"clean", "suspect", "miraculous" and "mutants"

[Eshnar]

I suck at French but I'm pretty sure he says his formula takes into account weather and wind.

ok, that's a lot better than I thought. My apologies.
Only thing he ignores, though, it's the race itself. I mean, how much of the climb the rider did actually ride with the peloton. That affects all the "wind" issue.

Anyway I'd like to know what formulas he used.

 

[webvan]

The main problem is to try to get numbers to say "too much", case in point:

La Ruchère ITT in 1984 :
Lemond : clean with 407/5.99/425 - 28'09"
Hinault : suspicious with 409/6.29/442 - 27'25"
Fignon : Miraculous with 429/6.5/454 - 26'51"

Dunno, I'm not finding this very convincing...yeah you've got to draw the line somewhere but in pre-EPO days it looks like they're splitting hair.

Having said that it's nice to have tables with all these memorable climbs and associated comments over the years!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

okay.
The power output on a certain route of length X, climbed in a certain time T, is
P=F*X/T, by theory, where I consider the force F to be constant (it isn't, and this is another flaw of the whole "let's-take-wattages-to-compare-riders", but let's ignore it).
Now let's assume we have two riders, both of them have ridden the same climb, in the same total time, but in two different conditions. One had headwind and the other tailwind.
The first one had a drag resistance enormously higher that the second, hence his F must have been higher than the one of the second rider, thus provoking a higher power output. Consistently higher. Now, if I didn't consider this condition but just calculated the power output right away not knowing the wind, how would that work out?

You are accounting for a single climb, they aren't. They are comparing multiple performances which evens out the variables you present. Did you consider that?

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

Well, we all knew that Vino is a miracle, so him being orange, is just as clean as Lemonds green thingy. Well done Vino, for proving your innocense!

 

[martinvickers]

I'm waiting for the mail to come.

Wonder who got the clean sheet.

Come on, you must know that...

 

[LaFlorecita]

ridiculous. Alberto is mutant because someone miscalculated his power output on Verbier higher than Armstrong

 

[Le breton]

They only take watts into account, not W/kg, right? That has its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!!!

It's all based on watts/kg

the watt numbers are just for a "generic" type 70 kg cyclist.

 

[Le breton]

What does the number on the far left indicate?

page number

 

[JRTinMA]

OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!!!

It's all based on watts/kg

the watt numbers are just for a "generic" type 70 kg cyclist.

Its normalized for a 70kg rider.

 

[Le breton]

Actually... the page number

sorry, i answer the same questions as you do, just later in the day

 

[thehog]

ok, that's a lot better than I thought. My apologies.
Only thing he ignores, though, it's the race itself. I mean, how much of the climb the rider did actually ride with the peloton. That affects all the "wind" issue.

Anyway I'd like to know what formulas he used.

Next time read the article.

Save me some time

 

[Le breton]

Badger's yellow flag is due to a "not normal" mountain TT in 1981 in Avoriaz I believe, that day he did something like 6.4 W/kg which is a lot for pre-EPO era.

1979 : Thonon-Avoriaz TT, he did 33'00 on the final climb (not the normal course, they had 2 short cuts) from Morzine. 6.34 W/kg

1982 Giro Monte campione 6.37 W/kg 35 minutes.

 

[Le breton]

If Contador's actual weight was used I doubt he would be mutant. He's 8 to 10 Kgs below the normalized 70.

I guess you don't understand the principle of the calculation.

 

[Eshnar]

Next time read the article.

Save me some time

you didn't either.
Anyway my point is still valid. If you don't take into account the environment it's rubbish

 

[JRTinMA]

I guess you don't understand the principle of the calculation.
Get informed

I didn't when I wrote that, I see you can not be taught, I can I guess. Carry on in ignorance.

 

[icefire]

It's not total rubbish. What you you refer to are "variables". It doesn't make the findings redundant.

Any student of physics knows that variables have uncertainties. I find these kind of studies interesting, but I can't consider them serious when uncertainties in their variables are completely ignored. Antoine Vayer should watch Walter Lewin's lectures on Classical Mechanics to get a clue on this.

 

[Eshnar]

Any student of physics knows that variables have uncertainties. I find these kind of studies interesting, but I can't consider them serious when uncertainties in their variables are completely ignored. Antoine Vayer should watch Walter Lewin's lectures on Classical Mechanics to get a clue on this.

Doesn't really require a MIT lesson to get that

 

[hrotha]

OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!!!

It's all based on watts/kg

the watt numbers are just for a "generic" type 70 kg cyclist.

If you ask me, watt and W/kg figures you calculate with a normalized weight aren't as "real" as the ones that use real weight estimations. That's what I was talking about.

 

[icefire]

Doesn't really require a MIT lesson to get that

But this is systematically ignored by everyone doing numbers on cycling rides. And the MIT lessons by Prof Lewin are fun to watch

 

[JRTinMA]

I guess you don't understand the principle of the calculation.

I didn't when I wrote that comment, I had not read the article yet. I was relying on posters interpretations which were shown to be wrong after reading it. Live and learn I guess.

 

[Eshnar]

But this is systematically ignored by everyone doing numbers on cycling rides. And the MIT lessons by Prof Lewin are fun to watch

they are indeed

 

[Le breton]

.....
A short ITT would definitely make a difference. You can appreciate it from the red line in Nibs' analysis. The line goes up as time goes down, because more power can be put out for a shorter period of time. The line is in fact an estimate based on what he was known to put out in one sustained climb of around forty minutes.

However, I assume Vayer would have factored that in. He would either have to make all his power estimates from relatively sustained climbs, or use a projection like that red line to estimate what sustained power would be based on power output for shorter intervals.

If Hinault had a power output of 6.4 watts/kg for a sustained climb, around 40 min, then the only thing available at that time that would explain it would be blood transfusion. But there is no evidence that he did that, and if he did, one would expect he would do it at other times, as well.

I haven't read the book, of course, but if he's claiming Hinault did 6.4 watts/kg, then there is almost certainly something wrong with his calculations. Most likely he used too short an interval, and if he did, then many of his other estimates are probably wrong, too. But again, it seems hard to believe that Vayer would make a simple mistake like that.

Edit: Where did the 6.4 watts/kg come from? According to what I've seen, Hinault was classified as yellow. This would mean > 5.85 watts/kg. This I think is believable without EPO. Remember there is considerable variation in on the road estimates due to weather conditions. E.g., Hinault could have had a tail wind on that climb.

That Morzine-Avoriaz 6.34 W/kg TT climb by Hinault in 1979 came after climbing from Thonon (about 400 m asl) to Morzine (960 m asl) over a bit more than 30 km.
That TT can best be compared with the TT from Cluses to Avoriaz ( with some rain) in 1994 when 100% Hct Ugrumov did 31:31 (against 33:00 for Hinault in 79) but with the disavantadge for Ugrumov that he didn't take the shortcuts which are a help in shallow slopes of the normal route at the bottom of the clim from morzine).

Portoleau did a calculation of that climb a couple of years ago on cyclismag where he showed a map of the course followed in 1979 vs other times(94, etc)
PS Here is the reference. Unfortunately the pictures are no longer available
http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5950

 

[Le breton]

Dunno if someone mentioned it already (I hope someone did), but taking into accounts power outputs without considering anything else (how hard the stage was, the weather, the race as a whole) is pure rubbish.

Obviously you have not been following the discussion

 

[Eshnar]

Obviously you have not been following the discussion

No sh!t?

 

[Le breton]

It's rubbish in order to judge a performance. Ofc it's nice to have all this data, but to use them and write 'this is more suspect than that because the power output was higher' is rubbish.

I didn't realize you were incompetent.