Brad Wiggins Power data [2009]

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
thehog said:
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccccckkkkkkkkk!
To be fair it's just an estimate. If they used the same formula for everyone then I could easily see Wiggins power output being overestimated as he has probaby the best position on the bike of any of them.

Of course, that in no way explains Froome having the second best numbers in that list. :eek:
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Gregga said:
Lack of motivation ? When you're for the first time abel to finish in the first 25 top riders of a mountain climb ?
Wiggins was 33rd after that stage, so it's not like he was racing for a place on the podium, or even the top 10. But as I said, who knows? All that we really know (assuming the power data are correct) is that he started a bit harder than he finished, and ended up with a normalized power of 399 W.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
2012 Tour de France - Stage 9: Arc-et-Senans to Besançon 41.5km

Janez Brajkovic

358 W
Average Power

* The nearly 1-hour TT is a good indication of Brajkovic's Functional Threshold Power (FTP) of 358w (5.6 w/kg). FTP represents a rider's maximum sustainable power output for a 1-hour maximum effort.
* Brajkovic is an experienced and successful time-trialist and paced this stage 9 time trial well. The first half of the race averaged 366 watts, while he averaged 351 watts the second half.
* Peak 30-minute power was 367 watts which was Brajkovic's maximum Peak 30-minute Power for the Tour to date.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/tour-de-france/2012/stage-9.aspx#.UJ1ni2ez4QU

Event: 2012 Olympic TT Men (01/08/2012)

Estimated statistics below.

Position Rider (Height,Weight) Time CdA Est. Watts Watts/Kg Watts/CdA

10 Janez Brajkovic (Slovenia) (1.77,60) 0:54:09 0.221 386 6.43 1748

GIGO
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
2012 Tour de France - Stage 9: Arc-et-Senans to Besançon 41.5km

Janez Brajkovic

358 W
Average Power

* The nearly 1-hour TT is a good indication of Brajkovic's Functional Threshold Power (FTP) of 358w (5.6 w/kg). FTP represents a rider's maximum sustainable power output for a 1-hour maximum effort.
* Brajkovic is an experienced and successful time-trialist and paced this stage 9 time trial well. The first half of the race averaged 366 watts, while he averaged 351 watts the second half.
* Peak 30-minute power was 367 watts which was Brajkovic's maximum Peak 30-minute Power for the Tour to date.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/tour-de-france/2012/stage-9.aspx#.UJ1ni2ez4QU

Event: 2012 Olympic TT Men (01/08/2012)

Estimated statistics below.

Position Rider (Height,Weight) Time CdA Est. Watts Watts/Kg Watts/CdA

10 Janez Brajkovic (Slovenia) (1.77,60) 0:54:09 0.221 386 6.43 1748

GIGO
So if Wiggins' power was overestimated to exactly the same extent, that means he would have averaged 358/386 * 480 = 445 W in his Olympic victory ride...which is consistent with 1) the critical power analysis I did back in August, and 2) the quotes recently taken from his book.
 
Oct 24, 2012
71
0
0
Any idea how reliable the weights for Brajkovic are? Those numbers suggest like 4kg difference? I'm sure there systematic error in the Olympic estimates but he stands out pretty badly on the list. So maybe systematic error + guessed weights?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
acoggan said:
So if Wiggins' power was overestimated to exactly the same extent, that means he would have averaged 358/386 * 480 = 445 W in his Olympic victory ride...which is consistent with 1) the critical power analysis I did back in August, and 2) the quotes recently taken from his book.
acoggan I am very curious why after a number of years using a power meter one of the 10 lessons you learnt was to not lose weight.

Why not?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
The critical power graph by acoggan misses the data that the first data point

(580W) was at 24 and 28 years of age, where Wiggins was around 82kg.

The final few data points - where his endurance is out the whazoo - he is 32 and 69kg.

They also ignore the fact that one value (580W) is done completely fresh, whilst the TT of 1+hr in duration at the end of the TdF was - at the end of the TdF.

This may have no bearing, and I am sure acoggan would love to / will jump in and offer plausible excuse er reason after plausible reason why the key rider for a team his mate sponsors has a plausible performance.

But I still won't buy it.

Just like I don't buy Lance Armstrong increased his efficiency over the space of 6-7 years and that's why he was so damn successful at the TdF. I don't care how many graphs you spit out.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
WinterRider said:
To be fair it's just an estimate. If they used the same formula for everyone then I could easily see Wiggins power output being overestimated as he has probaby the best position on the bike of any of them.

Of course, that in no way explains Froome having the second best numbers in that list. :eek:
Wiggins position is not that good. Definitely not the best. His head sticks out for starters. Big no no.

acoggan has hinted he has Wiggins power files from 2012 - why doesn't he just share the data?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
acoggan said:
So if Wiggins' power was overestimated to exactly the same extent, that means he would have averaged 358/386 * 480 = 445 W in his Olympic victory ride...which is consistent with 1) the critical power analysis I did back in August, and 2) the quotes recently taken from his book.
Such a keen interest for someone who doesn't follow pro cycling, acoggan! Again.
 
Jul 28, 2011
133
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Such a keen interest for someone who doesn't follow pro cycling, acoggan! Again.
Andy is a professional scientist, which essentially means he gets paid for having an attention to detail.

Along those lines, with regards to Wiggin's 2009 Giro TT, keep in mind the power was measured with a PowerTap: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3363/3552189152_1fe1ac9a45.jpg

Back of the envelope calculation assuming he did ~400w for the TT and 2.5% drivetrain loss and a 4% artifactual power inflation at ~100 rpms and ~400w for Osymmetric rings yields,

(400/0.975)/0.96 =~ 427w on his Osymmetric SRM system.

If he can do 427w for 1:36.28 then don't you think he can hold 450w (105.4% of 427w) for an hour? That - to the decimal point - is in fact the case for myself.
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Wiggins position is not that good. Definitely not the best.
Not that good... really? He may not have the best position but he is certainly up there I would argue. Plus he tends not to lose body position over time.
 
V3R1T4S said:
Andy is a professional scientist, which essentially means he gets paid for having an attention to detail.

Along those lines, with regards to Wiggin's 2009 Giro TT, keep in mind the power was measured with a PowerTap: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3363/3552189152_1fe1ac9a45.jpg

Back of the envelope calculation assuming he did ~400w for the TT and 2.5% drivetrain loss and a 4% artifactual power inflation at ~100 rpms and ~400w for Osymmetric rings yields,

(400/0.975)/0.96 =~ 427w on his Osymmetric SRM system.

If he can do 427w for 1:36.28 then don't you think he can hold 450w (105.4% of 427w) for an hour? That - to the decimal point - is in fact the case for myself.
If Wiggins did 427w what would someone like Garzelli have done!? Would Wiggins have had any aero advantage, give they were on road bike setups?

Garzelli was 99.03% of Wiggins' time.
Leipheimer 98.3%
Menchov 97.94%
 
Apr 21, 2012
411
0
9,280
V3R1T4S said:
Andy is a professional scientist, which essentially means he gets paid for having an attention to detail.

Along those lines, with regards to Wiggin's 2009 Giro TT, keep in mind the power was measured with a PowerTap: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3363/3552189152_1fe1ac9a45.jpg

Back of the envelope calculation assuming he did ~400w for the TT and 2.5% drivetrain loss and a 4% artifactual power inflation at ~100 rpms and ~400w for Osymmetric rings yields,

(400/0.975)/0.96 =~ 427w on his Osymmetric SRM system.

If he can do 427w for 1:36.28 then don't you think he can hold 450w (105.4% of 427w) for an hour? That - to the decimal point - is in fact the case for myself.
I didn't know for the Powertap, 2.5% for the drivetrain loss is what I use for my own calculations, I'm ok for it.
Not so sure for the 4% increase due to O'sym but I've already heard about it and that doesn't matter for w/kg calculations (just useful if you want to understand why SRM values are so high)

In the ITT the average power is certainly not 400w, but we won't know as the link as been erased. What surprised me was the Alpe di Siusi final climb during which BW cranked 400w for 28'. That should be close to his "fresh state" FTP and for 70kg body weight, that's 400/0.975=5,86 w/kg which is quite far from 2012 values (6,05 w/kg)

According to Portoleau, in 2009, Armstrong came from 5.5 w/kg in the Giro to 5.9w/kg in the Tour, thanks to the USADA, we know how he did it and that makes me wonder about BW values.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Gregga said:
In the ITT the average power is certainly not 400w, but we won't know as the link as been erased. What surprised me was the Alpe di Siusi final climb during which BW cranked 400w for 28'. That should be close to his "fresh state" FTP and for 70kg body weight, that's 400/0.975=5,86 w/kg which is quite far from 2012 values (6,05 w/kg)
2012 values are different (I think), due to the fact in 2009 Brad was trying to hang on - so going full-tilt.

In 2012, he's at the front, cool as a cucumber and under no threat. The only attack - by Nibali - was neutralised by Brad with consumate ease. If noone's pushing you, what you get is the highest W/kg from the contenders, not what the contenders can actually put out.

2009 maybe he was just cruising the climbs coz that's what GT hopefuls do :rolleyes: but in 2012, whether they were tracking power on their PMs or not, they were not going full-gas, so the calculated values are not their physiological limits.
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
In 2012, he's at the front, cool as a cucumber and under no threat. The only attack - by Nibali - was neutralised by Brad with consumate ease.
Is this the same stage where Froome attacked and everyone (including Nibali) followed except for Wiggins? Sure didn't look at ease there.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
acoggan I am very curious why after a number of years using a power meter one of the 10 lessons you learnt was to not lose weight.

Why not?
Strictly a personal observation, likely stemming from the facts that:

1) I'm naturally skinny (BMI = 20.3 w/o restricting what I eat);

2) I've never lived/often raced anywhere w/ any significant climbs; and

3) the times that I have lost significant amounts of weight my absolute VO2max and power have declined in parallel.

If #2 weren't true, my conclusion might (or might not) be different. Similarly, if I were a runner (or triathlete) I might also attempt to reduce my body mass, as for that sport it has paid off for me before.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
The critical power graph by acoggan misses the data that the first data point

(580W) was at 24 and 28 years of age, where Wiggins was around 82kg.

The final few data points - where his endurance is out the whazoo - he is 32 and 69kg.

They also ignore the fact that one value (580W) is done completely fresh, whilst the TT of 1+hr in duration at the end of the TdF was - at the end of the TdF.

This may have no bearing, and I am sure acoggan would love to / will jump in and offer plausible excuse er reason after plausible reason why the key rider for a team his mate sponsors has a plausible performance.

But I still won't buy it.

Just like I don't buy Lance Armstrong increased his efficiency over the space of 6-7 years and that's why he was so damn successful at the TdF. I don't care how many graphs you spit out.
Actually, Wiggins was targeting 570 (not 580) W for his pursuit in Beijing...and we don't even know if he achieved that. But, the data are what the data are; my point is simply that as best as we can determine they are internally consistent.

As for the effects of age and body mass, 32 is still too young to claim that someone must slow down due to aging, whereas we really don't know what Wiggins weighed when (as I've pointed out before, this is a far greater source of uncertainty than his actual power).
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Such a keen interest for someone who doesn't follow pro cycling, acoggan! Again.
The quotes from Wiggins' book re. his power output have been plastered all over the internet...you practically can't visit any cycling forum and not come across them.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
acoggan said:
Actually, Wiggins was targeting 570 (not 580) W for his pursuit in Beijing...and we don't even know if he achieved that. But, the data are what the data are; my point is simply that as best as we can determine they are internally consistent.

As for the effects of age and body mass, 32 is still too young to claim that someone must slow down due to aging, whereas we really don't know what Wiggins weighed when (as I've pointed out before, this is a far greater source of uncertainty than his actual power).
Actually in 2006 Wiggins was hitting 580W and saying that's what he hit (or thereabouts - maybe it was 570W) to gold medal in 2004.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Gregga said:
Not so sure for the 4% increase due to O'sym but I've already heard about it and that doesn't matter for w/kg calculations (just useful if you want to understand why SRM values are so high)
In the present context, I don't think the "grade inflation" due to his use of non-round rings is really important (esp. given the limitations of the critical power model). But, ~4% is ~4% if you're quibbling over the difference between SRM and PowerTap.

Gregga said:
In the ITT the average power is certainly not 400w, but we won't know as the link as been erased.
It's still out there somewhere, as I took a look at the data yesterday...the normalized power was 399.5 W.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY