Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Le breton]

Times should be slower, when we rarely see a good old mountain train these days, and not once this month. Even if the numbers of the tops might still be a bit hard to believe for some, it seems to me that the blood doesn't run as thick down the hierarchy of the team.

What about Alberto/Andy on Telegraphe?

Well Ferminal. I couldn't resist doing a first estimate for you.

When I did it with my Powertap on Oct 10th 2001, with a temperature of 13°C, I produced 676 Powertap kJ ( 693 SRM kJ) in 49'19". Total weight 72 kg.

Now I will just use analyticcycling.com which gives 417 watts for 67+8 kg.
That is 417 x 1.025 = 428 SRM watts
(I Used Crr = 0.004 and air density 1.06 g/cm^3 //CdA =0.375 m^2))
distance 12.1 km, altitude gain 854 m. time 30:40 (v=6.58 m/s)

energy expenditure for 75 kg ==> 428 X 1840 = 787 kJ.

So 428/67 kg = 6.38 watts/kg.

I let people calculate for themselves whether all those numbers are consistent.
With his out of the saddle style, it could be that Contador's CdA is in fact a little bit bigger.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I do not believe the 40:24 mentioned is humanly possible, with fresh legs. With tired legs certainly not. Ha! What would a fresh Schleck have done, 39 minutes.

I still stand by Sorensen's FTP of 5.8 watts per kilo measured using his SRM power meter spot on accuracy, no arguments.....

40:24 would mean ~ 5.8W/kg.

 

[BigBoat]

40:24 would mean ~ 5.8W/kg.

Yes a genetic freak can get a sub 41 minute.....but after 3 weeks when power has dropped its extremely unlikely.

40 flat, yeah he he. Who seriously has an un-doped 92 V02 max. Like nobody. Yet all these guys claim they do and that their totally clean. The hypocrisy is sick.

I can tell you one thing thats completely honest, If I was a Tour pro right now I sure the hell wouldnt lead my fans on that I'm not doped. I'd seal the lips and not talk about it. Thats some real class.

Making oneself out to be superhuman is gutless.

 

[Le breton]

Yes a genetic freak can get a sub 41 minute.....but after 3 weeks when power has dropped its extremely unlikely.

40 flat, yeah he he. Who seriously has an un-doped 92 V02 max. Like nobody. Yet all these guys claim they do and that their totally clean. The hypocrisy is sick.

I can tell you one thing thats completely honest, If I was a Tour pro right now I sure the hell wouldnt lead my fans on that I'm not doped. I'd seal the lips and not talk about it. Thats some real class.

Making oneself out to be superhuman is gutless.

What are we seeing?
Contador climbs the Telegraph all out at 6.38 watts/kg (30 min. effort), 1st climb of the day.

A few years back Pantani was climbing AdH after a few hard passes at about 6.9 watts/kg, while L.A. was between 6.6 and 6.7 watts/kg.

To do 6.38 watts/kg at 92% VO2 max you probably need a VO2 max of roughly 87 ml/mn.kg, not a VO2 max of > 92 ml.

It is quite likely that a few of the TdF top contenders have a clean VO2 max approaching 90 ml/mn.kg.

I was shocked to see throngs climbing AdH in less than 40 min. at the end of a hard stage, but not so much seeing a few top guys doing it in about 42 min after a shorter stage.

 

[acoggan]

Contador climbs the Telegraph all out at 6.38 watts/kg

...which is consistent with a number of his previous performances.

 

[Duartista]

Interesting thread.

If it helps, L'Equipe published official times for the top 10 this morning. Here they are:

Sanchez: 41.45
Contador: 41.54
Rolland: 42.22
Evans/ Schleck group: 42.28
Danielson: 42.46

Plus Voeckler: 44.53

 

[simoni]

http://twitpic.com/5u6vcz ADH times

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/07/tour-2011-alp-dhuez-leaving-mountains.html SOS take on matters

 

[Escarabajo]

http://twitpic.com/5u6vcz ADH times

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/07/tour-2011-alp-dhuez-leaving-mountains.html SOS take on matters

Thanks for posting the link.

Here is their conclusion:

Science of Sport
If you want the summary though, the times yesterday do little to dissuade me of the view that performances are universally slower, and by a considerable amount. Of course there are tactics, and there are varying conditions, but consider for example that all three regularly completed HC climbs in this Tour have been over three minutes slower in this Tour than were seen the 1990s and 2000s. And not a single HC climb in the last two Tours have been done at anything close to 6.2 W/kg, let alone the 6.4 W/kg seen in years gone by.

And so the combination of performance times decreasing, the physiological implications of those performances and the bio-passport data suggest progress in the anti-doping fight - only more time will confirm or disprove that hypothesis. For more, check the bottom of the post.

Maybe we need to accept that times are changing for the better. Not completely clean (100%) but limited.

 

[Le breton]

Interesting thread.

If it helps, L'Equipe published official times for the top 10 this morning. Here they are:

Sanchez: 41.45
Contador: 41.54
Rolland: 42.22
Evans/ Schleck group: 42.28
Danielson: 42.46

Plus Voeckler: 44.53

Which means that they do the timing at the bottom about 150-200 meters before the the curve to the left that is the real start of the climb.

 

[Franklin]

I'm a huge sceptic, but the evidence seems to be there.

Last years were already odd (we had to use wind and other factors to get lance like wattages), but this year seems to really hammer it down.. the sport is getting cleaner.

And maybe it's a coincidence, it's a lot more fun.



*And it should drive the nail through the last Lance was clean fiction.

 

[Winterfold]

le breton 49 is serious **** - chapeau

 

[MacRoadie]

From the Power Data Estimates thread:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=623142&postcount=427

Interesting thread.

If it helps, L'Equipe published official times for the top 10 this morning. Here they are:

Sanchez: 41.45
Contador: 41.54
Rolland: 42.22
Evans/ Schleck group: 42.28
Danielson: 42.46

Plus Voeckler: 44.53

 

[hrotha]

Well, saying he was "destroying" them is hyperbole to say the least (*cough*), but on the other hand, Voeckler destroyed himself by riding like a moron on the Galibier and being more concerned with putting on a show, grimacing and riding on the big ring than with finishing as highly placed as possible. His demise was tactical. Had he stayed with Evans, and considering his time trial today, he would have been on the podium.

edit: Wait, where did the post I was replying to go?

 

[MacRoadie]

Well, saying he was "destroying" them is hyperbole to say the least (*cough*), but on the other hand, Voeckler destroyed himself by riding like a moron on the Galibier and being more concerned with putting on a show, grimacing and riding on the big ring than with finishing as highly placed as possible. His demise was tactical. Had he stayed with Evans, and considering his time trial today, he would have been on the podium.

I deleted the post because I meant to put it in the Voeckler thread. I removed the "destroyed" part because whoever said it in the first place has no clue and quoting them, even sarcastically, might make them feel validated.

 

[hrotha]

I deleted the post because I meant to put it in the Voeckler thread. I removed the "destroyed" part because whoever said it in the first place has no clue and quoting them, even sarcastically, might make them feel validated.

Okay, I deleted it too. I'd post it in the other thread but without the "destroyed" bit my response is not really relevant. Now I'll delete this post too, after you see it and delete your above post.

(And we can stop there, lest we delete the whole forum)

 

[Le breton]

Times should be slower, ..........

What about Alberto/Andy on Telegraphe?

On to Galibier.
The first part of Galibier, until Plan Lachat, or rather the bridge over the river right after Plan Lachat located at 1987m could give rise to serious errors in calculation as the top guys do several km above 30 km/h, and even 1 km at about 37 km/h.

However the last part from plan Lachat to the tunnel at 2556 m lends itself to calculation and the wind is less of a factor there (switchbacks, lower air density)

The elevation is 2556-1987 = 569 m., the distance = 6.9 km
time 16:19:00 - 15:56:18 = 22:42 = 1362 sec.
v = 5.066 m/s slope 8.25%
Air density ~ 0.95 g/cm^3
Result for 75 kg ( including bike) = 345 watts
Add 2.5% for transmission losses and comparison with SRM data = 354 watts

Giving a total energy expenditure of 482 kJ

and 345 / 67 = 5.15 watts /kg.

The average altitude being 2270 m., we should add 10% to compare with low altitude efforts, which yields

1.1 X 5.15 = 5.67 watts/kg and 380 watts for a 67 kg cyclist.

In other words, we have a drop in equivalent power of about (6.38-5.67)/6.37 = 11 % between the first 30 min of an almost all out ~80 min effort and the last 22-23 minutes.

FWIW : If I do the same calculation for my own case and for that Galibier ride of Oct 12, 2001 I mentioned earlier, the drop was 12% ( but my effort was less intense but longer.

In 1993 the leaders (rominger, indurain) climbed that section, but with the added 90 meter elevation to the top of the Galibier pass in 25:40, implying that they reached the tunnel in about 21:50, ie 50 sec faster than Contador.

I also have Pantani 98 time somewhere, but can't remember where.

 

[roundabout]

Pantani's time would be interesting if you can find it. If I remember correctly he went quite late on the Galibier but got a huge gap over Ullrich etc over the top.

 

[Ferminal]

On to Galibier.

Giving a total energy expenditure of 482 kJ

and 345 / 67 = 5.15 watts /kg.

The average altitude being 2270 m., we should add 10% to compare with low altitude efforts, which yields

1.1 X 5.15 = 5.67 watts/kg and 380 watts for a 67 kg cyclist.

Thanks.

They were slower on Galibier were they not, than Sanchez and Evans?

 

[Le breton]

Thanks.

They were slower on Galibier were they not, than Sanchez and Evans?

I think you are right, but I was concentrating on noting down the GPS times of the leaders on each km.

I did find a note for Plan Lachat to the top of Galibier saying
1999 Armstrong group: 24:50 (50 s faster than rominger-indurain)
1998 Pantani 22 minutes, no seconds noted.

Which means that a clone of Pantani 1998 riding in the rain, and starting in Plan Lachat with Contador 2011 would already have reached the top of the Galibier pass at 2645 m before Contador would have entered the tunnel at 2556 m! Insanely fast, and yes he only attacked like 4 or 5 km from the top.

I was offered a VHS video of the TdF98 highlights after the Tour, never even opened it as I was so disgusted with the whole circus.

The fact that I did not note down seconds for Pantani just means that i didn't manage to get a more precise measurement.

 

[roundabout]

Thanks for the 1998 time and 1999 as well which to me was quite fast considering the bad weather and still about 65km from the top of the Galibier to the finish. They did ride Galibier pretty aggressively in 1999 with Virenque and co being the main animators.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

I think you are right, but I was concentrating on noting down the GPS times of the leaders on each km.

I did find a note for Plan Lachat to the top of Galibier saying
1999 Armstrong group: 24:50 (50 s faster than rominger-indurain)
1998 Pantani 22 minutes, no seconds noted.

Which means that a clone of Pantani 1998 riding in the rain, and starting in Plan Lachat with Contador 2011 would already have reached the top of the Galibier pass at 2645 m before Contador would have entered the tunnel at 2556 m! Insanely fast, and yes he only attacked like 4 or 5 km from the top.

I was offered a VHS video of the TdF98 highlights after the Tour, never even opened it as I was so disgusted with the whole circus.

The fact that I did not note down seconds for Pantani just means that i didn't manage to get a more precise measurement.

Yeah, but a 2011 Contador (while obviously no match for a 1998 Pantani) attacked early on the Telegraphe... went full gas on that climb, and had to do most of the work in the valley leading up to the steeper part of the Galibier. So you can't really compare the two.

 

[Le breton]

Yeah, but a 2011 Contador (while obviously no match for a 1998 Pantani) attacked early on the Telegraphe... went full gas on that climb, and had to do most of the work in the valley leading up to the steeper part of the Galibier. So you can't really compare the two.

I gues you don't understand the purpose of my post, it's disappointing but hardly surprising maybe.

 

[indurain666]

Yeah, but a 2011 Contador (while obviously no match for a 1998 Pantani) attacked early on the Telegraphe... went full gas on that climb, and had to do most of the work in the valley leading up to the steeper part of the Galibier. So you can't really compare the two.

Lol, you totally missed it!

 

[gregrowlerson]

I haven't looked too much into all the stats, but approx. 3 minutes slower on the Alp then in '06 (Landis and Kloden) and around 2 minutes slower on PDB then in '04 (Armstrong and Basso) strongly suggests that the Tour was a lot cleaner this year. It would be interesting to compare the times on these 2 MTF's plus Luz Ardiden, to journeys up the same climbs before 1990. Could mean that EPO, or anything too EPO related has now been removed from the peleton. Doping at some level will still exist, but it seems a lot less prevalent nowadays.

 

[Oldman]

I haven't looked too much into all the stats, but approx. 3 minutes slower on the Alp then in '06 (Landis and Kloden) and around 2 minutes slower on PDB then in '04 (Armstrong and Basso) strongly suggests that the Tour was a lot cleaner this year. It would be interesting to compare the times on these 2 MTF's plus Luz Ardiden, to journeys up the same climbs before 1990. Could mean that EPO, or anything too EPO related has now been removed from the peleton. Doping at some level will still exist, but it seems a lot less prevalent nowadays.

Because I'm cranky and just finished a stage race at altitude I will suggest another evidentiary symptom of a cleaner race...attacks are shorter in duration and the recovery intervals are longer. That's if what I saw on screen is as believable as the mountains of data being analyzed.