• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 110 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Compared to the high octane days of of the 90's climbing times are certainly down. Hesjedal's Giro win had lowest average power output of a Grand Tour winner since LeMond.

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/58349990782/bmf-case-study-hesjedal-giro-2012
overall performance is at least plausible for a top clean rider which is important because Hesjedal is the only GC contender we have with published blood data without any major red flags
And then you have data like this. Very accurate calculations based not on estimates but Floyd's own power files.



Regardless of what you may think about Floyd the guy was massively talented. If no doping existed in the sport I think he would have won multiple Tours. Here is massively talented guy who was doing transfusions, HGH, etc. Had a Hct of 48.5 in the 3rd week of the Tour......and his output is the same as Froome, Quintana, and Horner. :confused:
 
Sep 8, 2009
13,779
0
0
Race Radio said:
Compared to the high octane days of of the 90's climbing times are certainly down. Hesjedal's Giro win had lowest average power output of a Grand Tour winner since LeMond.

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/58349990782/bmf-case-study-hesjedal-giro-2012


And then you have data like this. Very accurate calculations based not on estimates but Floyd's own power files.



Regardless of what you may think about Floyd the guy was massively talented. If no doping existed in the sport I think he would have won multiple Tours. Here is massively talented guy who was doing transfusions, HGH, etc. Had a Hct of 48.5 in the 3rd week of the Tour......and his output is the same as Froome, Quintana, and Horner. :confused:

this form of comparison is pretty much useless. on all the preceding climbs, they rode hugely fast back in 2006. of course they tired on the last climb. even festina 97 on perfluorocarbons, they got tired at the end.

hesjedal's performance seem so low because of stelvio. of course you won't do 6 w/kg for an hour at a climb at over 2700 meters. he was fast too. in a very mountainous giro.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Netserk said:
From what I can see it's based on DrF formula, no?
You are right, sorry I was not clear. I meant it was cross checked with Floyd's Powertap numbers. Dr. Ferrari's formula is very accurate.

The key point is looking at that list of calculations from 2006 we see a list of guys who were doping.....yet some riders today have very similar outputs.
 
Apr 20, 2012
4,238
0
0
Race Radio said:
Regardless of what you may think about Floyd the guy was massively talented. If no doping existed in the sport I think he would have won multiple Tours. Here is massively talented guy who was doing transfusions, HGH, etc. Had a Hct of 48.5 in the 3rd week of the Tour......and his output is the same as Froome, Quintana, and Horner. :confused:
Welcome to the world of marginal gains.

If doping did for Landis what it did for Hamilton [10% gain in power] he wouldnt stand a chance in this peloton. In Fignon's/LeMonds' time though...
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
That is certainly true. On the other hand we know some power guestimatess in the past were pretty accurate and were accomplished through dope. Take Chiappucci for example, he had to dope to achieve 5.5w/k in 1990, several years later he rode at 6w/k.

Perhaps there is a maximum doping uptake...

And when that doesnt work there is always the 'laberror' defence :D
This is a very good point and sadly missed by so many so called experts.

Having a “magical” number indicative of doping in some respects is a false economy.

If a rider is producing 5.5 on a consistent basis and all of a sudden produces 6.5 or higher, the delta is the big concern rather than so much the actual number.

In Froome’s case and to Ferrari’s well made point; if at the Vuelta he is producing x number and then on the penultimate stage going for the win produces y then its cause for alarm.

Leading on from this and again in Froome’s case; if he has spent his career producing 5.1 as his highest figure and then all of sudden leaps to 6.1+ then again the delta is too great to be done naturally. He may not be at 6.5 or 6.8 but the “transformation” is too unbelievable to be explained by natural occurrences, pillows, washing hands etc.
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
thehog said:
This is a very good point and sadly missed by so many so called experts.

Having a “magical” number indicative of doping in some respects is a false economy.

If a rider is producing 5.5 on a consistent basis and all of a sudden produces 6.5 or higher, the delta is the big concern rather than so much the actual number.

In Froome’s case and to Ferrari’s well made point; if at the Vuelta he is producing x number and then on the penultimate stage going for the win produces y then its cause for alarm.

Leading on from this and again in Froome’s case; if he has spent his career producing 5.1 as his highest figure and then all of sudden leaps to 6.1+ then again the delta is too great to be done naturally. He may not be at 6.5 or 6.8 but the “transformation” is too unbelievable to be explained by natural occurrences, pillows, washing hands etc.
I wonder if a power passport would be possible.

Collect SRM data over many years, and eventually you should have a pretty good idea of what a rider if capable of. Of course, it will still be room for doping and impossible to make a case on small gains, but at least they could get rid of the really obvious cases, like when someone who could barely keep up with Henderson in the gruppetto suddenly gains 100 watts in a month.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
the sceptic said:
I wonder if a power passport would be possible.

Collect SRM data over many years, and eventually you should have a pretty good idea of what a rider if capable of. Of course, it will still be room for doping and impossible to make a case on small gains, but at least they could get rid of the really obvious cases, like when someone who could barely keep up with Henderson in the gruppetto suddenly gains 100 watts in a month.
As discussed here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=22680
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
the sceptic said:
I wonder if a power passport would be possible.

Collect SRM data over many years, and eventually you should have a pretty good idea of what a rider if capable of. Of course, it will still be room for doping and impossible to make a case on small gains, but at least they could get rid of the really obvious cases, like when someone who could barely keep up with Henderson in the gruppetto suddenly gains 100 watts in a month.
Big jumps in power have been discussed for years, the key is to have both elements. A biological profile and power files. A spike in Hct coupled with a spike in output is very telling. Columbia made it part of their internal program. Garmin also does it, both with new recruits and existing riders. LeMond also has been a big advocate of it.
 
Big Doopie said:
and often derided for it on these very threads.

will he be proven right yet again...?
True, although LeMond tends to selectively apply who he thinks has taken those delta jumps. He's comfident in froome and recently seen riding shotgun with Indurain in a open top car. I'm a big fan of Greg but most recently he has somewhat lost the plot.
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
Race Radio said:
Big jumps in power have been discussed for years, the key is to have both elements. A biological profile and power files. A spike in Hct coupled with a spike in output is very telling. Columbia made it part of their internal program. Garmin also does it, both with new recruits and existing riders. LeMond also has been a big advocate of it.
When it suits him.

There is a difference between a climber like Hinault for example, and Froome speeding away like that," the 52-year-old explained. "People look at technology now, wattage, VO2max and nobody is equal physically
You can't compare it to before
Yet this was one of his key arguments against lance back in the day.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
I didn't say that, you did.

Even Velo says wind matters quite a bit, easily 5-10%. Yes the other factors less so and the estimates are less sensitive to those factors. But not "almost irrelevant".

These things matters even more so when inspecting one data point in isolation from all the others. Another point Velo makes in the links you provide.

And Velo also says the modelling to use is the Martin et al model, which is what I use - except I don't apply climb averages, rather I segment climbs to deal with variable gradients and wind vectors.

So thanks for the links, they nicely reinforce my point.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts