Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Some may not be aware, but in other forums we've already had examples of "data doping" in an effort to prove something that wasn't. I'm not sure we need to introduce something that is readily corruptible into the anti-doping fight.

Pro riders are already on the watch list.

 

[Race Radio]

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.

yup. You would think at this point he would be embarrassed into stopping this silliness.

 

[Le breton]

Plateau de Beille : TOP 10 - list

1Ivan Basso USA , 45:40 , Tour 2004

[/I]

Which Ivan Basso is that?

 

[RChung]

Wind conditions?

Too bad there isn't some way to mount a wind speed and direction recorder to the camera motorcycles.

Some may not be aware, but in other forums we've already had examples of "data doping" in an effort to prove something that wasn't.

That would be both desperate and sad.

 

[Race Radio]

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!

Supposedly today was around 46:30. Anyone see some solid numbers?

 

[131313]

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.

You must not know many professional male cyclists. Personally, I think I'd put estimates with good information on a par with the SRM data from the average professional. I may even give it more credence, depending on the rider.

(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?

In fairness, I think I'm the one who questioned Boardman's data. I still question it. But I also don't think that using PM data to indicate or suggest doping is really a great idea, for several reasons.

As far as Boardman's data, there are a number of questions for me. Was he really clean? Uncomfortable question, but it has to be asked. If you're beating Indurain in a TT, it's a question that must be asked. How accurate was his power meter during the testing, and how accurately are the variables measured for the record estimate (track conditions, rolling resistance). I understand that Peter Keen wasn't an amateur when it came to this stuff, and was probably more rigorous than almost anyone at the time. But still, Boardman didn't ride the event with a power meter, so you have to question if there's any variability in the estimation.

I'm not saying Boardman was doping, and I'm not saying the estimate is wrong. I'm just asking the question. I'll admit though I do find it curious that even Armstrong's l'alpe TT is estimated to be at 6.4 w/kg for a shorter period of time. And whatever people say about him, he was clearly the most dominant tour rider in history. And a walking pharmacy. Allegedly...

 

[131313]

Supposedly today was around 46:30. Anyone see some solid numbers?

yeah. Less than Horner up Sierra.

Karma's a real b!tch.

 

[Sophistic]

46:30 would mean about 5.9 Watt/kg

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

El Pistolero listed Vandendert's time as 46:04 in the How dirty is Lotto-thread.

 

[halamala]

El Pistolero listed Vandendert's time as 46:04 in the How dirty is Lotto-thread.

I got 46:06. So it's almost certainly about 46:04 - 46:06.

 

[The Science of Sport]

Some may not be aware, but in other forums we've already had examples of "data doping" in an effort to prove something that wasn't. I'm not sure we need to introduce something that is readily corruptible into the anti-doping fight.

Pro riders are already on the watch list.

You're missing the point, losing sight of the wood for the trees. The main reason to quantify the power outputs at this stage is to provide some context as to the physiology of the cyclist. There's also the issue of introducing to the sport the improved measurement, which I certainly agree is important. But right now, it's the concept, which I do believe is valuable.

I appreciate that you're an engineer or have that background. Mine is physiology, and I think it's very valuable (and interesting) to know, for example, the physiological implications of riding at 6.4W/kg are X, Y and Z... And that knowing that these implications break the boundaries or do not, I think there's physiological value in that.

In terms of using it as an anti-doping fight, I disagree, but that's fine. But it's not reason to dismiss it as readily as you are prepared to. I think the question of the physiology of the performance is fascinating and potentially valuable. Limitations? Of course, nobody is saying there are not. But there is context, and there is insight, and I don't think that measuring (getting rid of the "corruptibility", to borrow the phrase) the power output does anything negative to the doping fight.

As far as I can tell, the revelation and realization that the performances we are seeing this year (and last year) are physiologically plausible gives cause for optimism. They're a good thing for the sport. If you know that a power output of 6 W/kg implies physiology that is acceptable, then it helps the sport. Burying the head in the sand because of recognized problems? That helps even fewer people than discussing a concept that has merit

And just to add, conceptually, if we understand hematology and blood physiology sufficiently to be able to develop a biological passport system that identifies the underlying markers of doping, despite the complexity, then to me, it's actually pretty easy to develop a performance passport profile that uses performance changes over time to track the same markers. Everyone should be able to appreciate the complexity of performance, but that's not difficult to deal with - it just means the interpretation of data should be tempered, its context always remembers.

Now I don't know which threads these are, and nor do I know what "data doping" means. It implies something other than what I think you mean. But I believe that the physiological implications of physical performance are accurate and clear. The issue is the accurate measurement, and I gladly concede that. But as I said to Andrew Coggan yesterday, everything we do is based on certain assumptions - if businessmen adopted the approach of "incorruptible" projections, no decisions would ever be made. If one makes assumptions that are stacked in favour of the rider (or against the prospective business, to use the analogy), then the outcome has tremendous meaning.

And again, to finish up, the suggestion that the sport is cleaner can be made based on times. That we're seeing a climb today that is 3 minutes slower than a decade ago is enough evidence of that. But there's always deeper, there's always the physiological implications. And whether it be interest, or the possibility of using the info to help the fight against doping, dismissing it seems to me a little myopic. If it's the "readily corruptible" that is the problem, let's fix it.

Ross

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

You're missing the point, losing sight of the wood for the trees. The main reason to quantify the power outputs at this stage is to provide some context as to the physiology of the cyclist. There's also the issue of introducing to the sport the improved measurement, which I certainly agree is important. But right now, it's the concept, which I do believe is valuable.

I agree it's valuable to understand physiology of a cyclist, and I'm certainly seeing the forest. I have a lot of practical experience in the measurement of power and the factors that influence it, and that is why I think we need to be very careful when extending it to the issue of doping.

I appreciate that you're an engineer or have that background. Mine is physiology, and

My background is neither engineering nor physiology. Not entirely sure what to call my background.

I'm a full time professional cycling coach and competitor^ who uses power meters extensively and have been examining power data for many years. I also sell SRM power meters and jointly run a power based training centre for cyclists and triathletes. My undergraduate studies were physics and maths and I had a previous careers in business (corporate strategy and sales, client management and performance analysis) and government (international trade).

As far as the physics, physiology, psychology, proficiency and performance management as they pertain to cycling, I am largely self read/taught (with a lot of excellent help from some pretty smart guys, some of whom occasionally pop in here). That's born of a passion for cycle racing and I enjoy the numbers as much as the next bloke.

^ I'm just a Masters age racer now (a masters fattie ), and more recently a paracycling competitor after an accident in 2007 resulted in a trans-tibial amputation. I've managed to race at UCI World Cup level since but am of fairly average physiology. Probably unique in having seasons of power meter data from before and after an amputation (which has implications for assessing what such a disability means for cycling performance, but I digress). I've read your Pistorius posts with personal interest.

I think it's very valuable (and interesting) to know, for example, the physiological implications of riding at 6.4W/kg are X, Y and Z... And that knowing that these implications break the boundaries or do not, I think there's physiological value in that.

I agree there is physiological value. The physiology and power stuff is hardly new though.

In terms of using it as an anti-doping fight, I disagree, but that's fine. But it's not reason to dismiss it as readily as you are prepared to. I think the question of the physiology of the performance is fascinating and potentially valuable. Limitations? Of course, nobody is saying there are not. But there is context, and there is insight, and I don't think that measuring (getting rid of the "corruptibility", to borrow the phrase) the power output does anything negative to the doping fight.

I'm not dismissing it. I'm trying to see how a rider's power output is adding anything additional to what is already obvious - they are a Pro, their performance is what it is and they will already be a target for anti-doping efforts.

The only way to prove doping is to find it. Prevention in the first place is another matter, and needs a multi-pronged approach.

As far as I can tell, the revelation and realization that the performances we are seeing this year (and last year) are physiologically plausible gives cause for optimism. They're a good thing for the sport. If you know that a power output of 6 W/kg implies physiology that is acceptable, then it helps the sport. Burying the head in the sand because of recognized problems? That helps even fewer people than discussing a concept that has merit

Who is to say what's physiological possible is a static thing though?

All sports have their "freaks". Did Don Bradman dope? He was clearly vastly superior than any other player there ever was or probably ever will be (OK, it's a more a skill sport than an athletic one, but still...).

My head is not in the sand. Just trying to be practical as it pertains to in what way power data can/should be used.

And just to add, conceptually, if we understand hematology and blood physiology sufficiently to be able to develop a biological passport system that identifies the underlying markers of doping, despite the complexity, then to me, it's actually pretty easy to develop a performance passport profile that uses performance changes over time to track the same markers. Everyone should be able to appreciate the complexity of performance, but that's not difficult to deal with - it just means the interpretation of data should be tempered, its context always remembers.

We already know the performance of riders. It's called race results.

Now I don't know which threads these are, and nor do I know what "data doping" means. It implies something other than what I think you mean.

To clarify, it's a term I coined (I have no idea if it's original though) to mean the deliberate falsification or misrepresentation of power meter data*.

We have already seen it happen. As Robert Chung noted, it's sad. In fact it was Robert Chung whose forensic data analysis abilities spotted one such example. But there are others that such methods won't pick up.

We don't need the already too thin anti-doping resources** diverted to managing data doping. They already know who to target.


* it's when you realise that the very means to ensure accuracy of power meter data are also their weakest link in controlling the tampering of such data.

** as an example, in Australia, a sports mad and wealthy country, with professional and elite sportsmen and women that perform across dozens of sports (AFL, NRL, Rugby, soccer, netball, athletics, swimming, basketball, cricket, golf etc etc) with an active anti doping agency (compared to many less wealthy nations) - there are only sufficient resouces to perform ~6,000 actual doping tests annually.

That we're seeing a climb today that is 3 minutes slower than a decade ago is enough evidence of that.

Maybe. It looked pretty windy to me. Lot of horizontal flags. Which is why I asked for the context of weather conditions on the previous climbs so we can put the data in context.

And whether it be interest, or the possibility of using the info to help the fight against doping, dismissing it seems to me a little myopic. If it's the "readily corruptible" that is the problem, let's fix it.

I think my vision is OK.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Too bad there isn't some way to mount a wind speed and direction recorder to the camera motorcycles.

That's a thought, although I was thinking Moto GP and superbikes (one presumes they are interested in aerodynamics & impact of wind). Mind you, I can't see it happening for the purpose being discussed in this thread.

Just on that, I'll be in Montreal in Sept to spend some time with Andy F.

 

[AeroAdvantage]

Figures are approximate. Hand timed with a stop watch :

Plateau de Beille : 15.8 km

Jelle Vanendert : 0:46:04

Thomas Voeckler : 0:46:52

 

[RChung]

That's a thought [...] Mind you, I can't see it happening for the purpose being discussed in this thread.

It's not true wind speed and direction but there're ways to figure out virtual wind.

Just on that, I'll be in Montreal in Sept to spend some time with Andy F.

Sounds interesting and fun. Wish I could join you.

 

[Exroadman24902]

This TDF is cleanish and you will see it on Friday...not one rider will break 40 minutes on Alpe D'huez...if anyone freak goes sub 40, test them night and day

 

[BigBoat]

No need to estimate power based on speed.........Sorensen takes care of that as he usually does. Midpack rider, maybe top 35 places if he was allowed to go flat out for G.C.

5.75 watts per kilo at FTP......http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...tour-de-france_183209/attachment/castttwkotdf


Top riders are atleast 6.2 watts per kilo if thats where Sorensen's at in my humble opinion. Typically thats the curve you see in a stage race. Blood doped with their own blood albeit maybe only to a 52% crit.

If Andy Schleck has 6.3 watts per kilo you will NOT get top 30 clean no matter how much talent.......because just look at all the riders who can keep up with him, it looked like half the field riding together in the Plateau de Beille.

I'm sorry to be 'harsh' and I know people will disagree but just look at the power of an "average" workhorse.

 

[Merckx index]

No need to estimate power based on speed

Correct, all you need is vertical height and time. Unless you want to bring in wind resistance, rolling resistance, wind speed, etc., but those factors have not been in the recent posts here. So all that's needed is VAM.

Sorensen takes care of that as he usually does. Midpack rider, maybe top 35 places if he was allowed to go flat out for G.C.

5.75 watts per kilo at FTP......http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...tour-de-france_183209/attachment/castttwkotdf


Top riders are atleast 6.2 watts per kilo if thats where Sorensen's at in my humble opinion.

If Andy Schleck has 6.3 watts per kilo you will NOT get top 30 clean no matter how much talent.......because just look at all the riders who can keep up with him, it looked like half the field riding together in the Plateau de Beille.

I'm sorry to be 'harsh' and I know people will disagree but just look at the power of an "average" workhorse.

The top rider up PdB was under 6.0 watts/kg. I'm pretty sure no rider has been over 6.0 on any MTF so far in this year's Tour, unless strong headwinds have seriously skewed the times.

Sorensen's TTT power should be quite high, because the entire race was over in about 25', and he was only on the front for a few minutes during that period. In fact, his power data seem kind of low, considering how short a time he was going all out. In a short Prologue a few years ago, Cancellara put out something like 700 watts, IIRC. And for a pull of a couple of minutes on a TTT, I'm sure he could go higher.

 

[karlboss]

No need to estimate power based on speed.........Sorensen takes care of that as he usually does. Midpack rider, maybe top 35 places if he was allowed to go flat out for G.C.

5.75 watts per kilo at FTP......http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...tour-de-france_183209/attachment/castttwkotdf


Top riders are atleast 6.2 watts per kilo if thats where Sorensen's at in my humble opinion. Typically thats the curve you see in a stage race. Blood doped with their own blood albeit maybe only to a 52% crit.

If Andy Schleck has 6.3 watts per kilo you will NOT get top 30 clean no matter how much talent.......because just look at all the riders who can keep up with him, it looked like half the field riding together in the Plateau de Beille.

I'm sorry to be 'harsh' and I know people will disagree but just look at the power of an "average" workhorse.

If Andy Schleck is at 6.3w/kg, you are right, but I'd guess Andy rode his best ride on tourmalet last year and over 50 minutes what was his power to weight as estimated by VAM and comparison to Horner's SRM?

 

[Sophistic]

AC & AS avg bout 6.0 w/kg at the Tourmalet. And about the 52%crit...Basso won the Giro last year with 43% at the Start, 40% in the 2nd Werk and 38% at the end.

 

[davestoller]

Ferrari:


In the 12th stage the main group climbed the Tourmalet in 48’40” (VAM = 1540m/h); Franck Schleck rode the final climb to Luz-Ardiden in 37’15” (1584m/h), slightly ahead of all the main rivals.
In the last 10 km of the climb, his VAM was 1624 m/h on a 7.8% gradient, equal to 5.84 w/kg.

In the 14th stage, after 5 categorized climbs, the winner Vanendert did the final ascent to Plateau de Beille in 46’01” (1627 m/h = 5.85w/kg); the group of favorites did it at 1600m/h (5.75 w/kg).

Voeckler is in great shape, as is the whole Europcar team, and he managed to climb Plateau de Beille 4 minutes faster than he did in 2004, when he successfully defended the yellow jersey from Lance Armstrong, who climbed it together with Basso in 45’ (1664 m/h).

The climbing performances have therefore been remarkably inferior to the ones expressed recently at the Dauphiné and Tour de Suisse, more or less by the same riders:

- on the climb to Les Gets (940m difference in height at 8.4%) the best riders (Gesink, Vino, Wiggins, Evans) did 1700-1740 m/h;

- on the Triesenberg ascent (1150m difference in height at 8.8%) Cunego and Leipheimer expressed a VAM = 1725 m/h.

?????

 

[Le breton]

..........
The climbing performances have therefore been remarkably inferior to the ones expressed recently at the Dauphiné and Tour de Suisse, more or less by the same riders:

- on the climb to Les Gets (940m difference in height at 8.4%) the best riders (Gesink, Vino, Wiggins, Evans) did 1700-1740 m/h;

.........

I don't know which climb you have in mind, can't be "Les Gets"

Anyway this year's Dauphiné was discussed around page 26, ie about 10 pages back in this thread.

 

[halamala]

Frank Schleck climbed 5.7 W/kg

Tour de France 2011, Stage 18, HC climb Col du Galibier [last 8.6 Km, from Lautaret]

Frank Schleck

Elevation / Höhenmeter [m] : 587 m
Distance / Streckenlänge [Km] : 8.6 Km
Time in seconds / Fahrzeit in Sekunden [sec] : 1414 = 23 min 34 sec = 23:34
Weight rider / Gewicht Fahrer [kg] : 67 kg
Weight bicycle, clothes etc. / Gewicht Fahrrad [kg] : 8 kg

Grade / mittlere Seigung : 6.8 %
Average speed / mittlere Geschwindigkeit : 21.8 Km/h
Total weight / Gesamtgewicht : 75.0 kg

Power : 383.1 Watt
Power / kg : 5.7 Watt / kg

Source: [ http://www.rst.mp-all.de/bergauf.htm ]

Note: Strong wind and elevation (from 2058 m to 2645 m)!

------------------------------------------------

Tour de France 2011, Stage 18, HC climb Col du Galibier [from Lautaret]

Distance : 8.6 Km , Elevation : 587 m , Grade : 6.8 %

Fastest times

Frank Schleck 23:34
Cadel Evans 23:42
Ivan Basso 23:45
Thomas Voeckler 23:48
Pierre Rolland 23:54
Rein Taaramae 24:49
Thomas Danielson 24:52
Ryder Hesjedal 24:58
Andy Schleck 25:00 [stage winner]
Christian Vandevelde 25:05
Haimar Zubeldia 25:11
Jelle Vanendert 25:17
Alberto Contador 25:17

 

[OneRaceWonder]

Wow. These guys are really tired this year. Great guts performances by everyone except the groupetto..

 

[Le breton]

Tour de France 2011, Stage 18, HC climb Col du Galibier [last 8.6 Km, from Lautaret]

Frank Schleck

....
Power : 383.1 Watt
Power / kg : 5.7 Watt / kg

Source: [ http://www.rst.mp-all.de/bergauf.htm ]

Note: Strong wind and elevation (from 2058 m to 2645 m)!
-----------------------------
The wind was very strong on the Lautaret, blowing in the usual direction (against racers). However, when you turn right at the top of Lautaret to climb Galibier you are usually protected from the wind and usually feel it really only on a stretch located about 2-3 km from the top.

At an average altitude of 2350 meters the effect of altitude is roughly 10-11% when compared to sea-level.