• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Most memorable doped perfomances?

Page 31 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
i hate to tell you this but there's no way the watts on his strava are accurate. im not even saying that it's malicious on his part either, they may tinker with it to not give away their actual performance to the rest of the sport.

but yes, all of these guys use the Ferrari formula. power to weight is power to weight no matter how big you are. to do the times he did you need to have a certain power to weight number, it's as simple as that.
It could well be manipulated but the Ferrari formula is an incredible vague and outdated estimation that doesn't take anything into account other than gradient and VAM. Mihai Simion is basically a tabloid style journalists who just loves sensationalist tweets like "Nuclear XY performance, back to 96 levels!".
If you prefer his estimation rather than the data by the rider itself then be my guest, but it's not helping your credibility.
 
no i don't think you understand that you can approximate w/kg without knowing the watts or the weight just by the VAM

god damnit this forum used to be so much better. wtf happened?
yeah, sure you can approximate aka guess its somewhere betwen 5-7W/kg, that sure helps us a lot here; there is a giant difference if a rider is 62 like you guys are claimning or if he is closer to 70
 
go learn about what VAM is and then come back to this thread

I can climb two times a 10km climb at 6% in the same time, one with a road bike and one with a mountain bike. Or once with a strong headwind and once with a strong tailwind.

Using that formula, as the VAM would be the same, W/kg would be the same. But against a strong headwind the w/kg would be higher in reality.

A 20 watt difference is 0,3 in w/kg in a 60kg rider, a 30 watt is a 0,5 and so on.

I think that formula is highly simplist and without taking other variables in hand should be interpreted carefully.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cookster15 and topt
here's a thread from back when this forum was good: https://forum.cyclingnews.com/threa...m-derived-relative-w-kg-to-actual-w-kg.30402/

i'll quote one of our best members from back then, Merckx Index, who can explain this better than I can:
The actual weight is not considered because climbing speed is proportional to power/weight, regardless of the actual weight. This is not an exact relationship, it ignores bike weight, friction, air resistance, etc., but for many purposes it's close enough.
 
I can climb two times a 10km climb at 6% in the same time, one with a road bike and one with a mountain bike. Or once with a strong headwind and once with a strong tailwind.

Using that formula, as the VAM would be the same, W/kg would be the same. But against a strong headwind the w/kg would be higher in reality.

A 20 watt difference is 0,3 in w/kg in a 60kg rider, a 30 watt is a 0,5 and so on.

I think that formula is highly simplist and without taking other variables in hand should be interpreted carefully.

right, but everyone in the race is using bikes that are the same weight. you are putting out more watts on the mountain bike (presumably it's much heavier) to go the same speed that you are on the road bike, but this is apples to oranges. of course a big classics rider getting dropped off the back is putting out more watts than McNulty but McNulty is much lighter, thus he goes much faster. the presumed "clean" human limit is around 6 w/kg for 30-40 minutes. the classics guy is not getting close to that because he would have to put out an inhumane number of watts to get to 6 w/kg.

as far as the wind, that's easy because McNulty was on the front the entire time.
 
here's a thread from back when this forum was good: https://forum.cyclingnews.com/threa...m-derived-relative-w-kg-to-actual-w-kg.30402/

i'll quote one of our best members from back then, Merckx Index, who can explain this better than I can:
I am not very interested in your W/Kg arguments but when this forum was "good" Vingo and Van Aert's performances in this TdF would have been torn to shreds. By science, logic and reason. Yes and I am sure Merckx Index would have made a great contribution.

That stage 20 TT was the most shocking thing I have seen since Contador beat Cancellara at Annecy. But AC was 3Kg heavier than Vingo.

WvA might even have been beaten by his 58Kg teammate if Vingo didn't celebrate early. Let that sink in. That performance was just beyond belief and impossible to accept. When this forum was good we would not have seen all the fawning over the obvious fraud in the PRR forum.
 
what I'd be interested in seeing is the variation in the growth in the last decade or so on estimated VAM/WKG numbers on 6-7% grade climbs versus climbs with excessively steep ramps that actually have historical data (like the Marie-Blanque maybe) because that's when variables like wind and aerodynamics will be most in play.
 
right, but everyone in the race is using bikes that are the same weight. you are putting out more watts on the mountain bike (presumably it's much heavier) to go the same speed that you are on the road bike, but this is apples to oranges. of course a big classics rider getting dropped off the back is putting out more watts than McNulty but McNulty is much lighter, thus he goes much faster. the presumed "clean" human limit is around 6 w/kg for 30-40 minutes. the classics guy is not getting close to that because he would have to put out an inhumane number of watts to get to 6 w/kg.

as far as the wind, that's easy because McNulty was on the front the entire time.
and I dont believe he did more than that with downhill included
 
going strictly off of his strava numbers (the strava segment is missing the final super steep 500m, ignore where it says "Mortirolo", that's the default climb stats they have on there, I changed them to the exact Peyregudes stats as per the strava segment)

Screenshot-2022-07-25-6-17-27-PM.png


in order to match his Strava watts his weight has to be 64kg. he's listed at around 68kg, for that he would have to do 420w
 
no i don't think you understand that you can approximate w/kg without knowing the watts or the weight just by the VAM

god damnit this forum used to be so much better. wtf happened?
People started whining about stupid things like how the forum used to be better.

But being serious, thx for the VAM calculation info. It seems like it will get you pretty close and at least offers a way to compare, if we recognize the need to take course, tactics, and weather into account. They can change the equation significantly. Dramatically.
 
People started whining about stupid things like how the forum used to be better.

But being serious, thx for the VAM calculation info. It seems like it will get you pretty close and at least offers a way to compare, if we recognize the need to take course, tactics, and weather into account. They can change the equation significantly. Dramatically.

sorry but it was just blowing my mind. this kind of stuff used to be general knowledge around here.

and yes it's definitely not exact but it's also not going to skew wildly either. the biggest issue is when a rider is sitting on wheels on a shallow grade (5-7%) but that is not the case here at all, we know that McNulty was on the front.
 
what I'd be interested in seeing is the variation in the growth in the last decade or so on estimated VAM/WKG numbers on 6-7% grade climbs versus climbs with excessively steep ramps that actually have historical data (like the Marie-Blanque maybe) because that's when variables like wind and aerodynamics will be most in play.

just as an example one of the most infamous barbarity numbers Mihali posted was a quoted near-7.0 on the Peyresourde in 2020 which - on the side climbed on, is almost famous for being a main-road climb that lacks severe ramps.

What I'd like to look at if I actually had time is if a lot of the STRATOSPHERIC numbers are on climbs of that character, because I believe those are where VAM estimates become less accurate and where external variables come into more play (Vingegaard dropped Pogacar on Ventoux at a quoted 5.9 estimation, as comparison, and was dropped at an estimated 5.8 at Meribel)
 
sorry but it was just blowing my mind. this kind of stuff used to be general knowledge around here.

and yes it's definitely not exact but it's also not going to skew wildly either. the biggest issue is when a rider is sitting on wheels on a shallow grade (5-7%) but that is not the case here at all, we know that McNulty was on the front.
Yeah hey, sorry as well. Actually probably knew this at one point, but for me those discussions into all the tiny details just got so boring. A bit of arguing about the deck chairs while the Titanic is going down.

The thing that's changed the most in this subforum is that you don't really see the defenders anymore. No Brits or Americans at the top of the Captain Obvious Doper list, so the discussion is a fair bit more rational overall.

It's less combative because most folks have come to realize it never went away, it just changes form. I prefer the more rational overall view of the current environment.
 
T is trolling you.

And yes, some folks are lazy in their posts!

he wasn't trolling, he does not understand what he is talking about. he was in here posting that McNulty "only did 398W" which may well be true, but that number alone means nothing. it's possible that a sprinter in the grupetto did 398W on that climb too. but when you plug in the climb stats and his climbing time straight from his strava file as I did above he does approximately 6.22 w/kg no matter what his weight is (it does vary .01 for every 2kg or so heavier since the bike becomes less of a percentage of the total weight). if he is 70kg and did 398w like topt claimed earlier in the thread then his climbing time on Peyregudes would've been 1:20 slower.

i said earlier in the thread i didn't think the strava file was correct, but it seems like it is as far as his times on the segments (cross referenced with Pogacar's strava). using the watts and the times you can actually figure out that his weight is 63.5-64kg.
 
Last edited:
he wasn't trolling, he does not understand what he is talking about. he was in here posting that McNulty "only did 398W" which may well be true, but that number alone means nothing. it's possible that a sprinter in the grupetto did 398W on that climb too. but when you plug in the climb stats and his climbing time straight from his strava file as I did above he does approximately 6.22 w/kg no matter what his weight is (it does vary .01 for every 2kg or so heavier since the bike becomes less of a percentage of the total weight). if he is 70kg and did 398w like topt claimed earlier in the thread then his climbing time on Peyregudes would've been 1:20 slower.

i said earlier in the thread i didn't think the strava file was correct, but it seems like it is as far as his times on the segments (cross referenced with Pogacar's strava). using the watts and the times you can actually figure out that his weight is 63.5-64kg.
It helps narrow the range to help estimate watts/ kg (and therefore also estimate weight). Keep in mind that other factors such as wind speed also will impact the measurement, even on steeper gradients; just to say that there is room for error.