Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Merckx index]

Ferrari's opinion:

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=148

Nibali 6.3 Watts/Kg in Hautacam.

Ferrari used the wrong number:

On the ascent to Hautacam (13.6 km at 7.8%) Vincenzo rode alone "in the wind" for 11 km, climbing in 37'30", VAM = 1696 m/h = 6.28 w/kg = 395w.

1696 VAM at 7.8% is 6.10 watts/kg. He used 7% grade to come up with 6.28.

Interesting comments on calories.

 

[Escarabajo]

Ferrari used the wrong number:



1696 VAM at 7.8% is 6.10 watts/kg. He used 7% grade to come up with 6.28.

Interesting comments on calories.

OK. I see. I get 6.1 as well

I had to adjust my CDA to a more aoredynamic position in order to get 6.15 Watts/Kg.

CDA=0.36 in my spreadsheet.

For climbing I usually use bigger number close to 0.40. So If that is true then Nibali is a fairly aerodynamic guy with small frontal area(?).

These are borderline values for Hautacam depending on the wind conditions TBH.

 

[BigBoat]

Ferrari initially said 6.97 w/kg for his version of level 4, which is an all out 30 min TT. That would give an FTP of 6.7 w/kg, too high in my opinion. It seems more likely to be about what Wiggins had for his win a couple years back, maybe a little bit better.

I don't really think Contador or Froome could have caught him after loosing all that time on the cobbles anyway. Their performance was probably similar or the same.

 

[Red Rick]

In before super high VAM's and W/kg's

 

[Red Rick]

I got 12.40 for the final 4 km's. according to the profile of the final climb, they climbed 393 meters, which equates to a VAM of 1862, which very roughly gives a power estimate of a little over 6.2

I don't think any of these are very accurate, I expected the VAM and power output to be higher, but the heat will have effected this performance considerably

 

[del1962]

Laurens Ten Dam, 400w, Wilco Kelderman 417w, stava sector over 3.1 km segment seems to finish before the final line, 3.1km gaining 321metres, 11.00 min and 11.11 min respectively, don't know their respective weights

strava gives Ten Dam a vam of 1686 amd Kelderman 1658

They where both 44 seconds behind Valverde at finish

 

[Red Rick]

Laurens Ten Dam, 400w, Wilco Kelderman 417w, stava sector over 3.1 km segment seems to finish before the final line, 3.1km gaining 321metres, 11.00 min and 11.11 min respectively, don't know their respective weights

strava gives Ten Dam a vam of 1686 amd Kelderman 1658

They where both 44 seconds behind Valverde at finish

Strava isn't exactly a great source of information about power output.

 

[del1962]

Strava isn't exactly a great source of information about power output.

Not for estimated power I agree, but the figures for Ten Dam and Kelderman will be from their power meters though

 

[SeriousSam]

First MTF, short climb. It would be shocking if they didn't exceed values that are deemed suspicious for 30+ minute efforts in the 3rd week.

 

[Netserk]

Not for estimated power I agree, but the figures for Ten Dam and Kelderman will be from their power meters though

Which also ain't a great source of information.

 

[Red Rick]

First MTF, short climb. It would be shocking if they didn't exceed values that are deemed suspicious for 30+ minute efforts in the 3rd week.

Yeah, I was expecting at least 6,5 too, hoping for maybe 6.8 or something. Not enough tailwind I guess

 

[DirtyWorks]

Not for estimated power I agree, but the figures for Ten Dam and Kelderman will be from their power meters though

Are you sure they aren't estimating it? It estimates it for me with no power meter.

Also, Strava should never, ever, be relied upon as their gps tracks are not anchored to roads. Three riders, three different gps units on the same road can get three different distances, speeds and all the rest.

I have some KOM's there as if were pedaling an airplane.

 

[del1962]

Are you sure they aren't estimating it? It estimates it for me with no power meter.

Also, Strava should never, ever, be relied upon as their gps tracks are not anchored to roads. Three riders, three different gps units on the same road can get three different distances, speeds and all the rest.

I have some KOM's there as if were pedaling an airplane.

I pretty sure with a real meter their is a symbol next to the time on strava, so the power output I think will be pretty solid (better than the estimated power), the times might not be 100% accurate due to GPS positioning. The thing you need are the riders weights.

 

[D-Queued]

Are you sure they aren't estimating it? It estimates it for me with no power meter.

Also, Strava should never, ever, be relied upon as their gps tracks are not anchored to roads. Three riders, three different gps units on the same road can get three different distances, speeds and all the rest.

I have some KOM's there as if were pedaling an airplane.

Lucky you. They will be hard to steal.

You can ask Strava to correct your elevation. It does a pretty good job.

From Strava:

"...Strava detects devices with barometric altimeters and recognizes the data from that source. Since elevation data derived from a GPS signal is fairly inaccurate, Strava automatically corrects elevation derived from a GPS source by consulting elevation databases to determine the elevation at each point in the activity.

If you suspect that your elevation data is incorrect, you can request an elevation lookup.* Click on the "Elevation" text under the elevation statistic above the map. The dialogue pops up with a button to "Correct Elevation." This button will only appear for data collected with a Barometric Altimeter, or if a previous automatic elevation correction has failed. After a short while, the "Calculating" text will change to "Updated," and if you click on "Updated" your page will refresh with the new elevation data. ..."

Dave.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

A day and age where 1826 VAM and a whopping 431W on a 4km isn't good enough to even top 5

 

[SeriousSam]

So Valverde, Froome and Contador had a VAM of 1903. Pretty good but as mentioned before, the magic >6w/kg = doper rule doesn't apply for short climbs in the first week.

 

[D-Queued]

[

A day and age where 1826 VAM and a whopping 431W on a 4km isn't good enough to even top 5

+1

So Valverde, Froome and Contador had a VAM of 1903. Pretty good but as mentioned before, the magic >6w/kg = doper rule doesn't apply for short climbs in the first week.

Nope.

For a 'short' 4k climb in a first week, you have to double the standard and use 12w/kg as a doper rule.



Um, like how long can these guys sustain anaerobic power outputs?

Dave.

 

[SeriousSam]

Nope.

For a 'short' 4k climb in a first week, you have to double the standard and use 12w/kg as a doper rule.



Um, like how long can these guys sustain anaerobic power outputs?

Dave.

Doubling the magic number is clearly incorrect but yes, some adjustment for it being the first summit finish and shorter is actually warranted.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Um, like how long can these guys sustain anaerobic power outputs?

VO2 max <= 8 minutes yeah?

Anything longer than that is heading towards FTP.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

VO2 max <= 8 minutes yeah?

Anything longer than that is heading towards FTP.

It depends. VO2max and power are measures of different things and you can't quite equate one with the other.

VO2max can be induced at a wide range of powers e.g. a rider sustaining maximal 20-min power will typically reach VO2max in the latter stages of the effort, not because they are going harder, but due to the slow component of VO2max.

But yes, VO2max would typically be associated with hard efforts of ~3-8 minutes.

And they are still mostly aerobic, not anaerobic, efforts. Any maximal effort > ~ 75-90 seconds is dominantly aerobic. Sub-maximal efforts always will be aerobic.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It depends. VO2max and power are measures of different things and you can't quite equate one with the other.

VO2max can be induced at a wide range of powers e.g. a rider sustaining maximal 20-min power will typically reach VO2max in the latter stages of the effort, not because they are going harder, but due to the slow component of VO2max.

But yes, VO2max would typically be associated with hard efforts of ~3-8 minutes.

And they are still mostly aerobic, not anaerobic, efforts. Any maximal effort > ~ 75-90 seconds is dominantly aerobic. Sub-maximal efforts always will be aerobic.

I am not sure why you are replying. 3-8 minute VO2 max efforts don't elicit VO2 max until towards the end either - at least the first few at any rate.

Getting all pedantic and discussing 20 minute efforts eliciting VO2 max towards the end sounds like you are trying to vortex the thread.

We are clearly discussing what level of power the cyclists were using to climb a single climb.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I am not sure why you are replying. 3-8 minute VO2 max efforts don't elicit VO2 max until towards the end either - at least the first few at any rate.

Getting all pedantic and discussing 20 minute efforts eliciting VO2 max towards the end sounds like you are trying to vortex the thread.

We are clearly discussing what level of power the cyclists were using to climb a single climb.

No need to be snarky, I wasn't seeking to do anything other than help you correct someone else's misunderstanding of physiology and to clarify for anyone else out there who might care to learn or be interested in such things.

As you were.

 

[sandstorm]

+1



Nope.

For a 'short' 4k climb in a first week, you have to double the standard and use 12w/kg as a doper rule.



Um, like how long can these guys sustain anaerobic power outputs?

Dave.

somewhere between 7.6 and 6.4...

 

[Red Rick]

Any numbers on the Ancares ascent?

 

[roundabout]

28'47" for the last 9 km. You are welcome.