• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 155 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Their formula is trash. Overcomplicated but also fails to address the problem of massive weight differences between riders because their standardization method is a joke.
They claim that standardization is the point somehow.

But what gets me most is when they get super eager to adjust for drafting to give Evenepoel the highest W/kg when he got dropped. Then in another calculation thy forget details like not even getting climbing times right on Val Louron because they ignore that McNulty got dropped towards the end.
 
I think overall the watts in this Giro where rather tame. Yeah, Tre Cime was a new record, but unlike 2007 and 2013 they had really nice weather and nothing happened until Cortina (on the 2016 Corvara stage they raced the Giau 2:30 faster, also as the penultimate climb and further away from the finish line and in 2007 Di Luca went 2min faster on the Giau before Tre Cime). I think overall the horrible weather for 2 weeks took a bit of a toll on the riders and they weren't really able to keep their powder dry for the high mountains. I mean, look a how fast 7 riders climbed Monte Baldo in the TotA, that was a high level climbing performance.
 
I think overall the watts in this Giro where rather tame. Yeah, Tre Cime was a new record, but unlike 2007 and 2013 they had really nice weather and nothing happened until Cortina (on the 2016 Corvara stage they raced the Giau 2:30 faster, also as the penultimate climb and further away from the finish line and in 2007 Di Luca went 2min faster on the Giau before Tre Cime). I think overall the horrible weather for 2 weeks took a bit of a toll on the riders and they weren't really able to keep their powder dry for the high mountains. I mean, look a how fast 7 riders climbed Monte Baldo in the TotA, that was a high level climbing performance.
I honestly already think 2013 is an outdated era for watts comparisons anyway. And >2000m average altitude makes it very hard to compare in general to other climbs. My guess it's up there with last years Fedaia. Fedaia had similar W/kg estimates for 4 more minutes, but it's lower and overall a much easier stage.
 
I honestly already think 2013 is an outdated era for watts comparisons anyway. And >2000m average altitude makes it very hard to compare in general to other climbs. My guess it's up there with last years Fedaia. Fedaia had similar W/kg estimates for 4 more minutes, but it's lower and overall a much easier stage.
Yeah, apples and oranges.
That said, an over 36min Giau ascent is the slowest Giau ascent that we have seen this century, that probably played a big part.
 
Also a really long effort, like 54min. You probably need something like Ventoux to compare it to (length and altitude wise), but Ventoux is always a nightmare to compare to other climbs because it's just so exposed to the wind.
>50 minute climbs that are paced hard from bottom to top are pretty rare in the first place. But the fact that it had large patches of flat or near flat just makes it really bad for a direct comparison.

Col de La Loze and Gamoniteiru were both more than 5.9 IIRC, as awas the much higher Col de Portet, even if that one was like 48 minutes.
 
They claim that standardization is the point somehow.

But what gets me most is when they get super eager to adjust for drafting to give Evenepoel the highest W/kg when he got dropped. Then in another calculation thy forget details like not even getting climbing times right on Val Louron because they ignore that McNulty got dropped towards the end.
It doesn't matter if remco is dropped or not. Naichaca is a fanboy of remco, so he always finds a way to put remco with a highest w/kg.
 
It just gets more confusing to me, it's and adjustment that's unnecessary.

And I think they standardize for 60kg, which basically tells you they just do it to make the number look higher.
They standardize for 60 kg, ammattipyoraily to 65 kg, but when they calculate for climbs above 30 min, the results of w/kg are similar to the results of ammattipyoraily.
They said that vingegaard did 6.3 w/kg hautacam, the same result that ammattipyoraily calculated. It doesn't make sense if the standardization is different.
 
They standardize for 60 kg, ammattipyoraily to 65 kg, but when they calculate for climbs above 30 min, the results of w/kg are similar to the results of ammattipyoraily.
They said that vingegaard did 6.3 w/kg hautacam, the same result that ammattipyoraily calculated. It doesn't make sense if the standardization is different.

because for longer efforts the difference in weight matters less. the main reason a 60kg rider would have to do a higher w/kg than a 65kg rider is because the weight of the bikes are the same, but the percentage of total weight of the bike for a lighter rider is greater. as the distances get longer the w/kg estimates get closer together. so maybe the 60kg rider does 6.3 and the 65kg rider does 6.28 or something. ultimately the estimate is not trying to be *exact* because it doesn't need to be, it is just a ballpark number to try to see how fast the climb was and how it compares to similar efforts historically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy schleck
because for longer efforts the difference in weight matters less. the main reason a 60kg rider would have to do a higher w/kg than a 65kg rider is because the weight of the bikes are the same, but the percentage of total weight of the bike for a lighter rider is greater. as the distances get longer the w/kg estimates get closer together. so maybe the 60kg rider does 6.3 and the 65kg rider does 6.28 or something. ultimately the estimate is not trying to be *exact* because it doesn't need to be, it is just a ballpark number to try to see how fast the climb was and how it compares to similar efforts historically.
Thanks for the explanation.
 
because for longer efforts the difference in weight matters less. the main reason a 60kg rider would have to do a higher w/kg than a 65kg rider is because the weight of the bikes are the same, but the percentage of total weight of the bike for a lighter rider is greater. as the distances get longer the w/kg estimates get closer together. so maybe the 60kg rider does 6.3 and the 65kg rider does 6.28 or something. ultimately the estimate is not trying to be *exact* because it doesn't need to be, it is just a ballpark number to try to see how fast the climb was and how it compares to similar efforts historically.
Exactly how does that work?

Because even LR explanation doesn't mention any of that.
 
Exactly how does that work?

Because even LR explanation doesn't mention any of that.
LR heavily emphasize drafting. Sometimes. When they want to emphasize it. And then sometimes they completely ignore drafting when they're lazy. I think that's a pretty big explanation of some of their very high estimates. And some headwind numbers. I can recall at least 3 different climbs where they gave Evenepoel the highest W/kg despite getting dropped, including Sierra Nevada which where he dropped like 45 seconds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhiLiz

When adjusting Vingegaard's performance to sea level, his effort today would be equal to 7.18 ᵉW/Kg
For 18 minutes.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: FroomeWagon


For 18 minutes.
I don't want to be disrespectfull for pogacar, but like i said, Vingegaard will lose this tour only if he crashes. There will be no chance in the long climbs. Jumbo created a monster for long climbs.
 


For 18 minutes.
Those adjusted calculations take it a bit too far. They’re extrapolating extrapolations of extrapolations. Did they factor in the 8W (.13W/kg) he saved by lower air resistance at altitude, or what his ambient body weight was? Huge regardless though.
 
Those adjusted calculations take it a bit too far. They’re extrapolating extrapolations of extrapolations. Did they factor in the 8W (.13W/kg) he saved by lower air resistance at altitude, or what his ambient body weight was? Huge regardless though.
The biggest question mark hanging over the altitude adjusted numbers is the individual response to altitude. Colombians clearly have an advantage there, as do sherpas (although we haven't got a sherpa on a bike yet AFAIK). My experience tells me that even within individuals of European descent, there's a lot of variation in terms of altitude response. But we can say that Vingo is doing at 2000m what very few in the peloton can muster even at sea level.
 
The biggest question mark hanging over the altitude adjusted numbers is the individual response to altitude. Colombians clearly have an advantage there, as do sherpas (although we haven't got a sherpa on a bike yet AFAIK). My experience tells me that even within individuals of European descent, there's a lot of variation in terms of altitude response. But we can say that Vingo is doing at 2000m what very few in the peloton can muster even at sea level.
Vingegaard is better than the colombians in the altitude.
 

TRENDING THREADS