Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 133 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Eyeballs Out said:
Netserk said:
Just for context, there actually was a tailwind on the climb today. Nonetheless, nice ride.
I would have thought x-headwind if the climb heads east since the wind was coming from NE most of the day
https://www.windfinder.com/report/loudes_le_puy/2017-07-16
Just rewatching the climb, especially the section Froome was alone/with Landa and looked for flags that weren't being waved by spectators.

The ones that were on still poles indicated quite a decent strength tailwind. One flag above the rider's heads was on a near horizontal pole and the flag was flapping nearly horizontally with a wind in favour of the riders. Variable of course as there were sections with more shelter from trees and road changes direction.
 
An example from earlier in the chase when Froome catches Quintana:
https://youtu.be/E8GIOEW6mXk?t=139

And later on as Froome was still chasing with Landa's support:
https://youtu.be/oAIF6TK_870?t=62

Those are not light winds, rather that's quite strong and is worth the equivalent of approximately 0.3 to 0.5W/kg in no-wind speed terms when riders are with the tailwind. IOW a W/kg estimate not accounting for wind would overestimate by about that much for the sections with a tailwind.
 
Jul 21, 2017
1
0
0
Re:

The Science of Sport said:
Hi Folks

Interesting discussion. And seeing how I threw out that 6.2W/kg figure, I've also been interested in tracking the stats.

Unfortunately, we never see the real numbers from the top men, but we can get a lot of data off the SRM website (http://www.srm.de/). So here are some "facts":

1. Chris Horner:

On the short climb (3km) up to Mende the other, Horner finished 31 seconds behind Contador, having begun the climb with him. Horner's average power output for 10 minutes of climbing was 6.6 W/kg (422W). Nothing wrong with that, it's a really short effort.

For context, consider Horner on Ax-3-Domaines the other day. That climb took him just under 24 minutes, and his power output was 5.8 W/kg (370W). He conceded about 90 seconds to Schleck and Contador and co.

Then even longer was the climb of the Port de Pailheres, which took 48:37, and that was done at 5.4W/kg (344W). Of course, it's not a finishing climb, so the hammer isn't down, but it does reflect what the peloton is doing.

Edit: Also, Horner's data from the Port de Bales are interesting. He finished this day with Basso, conceding approx. 3 minutes to Contador's group by the finish (not 100% sure of the gap at the summit, but imagine it would be 3 min ± 20 seconds). This climb took 49:30, and was done at an average of 342W/kg (5.2W/kg - about the same as the Port de Pailheres of similar duration).

And then very interesting, we also have the data of Chris Anke Sorensen, who has been the last man to peel off for Andy Schleck. And on the Port de Bales, he rode at the front of the peloton for 21:34 and produced 6.1W/kg. The smaller Schleck, riding behind him, would produce less than this - perhaps 5.8W to 6.0W/kg, and that's a good indication of the power produced by those top contenders.

How much are those 90 seconds worth? Using the SRM to 'validate' your calculations, it might be interesting to calculate. Will have a look later, just have to sort out some things first. Cozy Beehive will beat me to it and probably do a better job than I can...

But I think the Tour is substantially slower. The days where climbs lasting 40 minutes or more were done at even just above 6W/kg WITH attacks are no longer with us...and never mind the 6.7W/kg that we've heard of, and know that guys were producing for close to 40 minutes.

On the note of Portoleau, I do feel that all he needs to do is give the times. He has this massive database and if you could show that they did Ax-3-Domaines 90 seconds slower than in previous years, that's compelling. Even with temperature and race situation, you'd have a tough time explaining that difference away entirely. And then the other thing to do is take the average time of the top 20, and positions say 50 to 60, to get an idea of depth. Almost certain it's a lot slower.

The other thing about the power, as Martin points out, is that in theory, if they rode one pace, they'd be faster. But I don't remember one paced riding too often. There are always attacks. Schleck-Contador was extreme the other day, but that's why it would be most interesting to look at the depth and quality.

You can see it in the racing, because as fierce as the attacks are, they're not doing the same damage as previous years, they're less frequent and interspersed with much slower riding, and the guy in the breakaway (Voeckler and Riblon) have held off.

Ross
Hi Ross,

Those numbers of old 6.7 watts/kg, that is fantasy stuff. The reality is that Lance's 6.7 number as measured by Ferrari was for a 4 km climb of 9%, about 11 minutes, not 40 minutes. This is a normal power output for an elite endurance cyclist at his peak of fitness with or without drugs.
 
The Tucker post is from 2010, ie early days of more systematic and mass data driven scrutiny of climb times.

The benchmark for "normal" was downgraded many a time along the way when more data became available and more climbs were analysed. As it should in order to converge towards the pre epo standards.

At the beginning, say the days of Contador's ridiculous 20min or so raid on verbier, some people were willing to ponder if 6,2w/kg for 40min was cleans on longer climbs. Sure...

In sum, i think this development was the rwsult of a too generous null hypothesis based on skewed data from 1990-2009 or so.
 
So I did these climbs in Italy. I wondered what my w/kg was:

Muro di Sormano, 1,8 km, 15,5%, 14 min 30 sec.
First 4,4 of Madonna del Ghisallo, 4,4 km, 8,5%, 20 min
Alpe di Cainallo minus the last 2 kilometres, 16 km, 6,5%, 1 hour and 4 min
 
Sep 6, 2016
463
0
0
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
So I did these climbs in Italy. I wondered what my w/kg was:

Muro di Sormano, 1,8 km, 15,5%, 14 min 30 sec.
First 4,4 of Madonna del Ghisallo, 4,4 km, 8,5%, 20 min
Alpe di Cainallo minus the last 2 kilometres, 16 km, 6,5%, 1 hour and 4 min
3.94 for the second, the 3rd is either 3.7 or 3.16. I can't tell from your post whether the climb was 14km or 16km. Ferrari's formula doesn't apply to gradients over 11 so I can't tell you about the first climb. Hope you enjoyed it!
 
Re: Re:

Durden93 said:
Valv.Piti said:
So I did these climbs in Italy. I wondered what my w/kg was:

Muro di Sormano, 1,8 km, 15,5%, 14 min 30 sec.
First 4,4 of Madonna del Ghisallo, 4,4 km, 8,5%, 20 min
Alpe di Cainallo minus the last 2 kilometres, 16 km, 6,5%, 1 hour and 4 min
3.94 for the second, the 3rd is either 3.7 or 3.16. I can't tell from your post whether the climb was 14km or 16km. Ferrari's formula doesn't apply to gradients over 11 so I can't tell you about the first climb. Hope you enjoyed it!
16 kilometres so thats 3,7 w/kg. That makes sense since its a considerably longer effort. Thanks!
 
Re: Re:

Durden93 said:
Netserk said:
http://www.climbing-records.com/
6.25w/kg. Not sure how I feel about that given the tough day.
Concerned, sceptical, disappointed? Barguil should not have been making records and doing so well in my opinion given the circumstances of his race. He was being left alone by the team to make tremendous efforts to join breakaways and arguably had less "days off" than any top 10 rider. He was in no way protected. The jury is still out, but I went from being pleased for him to a being concerned with each passing day when he put in a big effort.
 
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Durden93 said:
Valv.Piti said:
So I did these climbs in Italy. I wondered what my w/kg was:

Muro di Sormano, 1,8 km, 15,5%, 14 min 30 sec.
First 4,4 of Madonna del Ghisallo, 4,4 km, 8,5%, 20 min
Alpe di Cainallo minus the last 2 kilometres, 16 km, 6,5%, 1 hour and 4 min
3.94 for the second, the 3rd is either 3.7 or 3.16. I can't tell from your post whether the climb was 14km or 16km. Ferrari's formula doesn't apply to gradients over 11 so I can't tell you about the first climb. Hope you enjoyed it!
16 kilometres so thats 3,7 w/kg. That makes sense since its a considerably longer effort. Thanks!
Watch it Valv.Piti, you're being discussed in the clinic now :eek: :D
 
Sep 6, 2016
463
0
0
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Durden93 said:
Valv.Piti said:
So I did these climbs in Italy. I wondered what my w/kg was:

Muro di Sormano, 1,8 km, 15,5%, 14 min 30 sec.
First 4,4 of Madonna del Ghisallo, 4,4 km, 8,5%, 20 min
Alpe di Cainallo minus the last 2 kilometres, 16 km, 6,5%, 1 hour and 4 min
3.94 for the second, the 3rd is either 3.7 or 3.16. I can't tell from your post whether the climb was 14km or 16km. Ferrari's formula doesn't apply to gradients over 11 so I can't tell you about the first climb. Hope you enjoyed it!
16 kilometres so thats 3,7 w/kg. That makes sense since its a considerably longer effort. Thanks!

Wow! That's fairly impressive. Well done
 
Pan y agua guys! :D
That should translate to a FTP around 260, I think. I don't really know If Im best at 5 min efforts, 20 min or 1 hour. I rode it with my brother and it was clear that I was considerably better once fatigue set in (we were equal otherwise, but he weights in at 55 kg or so, im 73 kg), but I think thats primarirly because Im a bit older and have ridden more this year. I dlsike the 15-20 minutes efforts the most tho, they are simply just brutal. On those long and steady climbs you can get into a much better rhythm and and just tap out the pace, I don't suffer as much there, but I really don't know. Its certainly interesting
 
So doc veloclinic thinks the tour was not what he would call cleans. On top of that he speculates that judging by his analysis of climb times no new superfuels or other methods are available or at least on use. Not a very extraordinary paitsi of claims by any means.

In the graphs 2013 is hilarious. So is 2009. Long live Contador & Froome.
 
Jun 24, 2010
7
0
0
To be fair a variation of even 0.2W/kg is rather big on that level..

I would assume that if people went to big with motors, it would become rather obious..
Imagine if a contador from his glory years would use an additional motor that provides 60W (if he isn't using that in his glory years).. I don't think any commentator/sponsor can proceed with the sport...

However imagine a 60W on froome and he would fall in the range of contador in his glory years. Similar to fodder like Riis, they could make their blood like sirop... and they are just edging the competition who are not taking it to such dangerous levels.


Another thing that is hard to proof is fatigue. If you don't need to go full throttle you are less fatigue in the end.
I hear the commentators yell very loud, after the armstrong years, we see less people setting a huge effort!! we see people who made an effort pay the price the next day!! this means the peleton is cleaning up!

Look at today... we see people doing full day efforts and not paying the price at all.. they actually seem to get better.
 
Re:

meat puppet said:
So doc veloclinic thinks the tour was not what he would call cleans. On top of that he speculates that judging by his analysis of climb times no new superfuels or other methods are available or at least on use. Not a very extraordinary paitsi of claims by any means.
This is what he actually says:
The good news, and I’ll call it that as much as my popularity seems to hinge on playing does it dope, is that over the past 10 years there does not seem to be an emergence of some new doping rocket-fuel. I’m by no means naive enough to see this as evidence of a clean sport. But it does at least support the idea that the illicit march has stalled for now.
meat puppet said:
In the graphs 2013 is hilarious. So is 2009. Long live Contador & Froome.
Not sure how you draw that conclusion from the residuals chart?
 
Jan 15, 2013
863
0
0
I posted the same link in a different thread but having given it a bit of thought I have a few issues with the analysis as presented. It's not clear at all from what's published how much normalising for length/time/stage number are modifying the basic values. Also if it's only the top 3 on GC then box plots aren't a very clear way of presenting things, and imply more data than is there (ideally I'd find a way to make one performance by one rider one point on the graph, even if the box plot was still underneath). If there are big variations in the top 3 doping vs say the rest of the top 10 then that should be obvious from the graph.

If you include the top 10 (or even top 6 - I think vetooo has W/kg for top 10 for almost everything and top 6 for one other) then you get rid of the random effect of crashes and noise to some extent too - imagine how different the 2014 top 3 W/kg might be with Froome and Contador in the top 3 vs Páraud and Pinot.

Overall even if it's not perfect I still think it's useful. It's funny how 2008 when the French were in charge of antidoping and caught a load of riders, vs 2009 when UCI were in charge, AICAR (allegedly) entered the fray, and Contador went thermonuclear on Verbier, are still the two extremes ten years later.
 
Alex: yes, exactly. Illicit march would be escalating doping. If it has stalled, I take it that doping has converged to a temporary equilibrium determined by the institutional framework, testing, availability of new stuff, etc, ie it is not escalating at the moment. Even so, veloclinic would not call this clean or a sign of cleanlines per se. The direct quote says as much. I would agree.

I admit to using actual footage from tdfs 2009 and 2013 as auxiliary material.

Vedrafjord's point about the jump between 2008 and 2009 is a worthy one.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS