Looking for the latest race results? - We got you covered right here!
There are charts out there (internet, papers, etc) for riders CdA on roadbikes. I have not seen anything on TT just because depends on each rider position. The other factor is the frontal area which also depends on each rider body and position. For example below are some drag factors that I have used in the past obtained from some old information that I have:How much do we know about riders CdA anyway, both on roadbike and on TT bike.
CD | Frontal Area, A | ||
Vertical commuter | 1.15 | ? | |
Bike Touring (Climbing) | 1.00 | ? | |
Racing | 0.88 | ? | |
TT | 0.69 | ? | |
Drafting | 0.5 | ? | |
Moser Bike | 0.51 | ? |
On the TT bike you can just switch to climbing on the handlebars if it gets too steep. On the handlebars the power difference shouldn't be big at all, the difference should mainly be bike weight, and Vingegaards TT bike was probably not much heavier than a road bike.
However, power loss in TT position is definitely a thing, but it's also an added edge a rider can have, especially if it it affects fatigue later in the ITT. Most riders way underperformed the numbers they would do had it been a 6km Combloux MTT on a road bike. Vingegaard is basically the only one that got close to his other numbers.
In contrast to Vingegaard is Pogacar, who probably had a heavier TT bike, causing him time loss on the first climb, who probably had more loss of power in TT position and thus had to push harder on the flat, in addition to losing time in every corner, and then on top of that had to do a bike change as well as just not having his best day.
It may not have cost Pogacar 30s because of Pogacars power loss in TT position, but if we contrast it to Vingegaard's power loss in TT position it definitely explains a large part of the delta. In the final section the s/min he loses is even bigger than in the KOM section where Pog just ships 15s changing bikes.
He is less than 60 kg in the tour. 58/59 kg.According to his own words Skeletor did 380 watts on the section between climbs, which is 6.33 w/kg (if he's 60 kg). Pretty monstrous for a TT bike and "holding back" (again, his own words). The last uphill section is estimated to be around 7 w/kg (his bike weight cost him some time on the steeper section but he gained aerodynamically on the shallower section so net gain/loss shouldn't be significant). Absolutely thermonuclear performance in the last 20 minutes of around 6.8 w/kg and on a TT bike. The power gap to other guys must've been big. Regardless of cumulated fatigue of his rivals it was one of the best TT performances ever in absolute terms. His first part was also very strong but he probably had some short "rest" on the downhill (which likely wouldn't be a rest for guys with non-alien anaerobic threshold).
He is less than 60 kg in the tour. 58/59 kg.
As per this old table:With an average power of 346w from 9,480 to 12,424 ft, Swenson was riding at 5.3-5.4w/kg,
Taking these tables at face value leads to funny conclusions.Keegan Swenson at Leadville 100 --- power numbers are from power meter uploaded to Strava
As per this old table:
We're looking at roughly 84% of max sea level output, being generous.
So this is effectively a 5.3/0.84 = 6.3 w/kg performance for 43 minutes in the (exact) middle of what's pretty much a 6 hour long time trial.
His efforts on the two subsequent major climbs, of 20 and 14 minutes, were roughly the same power output.
Gee I wonder why he doesn't race World Cups.
Adjusting for altitude is the new hot topic in W/kg calculations for some guys. Even when the numbers you get are way too high for obvious reasons.Taking these tables at face value leads to funny conclusions.
If you compare acclimated vs non acclimated values in Bassett's table, you see that they differ maximally at 8000 feet,
about 2400 meters. 88,6% vs 84,2%, a difference of 4,2%.
Yet, at 14000 feet (about 4200 meters), the values are 71.4% vs 70.4%. A difference of only 1% between the 2 cases,
In my old age I'm not a good subject for such studies anymore, but in my past I've not seen much loss in power below
about 1500 meters. It's likely 3% at most for most people.
To do my own calculations I have a very easy formula which remains very close to actually measured values up to at least 4000 metres.
I simply consider that the efficiency of the human engine remains 100% up to about 1500 meters and
goes down proportionally to the air pressure above that elevation.
Hence human efficiency at altitude X above 1500 meters = Pressure at X meters a.s.l. / Pressure at 1500 meters a.s.l.
The highest I have cycled is 5240 metres. I did a stress test once at 5220 meters a.s.l.
The highest I've raced is 4300 meters (Mount Evans).
Yes, your personal experience is more relevant than all the studies conducted by the armed forces and sports scientists.Taking these tables at face value leads to funny conclusions.
If you compare acclimated vs non acclimated values in Bassett's table, you see that they differ maximally at 8000 feet,
about 2400 meters. 88,6% vs 84,2%, a difference of 4,2%.
Yet, at 14000 feet (about 4200 meters), the values are 71.4% vs 70.4%. A difference of only 1% between the 2 cases,
In my old age I'm not a good subject for such studies anymore, but in my past I've not seen much loss in power below
about 1500 meters. It's likely 3% at most for most people.
To do my own calculations I have a very easy formula which remains very close to actually measured values up to at least 4000 metres.
I simply consider that the efficiency of the human engine remains 100% up to about 1500 meters and
goes down proportionally to the air pressure above that elevation.
Hence human efficiency at altitude X above 1500 meters = Pressure at X meters a.s.l. / Pressure at 1500 meters a.s.l.
The highest I have cycled is 5240 metres. I did a stress test once at 5220 meters a.s.l.
The highest I've raced is 4300 meters (Mount Evans).
And what reasons would those be?Adjusting for altitude is the new hot topic in W/kg calculations for some guys. Even when the numbers you get are way too high for obvious reasons.
If you use a certain calculation, and you get a ludicrous number, you should probably question the validity of the calculation. ~6.2 for a climb starting at sea level for 45 minutes in the middle of a 6 hour gravel race is absolutely insane.Yes, your personal experience is more relevant than all the studies conducted by the armed forces and sports scientists.
And what reasons would those be?
This particular thread is dedicated to numeric predictions based on our best understanding of physics and physiology. You both seem to be denying that altitude affects performance, which is a completely unsubstantiated claim. You will have to work harder to convince anyone of that.
On the subject of VO2 loss with altitude, I found an article than even Proffate could understand :If you use a certain calculation, and you get a ludicrous number, you should probably question the validity of the calculation. ~6.2 for a climb starting at sea level for 45 minutes in the middle of a 6 hour gravel race is absolutely insane.
For starters, it's probably not very useful to know what the average response is to altitude, but what the entire range is.
On the subject of VO2 loss with altitude, I found an article than even Proffate could understand :
which includes the following graphAltitude and acclimatization for the endurance athlete
For well-conditioned athletes, VO2max declines by 6-7% per 1000m gain in elevation within 24 hrs; one third of this can be recovered with 2 weeks acclimatizationthebottlecage.wordpress.com
showing in red the preferred curve of the author for VO2 loss with altitude based on 146 experimental results.
I tried to include my own curve based on the formula which I gave above
human efficiency at altitude X above 1500 meters = Pressure at X meters a.s.l. / Pressure at 1500 meters a.s.l.
Funnily I find that it corresponds exactly to the thin dashed black curve that you see in https://thebottlecage.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/vo2max-vs-altitude-1.jpg?w=487&h=404&zoom=2
maybe somebody has read me even though I never published it (only mentioned it on1 forum or 2.
I was unable to include my desktop picture of said graph so I'll write the values calculated with my formula for VO2 loss
1500 m. 0%
2000 m -6%
2500m -12%
3000m - 17%
3500m - 22%
4000 m -27%
4500 m - 32%
5000 m - 36%
Yes, I agree it is absolutely insane. That is why I posted it here. Is this not what the thread is for? Given that he destroyed the course record by a huge margin after riding solo for 2/3 of the race (which is in fact a disadvantage, despite this being a race ridden on MTBs), I don't think the power numbers alone beggar belief. Is your argument that no high altitude performance can ever be questioned? Why do you give him more benefit of the doubt than you give riders who are laboring under more stringent testing protocols?If you use a certain calculation, and you get a ludicrous number, you should probably question the validity of the calculation. ~6.2 for a climb starting at sea level for 45 minutes in the middle of a 6 hour gravel race is absolutely insane.
For starters, it's probably not very useful to know what the average response is to altitude, but what the entire range is.
Do you have your graph as a file on your computer? If so, what file format?I managed to create an URL for my graph, but didn't succeed in shortening it satisfactorily.
Man that's seriously doped URL.I managed to create an URL for my graph, but didn't succeed in shortening it satisfactorily.
Here it is :
...
Well, it worked this time. Thanks.EDIT: If you open your jpeg file in paint and from there select all and copy it, you should be able to paste that to the online host.
Good to see that it worked out!Well, it worked this time. Thanks.