Comprehensive Climbers Ranking

[Peyresourde]

@Red Rick why would you find it weird for Passo Lanciano to be a good performance? AFAIK Tv-coverage only began after the start of the climb but most context clues would lead you to believe that it was a very good performance?

Mont Ventoux and all long climbs are a bit problematic for W/kg estimations. You may have noticed that Ventoux was not among my Top 24 performances even though Vingegaard, Mayo and Pantani all have delivered great performances there?

I do not necessarily think that the Watts themselves are overestimated. The performance gaps just seem smaller on long climbs. Additionally, the pacing is never really all out for the whole climb, so the subtoppers always have the best pacing while the best have a negative split.

This makes it easier to achieve good performances, but harder to achieve great performances. Weirdly, (lack of) fatigue before the climb also seems more important for long climbs than for medium length climbs.

 

[Red Rick]

@Red Rick why would you find it weird for Passo Lanciano to be a good performance? AFAIK Tv-coverage only began after the start of the climb but most context clues would lead you to believe that it was a very good performance?

Mont Ventoux and all long climbs are a bit problematic for W/kg estimations. You may have noticed that Ventoux was not among my Top 24 performances even though Vingegaard, Mayo and Pantani all have delivered great performances there?

I do not necessarily think that the Watts themselves are overestimated. The performance gaps just seem smaller on long climbs. Additionally, the pacing is never really all out for the whole climb, so the subtoppers always have the best pacing while the best have a negative split.

This makes it easier to achieve good performances, but harder to achieve great performances. Weirdly, (lack of) fatigue before the climb also seems more important for long climbs than for medium length climbs.

I don't think Lanciano wasn't good. I just don't think there's much reason to believe it was the greatest performance of the year. It was a very easy stage before Lanciano with more false flat downhill than uphill, and Lanciano very low altitude for a climb that size.

As for Ventoux, it doesn't have that much of a negative split because it tends to have cross/tailwind in the forest section which can then turn into a big cross/headwind after Chalet Reynard. I'm actually pretty sure Vingegaard set the record on the Chalet Reynard-Ventoux section in 2021 the one time they did race passively, which goes to say that's very uncommon there.

 

[Peyresourde]

The Ventoux climb is basically a U sideways (turned left by 90°). The wind is often either tail-cross-head or cross-tails-cross. I think 2009 had quite strong wind with Saxobank really pushing the pace on the flatter bottom part, which is important for fast times.

It would be cleaner to only calculate the Watts from St. Esteve, which I also do. E.g. Pantani in 94 and Vingegaard last year had higher performances on this 45 minute section than for the whole climb. On the other hand, the bottom half of the Top 10 has better performances for the whole climb as they are paced nicely in the beginning.

But both Nibali and Wiggins had exactly the same Index on Verbier and Ventoux in 2009, so I do not think I am that wrong.

If we look at normal Watt-Trendlines in the context of FTP, then I think the general 60 minute power is closer to the 20 minute power than the actual observed gap between the best 20 and 60 minute climbing performances.

And just as an example, if we assume that Poagacar is 0.6 W/kg better than the 10th best rider on a 20 minute climb. Then I think he might only be 0.45 W/kg better on a 60 minute climb. But aspects like these are almost impossible to consider accurately in my model.

 

[Red Rick]

The Ventoux climb is basically a U sideways (turned left by 90°). The wind is often either tail-cross-head or cross-tails-cross. I think 2009 had quite strong wind with Saxobank really pushing the pace on the flatter bottom part, which is important for fast times.

It would be cleaner to only calculate the Watts from St. Esteve, which I also do. E.g. Pantani in 94 and Vingegaard last year had higher performances on this 45 minute section than for the whole climb. On the other hand, the bottom half of the Top 10 has better performances for the whole climb as they are paced nicely in the beginning.

But both Nibali and Wiggins had exactly the same Index on Verbier and Ventoux in 2009, so I do not think I am that wrong.

If we look at normal Watt-Trendlines in the context of FTP, then I think the general 60 minute power is closer to the 20 minute power than the actual observed gap between the best 20 and 60 minute climbing performances.

And just as an example, if we assume that Poagacar is 0.6 W/kg better than the 10th best rider on a 20 minute climb. Then I think he might only be 0.45 W/kg better on a 60 minute climb. But aspects like these are almost impossible to consider accurately in my model.

Relative gap does go down on longer climbs. I also associate this with how fatigue makes gaps get smaller in a lot of races because nobody attacks anymore, and how on climbs like Bola del Mundo and Cuitu Negru the gaps can be really small in the top 10 because it basically becomes a really fatigued 10 minute effort where nobody really drops crazy watts anymore.

As for Ventoux 2009 being the same index as Verbier, that climb was also notoriously tailwind assisted, which was recognized even back then as the speculation came out about the power estimates.