Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Bala Verde]

Was there mention of a lot of head wind? I thought the weather forecasts said there might be quite some wind.

 

[karlboss]

400 watts for 37 minutes for a guy his size is a lot. I mean, not believable--how does this compare to his ascent of Alpe D'Huez is the real question.

5.8 watts/kg, not impressive.

i cant tell if the bike weight is what is throwing this off.

Didnt look all that fast to me.

I could be wrong, but I get his Alpe d'huez win at about 6.4. Anyone else?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I could be wrong, but I get his Alpe d'huez win at about 6.4. Anyone else?

 

[DarkWing]

Personally I think the number is higher (and there is no real reason to set an upper limit), given that we already know a clean rider has performed at 6.4W/kg.

.

Hi Alex,
Which rider are you reffering to? and how do we know this rider was indeed clean (unless it was yourself )

I think the number for a clean rider is actually a fair bit lower. Most riders who rode before the EPO era was in the 5.7-6.0 range. I think Greg Lemond even said once that he was 5.8 and he believed that to be the highest possible for a clean rider.

 

[Bumeington]

I would guess he is thinking of Boardman

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Hi Alex,
Which rider are you reffering to? and how do we know this rider was indeed clean (unless it was yourself )

I'd last a couple of minutes at those levels

Boardman was recorded in training with SRM at these levels and would have required it for his hour record.

I think the number for a clean rider is actually a fair bit lower. Most riders who rode before the EPO era was in the 5.7-6.0 range. I think Greg Lemond even said once that he was 5.8 and he believed that to be the highest possible for a clean rider.

Given Lemond himself has said his VO2max was measured at 92ml/kg/min (in fact he has said 93 and 94 as well but let's go with 92), then if his threshold was only 5.8W/kg, he would have been on the low end of efficiency for a Pro cyclist at 20%.

If his VO2max was higher as he said, then his efficiency would probably have been <20%.

20% is plausible for sure, but I'd have expected a higher efficiency for him.

 

[The Science of Sport]

Hi Alex,
Which rider are you reffering to? and how do we know this rider was indeed clean (unless it was yourself )

I think the number for a clean rider is actually a fair bit lower. Most riders who rode before the EPO era was in the 5.7-6.0 range. I think Greg Lemond even said once that he was 5.8 and he believed that to be the highest possible for a clean rider.

Hi folks

As always, great discussion and data. As Alex mentioned in an earlier post, I believe that ±6.2 W/kg is about the absolute limit for a non-doped rider, and to get that, you have to make some pretty big assumptions, always take the less likely option for efficiency, max capacity and so on. The problem (and I gladly concede this) is that you have to make some assumptions about efficiency, about energy sources and about the capacity of a rider to sustain a given % of maximum. I think Alex's values of 6.4W/kg are based on the upper limit of those assumptions, and the key one for me is that percentage of max and also the maximum

So if you take a rider with a max capacity of 90ml/kg/min, it's:
a) Highly unlikely that this person would also have a high efficiency of 24%. Remember, Armstrong was measured at 23%, and Noakes and I did an analysis describing the inverse relationship between VO2max and efficiency in world-class cyclists (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15179181) and I think that's true (and logical).

b) Almost impossible for a rider to ride at 90% of this value at the end of a 5-hour stage. For a one-hour world record, yes, but not at the end of a Tour stage. And there is some data on that - Padilla et al have done a few good studies in Tour riders, and they find that the average intensity on those HC climbs is around 80-85% of max heart rate, and estimated at 90% of Wmax, which is 80-85% of VO2max. And that estimate of power is likely 5% too high as well. I strongly suspect that the intensity of those final climbs is around 80 to 85% VO2max, at best, given what has happened before. In a hour record attempt, then higher, at just above OBLA power outputs, but not in a Tour stage.

So when you take those assumptions - 85% of max, with a max of 90ml/kg/min and efficiency of 23% (which I believe to be valid), then you get that a power output of 6.2W/kg is possible.

If you want to assume efficiency of 24%, and a slightly lower max capacity of say 85ml/kg/min, then you get a value of 6.1 W/kg.

Of course, there'll always be debate about how high the efficiency should be, how high the VO2max can be. And anyone can create a mythical cyclist who possesses this exceptional engine and efficiency. But then you start to look at the stats, the real numbers from the Tour.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/07/video-post-power-output-in-mountains-of.html and http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/07/tour-de-france-power-outputs-from.html

So in 2010, for example, on the Tourmalet, the top guys rode under 6W/kg. The most liberal estimates have it at 6W/kg, most are at 5.9W/kg.

Yesterday, on a shorter climb, and sure, the peloton were not truly hammering it, you have the fastest ascent in 5.8W/kg, with the final 10km at 5.9W/kg (thank you for the calculation, by the way).

And then you look back, at what happened in the 90s, the 2000s,and you see this huge gulf between those performances, which were consistently up at 6.5 to 7W/kg, and what is happening today.

And only the most loyal denialist would argue that the 2:02 that Frank Schleck would have conceded to Armstrong was because of the race tactics. And remember that everyone else conceded almost 2:30. Sure, some of it was because of 'conservative' riding (I'd argue that the conservative riding is itself an indication of less doping - you don't get renegade when your body won't allow it, pacing strategy and all), but not all. And then bear in mind that the 2003 ascent came at the end of the Tour, not the beginning, so the cumulative effect of fatigue has to be factored in as well. Power outputs are almost always lower at the end than the start of the Tour.

So there's been this change, and the change has brought the sport down to a level of 6 to 6.1W/kg on the longer climbs, up to 6.5W/kg on the shorter climbs, and I see this as acceptable. Perhaps last year, the error was to define that boundary too rigidly, to draw a line in the sand at 6.2W/kg - that would be wrong. But the more I think about it, the more I think that is probably the ceilng and what we see kind of verifies what the theory says.

So assumptions and all (and again, I admit there are some, but I think I'm making very liberal, "best case" assumptions - I think you can easily argue that the intensity is 80%, and the max should be closer to 80ml/kg/min, not 90, and you'd be accurate), I think the signs are positive. And the limit, I really believe is 6 to 6.2W/kg.

Love the comments, thanks for the analysis and awesome graphs!

Ross

 

[Franklin]

Isn't this also dependend on the size of a rider? I would imagine that for example a smaller person has a relatively bigger organs (for example a head) than a tall guy.

 

[Escarabajo]

Was there mention of a lot of head wind? I thought the weather forecasts said there might be quite some wind.

Frank mostly drafting so maybe headwind should be taken into account in tha last kilometers and that's all.

 

[Ferminal]

Thanks for the post Ross.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Hi Alex,
Which rider are you reffering to? and how do we know this rider was indeed clean (unless it was yourself )

I think the number for a clean rider is actually a fair bit lower. Most riders who rode before the EPO era was in the 5.7-6.0 range. I think Greg Lemond even said once that he was 5.8 and he believed that to be the highest possible for a clean rider.

"My wattage, relative to VO2 Max...a VO2 Max of 92 or 93 in a fully recovered way...I think I was capable of producing 450 to 460 watts. The truth is, even at the Tour de France, my Tour de France climb times up l'Alpe d'Huez yielded a wattage of around 380 and 390. That was the historic norm for Hinault and myself. You've got times going back many, many years. But what was learned recently, in the last 5 years, was that when you start the Tour de France, you start with a normal hematocrit of, say, 45 percent. By the time you finish, it's probably down 10 or 15 percent. Which means my VO2 Max dropped 10 or 15 percent. So that's why I was never producing the same wattage. And then there a lot of other factors that help performance if you've recovered. My last time trial in '89, I averaged about 420, 430 watts, which would match or be slightly down from what my real VO2 Max was."

http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

 

[davestoller]

Isn't this also dependend on the size of a rider? I would imagine that for example a smaller person has a relatively bigger organs (for example a head) than a tall guy.

Yes, guys always exaggerate the size of their organs...so the endless repeating from Mr Lemond that his VO2Max is bigger than Lance's is just so much castration anxiety and hoo-ha.

I am colossally uninterested in calculating watts and ascent times according to Lemond's extrapolations, and more interested in actual current times these racers are doing on current bikes and current conditions.

 

[zigmeister]

I guess this is an interesting thread, if it weren't for SRM posting live power data of riders, particularly when you have climbers and sprinters and their power data and averages you can watch during the race. The interesting stuff if watching live on the internet and the live power data knowing where certain riders are and the live power data.

 

[acoggan]

I think Alex's values of 6.4W/kg are based on the upper limit of those assumptions

Nope. If you combine the extreme values of VO2max, fractional utilization of VO2max, and efficiency reported in the scientific literature, you arrive at a value of >9 W/kg, as has been discussed here before.

Instead, the 6.4 W/kg value is based on Boardman's Superman hour record effort. While he did not use a powermeter during the actual ride, his power-vs-speed relationship on the Manchester track was established during prior testing, making it possible for Keen to estimate Boardman's power quite accurately.

Note that based on Boardman's known VO2max (i.e., 90 mL/min/kg) and efficiency (i.e., 23.1%), he was estimated to have sustained 90% of his VO2max for the hour. The same is true for Obree during his rides (one of which came <24 h after a full-length failed attempt). Indeed, many well-trained but non-elite cyclists can sustain similar relative intensities for approximately that long (cf. http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewCog...ed_cyclists._J_Appl_Physiol_1988_64_2622-2630).

 

[The Science of Sport]

Nope. If you combine the extreme values of VO2max, fractional utilization of VO2max, and efficiency reported in the scientific literature, you arrive at a value of >9 W/kg, as has been discussed here before.

Instead, the 6.4 W/kg value is based on Boardman's Superman hour record effort. While he did not use a powermeter during the actual ride, his power-vs-speed relationship on the Manchester track was established during prior testing, making it possible for Keen to estimate Boardman's power quite accurately.

Note that based on Boardman's known VO2max (i.e., 90 mL/min/kg) and efficiency (i.e., 23.1%), he was estimated to have sustained 90% of his VO2max for the hour. The same is true for Obree during his rides (one of which came <24 h after a full-length failed attempt). Indeed, many well-trained but non-elite cyclists can sustain similar relative intensities for approximately that long (cf. http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewCog...ed_cyclists._J_Appl_Physiol_1988_64_2622-2630).

Well, I have to say, the cyclists of 2010 and 2011 sure are a disappointing batch then, given that they're producing 6 W/kg on the climbs in the Tour, and only for 40 minutes? In fact, even the doped guys of the 90s and 2000s didn't hold a candle to your theoretical model. Unless the SRM data is wrong too? They sure don't make cyclists like they do in theoretical science. I mean, they're fully 50% off those theoretical limits. Even Boardman is 41% down.

Makes you wonder about the limits, doesn't it? Or that they exist in combination in one individual, "as has been discussed here before". You can take any combination of physiological performance determinants and put them together in one individual, but that's what you do on computer games.

Or are you waiting for the guy to come along and climb Alp d'Huez 10 minutes faster than Schleck, Contador, Armstrong, Pantani, because he has all those ingredients. Even the guy who can ride at 90% of VO2max at the end of a Tour stage would ride minutes into the current best cyclists. Let us know when you find him.

There's nothing like ivory tower science.

And as for the reference you provide, does it not strike you that the application of a time-to-exhaustion trial in the lab lasting an hour is different to a 45 minute climb at the end of a 5-hour stage? So I'd suggest that people rather use Padilla et al, which found that the HC climbs in the Grand Tours are done at 80 to 85% of Max HR, and led to an estimation that the percentage of peak workrate is around 90%. Two things - first that estimate of 90% Wmax is likely an overestimate, because the heart-rate vs workload relationship will be greatly affected by time (cardiac drift and body temperature effect on HR - See Gonzalez-Alonso et al) and also by being in a race. The result is that the prediction of 90% Wmax made based on heart rate is likely an overestimate. The reality is that at the HR found in the study, the relative workrate is likely 80 to 85% of maximum. And then the second thing - that corresponds to a slightly lower percentage of VO2max - which brings us to 85% as an absolute limit. In a Tour stage.

The key is data - if the data are showing the the front of the peloton are riding at 5.8 to 6 W/kg, consistently, across 5 or 6 climbs over three Tours, and continue to show it, then you are going to have to say that the current group are either incredibly weak compared to what we saw 5, 10, and 20 years ago. Or, recognize that the theoretical models on paper don't exist. So to use the analogy from business - your business case could well predict huge sales volumes, and at high profit margins. But if you build a business on that model, you're doomed.

P.S. Andy, was looking forward to your return, it wouldn't be July without you. Wondering when I graduate from "newly minted" to 'minted'. Enjoy the Tour, and the 6W/kg performances

 

[davestoller]

The other variable is that they have already been racing 4-6 hours a day for 10-20 days when they hit the 5-6 hour mountain stages.

 

[acoggan]

The key is data

But not just data: quality data. In that regard, the limited SRM data presently being made available clearly trumps estimates based on times up particular climbs.

(BTW, don't you think it is a bit disingenuous of you to argue that Boardman's SRM data must be wrong, then in the same post ballyhoo the power data from some of the better riders in recent Tours? As well, haven't you previously argued in favor of using power data to identify those who should be more closely scrutinized for doping? Doesn't that depend upon accurate power measurement in the first place?)

if the data are showing the the front of the peloton are riding at 5.8 to 6 W/kg, consistently, across 5 or 6 climbs over three Tours, and continue to show it, then you are going to have to say that the current group are either incredibly weak compared to what we saw 5, 10, and 20 years ago.

Boardman's Superman hour still stands, doesn't it?

Or perhaps a better comparison: his ultimate hour has only been topped (barely) by Sosenka, despite the fact that his (Boardman's) power was ~10% lower than during his Superman effort. You also can't say that this is entirely due to lack of interest, e.g., both before and after Comeback 2.0 Armstrong himself did a fair bit of testing/planning for an attempt, with the conclusion being "he can't do it".

 

[halamala]

Plateau de Beille : TOP 10 - list

1) Marco Pantani ITA , 43:30 , Tour 1998
2) Alberto Contador ESP , 44:17 , Tour 2007
3) Michael Rasmussen DEN , 44:17 , Tour 2007
4) Mauricio Soler COL , 44:53 , Tour 2007
5) Levi Leipheimer USA , 44:57 , Tour 2007
6) Bobby Julich USA , 45:03 , Tour 1998
7) Michael Boogerd NED , 45:03 , Tour 1998
8) Leonardo Piepoli ITA , 45:03 , Tour 1998
9) Fernando Escartin ESP , 45:03 , Tour 1998
10) Christophe Rinero FRA , 45:03 , Tour 1998

Lance Armstrong USA , 45:40 , Tour 2004
Ivan Basso ITA , 45:40 , Tour 2004

Lance Armstrong USA , 45:55 , Tour 2002


See you on Saturday!

 

[indurain666]

Plateau de Beille : TOP 10 - list

1) Marco Pantani ITA , 43:30 , Tour 1998
2) Alberto Contador ESP , 44:17 , Tour 2007
3) Michael Rasmussen DEN , 44:17 , Tour 2007
4) Mauricio Soler COL , 44:53 , Tour 2007
5) Levi Leipheimer USA , 44:57 , Tour 2007
6) Bobby Julich USA , 45:03 , Tour 1998
7) Michael Boogerd NED , 45:03 , Tour 1998
8) Leonardo Piepoli ITA , 45:03 , Tour 1998
9) Fernando Escartin ESP , 45:03 , Tour 1998
10) Christophe Rinero FRA , 45:03 , Tour 1998

Lance Armstrong USA , 45:40 , Tour 2004
Ivan Basso USA , 45:40 , Tour 2004

Lance Armstrong USA , 45:55 , Tour 2002


See you on Saturday!

Good stuff, interesting that guys like Rinero or Boogerd, in the 90s, were climbing faster than Armstrong! Curious to see what the times are going to be tomorrow.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Plateau de Beille : TOP 10 - list

Wind conditions?

 

[Bumeington]

But not just data: quality data. In that regard, the limited SRM data presently being made available clearly trumps estimates based on times up particular climbs.

(BTW, don't you think it is a bit disingenuous of you to argue that Boardman's SRM data must be wrong, then in the same post ballyhoo the power data from some of the better riders in recent Tours? As well, haven't you previously argued in favor of using power data to identify those who should be more closely scrutinized for doping? Doesn't that depend upon accurate power measurement in the first place?)



Boardman's Superman hour still stands, doesn't it?

Or perhaps a better comparison: his ultimate hour has only been topped (barely) by Sosenka, despite the fact that his (Boardman's) power was ~10% lower than during his Superman effort. You also can't say that this is entirely due to lack of interest, e.g., both before and after Comeback 2.0 Armstrong himself did a fair bit of testing/planning for an attempt, with the conclusion being "he can't do it".

Stop trolling. SoS never claimed Boardman's power at 6.4 W/kg was incorrect, but rather that the value you plucked out of your rear orifice of 9W/kg was incorrect (where were the "quality data" to back this up?). Boardman's hour at 6.4W/kg tallies very well with a limit for 3rd week tour mountains of ~6-6.2W/kg (riders able to hold 80-90% of VO2max at the end of a long stage).

 

[Colonel]

Once again Andy shows what a **** he really is by trying to belittle anyone else as if he is the only 1 who knows anything. **** poor from a academic bully who is threatend by anyone else with knowledge and Ross has plenty more imho.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Once again Andy shows what a **** he really is by trying to belittle anyone else as if he is the only 1 who knows anything. **** poor from a academic bully who is threatend by anyone else with knowledge and Ross has plenty more imho.

Offending others is all you can contribute to this topic? Why don´t you go to other threads where pipo fight each other?
Pipo like you spoil every thread, but have nothing to say. Shame on you....

... up to now it was a good interesting read

 

[The Science of Sport]

(BTW, don't you think it is a bit disingenuous of you to argue that Boardman's SRM data must be wrong, then in the same post ballyhoo the power data from some of the better riders in recent Tours? As well, haven't you previously argued in favor of using power data to identify those who should be more closely scrutinized for doping? Doesn't that depend upon accurate power measurement in the first place?)

Stop trolling. SoS never claimed Boardman's power at 6.4 W/kg was incorrect, but rather that the value you plucked out of your rear orifice of 9W/kg was incorrect (where were the "quality data" to back this up?). Boardman's hour at 6.4W/kg tallies very well with a limit for 3rd week tour mountains of ~6-6.2W/kg (riders able to hold 80-90% of VO2max at the end of a long stage).

I agree, when did I say Boardman's power output was incorrect? The point I was making is that if those assumptions of physiology predict a power output of 9W/kg, and someone who is the fastest ever (legitimately) is riding 6.4 W/kg, then you have to assess those theories, surely. The basis for all science is hypothesis which is tested with data, and so one can create these hypotheses about what kind of efficiency, VO2max and relative intensity the best cyclists can maintain, but when the data (be it measured as SRM or inferred as in the case of Boardman) show a power output so different, then either the data is incorrect (which I think less likely), or the hypothesis needs revision.

That's all. And nowhere have I "ballyhoo'd" the power data from other riders? I don't even know the context that would help me understand what that means? I was merely saying that these men, the best cyclists alive, are pretty far off your theoretically predicted limits, which again make me wonder about the theory. Something is wrong with the picture that has the best cyclists producing only 70% of the power output that a model would predict. If you stick by that model, then you have to justify why what is being observed misses the mark by so far. Why, if the possible power output is 9W/kg as you've argued, do we see power outputs so much lower? The answer is that those assumptions don't hold across the board - they don't ride 90% of max, they don't have VO2max values in the 90s and they don't have efficiencies above 25%. In fact, while I'm at, the question is - why are the guys riding 10% slower than a few years ago? That, after all, was the context of how this debate began, all of 12 months ago.

Basically, I'm raising this to show that one has to decide one of two things: either the cyclists are weak (which I don't think - you seem to have interpreted this as what I was saying), or your assumptions of performance are wrong. I think it's pretty clear. And once that connection is made, then one starts to gain insight to interpret the 90s and early 2000s, physiologically speaking. I think it's an interesting argument, and if something adds insight, then I'm all for it. For the future, I do believe that a performance profile, complementary to the biological passport profile, would be effective. The best men are riding at around 6W/kg. And as Bumeington says, it's pretty much what one might expect.

And absolutely, let's measure power output accurately. The introduction of the concept is the starting point, no? The principle doesn't fail because its application is being improved all the time.

Ross

 

[JPM London]

Plateau de Beille : TOP 10 - list

1) Marco Pantani ITA , 43:30 , Tour 1998
2) Alberto Contador ESP , 44:17 , Tour 2007
3) Michael Rasmussen DEN , 44:17 , Tour 2007
4) Mauricio Soler COL , 44:53 , Tour 2007
5) Levi Leipheimer USA , 44:57 , Tour 2007
6) Bobby Julich USA , 45:03 , Tour 1998
7) Michael Boogerd NED , 45:03 , Tour 1998
8) Leonardo Piepoli ITA , 45:03 , Tour 1998
9) Fernando Escartin ESP , 45:03 , Tour 1998
10) Christophe Rinero FRA , 45:03 , Tour 1998

Lance Armstrong USA , 45:40 , Tour 2004
Ivan Basso USA , 45:40 , Tour 2004

Lance Armstrong USA , 45:55 , Tour 2002


See you on Saturday!

Don't forget that Pantani's climb was a bit shorter... In "reality" his time is probably not top of the list if this is taken into consideration...

Any times yet?