Critical Power Study of GT Winners

[Ferminal]

Contador 2009 842 Watts for 4 minutes, evidence of how bad track cyclists are. I think his 2313 for a minute beats Sir Chris too..

 

[red_flanders]

Froome went up Ventoux in 59 minutes..4 minutes slower than Mayo, JV, and a minute slower than Pantani in 1994.

You should look at how many of those were TT's and not road stages.

To be less cryptic, the only time you mention there which isn't, is Pantani's. Froome matched the times of all the hard-core dopers like Armstrong etc.

It would take the wildest leap of faith and imagination to believe anyone could do that clean, let alone Froome, whose early career didn't exactly show him to be the once-in-a-generation talent who...well couldn't come close to those times clean.

 

[Ferminal]

Does 2 kW beat a moto? Bertie was a 500cc though...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Again , there are far less unreliable ways to do that than CP.

Which is why I have to wonder what the genesis of the research was.

It seems like an Ed Coyle Armstrong study.

 

[roundabout]

No wonder there haven't been any Contador vs horse races

 

[Dave_1]

You should look at how many of those were TT's and not road stages.

To be less cryptic, the only time you mention there which isn't, is Pantani's. Froome matched the times of all the hard-core dopers like Armstrong etc.

It would take the wildest leap of faith and imagination to believe anyone could do that clean, let alone Froome, whose early career didn't exactly show him to be the once-in-a-generation talent who...well couldn't come close to those times clean.

Am hoping you don't need it pointed out Pantani did Ventoux a minute faster than Froome in 1994 on an 8kg bike in a road stage compared to Froome's 6.9kg bike

and Armstrong and Ullrich's TT times up Alpe dhuez simialr to their times in road stages up it. Not sure it's a clear advantage or disadvantagee to have a TT v a road stage up a mountain.

 

[pmcg76]

Am hoping you don't need it pointed out Pantani did Ventoux a minute faster than Froome in 1994 on an 8kg bike in a road stage compared to Froome's 6.9kg bike

One rider from the pre 50%limit era!!! That is the only guy to go faster than Froome, hardly a good refutal, more a re-inforcement that Froome has to be doping than anything.

 

[rhubroma]

Contador, in particular, as noted above, had a much higher AEC in 2009 than in 2013. Why?

Simple because in 2013 he was fat and out of shape, compared with 2009. This year, since he tapped his mouth over the winter, all indications seem to be headed back to 09 form.

 

[The Hitch]

Froome went up Ventoux in 59 minutes..4 minutes slower than Mayo, JV, and a minute slower than Pantani in 1994.

http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/...km-h-VAM-W-W-kg-etc-%29&p=2061073#post2061073

You're welcome

 

[42x16ss]

Am hoping you don't need it pointed out Pantani did Ventoux a minute faster than Froome in 1994 on an 8kg bike in a road stage compared to Froome's 6.9kg bike

and Armstrong and Ullrich's TT times up Alpe dhuez simialr to their times in road stages up it. Not sure it's a clear advantage or disadvantagee to have a TT v a road stage up a mountain.

Pantani did his Ventoux ascent before there was an EPO test, cycling didn't even have the 50% hematocrit test at that stage.

Jonathan Vaughters basically admitted to being doped to the gills for the Ventoux record - which was an ITT during a one week race, not 2 weeks into the TdF - in this very forum! Don't believe me? Do a search, his username is JV1971.

Either you are a relatively new fan, or something else. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - for now.

Edit: Just saw your join date

 

[Ferminal]

Looking at those charts some of the input data looks dodgy too.

 

[Dave_1]

Pantani did his Ventoux ascent before there was an EPO test, cycling didn't even have the 50% hematocrit test at that stage.

Jonathan Vaughters basically admitted to being doped to the gills for the Ventoux record - which was an ITT during a one week race, not 2 weeks into the TdF - in this very forum! Don't believe me? Do a search, his username is JV1971.

Either you are a relatively new fan, or something else. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - for now.

Edit: Just saw your join date

Stop going on about TTs. 1994 road stage Ventoux. Pantani on 8kg bike 2 weeks into TDF 1994 and a minute faster than Froome 2 weeks in to 2013 TDF who was on a 6.9kg bike on a road stage. Give over about TTs and deal with comparable facts. What part of that don't you understand? Can you count?

 

[BYOP88]

Stop going on about TTs. 1994 road stage Ventoux. Pantani on 8kg bike 2 weeks into TDF 1994 and a minute faster than Froome 2 weeks in to 2013 TDF who was on a 6.9kg bike on a road stage. Give over about TTs and deal with comparable facts. What part of that don't you understand? Can you count?

Yeah it's disgusting, imagine how quicker Pantani would've been if he wasn't so overweight.

 

[red_flanders]

Am hoping you don't need it pointed out Pantani did Ventoux a minute faster than Froome in 1994 on an 8kg bike in a road stage compared to Froome's 6.9kg bike

and Armstrong and Ullrich's TT times up Alpe dhuez simialr to their times in road stages up it. Not sure it's a clear advantage or disadvantagee to have a TT v a road stage up a mountain.

All those guys were doped to the gills. Pantani probably the greatest climber ever, and recorded that time before the 50% hematocrit limit was put in place.

I would offer that it's probably an advantage not to have a hilly or even mountainous 200 km lead-in to the climb. Possibly you would be less fresh than a 1-hour TT effort. Maybe. Never mind that the times on climbs on TT's are always faster, independent of rider or course. See TT times up...well Ventoux and l'Alpe.

You're not seriously arguing that Froome's performance was legit, are you?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

re ADH - I charted the average speed of fastest 5 riders from each TdF ascent by year:

2004 ITT shown with blue dot.

Detail here:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/lalpe-dhuez-again-top-200.html

If someone has the data for the 2013 ascent, I can update the chart when I get a chance.

 

[Merckx index]

But it's all the same line. If the 2min AWC value is invalid then the corresponding CP value means nothing either. For a given set of data and fixed CP there is only one solution for AWC, you can't not accept that number but pretend the CP value still holds. You wouldn't use CP if you were trying to disregard the anaerobic component, there are easier ways to get a rough idea of what someone is capable of for an hour. Obviously when Froome does 6.2 in a 40km in 2011 you'd think his aerobic ability is better than what this indicates. Either that or the anaerobic component is true...

There's a big difference between some value being somewhat inaccurate and it's meaning nothing. Again, as you extrapolate to zero, the values are going to be less and less accurate, because the assumptions underlying the curve--that power equals anaerobic reserves over time--break down. E.g., there are limits to the rate at which anaerobic reserves can be tapped into. At longer intervals of time, those limits are not a factor, whereas at shorter periods they are. IOW, the curve suggests Froome has enough reserves so that if he could tap into them all at once, he could have such and such power at two minutes. But he can't necessarily mobilize them all in that period, whereas he can mobilize them, gradually, over a much longer period of time.

That does not mean that at other parts of the curve the assumptions may not be much more accurate. Even if you don't strictly buy the concept of CP, it's clear from any power curve that the decrease in power slows down as time is extended, to the point that we can estimate some value which is not much less than the value at one hour. Infinity isn't a problem here, if there isn't a genuine asymptope there is still a value at some very long period of time that can be estimated fairly accurately. And again, all riders are being treated the same. If, e.g., Horner's climbs at longer times are faster than Froome's, whereas the reverse is the case for shorter climbs, then one can definitely conclude--IF THOSE TIMES AND GRADIENTS ARE ACCURATE--that Froome has a higher anaerobic component and Horner a higher aerobic component. Even if there is no such thing as a CP.

To me, the significance of this study is that it takes into account an anaerobic component, and that different riders may have very different relative contributions from the aerobic and anaerobic components. This leads to predictions about how well they will do on short vs. long climbs, as well as, of course, speculation about what kind of doping they would be engaging in if they are doping.

And what I find most interesting, though not at all surprising, is that people get their panties all into a wad depending on where they stand on Froome and Horner. Mention the possibility that this suggests that your devil is clean and your hero is dirty, and the study becomes nonsense, automatically. Or conversely, if it supports that your hero is clean and your devil is dirty, the study is great. One can accept this method without being confined to particular conclusions about either. E.g., as I said earlier, there is a selection problem. Froome's ITT in the Vuelta suggests a higher CP than was calculated here. Also, there are no error estimates, which are particularly critical for calculating slope.

 

[The Hitch]

And what I find most interesting, though not at all surprising, is that people get their panties all into a wad depending on where they stand on Froome and Horner. Mention the possibility that this suggests that one is clean or the other is dirty, and the study becomes nonsense, automatically. Or conversely, if it supports that your hero is clean and your devil is dirty, the study is great. One can accept this method without being confined to particular conclusions about either. E.g., as I said earlier, there is a selection problem. Froome's ITT in the Vuelta suggests a higher CP than was calculated here. Also, there are no error estimates, which are particularly critical for calculating slope.

Does the study actually suggest in anyway that someone is clean? Doesn't it just say someone's performance was less impressive? Which is totally subverted by the fact that 90% of people who doped went at speeds that fall perfectly well within what is theoretically possible for a clean athlete. [

 

[BigBoat]

I think the Horner power estimates are off, he is not the strongest Grand Tour climber in the world in my opinion.

 

[42x16ss]

All those guys were doped to the gills. Pantani probably the greatest climber ever, and recorded that time before the 50% hematocrit limit was put in place.

I would offer that it's probably an advantage not to have a hilly or even mountainous 200 km lead-in to the climb. Possibly you would be less fresh than a 1-hour TT effort. Maybe. Never mind that the times on climbs on TT's are always faster, independent of rider or course. See TT times up...well Ventoux and l'Alpe.

You're not seriously arguing that Froome's performance was legit, are you?

But did he have marginal gains? Apparently an unrestricted 60% + hematocrit is no match for hand sanitiser, your own pillow and pineapple juice in the bidon. The Hogwalsh is strong with this one

 

[Le breton]

http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/...km-h-VAM-W-W-kg-etc-%29&p=2061073#post2061073

You're welcome

-1. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 48:33 | 2002
-2. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 48:35 | 2013
-3. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 48.57 | 2009
-4. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 48:57 | 2009
-5. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:00 | 2009
-6. Marco Pantani ________ ITA | 49:01 | 2000
-7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:01 | 2000
-8. Frank Schleck ________ LUX | 49:02 | 2009
-9. Nairo Quintana _______ COL | 49:04 | 2013
10. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 49:05 | 2009

You of course realize that Pantani's best time on that section was 46:00 in 1994.
Obviously Mayo was faster.

 

[Le breton]

Contador 2009 842 Watts for 4 minutes, evidence of how bad track cyclists are. I think his 2313 for a minute beats Sir Chris too..

Source please?

 

[42x16ss]

Stop going on about TTs. 1994 road stage Ventoux. Pantani on 8kg bike 2 weeks into TDF 1994 and a minute faster than Froome 2 weeks in to 2013 TDF who was on a 6.9kg bike on a road stage. Give over about TTs and deal with comparable facts. What part of that don't you understand? Can you count?

Put down Walsh's work of fiction and do some research on the effect increased hematocrit has on FTP and time to exhaustion. Then consider that Pantani's hematocrit was 60% or higher at times during a grand tour.

That may also requires basic numeracy skills, so don't get ahead of yourself

 

[Le breton]

Jonathan Vaughters basically admitted to being doped to the gills for the Ventoux record - which was an ITT during a one week race, not 2 weeks into the TdF - in this very forum! Don't believe me? Do a search, his username is JV1971.

Not at all, he admitted to be doped to 52% against a natural Hct of 48%.
To the gills for him would be like 60% wouldn't you say?

 

[42x16ss]

Well, the 50% rule was in place by then, so that was pushing things for that time, wouldn't you agree?

I'm also unsure if it was only EPO

 

[Le breton]

Well, the 50% rule was in place by then, so that was pushing things for that time, wouldn't you agree?

I'm also unsure if it was only EPO

BTW, he is JV1973 I believe, not 1971.