Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 119 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Re:

willbick said:
When comparing recent climbing rates to those of the EPO days people seem to assume it is impossible for a 'clean' rider to match the EPO times, but surely there has been gains in other ways in recent years. E.g. Prolonged altitude training camps (which is basically a legal expensive way of replicating the effects of EPO), better training techniques, better nutrition , facilities etc. also are the bikes lighter now or has the 6.8kg limit been in place for a long time?
Yes that is very simple... just do it better. Unfortunately, when 90-95% of what can be do has be done, the 5-10 left is not going to bring big improvement on time and results.
 
Re:

willbick said:
When comparing recent climbing rates to those of the EPO days people seem to assume it is impossible for a 'clean' rider to match the EPO times, but surely there has been gains in other ways in recent years. E.g. Prolonged altitude training camps (which is basically a legal expensive way of replicating the effects of EPO), better training techniques, better nutrition , facilities etc. also are the bikes lighter now or has the 6.8kg limit been in place for a long time?
The 6,8kg rule has been in place since 2000, but even 25 years ago the bikes were very light. LeMond's 1991 carbon fibre bike was an incredible machine.

Tiny improvements in training and equipment are never going to be enough to make up for the quantum leap in performance that EPO provides.

A quick look at the 100 metre dash record shows us how little we improve performance over time. In 1968 Jim Hines ran a 9.95. 31 years later, in 1999, Maurice Greene posted a 9.79. An improvement of 0.16 seconds, Roughly a 1,6% gain. Merckx posted an hour record in 1972 that stood for 28 years until Boardman beat it by 10 metres in 2000 on similar equipment. A doped up Sosenka improved it by 300 metres five years later.

Raw human performance doesn't really improve by much over time, unless there's shady business involved. A lot of the records set by the systematic doping regimes of East-Germany and the Soviet Union in athletics still stand today, and a huge amount of records remain unbroken since the 80's, where steroid use was rampant. Here's a list of mostly short duration/high-intensity sports the roid records still stand:

- The men's hammer throw and men's and women's discus records are unbroken since the 80's. All of them by Germans and Soviets.
- The women's 400 metre record was set in 1985 by Martina Koch of East-Germany. No-one has been within a second of it since 1996.
- The women's long jump record has stood since 1988. Soviets again.
- Women's shot put, set in 1987 by a Soviet.
- Sotomayor's high jump records have not been bested by another jumper since 1987, when he set his first of three. The women's high jump record has stood since 1987.
- The women's 800m record is over 30 years old.
- The men's 400m record has been broken three times since IAAF started electronic timing in 1968. Again a 1,6% gain.
- The women's 200m record has stood since 1988
- Men's shot put WR was set in 1990.
- The men's long jump record has been broken twice since 1968, by Bob Beamon and Mike Powell.

For endurance sports, EPO was the game changer. If someone is doing noticeably better than those riders in the 80's, it's most likely due to something other than better training or evolution of human performance. Then the two biggest possibilities would be bike weight and dope. It would be interesting to get a more precise value for equipment weight for the pre-EPO riders, just to factor that into the calculations of W/kg. That would allow us to adjust the power values and provide a more accurate comparison of yesterday's riders compared to today's.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
willbick said:
When comparing recent climbing rates to those of the EPO days people seem to assume it is impossible for a 'clean' rider to match the EPO times, but surely there has been gains in other ways in recent years. E.g. Prolonged altitude training camps (which is basically a legal expensive way of replicating the effects of EPO), better training techniques, better nutrition , facilities etc. also are the bikes lighter now or has the 6.8kg limit been in place for a long time?
The 6,8kg rule has been in place since 2000, but even 25 years ago the bikes were very light. LeMond's 1991 carbon fibre bike was an incredible machine.

Tiny improvements in training and equipment are never going to be enough to make up for the quantum leap in performance that EPO provides.

A quick look at the 100 metre dash record shows us how little we improve performance over time. In 1968 Jim Hines ran a 9.95. 31 years later, in 1999, Maurice Greene posted a 9.79. An improvement of 0.16 seconds, Roughly a 1,6% gain. Merckx posted an hour record in 1972 that stood for 28 years until Boardman beat it by 10 metres in 2000 on similar equipment. A doped up Sosenka improved it by 300 metres five years later.

Raw human performance doesn't really improve by much over time, unless there's shady business involved. A lot of the records set by the systematic doping regimes of East-Germany and the Soviet Union in athletics still stand today, and a huge amount of records remain unbroken since the 80's, where steroid use was rampant. Here's a list of mostly short duration/high-intensity sports the roid records still stand:

- The men's hammer throw and men's and women's discus records are unbroken since the 80's. All of them by Germans and Soviets.
- The women's 400 metre record was set in 1985 by Martina Koch of East-Germany. No-one has been within a second of it since 1996.
- The women's long jump record has stood since 1988. Soviets again.
- Women's shot put, set in 1987 by a Soviet.
- Sotomayor's high jump records have not been bested by another jumper since 1987, when he set his first of three. The women's high jump record has stood since 1987.
- The women's 800m record is over 30 years old.
- The men's 400m record has been broken three times since IAAF started electronic timing in 1968. Again a 1,6% gain.
- The women's 200m record has stood since 1988
- Men's shot put WR was set in 1990.
- The men's long jump record has been broken twice since 1968, by Bob Beamon and Mike Powell.

For endurance sports, EPO was the game changer. If someone is doing noticeably better than those riders in the 80's, it's most likely due to something other than better training or evolution of human performance. Then the two biggest possibilities would be bike weight and dope. It would be interesting to get a more precise value for equipment weight for the pre-EPO riders, just to factor that into the calculations of W/kg. That would allow us to adjust the power values and provide a more accurate comparison of yesterday's riders compared to today's.
High cadence...lol, nice post!
 
Re: Re:

lovealiens said:
lovealiens said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Everyone under 41:30 is a proven doper! Or admitted Doping!
Sorry need to cavet that....except the "sky" riders.
Maybe on that list but the list of top 100 times has riders under 41:30 who have not been caught doping or admitted to doping. They were almost certainly doping, just not caught. Top of this list is Carlos Sastre with a best time of 39:00. Not that I believe he was clean.
 
Re: Re:

TheGreenMonkey said:
lovealiens said:
lovealiens said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Everyone under 41:30 is a proven doper! Or admitted Doping!
Sorry need to cavet that....except the "sky" riders.
Maybe on that list but the list of top 100 times has riders under 41:30 who have not been caught doping or admitted to doping. They were almost certainly doping, just not caught. Top of this list is Carlos Sastre with a best time of 39:00. Not that I believe he was clean.
Of the top 100 times, only 46 appear on that chart (since I only plotted top 5 times or each year).
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Any reason why the two 20.4 values side by side (2013, 2015) indicate a downward trend from one 20.4 to the next?

Is that coz it's a Sky 20.4 and they go slower but arrive at the same time?
Or is the second 20.4 with a tailwind?
Or is it taking into account the 6% Team Sky error for the oval chainrings?

Curious.
Because 2013 is 20.44km/h and 2015 is 20.36km/h.

The numbers shown on the chart are rounded to 3 significant digits, but the chart symbol is placed as per calculations.

If you really must know, here are the numbers calculated to 4 significant digits:



The difference in average duration between 20.44km/h and 20.36km/h is 9.6 seconds.

A 0.01km/h difference ~= 1.2 seconds difference in ascent time.

And of course all my comments on data timing validity are contained in my blog and link to previous posts on this.
 
https://blendle.com/i/ad/de-cijfers-achter-de-benen-van-gesink/bnl-adn-20150725-4777792
Interesting dutch article on the level of Gesink this Tour.

His trainer, Delahaye, says he was not surprised at all by the numbers he was putting out on for instance Pierre St Martin. He said that he was surprised by how many riders did not get to their usual level. Delahaye says with the 409W Gesink had on Pierre St Martin, he figured Gesink would finish somewhere around 12th. He also said Gesink showed the same level in the Vuelta last year, but there it was less noticable because Froome and Contador were so far ahead.
In training Gesink can sustain 455W for 20 minutes on a climb in topform, and to answer why he didn't show much the last years was, predictable, because everytime he was close to or on the level he can achieve, something happened causing him to restart from zero.
THe reason why Gesink never improved to a possible GT podium contender is for 2 reasons according to Delahaye and Gesink himself:
1-Setbacks, had to restart from zero all the time and is now basically at the same level as 2010, instead of growth.
2-The sport has changed. According to Gesink and Delahaye they rode harder the whole day and it was more a battle of attrition in the past. Now it has become more a sport of 1 big explosion on the final climb. And as a diesel, Gesink doesn't deal well with that kind of riding. He cannot 'explode'. He needs opponents to wear down more before he can compete with them. Most of the riders are now 'too fresh' at the final climb.
 
Re:

Dekker_Tifosi said:
https://blendle.com/i/ad/de-cijfers-achter-de-benen-van-gesink/bnl-adn-20150725-4777792
Interesting dutch article on the level of Gesink this Tour.

His trainer, Delahaye, says he was not surprised at all by the numbers he was putting out on for instance Pierre St Martin. He said that he was surprised by how many riders did not get to their usual level. Delahaye says with the 409W Gesink had on Pierre St Martin, he figured Gesink would finish somewhere around 12th. He also said Gesink showed the same level in the Vuelta last year, but there it was less noticable because Froome and Contador were so far ahead.
In training Gesink can sustain 455W for 20 minutes on a climb in topform, and to answer why he didn't show much the last years was, predictable, because everytime he was close to or on the level he can achieve, something happened causing him to restart from zero.
THe reason why Gesink never improved to a possible GT podium contender is for 2 reasons according to Delahaye and Gesink himself:
1-Setbacks, had to restart from zero all the time and is now basically at the same level as 2010, instead of growth.
2-The sport has changed. According to Gesink and Delahaye they rode harder the whole day and it was more a battle of attrition in the past. Now it has become more a sport of 1 big explosion on the final climb. And as a diesel, Gesink doesn't deal well with that kind of riding. He cannot 'explode'. He needs opponents to wear down more before he can compete with them. Most of the riders are now 'too fresh' at the final climb.
I actually think Gesink is clean. So that would also be on the list to why he has a hard time competing for a podium.
 
Re: Re:

Netserk said:
OK, thanks.
Source data was from ammattipyoraily top 200 list from a few years ago as linked in my blog items:

_28. Santos Gonzalez _____ ESP | 39:41 | 2004
_29. Vladimir Karpets ____ RUS | 39:41 | 2004
_30. Gianni Bugno ________ ITA | 39:44 | 1991

_31. Fernando Escartin ___ ESP | 39:45 | 1995
_32. Miguel Indurain _____ ESP | 39:45 | 1991
_33. Luc Leblanc _________ FRA | 39:46 | 1991

_34. Denis Menchov _______ RUS | 39:47 | 2006
Do you know why it changed?
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
willbick said:
When comparing recent climbing rates to those of the EPO days people seem to assume it is impossible for a 'clean' rider to match the EPO times, but surely there has been gains in other ways in recent years. E.g. Prolonged altitude training camps (which is basically a legal expensive way of replicating the effects of EPO), better training techniques, better nutrition , facilities etc. also are the bikes lighter now or has the 6.8kg limit been in place for a long time?
The 6,8kg rule has been in place since 2000, but even 25 years ago the bikes were very light. LeMond's 1991 carbon fibre bike was an incredible machine.

Tiny improvements in training and equipment are never going to be enough to make up for the quantum leap in performance that EPO provides.

A quick look at the 100 metre dash record shows us how little we improve performance over time. In 1968 Jim Hines ran a 9.95. 31 years later, in 1999, Maurice Greene posted a 9.79. An improvement of 0.16 seconds, Roughly a 1,6% gain. Merckx posted an hour record in 1972 that stood for 28 years until Boardman beat it by 10 metres in 2000 on similar equipment. A doped up Sosenka improved it by 300 metres five years later.

Raw human performance doesn't really improve by much over time, unless there's shady business involved. A lot of the records set by the systematic doping regimes of East-Germany and the Soviet Union in athletics still stand today, and a huge amount of records remain unbroken since the 80's, where steroid use was rampant. Here's a list of mostly short duration/high-intensity sports the roid records still stand:

- The men's hammer throw and men's and women's discus records are unbroken since the 80's. All of them by Germans and Soviets.
- The women's 400 metre record was set in 1985 by Martina Koch of East-Germany. No-one has been within a second of it since 1996.
- The women's long jump record has stood since 1988. Soviets again.
- Women's shot put, set in 1987 by a Soviet.
- Sotomayor's high jump records have not been bested by another jumper since 1987, when he set his first of three. The women's high jump record has stood since 1987.
- The women's 800m record is over 30 years old.
- The men's 400m record has been broken three times since IAAF started electronic timing in 1968. Again a 1,6% gain.
- The women's 200m record has stood since 1988
- Men's shot put WR was set in 1990.
- The men's long jump record has been broken twice since 1968, by Bob Beamon and Mike Powell.

For endurance sports, EPO was the game changer. If someone is doing noticeably better than those riders in the 80's, it's most likely due to something other than better training or evolution of human performance. Then the two biggest possibilities would be bike weight and dope. It would be interesting to get a more precise value for equipment weight for the pre-EPO riders, just to factor that into the calculations of W/kg. That would allow us to adjust the power values and provide a more accurate comparison of yesterday's riders compared to today's.
Not sure what comparing a altitude short effort records (100m/ 400m/ long jump) from 1968 to sea level performances are comparable though.
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
willbick said:
When comparing recent climbing rates to those of the EPO days people seem to assume it is impossible for a 'clean' rider to match the EPO times, but surely there has been gains in other ways in recent years. E.g. Prolonged altitude training camps (which is basically a legal expensive way of replicating the effects of EPO), better training techniques, better nutrition , facilities etc. also are the bikes lighter now or has the 6.8kg limit been in place for a long time?
The 6,8kg rule has been in place since 2000, but even 25 years ago the bikes were very light. LeMond's 1991 carbon fibre bike was an incredible machine.

Tiny improvements in training and equipment are never going to be enough to make up for the quantum leap in performance that EPO provides.

A quick look at the 100 metre dash record shows us how little we improve performance over time. In 1968 Jim Hines ran a 9.95. 31 years later, in 1999, Maurice Greene posted a 9.79. An improvement of 0.16 seconds, Roughly a 1,6% gain. Merckx posted an hour record in 1972 that stood for 28 years until Boardman beat it by 10 metres in 2000 on similar equipment. A doped up Sosenka improved it by 300 metres five years later.

Raw human performance doesn't really improve by much over time, unless there's shady business involved. A lot of the records set by the systematic doping regimes of East-Germany and the Soviet Union in athletics still stand today, and a huge amount of records remain unbroken since the 80's, where steroid use was rampant. Here's a list of mostly short duration/high-intensity sports the roid records still stand:

- The men's hammer throw and men's and women's discus records are unbroken since the 80's. All of them by Germans and Soviets.
- The women's 400 metre record was set in 1985 by Martina Koch of East-Germany. No-one has been within a second of it since 1996.
- The women's long jump record has stood since 1988. Soviets again.
- Women's shot put, set in 1987 by a Soviet.
- Sotomayor's high jump records have not been bested by another jumper since 1987, when he set his first of three. The women's high jump record has stood since 1987.
- The women's 800m record is over 30 years old.
- The men's 400m record has been broken three times since IAAF started electronic timing in 1968. Again a 1,6% gain.
- The women's 200m record has stood since 1988
- Men's shot put WR was set in 1990.
- The men's long jump record has been broken twice since 1968, by Bob Beamon and Mike Powell.

For endurance sports, EPO was the game changer. If someone is doing noticeably better than those riders in the 80's, it's most likely due to something other than better training or evolution of human performance. Then the two biggest possibilities would be bike weight and dope. It would be interesting to get a more precise value for equipment weight for the pre-EPO riders, just to factor that into the calculations of W/kg. That would allow us to adjust the power values and provide a more accurate comparison of yesterday's riders compared to today's.
You are taking records where are there are very little variables at play and comapring them to a totally different beast like climbing in le Tour. There are just so many variables in cycling, it is unreal.

100 metres is point to point, fastest wins. How is that in any way comparable to climbing a single climb in Le Tour.

In many of those athletic events, people set out to target the record. Nobody sets out to set the fastest ascent up Alpe d'Huez.

The progression of fastest ascents will in no way be linear as there are too many changing factors each year.
 
Re: Re:

pmcg76 said:
Saint Unix said:
willbick said:
When comparing recent climbing rates to those of the EPO days people seem to assume it is impossible for a 'clean' rider to match the EPO times, but surely there has been gains in other ways in recent years. E.g. Prolonged altitude training camps (which is basically a legal expensive way of replicating the effects of EPO), better training techniques, better nutrition , facilities etc. also are the bikes lighter now or has the 6.8kg limit been in place for a long time?
The 6,8kg rule has been in place since 2000, but even 25 years ago the bikes were very light. LeMond's 1991 carbon fibre bike was an incredible machine.

Tiny improvements in training and equipment are never going to be enough to make up for the quantum leap in performance that EPO provides.

A quick look at the 100 metre dash record shows us how little we improve performance over time. In 1968 Jim Hines ran a 9.95. 31 years later, in 1999, Maurice Greene posted a 9.79. An improvement of 0.16 seconds, Roughly a 1,6% gain. Merckx posted an hour record in 1972 that stood for 28 years until Boardman beat it by 10 metres in 2000 on similar equipment. A doped up Sosenka improved it by 300 metres five years later.

Raw human performance doesn't really improve by much over time, unless there's shady business involved. A lot of the records set by the systematic doping regimes of East-Germany and the Soviet Union in athletics still stand today, and a huge amount of records remain unbroken since the 80's, where steroid use was rampant. Here's a list of mostly short duration/high-intensity sports the roid records still stand:

- The men's hammer throw and men's and women's discus records are unbroken since the 80's. All of them by Germans and Soviets.
- The women's 400 metre record was set in 1985 by Martina Koch of East-Germany. No-one has been within a second of it since 1996.
- The women's long jump record has stood since 1988. Soviets again.
- Women's shot put, set in 1987 by a Soviet.
- Sotomayor's high jump records have not been bested by another jumper since 1987, when he set his first of three. The women's high jump record has stood since 1987.
- The women's 800m record is over 30 years old.
- The men's 400m record has been broken three times since IAAF started electronic timing in 1968. Again a 1,6% gain.
- The women's 200m record has stood since 1988
- Men's shot put WR was set in 1990.
- The men's long jump record has been broken twice since 1968, by Bob Beamon and Mike Powell.

For endurance sports, EPO was the game changer. If someone is doing noticeably better than those riders in the 80's, it's most likely due to something other than better training or evolution of human performance. Then the two biggest possibilities would be bike weight and dope. It would be interesting to get a more precise value for equipment weight for the pre-EPO riders, just to factor that into the calculations of W/kg. That would allow us to adjust the power values and provide a more accurate comparison of yesterday's riders compared to today's.
You are taking records where are there are very little variables at play and comapring them to a totally different beast like climbing in le Tour. There are just so many variables in cycling, it is unreal.

100 metres is point to point, fastest wins. How is that in any way comparable to climbing a single climb in Le Tour.

In many of those athletic events, people set out to target the record. Nobody sets out to set the fastest ascent up Alpe d'Huez.

The progression of fastest ascents will in no way be linear as there are too many changing factors each year.

If it were a straight time trial it would be more comparable but it's not.
 
Re: Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
Escarabajo said:
I used my own in order to observe the range of possible outcomes.
What range of outcomes do you get?
What assumptions are you using?
The main variables that I change are weight, wind strength, drafting time, and sometimes a ply with the CDA as well. But the first three are the most important one. I didn't do it for this one, but for Froome's climb in PSM I get the following range:

% ---------W/Kg-------Watts

0%---------5.84-------386
10%-------6.01-------400
20%-------6.06-------404
30%-------6.11-------407
40%-------6.15-------410
50%-------6.19-------413
60%-------6.23-------416
70%-------6.26-------418
80%-------6.30-------421
90%-------6.36-------425
100%------6.54-------440

Absolute minimum is 5.84 w/kg.
Most likely scenario would be around the 50% which is 6.19 w/kg.
My weight rage was 65.5-68 kg. That should cover all possible outcomes.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS