Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 106 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Netserk said:
The graph is with normalized weight(, CdA and altitude), which is the best way to do it if you are going to compare different riders.

EDIT: However I will say that pVAM/whatever was used to measure their efforts clearly underestimated Angliru (and Ancares) because of the irregularity.
Ahh, got it.

Agreed on Angliru and Ancares, they seem low
 
May 15, 2012
75
0
0
Netserk said:
The graph is with normalized weight(, CdA and altitude), which is the best way to do it if you are going to compare different riders.
Bodyweight isn't a big mystery when they are this lean and this skeletal.

When Wiggins won the TDF he was 69kg.

Froome is 2 inches shorter than Wiggins which gets you close to 66kg.

Contador is 4 inches shorter than Froome which gets you close to 62kg.

They are riding at around 5% BF give or take.

I had a mate the same height as Contador, weigh 65kg @ 5.5% BF looking like a bodybuilder compared to Contador.

The male fitness competitions have the lightweight class where 6ft guys compete at sub 65kg and are around 4% BF and make pro cyclists look like twigs.

Pro cyclists overstate their weights to keep the w/kg calculations low in the media. However when i looked at the weights earlier vs stated on google, it's only Chris Froom who looks overstated to me. Quoting 71kg+ when i put him at 66kg. Everyone else's stated weight looks about right to me.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Kicker661 said:
Bodyweight isn't a big mystery when they are this lean and this skeletal.

When Wiggins won the TDF he was 69kg.

Froome is 2 inches shorter than Wiggins which gets you close to 66kg.

Contador is 4 inches shorter than Froome which gets you close to 62kg.

They are riding at around 5% BF give or take.

I had a mate the same height as Contador, weigh 65kg @ 5.5% BF looking like a bodybuilder compared to Contador.

The male fitness competitions have the lightweight class where 6ft guys compete at sub 65kg and are around 4% BF and make pro cyclists look like twigs.

Pro cyclists overstate their weights to keep the w/kg calculations low in the media. However when i looked at the weights earlier vs stated on google, it's only Chris Froom who looks overstated to me. Quoting 71kg+ when i put him at 66kg. Everyone else's stated weight looks about right to me.
Your guesses look good. FYI, Froome did tell Eurosport that his weight at the 2013 Tour was 66kg
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Race Radio said:
Very good article.

Funny, all of those guys in that article used to post here....but left due to the trolling. The article adds a lot of nuance and context to the discussion, which would often make them a target here.
So, what does that say about yourself?

Contador and Froome’s ride on Puerto de Ancares is very comparable to Nibali’s performance on Hautcaam in stage 18 of Tour de France. Nibali climbed at 6.0-6.1 W/kg for 37 minutes and 20 seconds.
Thats encouraging for sure.
 
Race Radio said:
Very good article.

Funny, all of those guys in that article used to post here....but left due to the trolling. The article adds a lot of nuance and context to the discussion, which would often make them a target here.
Given that Ross' last post was in 2011, I don't see the point you're making.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
jens_attacks said:
il mito trolling sky haha

Alto de Camperona : 21'10" was the time on the 8 km at 7.6%, VAM = 1757m/h = 6.5 w/kg by Froome, a "transformed" athlete with regards to the performances of the previous days (I wonder how his "buddy" Wiggins commented on this sudden change in fitness...).

http://53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=149
Ha, that is some classic Ferrari.

His take on motorized bikes is interesting.

it's remarkable the absolute silence from the UCI in relation to a problem of which it knows a lot more than it seems.
Wonder what Ferrari knows about bikes with motors?
 
Race Radio said:
Very good article.

Funny, all of those guys in that article used to post here....but left due to the trolling. The article adds a lot of nuance and context to the discussion, which would often make them a target here.
It doesn't add any nuance and context. In fact it takes it all away. The whole point of these power figures is to remove the context of the actual race and reduce the whole debate to a number. There is never any mention of how the climb was raced (e.g. on this climb Rider A attacked with 6km to go, but on this one Rider B attacked with 2km to go - big factors). These climbs are not time trials.

By removing the context and just comparing selected raw numbers, you can illustrate pretty much any point you want to make. It's intellectually dishonest, but it's an effective way of selling opinions to the more innumerate and susceptible. Politicians do it all the time.


For example on the last couple of pages of this thread, there's a Puerto de Ancares figure of 5.9W/kg for Contador. For some this is too low to match their opinions so they add context - bad road surface, riders not 100%, lots of drafting etc. And they are right. Because the context of the race is important - for every climb. But the numbers crunchers ignore it and people only introduce it when the numbers don't support thier opinions. But it should always be introduced.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Parker said:
There is never any mention of how the climb was raced (e.g. on this climb Rider A attacked with 6km to go, but on this one Rider B attacked with 2km to go - big factors). These climbs are not time trials.
.
Perhaps I am missing your point. The article clearly mentions how the climbs were raced. They discuss wind, tactics, shortness of climbs, positioning. All of these are a factor.
 
Race Radio said:
Perhaps I am missing your point. The article clearly mentions how the climbs were raced. They discuss wind, tactics, shortness of climbs, positioning. All of these are a factor.
There's a vague overview of the races and a little bit from the Finnish guy, but nothing specific contected to the actual numbers and how much impact (in numerical terms) the context has on those numbers. Context seems to me to be an explanation as to why figures don't support the desire narrative rather than a major integral factor. Tactics are absolutely crucial to the numbers, but rarely gets acknowledged.

And the two alleged scientists just chuck the numbers out there and put them on a poorly labelled graph and cherry pick the bits they can pass off as suspicious.
 
Parker said:
There's a vague overview of the races and a little bit from the Finnish guy, but nothing specific contected to the actual numbers and how much impact (in numerical terms) the context has on those numbers. Context seems to me to be an explanation as to why figures don't support the desire narrative rather than a major integral factor. Tactics are absolutely crucial to the numbers, but rarely gets acknowledged.

And the two alleged scientists just chuck the numbers out there and put them on a poorly labelled graph and cherry pick the bits they can pass off as suspicious.
What do you think says more about the ability of a climber: a climb where they hold back (because of race tactics) or a fast climb climbed full gas?
 
Netserk said:
Yeah, but the conclusion would surely be that that was because of the trolling three years ago, not the current climate, no?
That's one conclusion, although given it's a public access forum where people with an interest in the subject can check the prevailing mood, you might think a better conclusion would be that in the last three years Ross Tucker hasn't felt the ongoing climate of the board is conducive to posting.

Unless you're suggesting there is less trolling here then there was three years ago, but some other factor is stopping existing account holders with an ongoing public interest in the subject making posts?
 
Netserk said:
What do you think says more about the ability of a climber: a climb where they hold back (because of race tactics) or a fast climb climbed full gas?
When they go full gas. (In athletics they compare personal bests and season bests, not average times).

Yet people are reluctant to compare the very best performances of various climbers, regardless of venue, and prefer to compare their performances on a particular climb.

I just don't think that these estimates tell us much about doping and are more a tool to sell opinions. There's no more effective way of selling an opinion than attaching a number to it.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Parker said:
There's a vague overview of the races and a little bit from the Finnish guy, but nothing specific contected to the actual numbers and how much impact (in numerical terms) the context has on those numbers. Context seems to me to be an explanation as to why figures don't support the desire narrative rather than a major integral factor. Tactics are absolutely crucial to the numbers, but rarely gets acknowledged.

And the two alleged scientists just chuck the numbers out there and put them on a poorly labelled graph and cherry pick the bits they can pass off as suspicious.
Wow, I certainly did not read it that way. Vetoo writes often about wind, tactics, etc all the time. He has access to multiple riders power files and from this is able to not only produce very accurate power numbers for multiple riders but also calculate the effect various elements like wind direction, altitude, and drafting have on the calculations.

This discussion is not all about doping. Even if doping had never existed in the sport we would be having this discussion. For years riders, fans, and DS' have been comparing climbing times. It is interesting. It is why Strava exists.
 
Race Radio said:
Wow, I certainly did not read it that way. Vetoo writes often about wind, tactics, etc all the time. He has access to multiple riders power files and from this is able to not only produce very accurate power numbers for multiple riders but also calculate the effect various elements like wind direction, altitude, and drafting have on the calculations.
My issue isn't with the accuracy of the estimates (the numbers could come straight of a powermeter and my point remains) - it's what is then done with the numbers and the inferences made from them. I don't think they tell us much meaningful as the way climbs are raced varies far too much.

Race Radio said:
This discussion is not all about doping. Even if doping had never existed in the sport we would be having this discussion. For years riders, fans, and DS' have been comparing climbing times. It is interesting. It is why Strava exists.
In the media it's very much used in a doping context though. The journalist when he tweeted the link to his story singled out the quote "The entire picture is not reassuring". It's being used as a tool to construct a doping story for people who love doping stories.
 
Parker said:
My issue isn't with the accuracy of the estimates (the numbers could come straight of a powermeter and my point remains) - it's what is then done with the numbers and the inferences made from them. I don't think they tell us much meaningful as the way climbs are raced varies far too much.
Have you ever ridden a bike with a power meter?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY