The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Merckx index said:Le breton said:One of the discussions you might be thinking about :
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8170&start=20
I have to admit that the labs view of the efficiency situation looks pretty pathetic.
No, I was not thinking about Coyle's study of LA, which has been discussed to death here.
The studies discussed here:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29830&p=1773705&hilit=efficiency#p1773705
Note that in one of the studies, the SD of efficiency was 2.6%.
These are just the studies in which very high efficiencies were reported. Most literature reports somewhat lower efficiencies, but these are usually not studies of elite riders. And in any case, even in these studies, the variation of efficiencies is fairly large, e.g., 18-23% might be a typical range.
@ammattipyoraily
I'm on vacation in July. Follow @faustocoppi60 for climbing times and @PDiegner, @procyclistsdata for power analyzes. #TDF2016 June 26, 2016
How exactly did you come to this? Why should Ullrich climb slower than anyone?Taxus4a said:Ullrich in normal conditions like now should climb Arcalis 2 minutes slower than Quintana, Froome,
Gung Ho Gun said:How exactly did you come to this? Why should Ullrich climb slower than anyone?Taxus4a said:Ullrich in normal conditions like now should climb Arcalis 2 minutes slower than Quintana, Froome,
Alex Simmons/RST said:So what was Froome's W/kg during the Ventoux run leg?
I guess the emoticone is the most important part of your messageAlex Simmons/RST said:So what was Froome's W/kg during the Ventoux run leg?
The 14th fastest did 6.0 W/kg (see vetooo). Several riders did a fair bit more than that.Fergoose said:Any chance of a calculation for todays last climb by Bardet and peloton? Or a comparison to any previous years on the same climb? It looked very ordinary and believable to me (with the exception of a couple of riders that I personally don't buy) and I'd be pretty surprised if it was over 6.0 w/kg despite being relatively short. Its the first climb of this years TdF where we've had the peloton going full tilt from early on and didn't seem as wind affected as other mountain stages, so it might be a suitable one for comparisons.
I saw this graph today in Vayer's article in Le Monde. Since 2010, only Wiggo, Froome, Quintana, Nibal had been above the 410W-suspicious mark, and this year there were nine suspicious riders - the ones in yellow on the graph. Vayer made it very clear that he believes Bardet doped.adamfo said:Highest watts 2016 Tdf : Bardet 444 W on Le Bettex
Alex Simmons/RST said:So on average the fastest riders in this tour were 100 seconds (7%) slower than Pantani et al.
Ranging from 42 to 160 seconds slower.
Why is 410W suspicious?
Le breton said:Alex Simmons/RST said:So on average the fastest riders in this tour were 100 seconds (7%) slower than Pantani et al.
Ranging from 42 to 160 seconds slower.
Why is 410W suspicious?
It's not the 410 W per se that Vayer deems suspicious, but 410/70 = 5.86 Watts/kg on the LAST climb of a heavy mountain stage. 70 kg = weight of std cyclist.
This for a 30-40 min. effort.
See here
http://sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2013-vs-2014-Tour-power-outputs.png
Cheers
PS : Ventoux should have been excluded from the average I think (wind)