Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Catwhoorg]

Re:

It looked like a tailwind - each non held flag I could see on the TV was flapping lightly in a direction in support of the riders. That would inflate power estimates based on ascent rate by perhaps 0.2 - 0.4W/kg.

We do have Gesink's power file from Strava to make any necessary corrections.

Froome is certainly higher W/Kg than his 5.8

 

[webvan]

Interesting comments on the leaked power data from Ross Tucker: http://sportsscientists.com/2015/07/long-live-transparency-the-data-video-controversy/

Also, I was hoping to read Michele Ferrari's take on this. Unfortunately, his website which was running on Sunday, seems to be down today: http://www.53x12.com

As for the 2015 TdF, it was interesting for a week...

Tucker estimates Froome's performance today at 6,2 W/kg for 41 minutes, and has just posted his thoughts on this "one more pixel" of evidence: http://sportsscientists.com/2015/07/day-1-in-the-mountains-one-more-pixel-context-mistrust/

Thanks for the link, great analysis by Tucker. I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories but something definitely didn't look right yesterday, Brings back bad memories of Hautacam 96 and of course 2013. Contador could be tired from the Giro although it would have been more likely in the third week, Nibali has been poor all year, but Quintana and TVG are a lot harder to explain, not to mention the rebirth of Porte or the "birth" of Thomas...on the other hand Gallopin and Rolland did pretty well too. Let's see what today's numbers look like!

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Is 6,2 w/kg in such a easy stage really that mind-boggling?

what i hope we'll really find in the years to come is what happened to the other teams and riders on the rest day and why only sky performed as expected.

If only Sky performed as expected, shouldn't that tell you that the conditions weren't conducive to as good performances as previously thought and, therefore, that Sky did do extraordinarily well?

the conditions were good
i'm still intrigued why all the other teams except sky didn't recover like the peloton used to after 1993, in the rest day. i'm pretty amazed by the whole situation...maybe they will in the next stages, god knows what happened.
big lol at the french.

Movistar was fine as well.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

I'd say my knowledge of power output, power meters, and relevant factors is superior to most people

Fixed your post for you.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

Is 6,2 w/kg in such a easy stage really that mind-boggling?

what i hope we'll really find in the years to come is what happened to the other teams and riders on the rest day and why only sky performed as expected.

If only Sky performed as expected, shouldn't that tell you that the conditions weren't conducive to as good performances as previously thought and, therefore, that Sky did do extraordinarily well?

the conditions were good
i'm still intrigued why all the other teams except sky didn't recover like the peloton used to after 1993, in the rest day. i'm pretty amazed by the whole situation...maybe they will in the next stages, god knows what happened.
big lol at the french.

The possibility of night time testing?

So does Sky have inside information?

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

https://www.strava.com/activities/346660107/segments/8239100519

today hurt

 

[May0maniac]

Re: Re:

Is 6,2 w/kg in such a easy stage really that mind-boggling?

what i hope we'll really find in the years to come is what happened to the other teams and riders on the rest day and why only sky performed as expected.

If only Sky performed as expected, shouldn't that tell you that the conditions weren't conducive to as good performances as previously thought and, therefore, that Sky did do extraordinarily well?

the conditions were good
i'm still intrigued why all the other teams except sky didn't recover like the peloton used to after 1993, in the rest day. i'm pretty amazed by the whole situation...maybe they will in the next stages, god knows what happened.
big lol at the french.

The possibility of night time testing?

So does Sky have inside information?

I fear that a few teams aren't "allowed" to win the Tour and get target tested, a few are allowed to have a "normal" preparation and one team is allowed to go full ***. I can't believe that Astana, Tinkoff, Katusha and AG2R all get the restday wrong at the same time and totally suck after the restday while Sky go full *** and Movistar also seem to do fine.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark...

 

[The Death Merchant]

Re:

It looked like a tailwind - each non held flag I could see on the TV was flapping lightly in a direction in support of the riders. That would inflate power estimates based on ascent rate by perhaps 0.2 - 0.4W/kg.

I don't know how you can call it tailwind when you look at the route and weather data from that day. Here's the map and the weather data from Arette, which is the closest town.

The wind direction was from South-southeast. If anything, it was headwind mostly.

 

[T_S_A_R]

Froome is the Pied Piper of mountain breezes.

He rides and the wind falls in obediently behind him.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

It looked like a tailwind - each non held flag I could see on the TV was flapping lightly in a direction in support of the riders. That would inflate power estimates based on ascent rate by perhaps 0.2 - 0.4W/kg.

We do have Gesink's power file from Strava to make any necessary corrections.

Froome is certainly higher W/Kg than his 5.8

OK, that's helpful. Can we validate Gesink's meter's data (e.g. check torque offset values) and then assess impact of how much solo into wind v draft assistance there are in the estimates. Draft assistance is not large like on the flat, but it is still a factor to consider.

Edit: I just realised Gesink is using a Pioneer power meter. We'd probably want a bit more validation of the quality of the data.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

It looked like a tailwind - each non held flag I could see on the TV was flapping lightly in a direction in support of the riders. That would inflate power estimates based on ascent rate by perhaps 0.2 - 0.4W/kg.

I don't know how you can call it tailwind when you look at the route and weather data from that day. Here's the map and the weather data from Arette, which is the closest town.

The wind direction was from South-southeast. If anything, it was headwind mostly.

Like I said, I was only going by what I saw the flags doing from TV coverage, the ones I saw were flapping lightly suggestive of a tailwind but of course that's only the bits of coverage I could view, and does not cover the entire climb. Wind direction nearer to slopes will vary from general prevailing wind direction as it's significantly affected by the terrain. It will get channeled a bit more. Yep, it's entirely possible it was a net headwind as well, which means an underestimate.

I actually don't know about the wind along the route, but neither does anyone else. Does anyone have air movement measurements along the route? Power estimates from speed on climbs is pretty sensitive to the assumed wind value. It does not take much for a sizeable error.

Rather than take a value as gospel, I prefer to test its validity, that's all.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Rather than take a value as gospel, I prefer to test its validity, that's all.

Always in favour of explaining away the performances. Always.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Rather than take a value as gospel, I prefer to test its validity, that's all.

Always in favour of explaining away the performances. Always.

You mean like those that say performances are always the result of doping?

If flimsy evidence is provided, I call it like it is. That does not mean I'm saying the alternative explanation (e.g doping) or a combination of factors isn't also possible. Refusal to accept plausible explanations is bias.

I'm simply pointing out that "he won therefore he must be doping" is a clinic pavlovian response, when the reality is we don't know, and use of power estimates as a dopeometer is flawed.

 

[webvan]

Another disgusting day in the mountains with Sky domestiques chasing down champions...anyone got VAM numbers for Beille ?

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

unfortunately gesink's watts meter stopped after changing bike. He was doing 430W until the flat tire (first part plateau de beille on an almost empty tire.. sick!)

 

[Knutsen]

Here is Laurens ten Dam. I guess that watts is calculated from weight/speed/profile(?):
https://www.strava.com/activities/347376951
(Several more riders has active profiles)

Here is another guy been out riding in the same area:
https://www.strava.com/activities/347390891

But I dont know if we can call him a pro, so he probably do not belong in this thread.

 

[poupou]

Re: Re:

It looked like a tailwind - each non held flag I could see on the TV was flapping lightly in a direction in support of the riders. That would inflate power estimates based on ascent rate by perhaps 0.2 - 0.4W/kg.

I don't know how you can call it tailwind when you look at the route and weather data from that day. Here's the map and the weather data from Arette, which is the closest town.

The wind direction was from South-southeast. If anything, it was headwind mostly.

Wind in mountain area depends on thermal activity. In a valley, when it's sunny there is a wind going up and then following the sunny slopes. Pilots of gliders, hanggliders or paragliders know well that. Here there is no doubt that the wind was mostly tailwind.
It was like that:

 

[Red Rick]

Any times form Mende yesterday?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

Any times form Mende yesterday?

Antoine VAYER ‏@festinaboy
Montée Jalabert yesterday : 9min38s for Quintana-Froome, 490 watts étalon, 7,2 w/kg for Quintana. Typique time Armstrong years, 9min33s 2005

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

Any times form Mende yesterday?

Antoine VAYER ‏@festinaboy
Montée Jalabert yesterday : 9min38s for Quintana-Froome, 490 watts étalon, 7,2 w/kg for Quintana. Typique time Armstrong years, 9min33s 2005

Pretty quick. I think they were around 9min50s in 2010?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

http://www.climbing-records.com/

Cote de la Croix Neuve-Mende
2015:3,1 km@10,0%---9:38---average speed 19.31 km/h(Quintana-Froome)
2012:3,0 km@10,2%---9:52---average speed 18.24 km/h(Lieuwe Westra)
2010:3,1 km@10,0%---9:33---average speed 19.48 km/h(Contador-Rodriguez)
---9:44---average speed 19.12 km/h(A.Schleck-Van Den Broeck-S.Sanchez-Menchov)
2010:3,0 km@10,2%---9:43---average speed 18.52 km/h(Alberto Contador)- Paris-Nice
2007:3,0 km@10,2%---9:39---average speed 18.65 km/h(Alberto Contador)
2005:3,1 km@10,0%---9:12---average speed 20.22 km/h(Armstrong-Basso-Ullrich-Evans)
---9:45---average speed 19.08 km/h(Leipheimer-Rasmussen-Vinokourov)
---10:35---average speed 17.57 km/(Marcos Serrano)
1995:3,1 km@10,0%---9:03---average speed 20.55 km/h(Pantani-Indurain-Riis)-RECORD
---9:48---average speed 18.98 km/h(Laurent Jalabert)

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Sure that time is correct?
This is Gesink:
https://www.strava.com/activities/348736613/segments/8291508303

though it doesn't count the flat part after the climb. Maybe that;'s the difference
450W for Gesink btw.. so the 40 watts extra for Froome seem about right
Quintana will have lower wattages, but he's 10kg lighter so same w/kg

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

2005:3,1 km@10,0%---9:12---average speed 20.22 km/h(Armstrong-Basso-Ullrich-Evans)

Must have been very cleans

 

[Dr.Guess]

Yes, there's always some loopholes in the defenders cases. Evans cleans, yes all of you defenders, how did he never test positive or were his rides cleans?
Nothing in pro cycling is believable.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

Yes, there's always some loopholes in the defenders cases. Evans cleans, yes all of you defenders, how did he never test positive or were his rides cleans?
Nothing in pro cycling is believable.

No one contributing to the Clinic on an ongoing basis thinks Evans is clean, nor defends him.