers are above 433 W or 6.06 W/kg. So the odds are against Wiggins if we believe that 6 W/kg is the limit.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
RdBiker said:
I think that if you look at TTT average power for the strongest rider in the group you won't get his max. achievable average power since he isn't doing an all-out performance. He might even have to hold back a little during his own pulls in order to not drop the weakest rider in the group. A solo TT would IMO be much closer to the numbers you see in the mountain climbs (though you rarely have climbs as long as TTs...)
Good point, on stage one his average power will be lower...BECAUSE of the downhill section. Also, the data could easily be BS, peanuts to tamper with the files. A lot of people read these forums and the wattage forums, pro teams that dont want to expose their doping for example.

As far as him averaging 446 watts for 20 minutes...That is upper upper range what Greg Lemond could do at his absolute peak. Greg mentioned in 89', 91 he could hold about 420-430 watts for 25 minutes. Wiggins is surely not going to win the TDF....EVER! And I think Bradley's files were likely fudged to read lower too. :(
 
Aug 17, 2009
99
0
0
Estimates

Escarabajo said:
This is from a previous thread. You can be the judge.
I think your numbers and variance for Verbier give a fairly accurate estimate and results are simliar to information I have seen where estimates are compared with recorded power data. I think around 400W for Contador and 440W for Wiggins sound about right. Generally it is easier to estimate wattage climbing than Time Trialing because gravity is the major force to overcome rather than wind. In time trialing the rider position is really hard to estimate and makes a big difference.

I am not convinced of an upper limit of 6 W/Kg being possible for a 20 min climb or whether weight makes a significant difference to possible power depending on body type and style and shape of the rider. Assessing the difference in weight lifters across different classes could provide relevant comparison of muscular power. Oxygen capacity, muscular and energy efficiency seem more relevant to the power output than the riders muscular power.
Bigger riders tend to have lower W/Kg than smaller riders and this makes Wiggins figure look more suspicious. I think I have posted in other threads examples of riders achieving 6.4 W/Kg for an hour while having no access to EPO

I think the variance in power data shows that Wiggins can produce higher power numbers while climbing than on the flat. This is my own experience as well and think it may be related to muscular stress of using bigger gears but dont have enough evidence to prove it

Corners and inconsistent power required in TTT must make a significant difference also.

Not sure whether these would total a 60-70 Watt difference but is possible

Another factor I didn't think of before was that he built up his form as the tour went on. Trainers and scientists cant yet explain the reasons for this but evidence suggest it happens and riders use tours for preparation as a result.
 
Sep 26, 2009
2
0
0
cyclingmad said:
I am not convinced of an upper limit of 6 W/Kg being possible for a 20 min climb or whether weight makes a significant difference to possible power depending on body type and style and shape of the rider. Assessing the difference in weight lifters across different classes could provide relevant comparison of muscular power. Oxygen capacity, muscular and energy efficiency seem more relevant to the power output than the riders muscular power.
Bigger riders tend to have lower W/Kg than smaller riders and this makes Wiggins figure look more suspicious. I think I have posted in other threads examples of riders achieving 6.4 W/Kg for an hour while having no access to EPO.
I don't really think you know what you are talking about when you say that it is improbable that riders can sustain a wattage above 6 W/Kg. I am just a cyclist that is 16 years old and I've had my wattage a number of times and each time I ride a climb that is over 7km my wattage is around 6.5 W/Kg and in a 20km flat TT my wattage is around 6.5 - 7 W/Kg and i definatly haven't touched EPO and i don't even take multi-vitamins. So you dismissing the likely hood of a professional cyclist being able to do this is ludicrous.
 
Aug 27, 2009
33
0
0
Shaunie,

What power measuring device are you using to determine your power? What speeds are you going in a 20 Km TT? I am highly skeptical of your data to say the least. Not so much in your reporting of it, but of the accuracy of the instruments used to record your power data.
 
Aug 17, 2009
99
0
0
thanks

shaunie said:
I don't really think you know what you are talking about when you say that it is improbable that riders can sustain a wattage above 6 W/Kg. I am just a cyclist that is 16 years old and I've had my wattage a number of times and each time I ride a climb that is over 7km my wattage is around 6.5 W/Kg and in a 20km flat TT my wattage is around 6.5 - 7 W/Kg and i definatly haven't touched EPO and i don't even take multi-vitamins. So you dismissing the likely hood of a professional cyclist being able to do this is ludicrous.
Thanks for this my point may not have been clear from the post.
We are in agreement in that we dont agree a limit of 6 W/Kg and that higher levels can and have been sustained unassisted.

My belief is that W/Kg is not a great measure of doping and that smaller riders will have higher values as the limit is more about efficiency and aerobic capacity.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Gregga said:
Just found this funny old thread.
Strange to notice that GarminConnect's datas for user 5939152 (Wiggins) don't exist any longer http://connect.garmin.com/activity/5939152
Also strange to see Wiggins FTP power was around 400w, quite lower than his TdF values (this ITT was long, that's true)

Of course, the "download ride data" link is broken...
453W at 2011 WC TT and supposedly 450W for the final TdF TT also.

Not bad for someone who lost weight eh? 12% increase in power.

Marginal gains FTW!
 
Apr 21, 2012
411
0
9,280
Dear Wiggo said:
453W at 2011 WC TT and supposedly 450W for the final TdF TT also.

Not bad for someone who lost weight eh? 12% increase in power.

Marginal gains FTW!
One can guess why the garmin user has been deleted;)
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Gregga said:
One can guess why the garmin user has been deleted;)
Look. Most people here believe JV is all about transparency and cleaning up cycling - just ask him for the archived power files from 2009 for Brad. In fact, the whole team. Can't misinterpret or explain away powerfiles like you can blood values. They're 3 year old powefiles, no tactical loss now, right!?

I see no reason at all why JV wouldn't release them out into the wild.

FWIW, Brad has gone from 400 @ 75kg (5.3 W/kg) mid-Giro to 450 @ 69kg (6.5W/kg) final TdF TT.

So it's not only 12% absolute power, but ~22% P::W [cough] marginal-gains induced increase.

Must remember to warm down. Oh wait. I already did that.
 
Apr 21, 2012
411
0
9,280
acoggan said:
As discussed at some length in that thread, I see no evidence that Wiggins' absolute power has markedly increased.
Thank you for your reply. How would you explain this FTP value (+/- 400w for both stage 5 and stage 12 ITT) in the '09 Giro compared to +/-450w in the chart of your link ?

Edit : according to Portoleau, Wiggins averaged 430w (6.05 w/kg) in the final climbs the latest TdF, which is consistent with your graph, but still +10% compared to 2009 Giro.

Edit2 : '09 Alpe di Siusi SRM file seems to be the last BW file ever published, since that day he became "wiggo the climber" and Garmin didn't share his datas any more. Troubling.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Gregga said:
Thank you for your reply. How would you explain this FTP value (+/- 400w for both stage 5 and stage 12 ITT) in the '09 Giro compared to +/-450w in the chart of your link ?
Fatigue? Lack of motivation? Who knows...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY