Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 134 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

vedrafjord said:
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.
When I did my ADH climbing speed chart, I averaged the speed of top 5 ascent times for each year it was raced.
 
Re:

meat puppet said:
Alex: yes, exactly. Illicit march would be escalating doping.
I don't understand this sentence. What is "iIllicit march"?

meat puppet said:
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'm not sure the data tells us all that much TBH. It's all rather moot I suppose, as Clinicians tend to have a fixed view and pick out the evidence to suit.

meat puppet said:
Vedrafjord's point about the jump between 2008 and 2009 is a worthy one.
Worthy of what?
 
Alex:

Re: "illicit march". First, sorry for phrasing my point badly and also for the delayed reply. To be absolutely sure, you should ask doc veloclinic who used the phrase in the first place. To me, it simply stands for the post 2008 reality of procycling during which climb speeds of the top contenders on key occasions were a tad too close to what might be best called the epo-era. This has been documented time and again by veloclinic especially during TDFs, among others.

Re: cup half full/empty. Agree that it is a matter of perception to some extent. I must sadly admit that I am on the cynics' side, here.

Re: 2008/9. To me the jump between 2008 and 2009 in climbing speeds suggests that the institutional setup and distribution of anti doping capabilities amongst different players can affect the outcomes quite significantly. Moreover, had 2007 been included, the trough that is 2008 would probably have been even more dramatic. I think this was Vedra's point, as he mentioned the change in the capabilities. But Vedra can speak for themselves, of course.
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
I did some charts on overall speed trends for post war Tours (an update on the 2016 data):
I was quite shocked when I looked at Paul Kimmage's first particiapation in the TdF (1987)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Tour_de_France
and realised there was only one rest day. :eek:
Surely the number of rest days is an important factor determining speed as well.
The average winning speed of each TdF is multifactoral.

I think ratio of ascent metres to descent metres is probably more a factor, along with environmental conditions (e.g. ratio of head v tailwinds, heat, cold, dry, wet), road surface quality, race strategies and tactics, as well as of course the variable influence of doping.

However unless I can obtain actual race routes, mapping the elevation data isn't possible to ascertain the level of correlation, if one exists.

The doping question is an interesting one - it might partly explain periods of above trend speed, but it doesn't explain the periods of above trend speed when high octane doping methods were not available. So there are clearly other factors in play.
 
Aug 29, 2016
250
9
2,045
Re: Re:

There actually exists this paper which takes into account the amount of climbing at the Tour at least on some level.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20473822

I am only aware of the paper due to a footnote in Tyler Hamilton's autobiography and have no clue what is in it, but here some context from the abstract:
We studied the top ten cyclists' mean speeds in eight famous classic races and three European Grand Tours, using a previously published multi-exponential model that highlights the different progression periods of an event during the century. In addition, we measured an indicator of difficulty for the Tour de France by calculating the climbing index (i.e. the total altitude climbed over total distance)... The Tour de France's climbing index also provided insight into a recent paradoxical relationship with speeds: when the climbing index increased, the winner's speed also increased. Our results show a major improvement (6.38%) in road cycling performance in the last 20 years and question the role of extra-physiological parameters in this recent progression.
 
Re: Re:

Aragon said:
There actually exists this paper which takes into account the amount of climbing at the Tour at least on some level.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20473822

I am only aware of the paper due to a footnote in Tyler Hamilton's autobiography and have no clue what is in it, but here some context from the abstract:
We studied the top ten cyclists' mean speeds in eight famous classic races and three European Grand Tours, using a previously published multi-exponential model that highlights the different progression periods of an event during the century. In addition, we measured an indicator of difficulty for the Tour de France by calculating the climbing index (i.e. the total altitude climbed over total distance)... The Tour de France's climbing index also provided insight into a recent paradoxical relationship with speeds: when the climbing index increased, the winner's speed also increased. Our results show a major improvement (6.38%) in road cycling performance in the last 20 years and question the role of extra-physiological parameters in this recent progression.
Seems interesting, though cycling economy (mechanical efficiency) is obviously gonna vary, and making estimates of the VO2 max based on sub-max efforts isn't great.

Also, they don't seem to account for the fact that RER varies a lot, depending on physiological state, intensity and even diet. It may average out at 80%, but during shorter efforts it's gonna be higher and you're gonna get more energy from the same oxygen consumption.
 
Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
Thanks for response. Tangentially, I did some charts on overall speed trends for post war Tours (an update on the 2016 data):





Brief discussion here:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/tdf-speed-trends-1947-2017.html

In short, whilst the 2017 Tour was second fastest average speed on record, it was actually on (actually just a touch under) the long term trend.
Not that surprising, considering how few mountains there were in this year's Tour
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
Any data for the final climb in Pais Vasco today?
https://mobile.twitter.com/ammattipyoraily

Stage 1. Elkano (steepest 1.90 km, 11.84 %, 225 m)
Alaphilippe, Roglic: 6 min 45 sec, 16.89 Kph, VAM 2000 m/h

"est. power - Alaphilippe and Roglic 6.8 W/kg. Should be quite accurate. Buchmann was 21 sec slower. His power meter 409 W (7:06). Est. power 406 W."

Stage 2. San Pelayo (steepest 2.20 km, 10.77 %, 237 m)
Alaphilippe: 7 min 14 sec, 18.25 Kph, VAM 1966 m/h
Chasing group: 7 min 23 sec, 17.88 Kph, VAM 1926 m/h
 
Oct 18, 2012
8
0
0
Re:

Durden93 said:
I know they’re not really climbing numbers but anyone have any recent classics power figures?
There is a ton of (recent) data to scrape from Strava, if you have the time and inclination to do so (I intend to collect and organize some but haven't gotten very far yet).

For instance, none less than he-who-was-previously-known-as-El-Imbatido posted his Fleche Wallone ride from yesterday, including power data (kudos to him for doing so) - like some he keeps his account somewhat pseudonymous but it is not hard to figure out it is indeed the real Bala: https://www.strava.com/activities/1517846768#37869816295

On the final Mur de Huy ascent segment he averaged 513W for 3m14s. At a Wikipedia-listed weight of 61kg that makes 8.4 W/kg, not bad, but IMO not indicative of much except that he is a world class puncheur (not exactly news).

Another example of a good classics rider who tends to post his power data is Oliver Naesen. For both Flanders and Roubaix I think he averaged north of 300W for more than 5 hours, rather impressive.
 
Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
Would love to see numbers from today
Stage 19. MTF Jafferau (7.25 km, 9.02 %, 654 m)

24:39 | Carapaz
24:46 | Pinot
24:51 | M.A.Lopez
25:02 | Dumoulin
25:03 | Froome
Today's fastest time (Carapaz) is 2:55 slower than record time 21:44 (Santambrogio/Nibali in 2014


Stage 19
Colle delle Finestre (18.40 km, 9.21 %, 1694 m)
Record time: Jose Rujano 1:02:16 (2011)

Froome climbed Finestre in 1:04:18.

Credit: https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily
 
Re: Re:

silvergrenade said:
More Strides than Rides said:
Would love to see numbers from today
Stage 19. MTF Jafferau (7.25 km, 9.02 %, 654 m)

24:39 | Carapaz
24:46 | Pinot
24:51 | M.A.Lopez
25:02 | Dumoulin
25:03 | Froome
Today's fastest time (Carapaz) is 2:55 slower than record time 21:44 (Santambrogio/Nibali in 2014


Stage 19
Colle delle Finestre (18.40 km, 9.21 %, 1694 m)
Record time: Jose Rujano 1:02:16 (2011)

Froome climbed Finestre in 1:04:18.

Credit: https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily
Thanks for these data. Both of Froome's times on the climbs correspond to 5.40 W/kg by Ferrari's equation, well below the level considered more or less the limit of clean riding. Of course, most of the Finestre was climbed with the group; he would have been putting out more power after he attacked. And assuming he put out the same power on Sestriere, he was sustaining that level for about two hours of climbing, punctuated by what? 30-40 minutes of descending?

In his published data, Pinot recorded just 5.0 W/kg for 2 hours in 2013:

http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/pinot-ppr.pdf
 
Jul 14, 2015
424
0
0
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
Thanks for these data. Both of Froome's times on the climbs correspond to 5.40 W/kg by Ferrari's equation, well below the level considered more or less the limit of clean riding. Of course, most of the Finestre was climbed with the group; he would have been putting out more power after he attacked. And assuming he put out the same power on Sestriere, he was sustaining that level for about two hours of climbing, punctuated by what? 30-40 minutes of descending?
TTE is obviously not linear with effort. It's just a steep exponential drop at the very end.
 
Re: Re:

silvergrenade said:
More Strides than Rides said:
Would love to see numbers from today
Stage 19. MTF Jafferau (7.25 km, 9.02 %, 654 m)

24:39 | Carapaz
24:46 | Pinot
24:51 | M.A.Lopez
25:02 | Dumoulin
25:03 | Froome
Today's fastest time (Carapaz) is 2:55 slower than record time 21:44 (Santambrogio/Nibali in 2014

Stage 19
Colle delle Finestre (18.40 km, 9.21 %, 1694 m)
Record time: Jose Rujano 1:02:16 (2011)

Froome climbed Finestre in 1:04:18.

Credit: https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily


Thems clean numbers
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS