Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[burning]

Re:

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...

Why don't you mention Samu and Evans, who have 2nd and 3rd best times of alltime on Arrate with only ~8 seconds behind? I guess the reason is they somehow improved after 2009 and this completely undermines your "wonderfull years" argument. I love that how you try to cook an utterly baseless argument based on a "slow" time under rain and hard conditions.

By the way, can you explain this:

1. 2001: 22:55 Roberto Laiseka 23.56 km/h
2. 2001: 22:57 Lance Armstrong 23.53 km/h
3. 2013: 23:12 Chris Froome 23.28 km/h
4. 2003: 23:18 Jan Ullrich 23.18 km/h
5. 2001: 23:20 Jan Ullrich 23.14 km/h
6. 2003: 23:20 Haimar Zubeldia 23.14 km/h
7. 2003: 23:25 Lance Armstrong 23.06 km/h
8. 2003: 23:35 Alexander Vinokourov 22.90 km/h
9. 2003: 23:37 Ivan Basso 22.87 km/h
10. 2005: 23:40 Lance Armstrong 22.82 km/h

http://www.climbing-records.com/2013/07/chris-froome-sets-third-best-time-ever.html

I guess "People can take his conclusions..."

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

Soooo,

Anyone have data from the first part of todays tt? Are the first 6.6km anything to go by?

Difficult cause there was some (false) flat before the climb and at the top before the check.

 

[Valv.Piti]

I wasn't aware Froome's time on Ax-3 was so monstrous, holy ***. He beat all the 2003-guys... Armstrong, Ullrich, Vino, Mayo, all doped up to their eyeballs.

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

I wasn't aware Froome's time on Ax-3 was so monstrous, holy ****. He beat all the 2003-guys... Armstrong, Ullrich, Vino, Mayo, all doped up to their eyeballs.

That's true

On the other hand, Contador and Schleck had been only 48s slower in 2010 with all their trackstands. So they would've been a *** load closer then everyone on that stage in 2013

 

[LaFlorecita]

ammattipyöräily ‏@ammattipyoraily

#Itzulia, Stage 6 (ITT). Arrate (5.29 km, 8.96 %, 474 m)

A.Yates: 16:22 (Strava)
Pinot: 16:33 (Strava)

Contador: 15:32 (± 3 sec)

#Itzulia, Arrate (ITT)

Contador: 15:32, 20.43 Kph, VAM 1831 m/h, ~6.6 W/kg (est.)
Pinot: 16:33, 19.18 Kph, VAM 1718 m/h, ~6.1 W/kg (est.)

There was false flat section (1.34 km) before intermediate time check. That's why estimated power likely too low, should add ~3 % / 0.2 W/kg

 

[Red Rick]

So, he says the actual estimate would be 6.8?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

So, he says the actual estimate would be 6.8?

Yeah, I double-checked, that's what he meant. I wondered if it was 6.6 + 0.2 or 6.6 with 0.2 included, but it's the first
Insane performance

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

Can someone put into perspective how good that is?

 

[Netserk]

Re:

Can someone put into perspective how good that is?

In 2009 Contador did (regular) Arrate in 12'12'' @ 6.74 W/kg, but that was at the end of this stage:

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

Can someone put into perspective how good that is?

In 2009 Contador did (regular) Arrate in 12'12'' @ 6.74 W/kg, but that was at the end of this stage:

You can calculate that, that is 2012 VAM... and both sides of Arrate you can compare better than with Verbier, who is a longer climb.

In and ITT you have one advantage: you are fresh and giving everything in 30 min, with more aerodinamic clothes, etc...

But you have a disadvantage, you have nobody to work for you... so that way better time in Alp huez is not the ITT. If you are sucking very good wheels mot of the climb, with a high pace you can stand, and a final 1 Km attack, is better a normal stage. But if you attack in the half of the climb, or people are looking each others, people attack and stop, ... it is of course better and ITT.

Contador attacked that 2009 and this 2016 in the middle of the climb, so it is better an ITT.

Looks numbers and take conclusions

Joining numberscould be predictable about 8 watt/Kg in 2009 for Contador in an ITT like this.

I think have born some people in some remote country able to do that, human being can do that, for sure, but no Contador (although he is the pro cyclist in History more able todo that)

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

Wait so you think that Contador in '09 would have done 8w/kg under this year's conditions (ITT, etc.), and he did ~6.8w/kg this year? Is there a ITT comparable to this one where we have climbing data on Froome, Contador, etc. to see how it stacks up?

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Can someone put into perspective how good that is?

In 2009 Contador did (regular) Arrate in 12'12'' @ 6.74 W/kg, but that was at the end of this stage:

You can calculate that, that is 2012 VAM... and both sides of Arrate you can compare better than with Verbier, who is a longer climb.

No it isn't. The section Contador rode in 12'12'' had 400m of vertical gain. That's a VAM below 2k.

 

[jens_attacks]

Only rujano can do 8 w/kg









For an hour.

 

[roundabout]

Re:

So, he says the actual estimate would be 6.8?

Color me confused, but how does a VAM of 1831 m/h translate to 6.6 W/kg on a 8.96% average climb?

Using the standard VAM formula it's 6.3 something

 

[Taxus4a]

Re:

Only rujano can do 8 w/kg


For an hour.

People able to do that clean, surely didnt ride a bike on his lifes. But I mean able, for that they must be trained from children and have the best resources for him.

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

Can someone put into perspective how good that is?

In 2009 Contador did (regular) Arrate in 12'12'' @ 6.74 W/kg, but that was at the end of this stage:

You can calculate that, that is 2012 VAM... and both sides of Arrate you can compare better than with Verbier, who is a longer climb.

No it isn't. The section Contador rode in 12'12'' had 400m of vertical gain. That's a VAM below 2k.

Tell to Mihai Simion, I think he is here Jens attack, I am not sure, blog cycling records:

2009:4,4 km@9,3%---12:12---average speed 21.64 km/h(Alberto Contador)

4,4 x 9,3 is 409,2 m.

12 min 12 sec is 12,2 minutes

so:

12,2 min---->409,2
60 min------> x

x: 60x409,2/ 12,2 = 2012 VAM Tell me if I am wrong and why...maybe you are right.

And that must be a w/kg over 7

If you say is 400 instead 409,2 is exactly 2000 VAM, and it doenst change things a lot.

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

So, he says the actual estimate would be 6.8?

Color me confused, but how does a VAM of 1831 m/h translate to 6.6 W/kg on a 8.96% average climb?

Using the standard VAM formula it's 6.3 something

It is posible to calculate w/kg directly from VAM??

VAM, depends on a lot of factors, rugosity of the road, wind, help from other people, aerodinamic helmet in and ITT, weather, but the kind of climb. in my garage climb I can do 5000 VAM in that 20 meters, and in a clinmb average 4 % 20 Km with head wind I can do 300 VAM. It is a reference that is qite usefull, but tranlate that to w/kg and with that take a lot of conclusions? NO. Ferrari did that for similar kind of climbs in an especify time for cycling, but anyway he couldnt get a lot of conclusions in that. and for that era he said, Acording people is riding now in cycling and the current times for cycling from more thas this in a norrmal climb of half an hour more than x w/kg must be considered as doping.

But no more, that is not a good reference, very simple and just for that era. I am surprissing people here took that today as very important and just look at those w7Kg without considering circunstances.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re: Re:

so that way better time in Alp huez is not the ITT

Actually they are:
4. 2004: 37:36 Lance Armstrong 22.02 km/h
6. 2001: 38:03 Lance Armstrong 21.76 km/h
14. 2004: 38:40 Jan Ullrich 21.41 km/h
44. 2004: 39:58 Ivan Basso 20.72 km/h
48. 2001: 40:02 Jan Ullrich 20.68 km/h

Their 2003 times are not even in the top 100
More than 1/4 of the top 100 ascents are from 2004
The same happened with the Ventoux ITT from the Dauphine

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

so that way better time in Alp huez is not the ITT

Actually they are:
4. 2004: 37:36 Lance Armstrong 22.02 km/h
6. 2001: 38:03 Lance Armstrong 21.76 km/h
14. 2004: 38:40 Jan Ullrich 21.41 km/h
44. 2004: 39:58 Ivan Basso 20.72 km/h
48. 2001: 40:02 Jan Ullrich 20.68 km/h

Their 2003 times are not even in the top 100
More than 1/4 of the top 100 ascents are from 2004
The same happened with the Ventoux ITT from the Dauphine

The average ITT speed of top 5 in that chart was 21.3km/h (number was missing for some reason).

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

So, he says the actual estimate would be 6.8?

Color me confused, but how does a VAM of 1831 m/h translate to 6.6 W/kg on a 8.96% average climb?

Using the standard VAM formula it's 6.3 something

I don't think ammattipyoraily uses the standard VAM formula. With the flat section at the top and the very steep gradients on the climb I don't think it would be very accurate.

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

so that way better time in Alp huez is not the ITT

Actually they are:
4. 2004: 37:36 Lance Armstrong 22.02 km/h
6. 2001: 38:03 Lance Armstrong 21.76 km/h
14. 2004: 38:40 Jan Ullrich 21.41 km/h
44. 2004: 39:58 Ivan Basso 20.72 km/h
48. 2001: 40:02 Jan Ullrich 20.68 km/h

Their 2003 times are not even in the top 100
More than 1/4 of the top 100 ascents are from 2004
The same happened with the Ventoux ITT from the Dauphine

1. 1995: 36:40 Marco Pantani 22.58 km/h
2. 1997: 36:53 Marco Pantani 22.45 km/h
3. 1994: 37:15 Marco Pantani 22.23 km/h
4. 2004: 37:36 Lance Armstrong 22.02 km/h
5. 1997: 37:40 Jan Ullrich 21.98 km/h

No, as I said the best times in alp Dhuezare no in ITT.

As I said normally an ITT has an advantage, but depends on how the no ITT race is unfolded and the wetaher and wind conditions.

In Arrate wind conditions are no important, and Contador in 2009 did an attack in the middle of the climb, so he has not a big help

I dont know if 8 w/kg, but look at the performance friday and saturday, it was raining on friday, but there is still a big difference. In Arrate normal side there was more than 7 w/kg in 2009, so in and ITT...at least 7,5.

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

So, he says the actual estimate would be 6.8?

Color me confused, but how does a VAM of 1831 m/h translate to 6.6 W/kg on a 8.96% average climb?

Using the standard VAM formula it's 6.3 something

I don't think ammattipyoraily uses the standard VAM formula. With the flat section at the top and the very steep gradients on the climb I don't think it would be very accurate.

No flat section at the top,the last Km is about 5 %. That valance the harder Kms of that side, so average is no very different to the normal side.

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

So, he says the actual estimate would be 6.8?

Color me confused, but how does a VAM of 1831 m/h translate to 6.6 W/kg on a 8.96% average climb?

Using the standard VAM formula it's 6.3 something

It is just an estimation to use VAM to calculate w/Kg

The intereting is to calculate 2009 data and compare with this year.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

So, he says the actual estimate would be 6.8?

Color me confused, but how does a VAM of 1831 m/h translate to 6.6 W/kg on a 8.96% average climb?

Using the standard VAM formula it's 6.3 something

I don't think ammattipyoraily uses the standard VAM formula. With the flat section at the top and the very steep gradients on the climb I don't think it would be very accurate.

No flat section at the top,the last Km is about 5 %. That valance the harder Kms of that side, so average is no very different to the normal side.

No, there was some (false) flat between the summit of the climb land the descent. The intermediate check was somewhere halfway through that (false) flat section.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

So, he says the actual estimate would be 6.8?

Color me confused, but how does a VAM of 1831 m/h translate to 6.6 W/kg on a 8.96% average climb?

Using the standard VAM formula it's 6.3 something

I don't think ammattipyoraily uses the standard VAM formula. With the flat section at the top and the very steep gradients on the climb I don't think it would be very accurate.

As far as I can recall, he did use a standard VAM formula at least last year even for climbs with downhill sections in them.

And if he doesn't use VAM I don't see the point in giving a number for the whole climb.

long story short, I have no idea about the inputs he used