Comprehensive Climbers Ranking

[Netserk]

Are we are arguing right now or do we actually have the same opinion?
We agree that Vingegaard was better in weeks 2 and 3. His form in the first week was not that great according to his own words.
Pogacar was definitely very close to / on the limit on Pegueres and Peyragudes, even though the pace was not high. I even think the Peyragudes stage might have been the lowest point of Pogacar's career. (His team finally did a good job, but he was then not even strong enough to attack and only won because Vingegaard did not bother to attack himself)

i dont think pogi was on the limit with mcnultys pace , but he wanted to win the stage and thus had to wait for the sprint

he tried a safe attack near the top of azet where he didnt risk a counter , and then decided to wait for the next day as he knew vingegaard was stronger

i disagree with : "Yes, in 2022 Vingegaard was better, but probably only 0.05-0.1 w/kg on average. the tactics and race situation increased the gaps."

if you think pogi was on the limit on peyragudes , then surely race tactics minimised the gaps as vingegaard didnt attack

 

[Peyresourde]

i dont think pogi was on the limit with mcnultys pace , but he wanted to win the stage and thus had to wait for the sprint

he tried a safe attack near the top of azet where he didnt risk a counter , and then decided to wait for the next day as he knew vingegaard was stronger

i disagree with : "Yes, in 2022 Vingegaard was better, but probably only 0.05-0.1 w/kg on average. the tactics and race situation increased the gaps."

if you think pogi was on the limit on peyragudes , then surely race tactics minimised the gaps as vingegaard didnt attack

To specify: I think the race tactics increased the gaps on the 2 stages he was dropped on, not in general.
As fo the average, it is just a pure guess, maybe Vingegaard was much stronger and just did not try. (I also included stages like SPDBF and Mende in my thinking, where I think they were around equal). Otherwise we basically agree on everthing then except for the Peyragudes stage.

 

[Pozzovivo]

There's an elephant in the room and everyone is extremely busy writing about anything else.

but if correct, why is this the case now and not before? I can't imagine the topic scoring badly in the clickbaiting environment of today.

 

[Red Rick]

but if correct, why is this the case now and not before? I can't imagine the topic scoring badly in the clickbaiting environment of today.

I replied to you in the deep, dark dungeon of the forum.

 

[Pozzovivo]

Seixas broke Pogacar's record on Saint Roman De Lerps today? Are you planning on indexing it, @Peyresourde?

 

[Peyresourde]

Seixas broke Pogacar's record on Saint Roman De Lerps today? Are you planning on indexing it, @Peyresourde?

I have watched Omloop today and not Faun Ardeche. If it is true it would be one of the most shocking performances of the last 15 years. Better than anything anyone except for Vingegaard and Pogacar has done climbing-wise. But let me confirm it first.

Edit: On first watch it looks very impressive, similar level to Pogacar last year. (The only mitigating factor is that the first 3 minutes last year with Belgium in the lead were very slow, from the point of attack Pogacar was faster). But I want to make very sure before I publish this.

 

[Tim Cahill]

7.2 w/kg for 16 minutes from a 12 year old, surely something amiss with the wind conditions or calculations

Right? They've just repaved the road or something surely, with extra fast French tarmac that adds 50 watts.

 

[Pozzovivo]

7.2 w/kg for 16 minutes from a 12 year old, surely something amiss with the wind conditions or calculations

Right? They've just repaved the road or something surely, with extra fast French tarmac that adds 50 watts.

Saw it again. There was no wind. He pulled at the front himself almost the entire way. Tarmac looked old /not new.

 

[Pozzovivo]

Saw it again. There was no wind. He pulled at the front himself almost the entire way. Tarmac looked old /not new.

Should be said that Christen, Jorgenson and Martinez were "only" ~ 25's off. So probably very good conditions for fast acsent. Still.

 

[Brumdog66]

Yes, in 2022 Vingegaard was better, but probably only 0.05-0.1 w/kg on average. the tactics and race situation increased the gaps. In my opinion, Hautacam may have even been Pogacar's strongest day, so it was not a recovery problem for him. Pogacar's cornering on the TT-Bike was also really bad from 2021-2023, while Vingegaard was extremely good at that.
In 2023 it may have indeed been a recovery problem for Pogacar. What I meant to say was that it was not a problem of long/hard stages. Loze was the only one of those and he collapsed early there.


I think we can all agree that it is a combination of different factors.
The major point about nutrition is that riders can now go hard for much longer. Riders in the 2010s were literally afraid to waste one extra pedal stroke.
Just because scientists studied something already does not mean it was implemented in cycling already.

If performances continue to increase and don't start plateauing now, something is definitely up. I am convinced that the riders themselves and their coaches had no idea that they were capable of the Plateau de Beille performance even the morning before. These are not all geniuses. If you imply that it was all planned, you probably give them more credit than they deserve.

Mou knew

 

[Peyresourde]

I calculated it and the results are really shocking. The other riders except for Seixas did not do a special performance. A 30 second gap + more draft is a gigantic difference on such a short climb.

Paul Seixas | 94 (-2): 7.21 W/kg for 16:26 on Saint Romain de Lerps (Faun Ardeche 2026)*

Similar time or slightly faster than Pogacar last year, who did: 96 (0): 7.20 W/kg for 16:27
The wind direction was similar to last year. The differences:

- last year they did 1 Val d'Enfer before really hard already
- the first 3 minutes were far slower last year with Belgium pacing
- it was further to the finish last year

--> Absolutely shocking and scary performance. Let's see if he can repeat it, but we seem to have a real new contender.


*Edit: On rewatch and comparing with last year again I added 1 second to the time

 

[Netserk]

so a higher score than evenepoel on pdb thus he has the third highest pb as a 19yo

 

[Red Rick]

7% climbing estimates strike again.

Models still put in the same CdA as 20 years ago?

 

[Peyresourde]

It has to be said that my model is 'kind' to this climb with just a (-2) adjustment, but I give bonus points for irregularity and because it is located far from the finish. It is also super low altitude, which I do not punish as hard as some other models.

Still, even with a slightly higher negative adjustment, it would still be a crazy perfomance.

7% climbing estimates strike again.

Models still put in the same CdA as 20 years ago?

I do not use the same Cda and CRR. I have gradually reduced those each year since the 2010s in my model. I also specifically use a lower CdA for shallower climbs. (Of course, I may still overestimate current CdA and CRR values. I am open to suggestion if someone knows the current average values of a ~60kg rider).

 

[Tim Cahill]

There were brief moments of hesitation from Seixas because of Jorgenson so he could've gone a little faster I think, plus had to save a bit as the attack was from 50k out, much like Pogacar last year.

 

[Red Rick]

It has to be said that my model is 'kind' to this climb with just a (-2) adjustment, but I give bonus points for irregularity and because it is located far from the finish. It is also super low altitude, which I do not punish as hard as some other models.

Still, even with a slightly higher negative adjustment, it would still be a crazy perfomance.


I do not use the same Cda and CRR. I have gradually reduced those each year since the 2010s in my model. I also specifically use a lower CdA for shallower climbs. (Of course, I may still overestimate current CdA and CRR values. I am open to suggestion if someone knows the current average values of a ~60kg rider).

I'm mainly talking about other models. My assumption about CdA being too high is nearly all the super high estimates these days seem to be from climbs that are around 7% average. I do know that's likely the optimum for many riders, but these climbs are also quite tactical more often than not, and I wonder how much effect moto drafting gets because they tend to get a bit closer on climbs.

The funniest one to me was a particular model having Montserrat in Catalunya last year at like 85 for nearly all riders when most riders were drafting in a group at 27kph the entire climb.

 

[Peyresourde]

The effect of motos is a total mystery to me, but I assume it is not that big. For this specific climb the uncertainties in the calculation are higher because it has several small descents.

There are simply much more 7-8 % climbs ridden than steep ones, especially in the Tour de France where perfomances are the highest anyway.

 

[CyclistAbi]

This is i guess the problem with such stats and numbers in general, Seixas should now automatically be perceived as tier 2, landing in a very select group of riders, historically speaking. Rogla for example listed at tier 4. In the end there is more to it then one stat.

But all in all nothing wrong with different metrics, especially when somebody puts real work into creating them. AI will likely scrap such data and sell it as pure gold.

 

[Cookster15]

Firstly, kudos to the OP for going to all this effort. But the thread title states climbers ranking - not best climbing performances.

In my opinion best climbers should be ranked over many climbs and not the same race and not one or two races. As I see it, the tables group performances mathematically by tier based upon individual performances then are grouped. Not sure this tells the full story?

If two climbing performances are equal on paper, then ride which was preceded by multiple mountains or late on a grand tour is surely a superior climbing performance than unipuerto or one off efforts in one day races (like Seixas today)?

As for older climbing records and motos, I've rewatched Pantani's AdH record several times and the motos were not that close that I could see? If there was any drafting effect it was only for a moment as motos were slowed by the crowd. But in slowing it also means Pantani might have gone even faster with an unhindered path! And don't forget Pantani overshot the last corner when he set the record on AdH in 1995.

 

[Peyresourde]

Firstly, kudos to the OP for going to all this effort. But the thread title states climbers ranking - not best climbing performances.

In my opinion best climbers should be ranked over many climbs and not the same race and not one or two races. As I see it, the tables group performances mathematically by tier based upon individual performances then are grouped. Not sure this tells the full story?

If two climbing performances are equal on paper, then ride which was preceded by multiple mountains or late on a grand tour is surely a superior climbing performance than unipuerto or one off efforts in one day races (like Seixas today)?

As for older climbing records and motos, I've rewatched Pantani's AdH record several times and the motos were not that close that I could see? If there was any drafting effect it was only for a moment as motos were slowed by the crowd. But in slowing it also means Pantani might have gone even faster with an unhindered path! And don't forget Pantani overshot the last corner when he set the record on AdH in 1995.

Please read the description of my rankings, I have detailed my process there. I have ranked individual performances in one list and then the climbers in another list. The climbers ranking is determined by a weighted average of their 10 best performances. I won't say that this is the optimal method to rank climbing ability, it is just the method I decided to use.

I specifically make adjustments for different factors like stage hardness, altitude, approach etc. I described that in th OP, too.
The only thing I do not adjust for is whether a performance is done in a one day race or late in a GT. Plenty of riders have done their PB in the third week of a GT, they often recover 100% stage-to-stage.

I only specifically adjusted for moto draft in extreme cases like Poggio and Cipressa in the 90s. I have also rated Pantani on Alpe d'Huez extremely high and mentioned in my reveal that it even has an argument to be the best effort of all time.

 

[Red Rick]

The effect of motos is a total mystery to me, but I assume it is not that big. For this specific climb the uncertainties in the calculation are higher because it has several small descents.

There are simply much more 7-8 % climbs ridden than steep ones, especially in the Tour de France where perfomances are the highest anyway.

Most profiles I can find have one section that goes flat/downhill and then it hits minus 1-2% for 100m for a total of 2 meters of elevation loss.

Aside from that, irregularity would certianly explain the size of the gaps if they just got blown up by the pace and then basically tried to ride together with the group.

 

[Peyresourde]

Most profiles I can find have one section that goes flat/downhill and then it hits minus 1-2% for 100m for a total of 2 meters of elevation loss.

Aside from that, irregularity would certianly explain the size of the gaps if they just got blown up by the pace and then basically tried to ride together with the group.

This can't really be seen in most profiles, you have to watch the footage. Basically the first 2 k are steep, then it goes something like flat-steep-downhill-steep-flat-steep and so on (very undulating)

 

[Red Rick]

This can't really be seen in most profiles, you have to watch the footage. Basically the first 2 k are steep, then it goes something like flat-steep-downhill-steep-flat-steep and so on (very undulating)

Veloviewer is pretty nice at maximum resolution

The thing about irregular climbs is it can make people think short pieces of false flat uphill are small descents.

 

[Peyresourde]

Veloviewer is pretty nice at maximum resolution

The thing about irregular climbs is it can make people think short pieces of false flat uphill are small descents.

There is not much downhill (maybe 3-6 m), but even (false) flats slightly increase the necessary watts to achieve certain VAM and also affect the pacing of the rider (higher normalized watts).
My own adjustment for this climb is around 0.1 w/kg compared to a more regular climb.

The gaps are also big enough to support a high level performance (Martinez and Jorgensen are only at 76-77 on my Index which is their ecpected level)

 

[CyclistAbi]

To me personally the best climber does not only win but uses the least amount of effort in doing so. This i guess could theoretically mess with the perception of tiers. As i guess some couldn't care less if it takes 10 or 9 minutes, to finish on top. For as long as you take the win and preferably for others to do most of the work. That is IMHO a pinnacle of a proper climber. Maximising the results while minimising the effort.