Dumoulin.

[Dekker_Tifosi]

No, his wattages are not surprises nor PR's. The surprise is that he can now do these wattages after 5 hours of racing. Previously his weakest point was that he wasn't able to pull good wattages after 4/5 hours of racing, and especially if there was a lot of climbing in it. Now he reaches his maximum wattages for 40 min, even after 5 hours of racing. That's new.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If only there was a drug that improved endurance.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

It's called aging.

 

[Bavarianrider]

This section of the Forum has gone beyond stupid lately.
So now the rederick is if you weigh in at 70 Kilos you surely have to be jacked up to the max when competing with 60 Kilo guys

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This section of the Forum has gone beyond stupid lately.
So now the rederick is if you weigh in at 70 Kilos you surely have to be jacked up to the max when competing with 60 Kilo guys

No, , the Riddick is you are producing more absolute power when heavier by 5-10 kg than the lighter riders, and the steeper it gets, the less likely this seems plausible.

 

[the delgados]

Someone should interview Big Mig and George Hincapie to get their thoughts on the matter.

 

[Guybrush]

Cycling is a big joke, but you always expect it to be a good one, something elaborate and clever... Dumoulin is a bad, really bad poorly-timed joke

 

[the delgados]

Re:

Cycling is a big joke, but you always expect it to be a good one, something elaborate and clever... Dumoulin is a bad, really bad poorly-timed joke

C'mon. members of his team feigning surprise is a pretty good acting job.
At least they're playing along, unlike team Horner where his win was treated as if it was no big deal.

 

["Jeff"]

Someone should interview Big Mig and George Hincapie to get their thoughts on the matter.

Or the likes of Robert Alban, Fons de Wolf and Johan van der Velde.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Actually Dumolin has to produce a Little less Watt/Kilo than the lighter riders.

Dumolin has atotally common physique. It's not like he is carrying around fat or huge musscle packets. Neither is he a skinish Freak like Froome. He has a totally normal physique for an Allrounder.

I am not saying he is clean, but stating he must be juiced more like the rest just based on Kilos is beyond laughable.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Actually Dumolin has to produce a Little less Watt/Kilo than the lighter riders.

I strongly disagree. The taller / heavier the rider the more unused weight they are carrying, in terms of:
1. water weight
2. bone mass
3. connective tissue, skin, etc

He is actually producing more W/kg of lean muscle than a smaller rider. I did the math once and it wasn't much, but it's definitely not less.

I am not saying he is clean, but stating he must be juiced more like the rest just based on Kilos is beyond laughable.

Noone is saying that. To suggest they are is laughable. Pointing out facts regarding weights of top 10 riders in a GT is simply that: pointing out facts.

 

[Merckx index]

I strongly disagree. The taller / heavier the rider the more unused weight they are carrying, in terms of:
1. water weight
2. bone mass
3. connective tissue, skin, etc

That’s true, but it’s not the issue. Taller, heavier riders have more non-muscle weight, but they also have more muscle weight. Given the same body shape, muscle wt/kg body weight should be the same, regardless of size. So while they carry more dead weight, they have more muscle power to do the carrying. And as I believe BR was alluding to, they have a slight advantage on climbing in that the ratio of bike weight/body weight is slightly less. Depending on the gradient and whether there is drafting, they may also have a slight advantage because of less wind resistance.

The reason taller, heavier riders generally make poorer climbers (despite those relatively slight advantages noted above) is thought to be because surface area/body weight is less. This same factor that gives them an advantage on the flat (less wind resistance/power) is a disadvantage in climbing, because they can absorb less oxygen per body weight, and thus can’t use their superior muscle mass quite as efficiently.

He is actually producing more W/kg of lean muscle than a smaller rider. I did the math once and it wasn't much, but it's definitely not less.

If he's climbing at the same rate as other riders, he's putting out the same watts/kg of body weight, with the slight qualification due to bike weight and wind resistance, noted above. Assuming lean muscle mass is proportional to body weight, he's also producing the same watts/kg of muscle mass. Of course, no two riders have exactly the same body shape, but these conclusions apply as generalities when comparing riders of different weights.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

That’s true, but it’s not the issue. Taller, heavier riders have more non-muscle weight, but they also have more muscle weight. Given the same body shape, muscle wt/kg body weight should be the same, regardless of size. So while they carry more dead weight, they have more muscle power to do the carrying. And as I believe BR was alluding to, they have a slight advantage on climbing in that the ratio of bike weight/body weight is slightly less. Depending on the gradient and whether there is drafting, they may also have a slight advantage because of less wind resistance.

Smaller riders provide less shelter to bigger riders and gain more shelter from bigger riders. You appear to be arguing the opposite here?

He is actually producing more W/kg of lean muscle than a smaller rider. I did the math once and it wasn't much, but it's definitely not less.

If he's climbing at the same rate as other riders, he's putting out the same watts/kg of body weight, with the slight qualification due to bike weight and wind resistance, noted above. Assuming lean muscle mass is proportional to body weight, he's also producing the same watts/kg of muscle mass. Of course, no two riders have exactly the same body shape, but these conclusions apply as generalities when comparing riders of different weights.

My mistake, I did not factor in bike weight to the equation. I think the calcs I did were for TT power, where weight of bike is less important.

 

[gmedina]

I strongly disagree. The taller / heavier the rider the more unused weight they are carrying, in terms of:
1. water weight
2. bone mass
3. connective tissue, skin, etc

That’s true, but it’s not the issue. Taller, heavier riders have more non-muscle weight, but they also have more muscle weight. Given the same body shape, muscle wt/kg body weight should be the same, regardless of size. So while they carry more dead weight, they have more muscle power to do the carrying. And as I believe BR was alluding to, they have a slight advantage on climbing in that the ratio of bike weight/body weight is slightly less. Depending on the gradient and whether there is drafting, they may also have a slight advantage because of less wind resistance.

The reason taller, heavier riders generally make poorer climbers (despite those relatively slight advantages noted above) is thought to be because surface area/body weight is less. This same factor that gives them an advantage on the flat (less wind resistance/power) is a disadvantage in climbing, because they can absorb less oxygen per body weight, and thus can’t use their superior muscle mass quite as efficiently.

He is actually producing more W/kg of lean muscle than a smaller rider. I did the math once and it wasn't much, but it's definitely not less.

If he's climbing at the same rate as other riders, he's putting out the same watts/kg of body weight, with the slight qualification due to bike weight and wind resistance, noted above. Assuming lean muscle mass is proportional to body weight, he's also producing the same watts/kg of muscle mass. Of course, no two riders have exactly the same body shape, but these conclusions apply as generalities when comparing riders of different weights.

Wait, trying to learn a bit, but producing the same watts/kg just means that the heavier rider must be producing more power. For instance, lets say a 60kg rider is producing 360watts in a climb, 6watts/kg. Now, the bigger rider (70kg), to produce the same 6w/kg, it would mean that he is producing 420watts...around 15% more watts...so my question is, what does that mean for a rider of each type during a long climb? for instance, given that two riders have the same lung capacity, is it easier for either type to keep the same power output for a while?

 

[Merckx index]

Smaller riders provide less shelter to bigger riders and gain more shelter from bigger riders. You appear to be arguing the opposite here?

I was referring to situations in which riders are alone. This came up in the Tour on that first major climb when Froome’s announced W/kg value did not jibe with the power meter data of several other riders who finished behind him. After Froome attacked, the elite group thoroughly splintered on that climb, so that most of the top climbers were riding into the wind for part of the time. In that situation, a larger rider has a very slight advantage in wind resistance, depending on the gradient.

In a group, a larger rider might be at a slight disadvantage relative to a smaller one, but I think it would make very little difference. Probably position in the group is more important, so e.g., if Dumoulin were third or fourth, he would be getting a slightly greater advantage than a smaller guy immediately ahead of him. That's my guess, though trying to determine the exact benefits of drafting is complicated.

My mistake, I did not factor in bike weight to the equation. I think the calcs I did were for TT power, where weight of bike is less important.

For a flat ride, the bigger rider is generally still putting out less W/kg body weight (and thus also less W/kg muscle) than a smaller rider, but more absolute watts by a proportion greater than the increased surface area and wind resistance he has to overcome. In fact, in principle (ignoring the effect of technique, body position, etc.) the W/kg values on the flat should be the same as those on climbs.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

In that situation, a larger rider has a very slight advantage in wind resistance, depending on the gradient.

Could you explain the physics behind this please?

Because wind resistance ~= frontal area ~= size of the rider. You appear to be saying it's the reverse.

If we extrapolate, you're saying the smaller the rider, the more wind resistance they encounter at the same speed as a larger rider.

Maybe I just didn't get enough sleep but there is no law of physics that I can remember where increasing frontal area of a body reduces its wind resistance.

Re: Froome's power: they subsequently showed that the asymmetric rings matched the round rings perfectly, underestimating power in a MTB ride around the same circuit for a day.

 

[Cookster15]

This section of the Forum has gone beyond stupid lately.
So now the rederick is if you weigh in at 70 Kilos you surely have to be jacked up to the max when competing with 60 Kilo guys

No, , the Riddick is you are producing more absolute power when heavier by 5-10 kg than the lighter riders, and the steeper it gets, the less likely this seems plausible.

That only makes sense if he doesn't smash the 5-10Kg lighter riders in the flat TT. Except he did. He also dropped time at end of stage 16 when it kicked up to 15%+ - as expected but the climbers were all dead anyhow so that blunted their advantage.

Look if Tom is doping then nothing written on here says he is on anything more than what Aru, Purito, Quintana, Majka etc are on so he deserves the win as much as anyone.

 

[Merckx index]

In that situation, a larger rider has a very slight advantage in wind resistance, depending on the gradient.

Could you explain the physics behind this please?

Because wind resistance ~= frontal area ~= size of the rider. You appear to be saying it's the reverse.

If we extrapolate, you're saying the smaller the rider, the more wind resistance they encounter at the same speed as a larger rider.

Maybe I just didn't get enough sleep but there is no law of physics that I can remember where increasing frontal area of a body reduces its wind resistance.

Re: Froome's power: they subsequently showed that the asymmetric rings matched the round rings perfectly, underestimating power in a MTB ride around the same circuit for a day.

You raise a good point, and now I see the confusion. Frontal area increases by a square law, whereas power increases with mass, or by a cube relationship. This means that as a rider increases in size, power increases faster than frontal area and therefore air resistance. In a flat ITT, air resistance is almost all that matters, so the larger rider has an advantage.

The same relationship exists on gradients, it's just that there the effect is usually overwhelmed by gravity, and thus power/weight is the key, rather than power/surface area. You're correct that if a larger rider and a smaller rider are moving at the same speed up a gradient, the larger rider will have more drag or air resistance to overcome. But the smaller rider has to put out a larger proportion of his total power to overcome his air resistance, because, again, his power/frontal area ratio is lower. If the two riders are climbing at the same speed, they are putting out about the same power/weight, but the smaller rider is doing it with less absolute power, and that less absolute power has to deal with proportionally more air resistance.

E.g., suppose the larger rider puts out 385W/70 kg = 5.5W/kg. The smaller rider puts out 330W/60 kg = 5.5 W/kg. So they climb at the same speed. The larger rider has a mass of 1.167 x that of the smaller rider, which means his frontal area is about 11% larger (take the cube root of 1.167 and square it). The larger rider thus has to overcome 11% more air resistance, but he does this with about 17% more power. So the amount of his power needed to overcome air resistance is less.

Let’s say, for the sake of an example, that at the speed the two riders are climbing, the smaller rider must use 10% of his power, or 33 watts, to overcome his air resistance. The larger rider must then use 33 x 1.11 = 36.3 watts to overcome his air resistance. This is only 9.4% of his total power. This means his power/weight ratio, expressed as power not devoted to overcoming air resistance, is actually greater than that of the smaller climber, and he will climb a little faster. Of course, if he does climb faster, the air resistance he needs to overcome will be a little more. But the point is, the larger rider effectively can climb as fast as the smaller rider with a slightly lower power/weight ratio.

Thus the larger rider has a slight advantage in this regard. Though it's not enough to overcome the power/weight relationship on steep climbs, on shallower climbs it may be significant. Thus in stage 19, TD was able to drop Aru on the closing finish, which had a reported gradient of about 4%. A gradient in that range is sort of in between a typical climbing finish and a flat stretch, and thus the larger rider's superior power/frontal area ratio can come into play.

It's an interesting exercise. Take a great ITT rider, say Cancellara in his prime, and a great climber, say Contador in his prime. On a flat surface, Cancellara wins (well, except in the 2009 TDF, it seems). On a usual climbing gradient, Contador is faster. But there is some intermediate gradient where they are about equal, because Contador's power/weight advantage is just equalled by Cancellara's power/frontal area advantage.

 

[bebellion2]

I've found this calculation fascinating, thanks.

 

[Armchaircyclist]

Re:

Haters, you just dont like the Dutch!

Look, Dumoulin winning the Vuelta is ridiculous but I comfort myself with the fact he doesnt state he was before focussing on the track or having a bad case of badzillah.

And the opposition is weak of course, but I mentioned that before didnt I?

Jan, Joop and now Tom, for the Dutch: at least it is not the Three J's

--------------
It's fun to see Tom, lets all hope he's the New hope of the doping-free generation. Especially love that he had a few beers on tuesday before vuelta...goes to prove that it's not about marginal gains
P.S. love the Dutch sprint princess Dafne too, good to see a white sprinter for a change, and the heptathletes have always stood out as great athletes.
Comparing him to Froome is ridiculous, as he has mostly been hanging on, losing a few Seconds here and there, and gaining in ITT, no superman performance, just really solid top-Level cycling !

 

[doperhopper]

In any case, regardless of what happens today, we have a winner in the "Great Transformation Of The Year" category.

 

[Lyon]

Re:

Haters, you just dont like the Dutch!

Look, Dumoulin winning the Vuelta is ridiculous but I comfort myself with the fact he doesnt state he was before focussing on the track or having a bad case of badzillah.

Give them time, there is still a chance he was cured of some disease, stopped partying every night, was told to increase his cadence because that is what tour winners do, or finally understood that because he was always talented, why not win for a change? It is easy when you know how.

 

[Red Rick]

You should also take into account the weight of the bike, which is fixed, and accounts for a larger proportion of gravitational force on lighter riders, so the weight of the bike is an advantage for the heavier, more powerful riders

 

[maltiv]

Before EPO was introduced, most of the riders who won GTs had Dumoulin's build or similar.

It's only after the 90's that we've had lightweights destroying time trials and 80+ kgs climbing with the best.

In itself, I see nothing suspicious about a 70 kilo rider contending for a GT win. In a clean world, and with balanced parcours, I think that would be the optimal weight.

 

[DFA123]

In that situation, a larger rider has a very slight advantage in wind resistance, depending on the gradient.

Could you explain the physics behind this please?

Because wind resistance ~= frontal area ~= size of the rider. You appear to be saying it's the reverse.

If we extrapolate, you're saying the smaller the rider, the more wind resistance they encounter at the same speed as a larger rider.

Maybe I just didn't get enough sleep but there is no law of physics that I can remember where increasing frontal area of a body reduces its wind resistance.

Re: Froome's power: they subsequently showed that the asymmetric rings matched the round rings perfectly, underestimating power in a MTB ride around the same circuit for a day.

You raise a good point, and now I see the confusion. Frontal area increases by a square law, whereas power increases with mass, or by a cube relationship. This means that as a rider increases in size, power increases faster than frontal area and therefore air resistance. In a flat ITT, air resistance is almost all that matters, so the larger rider has an advantage.

The same relationship exists on gradients, it's just that there the effect is usually overwhelmed by gravity, and thus power/weight is the key, rather than power/surface area. You're correct that if a larger rider and a smaller rider are moving at the same speed up a gradient, the larger rider will have more drag or air resistance to overcome. But the smaller rider has to put out a larger proportion of his total power to overcome his air resistance, because, again, his power/frontal area ratio is lower. If the two riders are climbing at the same speed, they are putting out about the same power/weight, but the smaller rider is doing it with less absolute power, and that less absolute power has to deal with proportionally more air resistance.

E.g., suppose the larger rider puts out 385W/70 kg = 5.5W/kg. The smaller rider puts out 330W/60 kg = 5.5 W/kg. So they climb at the same speed. The larger rider has a mass of 1.167 x that of the smaller rider, which means his frontal area is about 11% larger (take the cube root of 1.167 and square it). The larger rider thus has to overcome 11% more air resistance, but he does this with about 17% more power. So the amount of his power needed to overcome air resistance is less.

Let’s say, for the sake of an example, that at the speed the two riders are climbing, the smaller rider must use 10% of his power, or 33 watts, to overcome his air resistance. The larger rider must then use 33 x 1.11 = 36.3 watts to overcome his air resistance. This is only 9.4% of his total power. This means his power/weight ratio, expressed as power not devoted to overcoming air resistance, is actually greater than that of the smaller climber, and he will climb a little faster. Of course, if he does climb faster, the air resistance he needs to overcome will be a little more. But the point is, the larger rider effectively can climb as fast as the smaller rider with a slightly lower power/weight ratio.

Thus the larger rider has a slight advantage in this regard. Though it's not enough to overcome the power/weight relationship on steep climbs, on shallower climbs it may be significant. Thus in stage 19, TD was able to drop Aru on the closing finish, which had a reported gradient of about 4%. A gradient in that range is sort of in between a typical climbing finish and a flat stretch, and thus the larger rider's superior power/frontal area ratio can come into play.

It's an interesting exercise. Take a great ITT rider, say Cancellara in his prime, and a great climber, say Contador in his prime. On a flat surface, Cancellara wins (well, except in the 2009 TDF, it seems). On a usual climbing gradient, Contador is faster. But there is some intermediate gradient where they are about equal, because Contador's power/weight advantage is just equalled by Cancellara's power/frontal area advantage.

Great post; really informative and interesting.

I guess a top time triallist like Dumoulin or Cancellara will also have spent a lot more time testing and modifying their bike position to reduce the frontal area. Although most of this benefit would be applicable to TT bikes only, there must be some cross-over. Even on a road bike on a gentle climb they generally should be able to put out high watts in an aero position better than a climber who does much less time trial work.