You should start your own thread with your own list, and explanations how you calculate. Enough from me in this thread.
You don't have an opinion on what a proper climber is. Your opinion is that Roglic is the greatest thing ever, and everything else follows from that.
- Feb 20, 2012
- 54,448
- 44,958
- 28,180
Saw a chart that had Pog gaining 30s immediately then giving it back over the easier part of the climb as he attacked very hard to drop Evenepoel very close to the bottom.
Video by the channel called 'Charlie, Carbs & Cycling' or something
- Aug 13, 2024
- 903
- 945
- 4,180
Thanks! I realized while reading your response that I can just go on strava to get an idea.
- After 1,2 kms Pogacar group is 28 seconds behind.
- Pogacar attacks and have made up 15 seconds at the time Evenepoel loses his wheel.
- Pogacar continues to close the gap, bringing it to even at 4km.
- Remco go back to being 30+ seconds behind.
- The gaps remian relatively stable last 2 kms. Remco lose maybe 10 seconds more on both.
- Apr 30, 2011
- 48,126
- 30,619
- 28,180
labrosse went ham for the first ~1'40"
- Feb 20, 2012
- 54,448
- 44,958
- 28,180
Guess I misread the chart
labrosse went ham for the first ~1'40"
- Apr 30, 2011
- 48,126
- 30,619
- 28,180
yes its very dumb to have the slower rider at -28s ( the clue is that the speed is also lower )
- Feb 20, 2012
- 54,448
- 44,958
- 28,180
I only very briefly watched the image pass by tbh. I don't have Strava premium so I cann't make those comparisons myself.
Anyway, I think everything really points to Pogacar doing a veeery suboptimal climb despite the race being harder, leading me to believe this climb in particular is way overindexed
Pogacar clearly did a suboptimal climb with Belgium pacing slowly at the beginning. Absolutely nuking the bottom like Seixas is not optimal either. Seixas also lost a bit of time in the flatter section with Jorgenson in the wheel.
Irregular climbs like this are seldom paced consistently, which is why I give bonus points. I am reasonably certain about the watts Seixas pushed, so it was a phenomenal performance regardless of the exact adjustment.
He obviously was on a great day, let's see if he can repeat it on a longer climb. Carapaz also did a one-off performance like this in the Giro last year that he could not repeat (yet).
Irregular climbs like this are seldom paced consistently, which is why I give bonus points. I am reasonably certain about the watts Seixas pushed, so it was a phenomenal performance regardless of the exact adjustment.
He obviously was on a great day, let's see if he can repeat it on a longer climb. Carapaz also did a one-off performance like this in the Giro last year that he could not repeat (yet).
- Feb 20, 2012
- 54,448
- 44,958
- 28,180
I don't doubt the numbers were huge, but I also think conditions (sea level, perfect temperatures, and only like 140km into a race with the previous climb being done at super easy pace) all help out a lot.
I'm curious what numbers you have for Blatten in Switserland 2024 as a reference for absolutely perfectly easy lead in to a W/kg bazooka
- Apr 30, 2011
- 48,126
- 30,619
- 28,180
almeida was just 4" quicker than yates
so blatten was better without adjustment
Of course the circumstances were not bad for a high performance, but absolutely nothing compared to Blatten which was almost better for performance than a pure MTT.
Adam Yates | 88 (-9): 7.12 W/kg for 19:31 on Blatten R.I.P. (Suisse 2024)
Almeida had slightly worse watts due to draft.
Adjustment 'only' (-9) since the climb is at middle altitude, would be even bigger otherwise. The absolute most I might go to on Saint Romain would be (-5) instead of the (-2 / -3) I gave. And this is only if I intentionally play with some parameters. It was definitely a better performance than Blatten (see gaps).
Edit: @Netserk you have studied my rankings better than Red Rick. In raw w/kg Blatten was slightly better (97 vs. 96), but almost the same.
Adam Yates | 88 (-9): 7.12 W/kg for 19:31 on Blatten R.I.P. (Suisse 2024)
Almeida had slightly worse watts due to draft.
Adjustment 'only' (-9) since the climb is at middle altitude, would be even bigger otherwise. The absolute most I might go to on Saint Romain would be (-5) instead of the (-2 / -3) I gave. And this is only if I intentionally play with some parameters. It was definitely a better performance than Blatten (see gaps).
Edit: @Netserk you have studied my rankings better than Red Rick. In raw w/kg Blatten was slightly better (97 vs. 96), but almost the same.
Last edited:
An additional point I wanted to mention:
I started this work maybe half a year ago, and I am happy enough with my results that I feel comfortable posting them on this forum. But I still make slight adjustments to my general method and also to specific climbs from time to time.
Especially if a climb has not been used much, I get new info every time it is done competitively which can lead to retroactive adjustments.
So the Indexes I post here are not final and I plan to update my rankings at the end of the year. (These changes will probably be just 1 point here or there, nothing major).
I started this work maybe half a year ago, and I am happy enough with my results that I feel comfortable posting them on this forum. But I still make slight adjustments to my general method and also to specific climbs from time to time.
Especially if a climb has not been used much, I get new info every time it is done competitively which can lead to retroactive adjustments.
So the Indexes I post here are not final and I plan to update my rankings at the end of the year. (These changes will probably be just 1 point here or there, nothing major).
Last edited:
- Feb 20, 2012
- 54,448
- 44,958
- 28,180
Blatten is a natural negative split climb and they did the climb at a negative split, which is gonna bring down both the climbing time and the gaps at the end.
And I'm not really saying the model would be improved by increasing the discount because the number is too high, because there's many unknowns and you're never gonna adjust perfectly every time.
I tend to think we underestimate the W/kg riders can do when completely fresh in perfect conditions (ie: Contador doing 458 watts for 20 minutes) and as a result we may overrate performances when conditions were better than anticipated or riders were fresher than expected.
There was also a scientific study at one point where they had training data of TdF podium riders - one of which was Nibali in his TdF winning year by process of elimination and the 20 minute numbers he had were way higher than anything he did in races.
And I'm not really saying the model would be improved by increasing the discount because the number is too high, because there's many unknowns and you're never gonna adjust perfectly every time.
I tend to think we underestimate the W/kg riders can do when completely fresh in perfect conditions (ie: Contador doing 458 watts for 20 minutes) and as a result we may overrate performances when conditions were better than anticipated or riders were fresher than expected.
There was also a scientific study at one point where they had training data of TdF podium riders - one of which was Nibali in his TdF winning year by process of elimination and the 20 minute numbers he had were way higher than anything he did in races.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 38K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 42K
-
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram