Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 101 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Taxus4a said:
Of course it could be clean, difficult to justify less than 37, possible, but start the disscusion, but more than that time is not a disscusion although is a 10 kms solo effort...
A 10 km solo effort and a time of around 37:20 is already highly suspicious, IMO, also considering that it's well into the third week.

He would have been much faster with a proper mountain train, of course. Sub 37 minutes for sure.
 
Race Radio said:
Nibali's time up Hautacam was 37:20 is 26th fastest. 2:42 slower then record of 34:38 by Bjarne Riis in 1996.
thank you, I took 26.52 but when the climb have started just to have a reference...

But despite this some people maybe consider suspicious that time... crazy :eek:

I know riders that are compiting getting 300 euro a month, so, tell me how is possible to dope with that, and they made 6 w/kg in 9 km climbs...
 
18-Valve. (pithy) said:
A 10 km solo effort and a time of around 37:20 is already highly suspicious, IMO, also considering that it's well into the third week.

He would have been much faster with a proper mountain train, of course. Sub 37 minutes for sure.
you can consider every good performance suspicious if you want, but...tail wind, good weather, short stage...and there is 25 times better that that in just 5 years, and you consider that supicious...

Of course, you can dope to do 30 minutes, but more than 27 is never suspicious if you ere a really good rider.

Oh my good!, 18 years ago Riis did almost 3 minutes less, and Riis is a **** of rider in conditiones compared to Nibali. the same Jaskula.

Of course, if Nibali is not a really good rider, you can say the his performance is suspicious, but not just for the time.

It is posible, and Quintana could improve that by half a minuten in the same conditions. I have not doubt, and will remain not suspicious.
 
6.13 by VAM. So for four climbs, his power by VAM was 5.84 – 6.13. Again, this a believable output in a general sense. Whether it is for Nibali, who knows?

Alex Simmons/RST said:
It's a mathematical certainty that coincidences will occur, if you look at enough data you'll find them. It's called the improbability principle.

I'm not saying that these were coincidences, but it's entirely possible that both the weather conditions and form of those riders on those days was the same. Or it might be form was somewhat different but conditions were different and happened to net such things out so that ascent times were the same. e.g. 5% more power but worse conditions. It happens.
I don’t see the point in speculating about coincidences when, just looking at the map, you can see that no matter what the prevailing wind direction is, it’s not going to be in a consistent direction wrt rider’s direction as he climbs. This just seems like a much simpler explanation to me.

I note that the "EPO era" times had quite a bit more variation.
Of course. When you take into account that probably not everyone was doping for any one race, differences in programs, differences in responding, it’s entirely to be expected that doping would add to variability.

We can only imagine there could be a range of possible reasons:
better training and more targeted preparation
better nutrition and diet
better training approaches overall, as well as support
better roads
lighter bikes
better aerodynamics
better talent pool to choose from
better doping
Some of these I think are much more important than others. I think nutrition is way overrated. I think the talent pool expansion is a major factor, though it hasn’t expanded as much as it has in many other sports. Bike racing is still dominated by Euros, with a South American contingent long present. I’d guess the biggest difference between then and now is the Americans, though the U.S. has not added as much to the sport as might be predicted from its population, because it’s still not a priority for so many highly gifted athletes, who will go into other sports.

I think attributing an overall improvement in athletic performance over generations to one cause and one cause only (e.g. doping) is foolish.
I don’t disagree with this, but again, the four minute drop from 1981 to 1993 is a no-brainer, particularly when times have not dropped any further since then.

Don't know about everyone else, but 5% more power compared with 30-40 years ago when choosing from a better and larger talent pool who have much greater support and resources at their disposal, with much better training regimes, targeted plans, power meters, superior diet/nutrition and so on isn't out of the realms of plausible.
I tend to agree if the comparison is the best of the past with the best of the present. I doubt, though, that Nibali is the best today. We can only speculate, of course, but I would have expected both Froome and Contador to have gapped him significantly on these climbs.

In any case, I think the point of contention has come clearly into focus. Nibali has achieved times on several climbs that have for the most part only been equalled or bettered by known dopers or highly suspicious riders. His times are significantly better than those of the best riders of the pre-EPO era. So to defend him, one does indeed have to argue that over that fairly lengthy period of time there have been other changes that could result in the times of clean riders decreasing significantly.

In fact, the whole argument over what is believable in terms of power hinges on this. Even observers who are highly suspicious of many performances, like Ross Tucker, argue that 6.3 watts/kg for 30 minutes is some kind of line. But as far as I can tell, none of the great climbers of the pre-EPO era came close to this, even taking into account purely material factors like bike weight and efficiency, road conditions, and so on. So even those sympathetic to the "not normal" view seem to have an implicit assumption that the best riders today are physiologically superior to the best riders of 30-40 years ago.
 
Only 4 guys have finished within a minute (or better) of Nibali's time on the Hautacam in the last 18 years.
The four guys are Armstrong, Schleck, Cobo, and Piepoli. Cobo is the only one that wasnt convicted of doping.

That's not even taking in account that Nibali soloed it an arrogant a show of strength.
 
AICA ribonucleotide said:
Only 4 guys have finished within a minute (or better) of Nibali's time on the Hautacam in the last 18 years.
The four guys are Armstrong, Schleck, Cobo, and Piepoli. Cobo is the only one that wasnt convicted of doping.

That's not even taking in account that Nibali soloed it an arrogant a show of strength.
You mean just two climbs, two years, 4 guys is ok.. one of those years it was raining, and the other one Biopassport started to take place.

But today, with all the improvements in cycling, with staying in altitude, with better bikes, you can performe close to the EPO era, of course.

But I remerber how Hamilton say in his book that was possible to win things then if your where good... not the Tour, of course, 26 time for Nibali show that...but you could make top ten if you were really good againts strong dopers.

But that is something that a lot of people I see dont get to understand.
 
Merckx index said:
Some of these I think are much more important than others. I think nutrition is way overrated. I think the talent pool expansion is a major factor, though it hasn’t expanded as much as it has in many other sports. Bike racing is still dominated by Euros, with a South American contingent long present. I’d guess the biggest difference between then and now is the Americans, though the U.S. has not added as much to the sport as might be predicted from its population, because it’s still not a priority for so many highly gifted athletes, who will go into other sports.
I think the talent pool was (far?) bigger in Europe 20 years ago than it is now.
 
Taxus4a said:
you can consider every good performance suspicious if you want, but...tail wind, good weather, short stage...and there is 25 times better that that in just 5 years, and you consider that supicious...

Of course, you can dope to do 30 minutes, but more than 27 is never suspicious if you ere a really good rider.

Oh my good!, 18 years ago Riis did almost 3 minutes less, and Riis is a **** of rider in conditiones compared to Nibali. the same Jaskula.

Of course, if Nibali is not a really good rider, you can say the his performance is suspicious, but not just for the time.

It is posible, and Quintana could improve that by half a minuten in the same conditions. I have not doubt, and will remain not suspicious.
AICA ribonucleotide said:
Only 4 guys have finished within a minute (or better) of Nibali's time on the Hautacam in the last 18 years.
The four guys are Armstrong, Schleck, Cobo, and Piepoli. Cobo is the only one that wasnt convicted of doping.

That's not even taking in account that Nibali soloed it an arrogant a show of strength.
Taxus4a said:
You mean just two climbs, two years, 4 guys is ok.. one of those years it was raining, and the other one Biopassport started to take place.

But today, with all the improvements in cycling, with staying in altitude, with better bikes, you can performe close to the EPO era, of course.

But I remerber how Hamilton say in his book that was possible to win things then if your where good... not the Tour, of course, 26 time for Nibali show that...but you could make top ten if you were really good againts strong dopers.

But that is something that a lot of people I see dont get to understand.
The problem with 1996 is the profile


In 1994 the Hautacam came as the only mountain at the end of flat stage as well.

in 2000 we had


in 2008 we had


So saying Nibali's time of 27th of all time is normal is ridiculous in this context. His time should be compared to the two similar stages.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Taxus4a said:
Probably??

Are you ride with rain sometime??
Yes, and I ride faster until a bridge! But on sunny days, I stop often spending time with girls along the road. So I am sure wheter I am faster with rain or not.
:p
 
Jul 29, 2009
441
0
0
Of course the other thing to remember when we compare times from today with the 70 and 80s is that those riders weren't clean either. Ok so it was pre EPO but clean they were not.

Coppi's alpe d'huez time from 52 may be relatively slow but it wasn't clean if we take him at his word.

Even if times do slow down it doesn't mean riders are clean just that what they are able to get away with doesn't have the same effect.
 
SirLes said:
Of course the other thing to remember when we compare times from today with the 70 and 80s is that those riders weren't clean either. Ok so it was pre EPO but clean they were not.

Coppi's alpe d'huez time from 52 may be relatively slow but it wasn't clean if we take him at his word.

Even if times do slow down it doesn't mean riders are clean just that what they are able to get away with doesn't have the same effect.
Well, the kind of "doping" in Coppi era has nothing to do with nutritionist today, nothing.

The true doping is the blood era, and other things of that era, today clean any rider that rode Le Tour is much better in performance than Coppi, of course...
 
AICA ribonucleotide said:
The problem with 1996 is the profile




So saying Nibali's time of 27th of all time is normal is ridiculous in this context. His time should be compared to the two similar stages.
Is harder for a climber to do 200 flat kms that 140 with just Tourmalet, it is one hour less effort, and at the end, that is similar.. for another jind or riders, maybe it is differente, becouse the dont go comfortable climbing Tourmalet at today pace, but for Nibali, better to do those 15 kms climbing at that pace, that 50 in the plain
 
This is a very interesting talk by David Epstein, author of The Sports Gene, a book which I have discussed here before. He points out that Eddy Merckx’s hour record was extended only 10 m by Boardman, when he was restricted to a similar bike. Sosenka later added about 250 m to that, but he also tested positive several years before and after that record. Merckx did set his record at over 2000 meters altitude, which would provide a significant aerodynamic advantage, though some of that would be lost because of the reduced oxygen levels. I think the most favorable estimates are that he might have gained 2-3% in speed, though most subsequent attempts have been at sea level, by choice of the riders.

Epstein also claims that if Jesse Owens ran on the same kind of track that sprinters do today, with the same kind of shoes, he would only be a couple of steps behind Usain Bolt, instead of the 5-6 meters I guess it is that his actual time implies.

The point being, then, that the physiological improvement of the best athletes over long periods of time may not be that great. If no one today can ride an ITT faster or much faster than Merckx, using the same equipment, it strongly suggests that no one can climb any faster than him or other great climbers, if the equipment, roads, and other non-physiological variables are the same. TT success, of course, is power/surface area, while climbing is power/weight, but unless one believes that new, allowed methods enable riders to lose weight while maintaining power, we would expect any discipline involving power to show the same lack of improvement.

I still think the larger pool of riders could have some effect, that is, the odds of another Merckx or even someone superior to him increase with a larger pool. But other than that, Epstein’s work suggests that if riders today are climbing that much faster than Merckx, Hinault, and some others of the past, most of that difference has to be due either to changes in equipment and possibly roads, or doping--as opposed to training and nutrition. I suppose one could argue that not many riders are that interested in the hour record, particularly the one using the more traditional bike, and don't focus on it. But surely if the differences we see in climbing times reflected differences in physiology, many riders today would have a very good shot at breaking the hour record, and might want to go for it.
 
Merckx index said:
This is a very interesting talk by David Epstein, author of The Sports Gene, a book which I have discussed here before. He points out that Eddy Merckx’s hour record was extended only 10 m by Boardman, when he was restricted to a similar bike. Sosenka later added about 250 m to that, but he also tested positive several years before and after that record. Merckx did set his record at over 2000 meters altitude, which would provide a significant aerodynamic advantage, though some of that would be lost because of the reduced oxygen levels. I think the most favorable estimates are that he might have gained 2-3% in speed, though most subsequent attempts have been at sea level, by choice of the riders.

Epstein also claims that if Jesse Owens ran on the same kind of track that sprinters do today, with the same kind of shoes, he would only be a couple of steps behind Usain Bolt, instead of the 5-6 meters I guess it is that his actual time implies.

The point being, then, that the physiological improvement of the best athletes over long periods of time may not be that great. If no one today can ride an ITT faster or much faster than Merckx, using the same equipment, it strongly suggests that no one can climb any faster than him or other great climbers, if the equipment, roads, and other non-physiological variables are the same. TT success, of course, is power/surface area, while climbing is power/weight, but unless one believes that new, allowed methods enable riders to lose weight while maintaining power, we would expect any discipline involving power to show the same lack of improvement.

I still think the larger pool of riders could have some effect, that is, the odds of another Merckx or even someone superior to him increase with a larger pool. But other than that, Epstein’s work suggests that if riders today are climbing that much faster than Merckx, Hinault, and some others of the past, most of that difference has to be due either to changes in equipment and possibly roads, or doping--as opposed to training and nutrition. I suppose one could argue that not many riders are that interested in the hour record, particularly the one using the more traditional bike, and don't focus on it. But surely if the differences we see in climbing times reflected differences in physiology, many riders today would have a very good shot at breaking the hour record, and might want to go for it.
I think the hour record has been discussed before and the general consensus is that it is a relic that nobody has any real interest in anymore.

Boardman beat it at the end of his career with very little specific prep and that record itself is now 14/15 yrs old. Whilst I think most agree that Merckx was one of the greats, where does Boardman rank amongst the great riders? Maybe Boardman was the poster boy for a less talented athlete who was propelled to the level of Merckx thanks to the usage of all modern benefits.

I have little doubt that with modern technology, training technicques and all the things you mentioned, that Merckx would be right up there with the top current riders. I don't think anyone really believes riders are all more now naturally talented but rather they benefit greater from improvements in various areas. Riders from the past would benefit just as muchand stii be at the top.
 
Merckx index said:
This is a very interesting talk by David Epstein, author of The Sports Gene, a book which I have discussed here before. He points out that Eddy Merckx’s hour record was extended only 10 m by Boardman,
Was he aware that 49.441 km Boardman only produced 403 watts, againt 442 watts for 56.375 km Boardman? i.e, that with the same power Boardman would have done about 51.1km (far better than Sosenka)
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Le breton said:
Was he aware that 49.441 km Boardman only produced 403 watts, againt 442 watts for 56.375 km Boardman? i.e, that with the same power Boardman would have done about 51.1km (far better than Sosenka)
I thought those figures were estimated?
 
Merckx index said:
......Merckx did set his record at over 2000 meters altitude, which would provide a significant aerodynamic advantage, though some of that would be lost because of the reduced oxygen levels. I think the most favorable estimates are that he might have gained 2-3% in speed, though most subsequent attempts have been at sea level, by choice of the riders.
....
At 2300m the air density for a given temperature is reduced by 25% compared to sea-level.
However, for most people the sustainable power output over 10 min is reduced by about 10-12%. I don't believe large number of people have been tested over 60 min. It could be more than 10-12%.

Let's see what answer we get from analyticcycling for say 450 watts at 1,194 g/cm^3 air density and for 400 watts at 0.9 g/cm^3

and the answer is that 49.431 km corresponds to 46.9 km at sea-level, a 5% difference, not 2-3%.
SHOWING ONCE MORE WHAT A BOTCHED UP JOB WAS THAT MEXICO BUSINESS.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts