Hi! New poster here.
I see W/Kg being used as the metric to assess performance, but can we do better? For instance, when assessing a climbing performance, an adequate metric only needs to take into account the duration of the climb (or average speed) and the average gradient. We could come up with something like this:
(Avg_Speed / 60 ) * (1 + Avg_Gradient /15).
This would result in a value of 1 for a performance of 60Km/h in a flat road (gradient 0), or 30Km/h in a gradient of 15 degrees. The minimum value would be 0 and a realistic maximum 1. It is a normalized speed, taking into account the gradient of the ascent. We could say "rider X had performance 0.8 for 30 min".
I would be interested in computing this metric for historical performances, but finding it hard to find the data available - do you know a resource providing this data (ie. climbing times for the top 10 riders in each MTF in the GTs of the last 30 years for instance)?
I see W/Kg being used as the metric to assess performance, but can we do better? For instance, when assessing a climbing performance, an adequate metric only needs to take into account the duration of the climb (or average speed) and the average gradient. We could come up with something like this:
(Avg_Speed / 60 ) * (1 + Avg_Gradient /15).
This would result in a value of 1 for a performance of 60Km/h in a flat road (gradient 0), or 30Km/h in a gradient of 15 degrees. The minimum value would be 0 and a realistic maximum 1. It is a normalized speed, taking into account the gradient of the ascent. We could say "rider X had performance 0.8 for 30 min".
I would be interested in computing this metric for historical performances, but finding it hard to find the data available - do you know a resource providing this data (ie. climbing times for the top 10 riders in each MTF in the GTs of the last 30 years for instance)?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram