Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[IndianCyclist]

I think the line is a composite of 2 trends. The increase in speed w.r.t decreasing distance and the technological evolution of bikes over time(better gears, lower weights, lesser drag and friction). The fact that the distance was decreased over time merges these 2 trends.

 

[Le breton]

Re: Re:

Sure looks like an inverse relationship to me.

Yes, and it looks nicer

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

I think the line is a composite of 2 trends. The increase in speed w.r.t decreasing distance and the technological evolution of bikes over time(better gears, lower weights, lesser drag and friction). The fact that the distance was decreased over time merges these 2 trends.

It's multifactoral no doubt. Plenty of roads, including major climbs in earlier years were not on sealed roads either.

<Yorkshire accent on>
and back when I were lad, 'eadwind used to blow all t' time. Gale force usually. 'ad to pedal down 'ill it were so strong...
young folk today 'ave it easy
</off>

Fun aside, there is of course the doping issue. When you look at the residuals chart and see the above trend speeds in the 1990s and 2000s, that's a causal conclusion one would naturally draw, however that doesn't explain the late 50's and early 60s which showed the same trend and when such effective go fast juice wasn't available.

And as Robert Chung also showed when he originally did such analysis of average speeds, when you plot the same residuals for the Giro and Vuelta, the pattern for above trend speeds in the 1990s and 2000s is not replicated in those races, which you would expect if doping was the primary factor.

So while doping clearly had some influence on these average speeds, it's only one factor and there are other things in play. It's shows up more in climbing speed trends, although that's also multifactoral.

 

[Valv.Piti]

What the w/kg for 3,6 km on 7,6% on 14,30 minutes?

 

[Le breton]

Re:

What the w/kg for 3,6 km on 7,6% on 14,30 minutes?

For a 70 kg cyclist standard Vayer cyclist, under "normal" conditions, about 3,8 W/kg.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

What the w/kg for 3,6 km on 7,6% on 14,30 minutes?

For a 70 kg cyclist standard Vayer cyclist, under "normal" conditions, about 3,8 W/kg.

I actually weigh in at exactly 70 kg...

Thanks. Lots of space for progression I guess.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

What the w/kg for 3,6 km on 7,6% on 14,30 minutes?

For a 70 kg cyclist standard Vayer cyclist, under "normal" conditions, about 3,8 W/kg.

I actually weigh in at exactly 70 kg...

Thanks. Lots of space for progression I guess.

I make it a little higher, closer to 3.9 - 4.0W/kg, but depends on assumptions made.
These are mine:

 

[Valv.Piti]

Thanks, Alex, really helpful there.

Some asthma medicine and a bit more training, then Im good.

 

[Le breton]

Re:

Thanks, Alex, really helpful there.

Some asthma medicine and a bit more training, then Im good.

I didn't include the transmission losses, for which I usually add 2.5%.
So that my 3.8 become 3.9 W/kg

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Thanks, Alex, really helpful there.

Some asthma medicine and a bit more training, then Im good.

I didn't include the transmission losses, for which I usually add 2.5%.
So that my 3.8 become 3.9 W/kg

3.9W/kg is pretty nice, can have fun day out with that sort of power.

 

[May0maniac]

Yesterday I did a 6.2km climb with 413m of altitude gain, 6.6% average gradient, in exactly 20min. That would be around 4.65 W/kg, right?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

Yesterday I did a 6.2km climb with 413m of altitude gain, 6.6% average gradient, in exactly 20min. That would be around 4.65 W/kg, right?

That gradient doesn't quite add up to the distance ridden and vertical ascent, but assuming it was 6200m ridden and 417m climbed (which is 6.74%), then I get ~4.6W/kg.

 

[Red Rick]

ammattipyöräily ‏@ammattipyoraily 32 min.32 minuten geleden
#LV2016, Stage 8. La Camperona (last 2.55 km, 15.14 %, 386 m)

According to provisional timing, Quintana approx. as fast as Froome in 2014.

 

[Brullnux]

Any numbers on today? It would be great to see.

 

[Red Rick]

Don't expect a great power estimation

https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily?lang=nl

 

[Netserk]

2005 level speed (would have been 5th fastest that day, just 1 second behind Menchov and Heras): http://www.climbing-records.com/2016/08/quintana-unleashed-on-covadonga.html

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

2005 level speed (would have been 5th fastest that day, just 1 second behind Menchov and Heras): http://www.climbing-records.com/2016/08/quintana-unleashed-on-covadonga.html

Ridiculously fast. Pardilla and Formolo faster than the 2012 trio.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re:

2005 level speed (would have been 5th fastest that day, just 1 second behind Menchov and Heras): http://www.climbing-records.com/2016/08/quintana-unleashed-on-covadonga.html

Truly astonishing especially if you look at the three amigos' times from earlier period plus Froome going 1'16" faster than in 2012/2014. Quintana is at Heras level.

 

[Netserk]

Slower than mythical climber Menchov

 

[SeriousSam]

All the climbing times of one year's edition have a common component (circumstances that day, what the race was up to that point, etc). That really needs to be controlled for when comparing the best climbing time across years. Putting 2005 Heras into a time machine and dropping him in this Vuelta might have resulted in a much quicker time.

 

[Netserk]

All the climbing times of one year's edition have a common component (circumstances that day, what the race was up to that point, etc). That really needs to be controlled for when comparing the best climbing time across years. Putting 2005 Heras into a time machine and dropping him in this Vuelta might have resulted in a much quicker time.

Or much slower time.

 

[Fergoose]

Any figures kicking about for yesterday? I reckon Yates on the last two climbs and Chavez on the last climb might prove informative. I only saw highlights which makes it hard to gauge the level of effort but I don't think there can be any doubt that both men were giving a full sustained effort from their attacks and it didn't look like wind was much of a factor. Little point with Cont, Froome or Nairo as they were all dicking about or injured.

 

[Durden93]

I could be wrong here, but I had Chaves, Froome, Contador and Quintana at 9:27 for the final 3km. Anyone want to take a guess for the w/kg?

 

[Le breton]

Re:

I could be wrong here, but I had Chaves, Froome, Contador and Quintana at 9:27 for the final 3km. Anyone want to take a guess for the w/kg?

I wouldn't mind giving a value for the whole climb, but there is a slight discrepancy between two sources, this one
http://www.altimetrias.net/aspbk/verPuerto.asp?id=379
and climbing-records
http://www.climbing-records.com/.
4km and 496 m for the first
3.9 km and 488 m for the second.

Taking the second set of data and not trying to be very accurate, I find that to go up that climb in 15:26 (from climbing-records) you need, if you weigh 67 kg, 424 watts, i.e 6.33 W/kg.

I have taken a CdA of 0.35 m^2, an air density of 1 kg/m^3 and 0.0045 for the road friction just to get an idea.

PS : PS : the av. altitude was only about 750m, so maybe increase air density to 1.07, if you push CdA to 0.375 and rolling friction to 0.005, you end up at ~ 6.4 W/kg.IF THE CLIMB IS + 496 m (vs 488), you get 6.5 W/kg.
Of course with no wind, no drafting behind other cyclists or cars

 

[Durden93]

Re: Re:

I could be wrong here, but I had Chaves, Froome, Contador and Quintana at 9:27 for the final 3km. Anyone want to take a guess for the w/kg?

I wouldn't mind giving a value for the whole climb, but there is a slight discrepancy between two sources, this one
http://www.altimetrias.net/aspbk/verPuerto.asp?id=379
and climbing-records
http://www.climbing-records.com/.
4km and 496 m for the first
3.9 km and 488 m for the second.

Taking the second set of data and not trying to be very accurate, I find that to go up that climb in 15:26 (from climbing-records) you need, if you weigh 67 kg, 424 watts, i.e 6.33 W/kg.

I have taken a CdA of 0.35 m^2, an air density of 1 kg/m^3 and 0.0045 for the road friction just to get an idea.

PS : PS : the av. altitude was only about 750m, so maybe increase air density to 1.07, if you push CdA to 0.375 and rolling friction to 0.005, you end up at ~ 6.4 W/kg.IF THE CLIMB IS + 496 m (vs 488), you get 6.5 W/kg.
Of course with no wind, no drafting behind other cyclists or cars

Yeah, I was well off on the time. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, for a 15 minute effort.