A
Anonymous
Guest
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-defends-ucis-biological-passport
Sorry, but I just lost some respect for Vaughters.
Sorry, but I just lost some respect for Vaughters.
mikkemus23 said:"Vaugthers also pointed out factors such as rolling resistance and bike mass altering from the mid 90s to the present day, as well as the high-tech fibers within clothing, lighter components and that bikes are now on the limit of the UCI's weight minimum regulations of 6.8kg. "
"In the mid-90s bikes were 9kg, you had these heavy Carnac shoes that Pantani used to wear, and the clothing held more sweat, so four kilograms per watt for a rider like Pantani who only weighed 55kg is around seven percent, which would have had a massive effect on his ascent velocity."
"Then there are the tiny details like wheels being more aerodynamic, ceramic bearings, and so on..."
Sounds a bit much to me, what do you guys think?
it is a load of BS. Major declining returns. I reckon Ullrich would prefer his Pegoretti he rode with Telekom in 98. Would have been around 8.5, and perfect geometry.mikkemus23 said:"Vaugthers also pointed out factors such as rolling resistance and bike mass altering from the mid 90s to the present day, as well as the high-tech fibers within clothing, lighter components and that bikes are now on the limit of the UCI's weight minimum regulations of 6.8kg. "
"In the mid-90s bikes were 9kg, you had these heavy Carnac shoes that Pantani used to wear, and the clothing held more sweat, so four kilograms per watt for a rider like Pantani who only weighed 55kg is around seven percent, which would have had a massive effect on his ascent velocity."
"Then there are the tiny details like wheels being more aerodynamic, ceramic bearings, and so on..."
Sounds a bit much to me, what do you guys think?
dminishing returns. The harder JV makes his case, the more conspiratorial it becomes.Race Radio said:JV is a good guy, but this is a little ridiculous.
Pantani was a midget He rode a tiny frame and custom climbing wheels. It likely came under the 6.9 limit as they had no limits then. "Rolling resistance, shoes, water in the jersey?.....really? I have a pair of those old Carnac's. They are bulky but not that heavy. JV also forgets that ADA/Lightweight wheels have been around for over 10 years.
you wanted to believe. I believed. Past tense.Digger said:I want to believe in JV, I really do, but when I heard about him being interested in Contador, I thought this is just not right...
I'd like to see him quantify the differences these "changes" in equipment have made as they apply to power numbers. I mean, if you're going to apply all this rigor to the power numbers, let's have some numbers on the difference a sweatier (!!) jersey makes.mikkemus23 said:"Vaugthers also pointed out factors such as rolling resistance and bike mass altering from the mid 90s to the present day, as well as the high-tech fibers within clothing, lighter components and that bikes are now on the limit of the UCI's weight minimum regulations of 6.8kg. "
"In the mid-90s bikes were 9kg, you had these heavy Carnac shoes that Pantani used to wear, and the clothing held more sweat, so four kilograms per watt for a rider like Pantani who only weighed 55kg is around seven percent, which would have had a massive effect on his ascent velocity."
"Then there are the tiny details like wheels being more aerodynamic, ceramic bearings, and so on..."
Sounds a bit much to me, what do you guys think?
Yeah EPO anti-doping experts in Denmark saw Wiggins' figures and whilst they said there wasn't anything completely leaping out, his crit going up in final week was definitely not right.blackcat said:you wanted to believe. I believed. Past tense.
But JV also said he would sign Landis, if he beat the rap. Besides LAndis' crit rising a few points in the Tour.
What about Wiggins, his crit went up, what, 0.5 or one point. His hemoglobin went up 0.8. Ashenden will say this is unlikely and very suspicious.
Thanks Issoisso for pointing this out. I remember coming across something about it, but couldn't remember Grappe or the study. And that is going back 30 years. The difference in the last 20 is even less. And certainly not the huge watt increases we're seeing.issoisso said:*Points to Fred Grappe's recent demonstration that 2009 equipment vs 1980 equipment is worth 10 watts at most*
I want to believe in a cleaner peloton and JV too.....here are the straws I clutch at:Digger said:I want to believe in JV, I really do, but when I heard about him being interested in Contador, I thought this is just not right...
+1..................................Scott SoCal said:I'm starting to think that the powers-that-be are willing to accept doping in cycling as long as it is within certain ranges (dead athletes being rather bad for business). Is it beacuse they truly are unable to weed out sophisticated programs so this is a comprimise or is it the fear of radically unpredictable performances and slow(er) race speeds, or both?
It seems as though JV has settled for a cleaner sport instead of a clean one.
Hasbara alert!David Suro said:The following article suggests that hematocrit can be elevated by as much as 1% for every week spent at altitude, with this rate of increase being possible for as many as 12 consecutive weeks.
http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol24/wolski.htm
With that in mind, the slim improvements measured in Wiggins (prior to the TDF are well within the possibility of a normal adaptation to stresses placed on the athlete by either high altitude training or sleeping in a hypoxic tent.
The Danish scientisis who were quoted as saying the values were suspicious are incorrect. Denmark, at its highest point, is 173 meters above sea level. It makes sense that these scientisis might not be the best in the world when it comes to understanding the effects of altitude training on hematocrit. I mean no insult toward the Danes, their beer is awesome.
JV and his team physiologist live at about 2000 meters and train their athletes as high as 6000+ meters.
And, by the way, who wouldn't want to sign Contador? If Contador were on Garmin, JV would have have a much better shot at achieving his goal of a podium finisher for the TDF from his squad. JV has stated that as a goal, so it makes sense to try to sign the talent that gives him the best chance of success.
Blackcat, I think you made an important point here. He is giving way too many explanations. Why? Is he reading our forums or is he just hiding something?blackcat said:dminishing returns. The harder JV makes his case, the more conspiratorial it becomes.
the more disconcerting view is, Vaughters using the media as a too, preparing and pre-justifying the results which are expected.Escarabajo said:Blackcat, I think you made an important point here. He is giving way too many explanations. Why? Is he reading our forums or is he just hiding something?
Well I have made the calculations for Contador and Wiggins again changing the 4 Kgs (Which I believe is way too much). These are my results:
Contador (Tailwind Case): 415 Watts to 449 Watts. 34 Watts increase
Wiggins (Tailwind Case): 443 Watts to 475 Watts. 32 Watts increase.
Just remember that we are assuming the same times, otherwise what’s the point of making the calculations. IMHO the actual weight gain, comparing to the nineties would be half the number that I calculated, which is around 15 Watts. I just don't see that much weight improvement from the nineties.
I currently working in a probabilistic model using all errors involved in the calculations on the Power Outputs. That way we will evaluate and cover all the ranges of possibilities of their performance in Verbier: wind, rolling resistance, weight, drafting time, etc. I’ll put those results in the other thread about the Power Calculations by the Critics are Wrong.
I saw an estimate that anaerobic work could make an average 30W difference on a 20min climb....do you have an estimate of the anaerobic component? This topic has received surprisingly little attention, possibly due to the amount of time spent debating what else was wrong with Vayer's numbers.JV1973 said:My major point had to do with the percentage of anearobic work done in a 20 minute efforts vs a 40 min effort.
Firstly - welcome to the forum. Its great that you look in and even better that you contribute.JV1973 said:Ok, I know I'm nuts for even bothering here, but here goes:
My major point had to do with the percentage of anearobic work done in a 20 minute efforts vs a 40 min effort. The bike weight, etc etc, probably does only account for 20 watts assuming a perfectly steady effort (which is an invalid assumption if you've ever watched a bike race). However, the amount of power produced beyond what is produced aerobically in a 20 minute effort is considerable, it is not in a 40 minute effort - in my experience!
So, that was my point. If you fellows would like to keep going on about how we dope Brad and Christian, then have at it. It's really silly, as they aren't, but whatever, I've spent enough time trying to fight windmills for today. Have at it boys.
Sorry that I no longer have your respect - JV