Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 122 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Simurgh said:
Just read that Pinot did Malhão in 7'01, 10 seconds faster than the ascent of Kwiatkowski last year, which means that Contador did climb it in 6'41 (since he was 20 seconds faster than Pinot). Don't have the source yet, I just read this a moment ago in the other forum!!

Update: Still can't find where I read it, but Thibaut Pinots Strava does confirm that he did it in 7'01. https://www.strava.com/segments/5151361
I'm a bit confused because Gesink's file says 7'27" and he was 40s behind. The data in his file for the climb are 2.4km and 244m gain and 10.1%. Using those numbers his VAM would be even higher than Pinot's (I think) and Contador's would be a good 100 m/h higher

Pinot VAM = 1953 according to strava. 7'01" so for Contador
1953/7.017 * 6.68 =2051 m/h

Using Gesink's numbers:
244m vertical gain
7'27"
244*60 /7.45 = 1965 m/h
for Contador
244*60 /7.78 = 2158 m/h

Not sure which is correct but both are very high numbers of course
 
Jul 11, 2009
267
0
0
Similar w/kg to Verbier 2009 however Verbier was 3x longer. In my opinion 7.15w/kg for this amount of time is nothing to raise doping eyebrows about. If he can do this for 15-20 mins the TDF is his easily.
 
Best comparison could be Mende, where I think they're usually like 6.7/6.8 but it's like 3 minutes longer. Other comparison could be that climb where Contador dropped Nibali in the 2014 Tour (think it was 1.8@10.8) where he did 7.5w/kg.

Closest indicator is ofcourse that he's done his best Malhao ever.
 
I was interested e.g. that Pantani on his round tube Bianchi Mega Pro XL would have had a CdA of around 0.3. If he was riding one of todays aero road bikes used by much of peloton, he would typically see a CdA of around 0.275. Some basic aerodynamic calculations when power climbing and the riders today see a gain of 5w while power climbing, simply by using a modern aero bike instead of a round tubed one like Pantani. On the flat, the bike of 0.275 CdA on a 130km solo breakaway will gain the rider 26.8w or a time 300 seconds faster than if they'd ridden the Bianchi Mega Pro XL in exactly the same conditions.

Would be interesting for the calculations here to factor this data into times up climbs. i.e. many don't believe aerodynamics play much of a role up hill, but sceince says it gives you over 5w on an aero bike uphill at power. When you also factor in CdA improvements that riders today are now mostly wearing skinsuits while climbing, improvements in crr, lighter bikes, better drive-train efficiency and you're reaching the types of marginal gains that if its all combined you're seeing increases in effective rider power as much as one of those hidden seat tube motors puts out. Just putting it out there as I wasn't aware the aerodynamics of the bike could have such a role when climbing especially and simply comparing say Pantanis 0.275 with Froomes or Contadors more likely 0.3 machines.
 
If a 60kg rider capable of say 40:00 up Alpe d'Huez did actually have a CdA of 0.300m^2 and was able to reduce that to 0.275m^2, then the time benefit would be ~16 seconds, equivalent to a 2.8W gain. It's also equivalent to shaving off ~620g of weight.

On flat terrain, on a nice road surface, in 40:00 at same power as for the climb, a 0.300m^2 rider would cover just over 29km (43.5km/h). Aero position will be different of course on the flat but just some numbers for reference.

Reduce CdA to 0.275m^2 and they could complete the same flat distance course in ~66 seconds less time and the equivalent power increase to achieve that without the aero improvement would be ~29W.

The main benefit of improved aero for climbers is reducing their power demand (i.e. saving energy) before they get to the climb. For sure no one wants to give away 16 seconds on a climb, but arriving at the base of the climb with less cumulative fatigue having expended on average 10-30W less than they may have otherwise done would likely be much a more important gain.
 
I guess what I'm getting at, is you've got to compare differences between Armstrongs era of equipment and drag with today when making claims about the times riders today can climb the same mountain and how suspicious a similar time to a rider in Armstrongs era might be. If the bike Pantani rode looses him around 5w to Froome, then the fact nobody wore skinsuits in Armstrongs era, bikes were heavier, riders were heavier, drivetrain resistance less undersood, you could be confusing doping with simply the combined gains in all these areas since those times of Armstrong and Pantani etc were created.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
I guess what I'm getting at, is you've got to compare differences between Armstrongs era of equipment and drag with today when making claims about the times riders today can climb the same mountain and how suspicious a similar time to a rider in Armstrongs era might be. If the bike Pantani rode looses him around 5w to Froome, then the fact nobody wore skinsuits in Armstrongs era, bikes were heavier, riders were heavier, drivetrain resistance less undersood, you could be confusing doping with simply the combined gains in all these areas since those times of Armstrong and Pantani etc were created.
I'm pretty sure in the dark deep recesses of this thread these differences have been discussed. I can recall data on changes in the the typical bicycle weights through the 1990s, until eventually we hit the minimum weight limit in the 2000s and this part of the equation stabilised somewhat. Estimating aero differences for climbing set ups would be far more speculative. Jerseys are still opened for cooling today.

The aero differences are real and yes, where data is clearly know then for sure use it, but it's still relatively small for climbs (because on such a climb only 10% of the total energy demand is used to overcome air resistance).

When talking W/kg, it's in the third significant digit. e.g. even for the fairly large aero difference quoted in the earlier hypothetical example, it changes the estimated W/kg for same ascent speed by 0.05W/kg.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
I was interested e.g. that Pantani on his round tube Bianchi Mega Pro XL would have had a CdA of around 0.3. If he was riding one of todays aero road bikes used by much of peloton, he would typically see a CdA of around 0.275. Some basic aerodynamic calculations when power climbing and the riders today see a gain of 5w while power climbing, simply by using a modern aero bike instead of a round tubed one like Pantani. On the flat, the bike of 0.275 CdA on a 130km solo breakaway will gain the rider 26.8w or a time 300 seconds faster than if they'd ridden the Bianchi Mega Pro XL in exactly the same conditions.

Would be interesting for the calculations here to factor this data into times up climbs. i.e. many don't believe aerodynamics play much of a role up hill, but sceince says it gives you over 5w on an aero bike uphill at power. When you also factor in CdA improvements that riders today are now mostly wearing skinsuits while climbing, improvements in crr, lighter bikes, better drive-train efficiency and you're reaching the types of marginal gains that if its all combined you're seeing increases in effective rider power as much as one of those hidden seat tube motors puts out. Just putting it out there as I wasn't aware the aerodynamics of the bike could have such a role when climbing especially and simply comparing say Pantanis 0.275 with Froomes or Contadors more likely 0.3 machines.
Unfortunately a lot of the climbing would be done out of the saddle for which CdA is much higher
 
Those figures ignore rider differences or other bike differences, only bicycle aerodynamics. A typical non-aero road bike is ~0.3, typical TT bike ~0.23, typical aero road bike ~0.275. They are mathematical calculations. It's interesting that you'll get similar gains riding an aero road bike uphill as loosing 1kg of body weight on a non-aero bike uphill.
Look into the work in this area from http://www.danielbigham.co.uk/post/102d7lz/aero-in-a-road-race-what
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Those figures ignore rider differences or other bike differences, only bicycle aerodynamics. A typical non-aero road bike is ~0.3, typical TT bike ~0.23, typical aero road bike ~0.275. They are mathematical calculations. It's interesting that you'll get similar gains riding an aero road bike uphill as loosing 1kg of body weight on a non-aero bike uphill.
Look into the work in this area from http://www.danielbigham.co.uk/post/102d7lz/aero-in-a-road-race-what
Hmmm. I was under the impression that aero bikes have no aero advantage going uphill. I'm glad I'm wrong, I have an aero road bike. :D
 
Depends upon the length and gradient of the climb. The steeper and longer the climb the less potential benefit from an aero frame. Even supercharged Marco Pantani in 1997 TdF "only" averaged 23kph up the Alpe. Aero isn't going to help on a mountain at that speed - but weight and stiffness will. And even today we have ProTour teams riding on round tube bikes (AG2R / Focus). Aero tubing on proper mountains is overrated.
 
The sceince doesn't lie though Cookster.
I just took Pantani's 1995 Alpe Duez record as an example and used Dan's calculator. So that was on his circular tubed Columbus - (steel lugged Carrera), chrome forks, stays and Mavic Ceramics I think which has a typical 0.3Cda of the time and weight of around 9kg. Maybe a little lighter, but 9kg was a typical steel pro bike set-up weight in the peloton in 1995.

Using the calculator, he ascended at 22.58kmh speed taking him 36:40

If he rode it on an say a typical Specialized 7.6kg Aero bike of 0.275Cda of today in identical conditions he would have ridden it around 4:40 faster simply by using todays bike technology.

I'll say it again. To not factor in bike technology when deciding riders times up climbs is amateurish. The data and science is all out there, you just got to believe it.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
The sceince doesn't lie though Cookster.
I just took Pantani's 1995 Alpe Duez record as an example and used Dan's calculator. So that was on his circular tubed Columbus - (steel lugged Carrera), chrome forks, stays and Mavic Ceramics I think which has a typical 0.3Cda of the time and weight of around 9kg. Maybe a little lighter, but 9kg was a typical steel pro bike set-up weight in the peloton in 1995.

Using the calculator, he ascended at 22.58kmh speed taking him 36:40

If he rode it on an say a typical Specialized 7.6kg Aero bike of 0.275Cda of today in identical conditions he would have ridden it around 4:40 faster simply by using todays bike technology.

I'll say it again. To not factor in bike technology when deciding riders times up climbs is amateurish. The data and science is all out there, you just got to believe it.
There's something wrong with the potential time gains you've calculated.

I estimate (give or take a few seconds depending upon assumptions) that for those ascent speeds on AdH with no wind a
- drop in bike mass of 1.4kg is worth ~33 seconds (total mass drop* of ~2% for a speed gain of 1.5%).
- then a drop CdA from 0.3m^2 to 0.275m^2 is worth another ~17 seconds (air resistance accounts for ~11% of total mechanical energy demand)
for a combined benefit of ~50 seconds.


* not exactly sure what Pantani's weight was but sticking with close enough and working with W/kg doesn't change things a lot.
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
Don't know how good the calculator is, but estimating Contador at 62kg gives 7.15 W/kg
He did monster performances in the dark era. That is a credible performance, Malhao is a short climb. Contador is very good to get that numbers in that climbs.

Today lot of things have improved respect to the dark era, so now with the training camps in other things the good people do performance close to the dark era. But not the same, at least considering all the issues. wind, route of the race, way to race, weather conditions, time sucking wheel at the a high pace with good domestiques, etc...

Of course now if you ride a 10 Km long climb in le Tour you can improve a lot a ultradoping performance in the dark era.

With these circusntances:

(better training, better profesional for everything: nutritionist,... better technology and bikes)

- Tail wind vs. head wind.
- A solo performance form far or a race where favourites where looking each other till the last Km vs. an strong team who climb strong from the begining and at the end the leader do a 1 or 2 km attack.
- A race with rain or very hot vs. a race at 20 degrees with no rain.
- A race with long stages and lot of climbs vs a race with short and no very hard stages the previous days.

So, although nowadays the power/kg has droped respect 00s in average, you can find performance very close or even better, that is normal. In general races are less hard now, at least le Tour.
 
Re:

Cookster15 said:
Depends upon the length and gradient of the climb. The steeper and longer the climb the less potential benefit from an aero frame. Even supercharged Marco Pantani in 1997 TdF "only" averaged 23kph up the Alpe. Aero isn't going to help on a mountain at that speed - but weight and stiffness will. And even today we have ProTour teams riding on round tube bikes (AG2R / Focus). Aero tubing on proper mountains is overrated.
23 is the everage I use to do with my bike, and aerodinamic or to ssuck wheel is always important.
Anywayss I dont think aerobike are very importants, it is technology in general with you can count. Not a big difference compared to 2008, but yes, a little.
 
Re: Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
samhocking said:
The sceince doesn't lie though Cookster.
I just took Pantani's 1995 Alpe Duez record as an example and used Dan's calculator. So that was on his circular tubed Columbus - (steel lugged Carrera), chrome forks, stays and Mavic Ceramics I think which has a typical 0.3Cda of the time and weight of around 9kg. Maybe a little lighter, but 9kg was a typical steel pro bike set-up weight in the peloton in 1995.

Using the calculator, he ascended at 22.58kmh speed taking him 36:40

If he rode it on an say a typical Specialized 7.6kg Aero bike of 0.275Cda of today in identical conditions he would have ridden it around 4:40 faster simply by using todays bike technology.

I'll say it again. To not factor in bike technology when deciding riders times up climbs is amateurish. The data and science is all out there, you just got to believe it.
There's something wrong with the potential time gains you've calculated.

I estimate (give or take a few seconds depending upon assumptions) that for those ascent speeds on AdH with no wind a
- drop in bike mass of 1.4kg is worth ~33 seconds (total mass drop* of ~2% for a speed gain of 1.5%).
- then a drop CdA from 0.3m^2 to 0.275m^2 is worth another ~17 seconds (air resistance accounts for ~11% of total mechanical energy demand)
for a combined benefit of ~50 seconds.


* not exactly sure what Pantani's weight was but sticking with close enough and working with W/kg doesn't change things a lot.
You're right. I had used a 130km climb as distance - oops. I make it around 30 seconds now making the climb 13.2km. Still, 30 seconds up Alpe Duez is not to be sniffed at when people say it makes no difference what bike you're on?
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
You're right. I had used a 130km climb as distance - oops. I make it around 30 seconds now making the climb 13.2km. Still, 30 seconds up Alpe Duez is not to be sniffed at when people say it makes no difference what bike you're on?
It all adds up of course, however considering the bike difference factors for that period per se, reduced bike weight would be primarily responsible for any downward bias in ascent times, with aero improvements a much smaller second placed factor. I've no real idea about what changes, if any, there may have been on rolling resistance over that period (e.g. due to better tyres, better road) but a 10% reduction in Crr would be worth ~10 seconds.
 
I am not allowed to open a thread about the difference of times and some riders still riding with thoe wonderfull years, so I put here things in relation:

Arrate-Usartza
2016:4,4 km@9,3%---13:15---average speed 19.92 km/h(Contador-Henao)
2015:4,4 km@9,3%---12:48---average speed 20.63 km/h(Henao-Zakarin)
2014:4,4 km@9,3%---13:04---average speed 20.20 km/h(Wout Poels)
2013:4,4 km@9,3%---13:33---average speed 19.48 km/h(Simon Spilak)
2012:4,4 km@9,3%---12:58---average speed 20.36 km/h(Contador-Valverde-Rodriguez-Froome)
2012:4,4 km@9,3%---13:06---average speed 20.15 km/h(Horner-S.Sanchez-Rodriguez)
2011:4,4 km@9,3%---13:03---average speed 20.23 km/h(Xavier Tondo)
2010:4,4 km@9,3%---12:32---average speed 21.06 km/h(Chris Horner)
2009:4,4 km@9,3%---12:12---average speed 21.64 km/h(Alberto Contador)
1992:4,4 km@9,3%---12:42---average speed 20.79 km/h(Franco Chioccioli)
1991:4,4 km@9,3%---13:24---average speed 19.70 km/h(Bugno-Indurain-Ugrumov)


From 2011 about 30 second more average, but some people are still saying nobody changed. and in the dark era where people wining clean, as Hamilton said in his book.

Contador is still at his best sshape, but 1 minute slower today... those wonderfull years...Yes,without rain today and Matsaria maybe I admit 20-30 seconds better, but far from his record.

Purito was similar in time to 2009, so in perform considering today conditions, a little bit better.

Franck Schleck was close to today Contador-Henao time. (and it wanst a good day for him, he was 21). Today he was 33, but 6 minutes slower than in 2009. he is younger than Purito, so it is not the age.

People can take his conclusions...
 
Dekker_Tifosi said:
Today on Aia



how much would that be for Henao, Contador and Quintana?
Muro de Aia is for powerfull riders. That way Domoulin won the ITT last year, and that way landa struggle yesterday. 7 w/kg in Aia is not impressive for a pro, in a climb so short when there is no draft. What was impresing is the same data for Hautacam or Alp d Huez. There is a huge difference
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS