-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!
Re:
We're not talking about a 30 minute climb to a finish, where the rider goes all out. We're talking about an hour climb, saving enough energy to ride 70-75 more km, including another climb at 5.4 W/kg.
Alex Simmons/RST said:
We're not talking about a 30 minute climb to a finish, where the rider goes all out. We're talking about an hour climb, saving enough energy to ride 70-75 more km, including another climb at 5.4 W/kg.
Re: Re:
That’s not what we’re talking about either. There was a lot of descending after the Finestre. Obviously Froome did a tremendous ride on the descents to grow his gap but descending is much more about technical prowess than physical effort. The effort becomes a lot more normal when you consider that Froome’s effort on the descents was probably in the 3-4w/kg range, which is a tempo effort. For comparison’s sake, Barguil was at 6w/kg for 1 hour over 3 climbs in last year’s tdf. That’s not to say that Barguil’s performance was clean, but that Froome’s isn’t unprecedented.
Merckx index said:
That’s not what we’re talking about either. There was a lot of descending after the Finestre. Obviously Froome did a tremendous ride on the descents to grow his gap but descending is much more about technical prowess than physical effort. The effort becomes a lot more normal when you consider that Froome’s effort on the descents was probably in the 3-4w/kg range, which is a tempo effort. For comparison’s sake, Barguil was at 6w/kg for 1 hour over 3 climbs in last year’s tdf. That’s not to say that Barguil’s performance was clean, but that Froome’s isn’t unprecedented.
Re: Re:
The point is, he did 5.4 W/kg for an hour (probably less till he attacked, then more after that), had some rest or reduced effort, then was able to put out 5.4 W/kg again for a sustained period of time. I don't think we can easily determine how much the reduced effort would allow him to recover to make another sustained effort, but it looks to me to be beyond what most riders could do. As I pointed out before, Pinot couldn't sustain 5.4 W/kg for two hours (nor 6.0 for one hour, for that matter).
Durden93 said:
The point is, he did 5.4 W/kg for an hour (probably less till he attacked, then more after that), had some rest or reduced effort, then was able to put out 5.4 W/kg again for a sustained period of time. I don't think we can easily determine how much the reduced effort would allow him to recover to make another sustained effort, but it looks to me to be beyond what most riders could do. As I pointed out before, Pinot couldn't sustain 5.4 W/kg for two hours (nor 6.0 for one hour, for that matter).
What's Froome's threshold? Let's say 6.0 W/kg. It's probably higher but let's say 6.
5.4 is 90% of threshold. Less if we think his threshold is higher. 2 hours of that with a decent amount of endurance effort in the middle doesn't strike me as wildly strange. 90% of threshold is sustainable for quite a long time.
All the data says to me is it's well inside the bit fat fuzzy line demarcating the plausible/non-plausible zone and there's not a lot we can infer from it, per se.
5.4 is 90% of threshold. Less if we think his threshold is higher. 2 hours of that with a decent amount of endurance effort in the middle doesn't strike me as wildly strange. 90% of threshold is sustainable for quite a long time.
All the data says to me is it's well inside the bit fat fuzzy line demarcating the plausible/non-plausible zone and there's not a lot we can infer from it, per se.
Re:
I’d say Froome’s threshold is around 6.2/6.3. But in the third week of a GT it’s still lower. Pinot’s data showed that he can hold 5w/kg for 5 hours so 5.4 for two hours for Froome isn’t too surprising.
Alex Simmons/RST said:
I’d say Froome’s threshold is around 6.2/6.3. But in the third week of a GT it’s still lower. Pinot’s data showed that he can hold 5w/kg for 5 hours so 5.4 for two hours for Froome isn’t too surprising.
Re: Re:
In his physiological testing post TdF he was 6.0 W/kg (at test weight, not race weight) with BL sustained at 4mmol/l.
Add 0.25 W/kg if you pare back to race weight. Not all that long after a grand tour.
4 mmol/l is probably under his real sustainable BL level at threshold, so I'd expect a fresh race weight Froome's threshold to be at least 6.25 W/kg and quite possibly higher (average BL at threshold for trained cyclists is closer to 7mmol/l but there is large individual variance).
Yes I was being deliberately conservative.Durden93 said:
In his physiological testing post TdF he was 6.0 W/kg (at test weight, not race weight) with BL sustained at 4mmol/l.
Add 0.25 W/kg if you pare back to race weight. Not all that long after a grand tour.
4 mmol/l is probably under his real sustainable BL level at threshold, so I'd expect a fresh race weight Froome's threshold to be at least 6.25 W/kg and quite possibly higher (average BL at threshold for trained cyclists is closer to 7mmol/l but there is large individual variance).
Re: Re:
Any chance you’d know the difference or range of an elite cyclist’s threshold (eg peak vs early season)?
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Any chance you’d know the difference or range of an elite cyclist’s threshold (eg peak vs early season)?
Re: Re:
Pinot’s best reported value for 2 hours was 5.1. And if you think there should be a big difference between Froome and Pinot, consider that on Zoncolan, Froome’s W/kg was about 5.8, vs. 5.7 for Pinot. And that extra effort cost Froome so much that the next day he finished nearly a minute behind Pinot.
Swart said that 6.25 W/kg value corresponded to a 20-40 min effort. But two years earlier, Grappe said Froome’s power dropped 0.9 W/kg going from 20 to 60 minutes. So that 5.4 W/kg appears right on the cusp, just about what Froome might have managed to do in the lab. Again, this is not taking into account that he was in the third week of a GT.
Durden93 said:
Pinot’s best reported value for 2 hours was 5.1. And if you think there should be a big difference between Froome and Pinot, consider that on Zoncolan, Froome’s W/kg was about 5.8, vs. 5.7 for Pinot. And that extra effort cost Froome so much that the next day he finished nearly a minute behind Pinot.
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Swart said that 6.25 W/kg value corresponded to a 20-40 min effort. But two years earlier, Grappe said Froome’s power dropped 0.9 W/kg going from 20 to 60 minutes. So that 5.4 W/kg appears right on the cusp, just about what Froome might have managed to do in the lab. Again, this is not taking into account that he was in the third week of a GT.
And for the sake of comparison with the last "great" solo
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-science-behind-an-exploit/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-science-behind-an-exploit/
Not counting the time he descended, he did 5.42 W/kg for the last 2 hours of the stage.
*edited the W/kg so it is based on a weight of 67.15kg instead of 69.5kg.
*edited the W/kg so it is based on a weight of 67.15kg instead of 69.5kg.
I used 69.5kg as his weight, as that corresponds with what was used to calculate his W/kg on the climbs - but indeed after looking at it closer, the paper states his weight was between 68kg and 66.3kg. A bit weird then to use 69.5kg...
The correct weight should be the 67.15kg that is listed in the calculations, even if it wasn't the one used.
edit: This was a response to a post by Merckx index.
The correct weight should be the 67.15kg that is listed in the calculations, even if it wasn't the one used.
edit: This was a response to a post by Merckx index.
Re:
As I noted upthread, Froome averaged 5.40 W/kg for the Finestre and final climb. If you begin when he attacked it would be a little higher, because he upped his power from earlier on the Finestre. In the Froome thread it was reported his initial attack was 390 watts, which would be about 5.7 W/kg assuming 68 kg. In any case, it seems likely Froome's average power over the solo period, not including descents, was greater than Floyd's. Out-Landish indeed.
What Lim said about Floyd at the time is echoed by what Froome fans are saying now:
I deleted my original reply, because I was confused, thought the 5.24 W/kg referred to Froome. In the article linked by Roundabout, Floyd's power excluding descents was reported to be 364 watts, which would be 5.35 W/kg assuming 68 kg, which is what wiki lists his racing weight at. In any case, it seems that Froome and Landis are pretty close in terms of weight/power over the course of their solos. Would certainly be interested to hear Floyd comment on this.
Netserk said:
As I noted upthread, Froome averaged 5.40 W/kg for the Finestre and final climb. If you begin when he attacked it would be a little higher, because he upped his power from earlier on the Finestre. In the Froome thread it was reported his initial attack was 390 watts, which would be about 5.7 W/kg assuming 68 kg. In any case, it seems likely Froome's average power over the solo period, not including descents, was greater than Floyd's. Out-Landish indeed.
What Lim said about Floyd at the time is echoed by what Froome fans are saying now:
Netserk said:
I deleted my original reply, because I was confused, thought the 5.24 W/kg referred to Froome. In the article linked by Roundabout, Floyd's power excluding descents was reported to be 364 watts, which would be 5.35 W/kg assuming 68 kg, which is what wiki lists his racing weight at. In any case, it seems that Froome and Landis are pretty close in terms of weight/power over the course of their solos. Would certainly be interested to hear Floyd comment on this.
Velon reported that Froome's Finestre attack lasted 11 minutes and averaged 397W. At (say) 67.5kg that's 11-min @ ~5.9W/kg.
https://www.velon.cc/en/news/2018/05/why-397-is-chris-froome-s-winning-giro-d-italia-number
As for the Swart data, there is quiet a difference in physiological responses between 20-min power and 40-min power. 40-min and 60-min power and power at threshold will probably not be all that different as the P-D curve is much much flatter there, but 20-min power may well be quite different as non-sustainable physiological responses to the energy demand are playing a more substantial role. 20-min power is definitely above threshold power.
That said, doping/not doping? Low numbers are not indicative of not doping. But lower numbers don't generate click bait "doper" headlines for the usual suspects. It doesn't fit their narrative.
https://www.velon.cc/en/news/2018/05/why-397-is-chris-froome-s-winning-giro-d-italia-number
As for the Swart data, there is quiet a difference in physiological responses between 20-min power and 40-min power. 40-min and 60-min power and power at threshold will probably not be all that different as the P-D curve is much much flatter there, but 20-min power may well be quite different as non-sustainable physiological responses to the energy demand are playing a more substantial role. 20-min power is definitely above threshold power.
That said, doping/not doping? Low numbers are not indicative of not doping. But lower numbers don't generate click bait "doper" headlines for the usual suspects. It doesn't fit their narrative.
Re:
Ross Tucker had some interesting rants. In one he provided a pretty compelling argument that doping is much more about correcting the 'state' that training or racing can put you in. In other words, working at a physiologically high/near max level can result in issues that are in many ways like a disease state. So many doping products that bring you closer to "normal" can improve performance and recovery, even though they do not make you "faster" per se.
Interesting.Alex Simmons/RST said:
Ross Tucker had some interesting rants. In one he provided a pretty compelling argument that doping is much more about correcting the 'state' that training or racing can put you in. In other words, working at a physiologically high/near max level can result in issues that are in many ways like a disease state. So many doping products that bring you closer to "normal" can improve performance and recovery, even though they do not make you "faster" per se.
For some alternative discussion, I did a comparison of W/kg estimates based on VAM. Dr Ferrari's method compared with using the mathematical model as described by Martin et al:
This is another version expressing those differences as a percentage:
And the chart comparing each method directly:
This is another version expressing those differences as a percentage:
And the chart comparing each method directly:
Re: Re:
According to French pseudoscientists Froome's numbers on his legendary clean break were
- Finestre 64 min at 5.14 W/kg (including 28 min at 5.57 W/kg)
- Sestrieres 21 min at 5.29 W/kg
- Jaffereau 25 min at 5.43 W/kg
https://mobile.twitter.com/lapreuvepar21/status/1001165650210025473
Merckx index said:
According to French pseudoscientists Froome's numbers on his legendary clean break were
- Finestre 64 min at 5.14 W/kg (including 28 min at 5.57 W/kg)
- Sestrieres 21 min at 5.29 W/kg
- Jaffereau 25 min at 5.43 W/kg
https://mobile.twitter.com/lapreuvepar21/status/1001165650210025473
Re: Re:
Quintana's Croix-de-Fer + Alpe d'Huez attack was a similar length (in time) effort but executed at around 6W/kg and 6.3W/Kg -that's why Dumoulin was waiting for his "old lady", and also why he wasn't going all out for those stretches -he'd be dropped like a twig in a vacuum by any of his rivals if he did.
BTW, I don't know why Chronowatts doesn't just use Bernal's actual watts as he posts them on Strava. They're also a bit higher than their estimates.
Pretty sure they've got the friction wrong on Finistere. But yeah, there's no humid sterrato option on the simulators. I'd add a little to that part of it, I don't know if I'd trust the Velon numbers given the glitches but I'd trust them more than 5.1W/Kg. It takes a little more power than that run that type of winnowing machine at a WorldTour level.miguelindurain111 said:
Quintana's Croix-de-Fer + Alpe d'Huez attack was a similar length (in time) effort but executed at around 6W/kg and 6.3W/Kg -that's why Dumoulin was waiting for his "old lady", and also why he wasn't going all out for those stretches -he'd be dropped like a twig in a vacuum by any of his rivals if he did.
BTW, I don't know why Chronowatts doesn't just use Bernal's actual watts as he posts them on Strava. They're also a bit higher than their estimates.
In terms of sensitivity of rolling resistance to W/kg estimates, even a doubling of a typical road Crr assumption would add ~0.2W/kg or an error in W/kg estimation of about 3%. That's on say a 10% climb.
Re:
https://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/PowerComponents.aspx
So according to that calculator, and given standard assumptions otherwise, a 67 kg rider (75kg including bike + kit) would have to put out around 5.1W / kg to go 14.9 km/h on a 10% grade assuming ashpalt road Crr (.004), losing 12W due to rolling restistance, vs. 5.3W/kg, losing 24W due to rolling restance, assuming rough tarmac CRR. So that matches up pretty much perfectly with your calculation. However, that assumption, according to the calculator would still just be rough tarmac. A thoroughly uneducated guess, extrapolating from that and given my limited experience cross country mountain biking, would be that humid sterrato could imply a further doubling of Crr. So closer to 48W according to that calculator, implying a power output of 5.66 W / Kg.
Sure, that's just a guess. And Finestre is partially paved. But I do still think there might be some friction losses given the surface and the conditions on the day that most estimates are leaving out.
On this calculator, just the difference between riding on an asphalt road and on rough tarmac implies a doubling of the Crr:Alex Simmons/RST said:
https://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/PowerComponents.aspx
So according to that calculator, and given standard assumptions otherwise, a 67 kg rider (75kg including bike + kit) would have to put out around 5.1W / kg to go 14.9 km/h on a 10% grade assuming ashpalt road Crr (.004), losing 12W due to rolling restistance, vs. 5.3W/kg, losing 24W due to rolling restance, assuming rough tarmac CRR. So that matches up pretty much perfectly with your calculation. However, that assumption, according to the calculator would still just be rough tarmac. A thoroughly uneducated guess, extrapolating from that and given my limited experience cross country mountain biking, would be that humid sterrato could imply a further doubling of Crr. So closer to 48W according to that calculator, implying a power output of 5.66 W / Kg.
Sure, that's just a guess. And Finestre is partially paved. But I do still think there might be some friction losses given the surface and the conditions on the day that most estimates are leaving out.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread- Started by LaFlorecita
- Replies: 51K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 21K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram