Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[halamala]

Highest VAM-values what I have calculated (10 Km or longer climbs)

1. 1839 m/h Bjarne Riis, Hautacam, Tour 1996
2. 1826 m/h Jan Ullrich, Arcalis, Tour 1997
3. 1804 m/h Marco Pantani, Mont Ventoux, Tour 1994
4. 1798 m/h Luc Leblanc, Hautacam, Tour 1994
5. 1797 m/h Miguel Indurain, Hautacam, Tour 1994
6. 1797 m/h Richard Virenque, Hautacam, Tour 1996
7. 1797 m/h Laurent Dufaux, Hautacam, Tour 1996
8. 1795 m/h Alexander Vinokourov, Col de Peyresourde, Tour 2003
9. 1795 m/h Iban Mayo, Col de Peyresourde, Tour 2003
10. 1792 m/h Marco Pantani, Alpe d'Huez, Tour 1995

 

[vrusimov]

Just feels like every post you make is either a show of superiority or a sniper attack, warranted or not. It's just bitter and nasty, imo. Just let it go. You have so much to contribute, but at various places, you get sarcastic, then superior, then boast about your writing ability. Why hijack the thread? Let's talk power numbers, are those values realistic or not? What does physiology say? There's so much value to be added through constructive debate, not destructive sarcasm.

Ross

...this!

 

[Colonel]

Just feels like every post you make is either a show of superiority or a sniper attack, warranted or not. It's just bitter and nasty, imo. Just let it go. You have so much to contribute, but at various places, you get sarcastic, then superior, then boast about your writing ability. Why hijack the thread? Let's talk power numbers, are those values realistic or not? What does physiology say? There's so much value to be added through constructive debate, not destructive sarcasm.

Ross

Well said Ross, bout time someone tells him. Clearly he is threatened by your knowledge and feels insecure himself and therefore has to belittle everyone else to make himself feel better. Shows true inner self.

Just ignore him Ross and carry on everyone else finds your posts and knowledge insightful.

 

[tockit]

Highest VAM-values what I have calculated (10 Km or longer climbs)

1. 1839 m/h Bjarne Riis, Hautacam, Tour 1996
2. 1826 m/h Jan Ullrich, Arcalis, Tour 1997
3. 1804 m/h Marco Pantani, Mont Ventoux, Tour 1994
4. 1798 m/h Luc Leblanc, Hautacam, Tour 1994
5. 1797 m/h Miguel Indurain, Hautacam, Tour 1994
6. 1797 m/h Richard Virenque, Hautacam, Tour 1996
7. 1797 m/h Laurent Dufaux, Hautacam, Tour 1996
8. 1795 m/h Alexander Vinokourov, Col de Peyresourde, Tour 2003
9. 1795 m/h Iban Mayo, Col de Peyresourde, Tour 2003
10. 1792 m/h Marco Pantani, Alpe d'Huez, Tour 1995

How do you convert these to w/kg?

 

[sometriguy]

I'm a bit confused by the data.

On one hand, it appears that w/kg this year is substantially lower and in the arena of "clean"

What I don't understand, is:

1. I still think they are doping, so why the lower numbers?
2. Or If they are not doping, doesn't it seem that somebody would be doping to the gills and ace everyone easily (aka lance armstrong 1999)

 

[Parrot23]

I'm a bit confused by the data.

On one hand, it appears that w/kg this year is substantially lower and in the arena of "clean"

What I don't understand, is:

1. I still think they are doping, so why the lower numbers?
2. Or If they are not doping, doesn't it seem that somebody would be doping to the gills and ace everyone easily (aka lance armstrong 1999)

Maybe the biopassport is gaining traction with more data on each rider (with the complications/costs of avoiding a more fine-tuned biopassport it rising all the time for the riders).

Been wondering for a while if the UCI is issuing informal/private notices like yellow cards (to prevent a public rush to judgment) to riders who have garnered UCI attention for oddities in their blood profiles (but just below the threshold values). This will change suspicious rider behaviour fast. Maybe word is getting around.

Vaughters says there are riders whose profiles clearly show evidence of manipulation, but whose key values are below the red light parameters set, so they are not investigated or sanctioned. Maybe the UCI is moving downward and giving notice to these guys.

Examples--Contador is clearly not the same rider who was literally sprinting uphill with Rasmussen the one year in the Tour; most of Saxo was dropped long before the final hill today (not seen that in a while); and 4 out of 5 mountain stage winners have been French (looks like the dirty field has come back to their levels). Bravo!

 

[The Science of Sport]

Maybe the biopassport is gaining traction with more data on each rider (with the complications/costs of avoiding a more fine-tuned biopassport it rising all the time for the riders).

Been wondering for a while if the UCI is issuing informal/private notices like yellow cards (to prevent a public rush to judgment) to riders who have garnered UCI attention for oddities in their blood profiles (but just below the threshold values). This will change suspicious rider behaviour fast. Maybe word is getting around.

Vaughters says there are riders whose profiles clearly show evidence of manipulation, but whose key values are below the red light parameters set, so they are not investigated or sanctioned. Maybe the UCI is moving downward and giving notice to these guys.

Examples--Contador is clearly not the same rider who was literally sprinting uphill with Rasmussen the one year in the Tour; most of Saxo was dropped long before the final hill today (not seen that in a while); and 4 out of 5 mountain stage winners have been French (looks like the dirty field has come back to their levels). Bravo!

Hear hear! I remember last year we did an interview with a Prof Yorck Olaf Schumacher, who is one of the leading guys on the biopassport system. I found his views very insightful, because he doesn't do what most anti-doping crusaders (at least here in SA) do, which is to declare from the rooftops that "we've got them now!". He is a realist, and he acknowledges that people will dope and that we can't always catch them - http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/08/doping-control-interview-with-prof.html

And one of the thing he says, and which he added to in a some personal communication around this interview (which I've no doubt he'd have expressed openly, so I can share it), is that the key effect of the passport is to suppress rather than eliminate doping.

So Parrot is correct, and so is triguy - there is certainly still doping, though I really do believe there is much less, and also the doping going on is way less extreme that what went on until maybe even 2 or 3 years ago. The days of "Mr 60 Percent" are now well and truly over (at least until a new undetectable drug arrives, let's hope it doesn't).

And I think the biopassport is so "suffocating" that the chances of one or two guys doping to the gills and getting away with it are minimal. The whereabouts rule, the passport, the constant scrutiny, the pressure from media and sponsors, translated onto team owners and DSs, and from followers of the sport like yourselves (and not necessarily in that order) has, I think, pushed the sport to a tipping point where the cyclists feel for the first time that the system is capable of "beating them". Prof Schumacher said to me that the pro-cyclists were "frightened" of the bio passports, because they know that there is serious gray matter behind it.

I think it's changing behaviour, and I do believe the race is a fair contest. This year, it's tactical, with virtual trackstands, surging and sitting up - I believe this is out of necessity.

Ross

 

[Animal]

That's heartening to hear the opinion of a sports scientist (I assume you are with a name like that)

But what about the second string riders who seem to be able to rip the peloton?

We know who we're talking about. The kind of rider who's riding like a GC man, but is hired as a domestique. What's the deal there? Are they just expendable, a "deniable" operative?

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Maybe the biopassport is gaining traction with more data on each rider (with the complications/costs of avoiding a more fine-tuned biopassport it rising all the time for the riders).

Been wondering for a while if the UCI is issuing informal/private notices like yellow cards (to prevent a public rush to judgment) to riders who have garnered UCI attention for oddities in their blood profiles (but just below the threshold values). This will change suspicious rider behaviour fast. Maybe word is getting around.

Vaughters says there are riders whose profiles clearly show evidence of manipulation, but whose key values are below the red light parameters set, so they are not investigated or sanctioned. Maybe the UCI is moving downward and giving notice to these guys.

Examples--Contador is clearly not the same rider who was literally sprinting uphill with Rasmussen the one year in the Tour; most of Saxo was dropped long before the final hill today (not seen that in a while); and 4 out of 5 mountain stage winners have been French (looks like the dirty field has come back to their levels). Bravo!

I am being persuaded too

 

[durianrider]

The watts per kg are much higher than we think. Why? Cos we are all just using bodyweights we rip off the net vs actual morning bodyweights that the riders are at. Some riders are eating less and doing glucose drips to have a full glycogen tank with a lighter stomach. Some are doing enema's so they have a lighter colon. Another reason you never see GC riders tucking into a steak at a GT. All these are legal but not considered 'hard man etiquite' so they dont make the mainstream knowledge.

Heck even Lance's actual race body weight is still a mystery among sports scientists and there has been many debates about it, even in court, if some people can remember the vaqueness of a certain doctor..

 

[Roland Rat]

The watts per kg are much higher than we think. Why? Cos we are all just using bodyweights we rip off the net vs actual morning bodyweights that the riders are at. Some riders are eating less and doing glucose drips to have a full glycogen tank with a lighter stomach. Some are doing enema's so they have a lighter colon. Another reason you never see GC riders tucking into a steak at a GT. All these are legal but not considered 'hard man etiquite' so they dont make the mainstream knowledge.

Heck even Lance's actual race body weight is still a mystery among sports scientists and there has been many debates about it, even in court, if some people can remember the vaqueness of a certain doctor..

Even if the actual figures are a little out, it is at least indicative of a general trend.

 

[ThaiPanda]

Been wondering for a while if the UCI is issuing informal/private notices like yellow cards (to prevent a public rush to judgment) to riders who have garnered UCI attention for oddities in their blood profiles (but just below the threshold values). This will change suspicious rider behaviour fast. Maybe word is getting around.

Hamilton got warned a couple of times in 04 before he was finally busted.

 

[Big GMaC]

That's heartening to hear the opinion of a sports scientist (I assume you are with a name like that)

But what about the second string riders who seem to be able to rip the peloton?

We know who we're talking about. The kind of rider who's riding like a GC man, but is hired as a domestique. What's the deal there? Are they just expendable, a "deniable" operative?

Nice dig at Vino there.

Name some names so we can analyse the same riders you are please!

 

[roundabout]

I doubt that Vino get's tested at surprise times when he's in Kazakhstan. Just sayin.

I've been for four days to Kazakhstan to visit some sponsors and friends and to eat Kazakh meat.

 

[Cloxxki]

I doubt that Vino get's tested at surprise times when he's in Kazakhstan. Just sayin.

Even if a WADA tester were to come over, Vino knows about a *** having been cleared for a Kazakh visa weeks beforehand

 

[acoggan]

Just feels like every post you make is either a show of superiority or a sniper attack, warranted or not. It's just bitter and nasty, imo. Just let it go. You have so much to contribute, but at various places, you get sarcastic, then superior, then boast about your writing ability. Why hijack the thread? Let's talk power numbers, are those values realistic or not? What does physiology say? There's so much value to be added through constructive debate, not destructive sarcasm.

Methinks you doth protesteth too much. My gentle tease pales in comparison to the sorts of anonymous attacks you frequently receive in response to your blog posts. Moreover, it's not like I haven't laid out my position and my thinking behind it regarding this question in considerable detail (some might say excrutiating detail) in a number of previous posts, none to which you deigned to respond. It's therefore only natural that I'm going to give you a little good-natured ribbing when you seemingly reverse course and adopt my position.

 

[acoggan]

how do you convert these to w/kg?

:d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d

 

[acoggan]

How do you convert these to w/kg?

Nice!!!!!!

 

[Animal]

Nice dig at Vino there.

Name some names so we can analyse the same riders you are please!

Navarro and Tiralongo are doing some great mountain work. The Saxos look fecked when they're pulling in the mountains. And none of the other teams seem to be able to do it at all. Van den Broek is practically solo.

 

[Big GMaC]

Navarro and Tiralongo are doing some great mountain work. The Saxos look fecked when they're pulling in the mountains. And none of the other teams seem to be able to do it at all. Van den Broek is practically solo.

Vdb has a lot of helpers with him, he just rides in front of them!

Also, maybe if it is cleaner we are seeing talented doms moved up as they aren't crowded out?

Not defending, just rephrasing

 

[Animal]

Could be. Maybe I'm too cynical. But I'm not going to start giving any of them the benefit of the doubt after all the cases I've seen over the years.

 

[Cozy Beehive]

Cozy Beehive will beat me to it and probably do a better job than I can... - Ross

Ross, I'm not going to hijack your topic. Go ahead. Speak your mind. I am interested in finding out how altitude or wind had a role to play in these numbers. Would these men show the same figures at or close to sea level?

 

[dbrower]

I don't think we can conclude anything from the data available. The net VAM and/or w/kg of the contending group still, to me, seems highly related to the race situation. How tactical have climbs been, how strong have the teams been, how much has any team been "blue-train-ing" up earlier and final climbs in ways that affect the group speed?

-dB

 

[GreggGermer]

Are there any actual files from the tour's (this years or others) out there? This would settle much of this "estimate" stuff and give people actual numbers. I would be interested to see Basso's climbing numbers of the tour verse the giro.

 

[Parrot23]

Nice endorsement by Vaughters:

http://www.bikechatter.com/main/foruser/107/Vaughters

"http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/07/power-outputs-from-tour-de-france.html? ... A good read if you're concerned about the Tour."



And Francaise des Jeux doctor Gérard Guillaume has been noting changes:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4...-say-that-there-are-signs-of-less-doping.aspx



As does Juliet Macur at New York Times, citing Voeckler in part:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/sports/cycling/22tourdefrance.html?ref=sports

Hi Folks

Interesting discussion. And seeing how I threw out that 6.2W/kg figure, I've also been interested in tracking the stats.

Unfortunately, we never see the real numbers from the top men, but we can get a lot of data off the SRM website (http://www.srm.de/). So here are some "facts":

1. Chris Horner:

On the short climb (3km) up to Mende the other, Horner finished 31 seconds behind Contador, having begun the climb with him. Horner's average power output for 10 minutes of climbing was 6.6 W/kg (422W). Nothing wrong with that, it's a really short effort.

For context, consider Horner on Ax-3-Domaines the other day. That climb took him just under 24 minutes, and his power output was 5.8 W/kg (370W). He conceded about 90 seconds to Schleck and Contador and co.

Then even longer was the climb of the Port de Pailheres, which took 48:37, and that was done at 5.4W/kg (344W). Of course, it's not a finishing climb, so the hammer isn't down, but it does reflect what the peloton is doing.

Edit: Also, Horner's data from the Port de Bales are interesting. He finished this day with Basso, conceding approx. 3 minutes to Contador's group by the finish (not 100% sure of the gap at the summit, but imagine it would be 3 min ± 20 seconds). This climb took 49:30, and was done at an average of 342W/kg (5.2W/kg - about the same as the Port de Pailheres of similar duration).

And then very interesting, we also have the data of Chris Anke Sorensen, who has been the last man to peel off for Andy Schleck. And on the Port de Bales, he rode at the front of the peloton for 21:34 and produced 6.1W/kg. The smaller Schleck, riding behind him, would produce less than this - perhaps 5.8W to 6.0W/kg, and that's a good indication of the power produced by those top contenders.

How much are those 90 seconds worth? Using the SRM to 'validate' your calculations, it might be interesting to calculate. Will have a look later, just have to sort out some things first. Cozy Beehive will beat me to it and probably do a better job than I can...

But I think the Tour is substantially slower. The days where climbs lasting 40 minutes or more were done at even just above 6W/kg WITH attacks are no longer with us...and never mind the 6.7W/kg that we've heard of, and know that guys were producing for close to 40 minutes.

On the note of Portoleau, I do feel that all he needs to do is give the times. He has this massive database and if you could show that they did Ax-3-Domaines 90 seconds slower than in previous years, that's compelling. Even with temperature and race situation, you'd have a tough time explaining that difference away entirely. And then the other thing to do is take the average time of the top 20, and positions say 50 to 60, to get an idea of depth. Almost certain it's a lot slower.

The other thing about the power, as Martin points out, is that in theory, if they rode one pace, they'd be faster. But I don't remember one paced riding too often. There are always attacks. Schleck-Contador was extreme the other day, but that's why it would be most interesting to look at the depth and quality.

You can see it in the racing, because as fierce as the attacks are, they're not doing the same damage as previous years, they're less frequent and interspersed with much slower riding, and the guy in the breakaway (Voeckler and Riblon) have held off.

Ross