Animal said:Van den Broek is practically solo.
Lotto having a crappy team in the mountains isn't exactly evidence of a clean peloton. It's evidence that you're watching the Tour de France.
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Animal said:Van den Broek is practically solo.
On the Peyresourde, Sørensen was with his team leader Andy Schleck in a small group that went over the summit a minute behind Armstrong’s breakaway; so the Texan had to have been working even harder, perhaps hitting 6.5 watts/kg, equivalent to averaging 450 watts for the half-hour climb. And that was just the start of a near-six-hour stage over four mountains.
No wonder the peloton was ripped apart!
Cozy Beehive said:Anyone ready for John Wilcockson's speculation of Armstrong's power to weight ratio during his attack on stage 16?
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/07/tour-de-france/inside-the-tour-with-john-wilcockson-everyone-needed-a-rest-after-that-stage_130539
Parrot23 said:Yes, would be interesting as he was close to the front: chance to compare a good baseline set of data vs. estimates near leaders.
DarkWing said:the VAM for today?
I timed andy and contador at about 49minutes.
and they climed 1405 meters.
that's a VAM of 1720
djconnel said:Cozy Beehive has a slower rate of climbing, with some really nice analysis.
Was the 49 minutes from Contador/Schleck, or from the breakaway?
Anyway, power appears to have been even lower than I estimated.
djconnel said:In my estimate, 0.80 (powertap) or 0.82 (SRM) W/kg were wind resistance.
So even if you assume each rider drafted 50% of the time and that draft was worth 25% of wind resistance, that reduces the estimate by around 0.11 W/kg, to 6.37 W/kg SRM.
Toss in a tailwind, and it the error bars start to blow out.
But we're definitely well on the clean side of 6.7 W/kg.
Le breton said:Thanks nonetheless to Cozy Beehive for the nice work, maybe he can correct his time data for Schleck-Contador
Cheers
PS : it looked like the finish line was a little bit lower than the actual summit of the road.
Cozy Beehive said: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?
Cozy Beehive said:I timed all 18 sections of the climb, every kilometer. Now if it really is 49 minutes, that's a huge difference (3 minutes!). I do have some doubts but you're welcome to get official figures for me so I can change it.
For a rough estimate, look here. The riders passed the 18K to go mark at 3:40 CEST. When Contador and Schleck got done at the summit, the time was 4:34 CEST. Count on your fingers. 54 minutes. My time in the analysis 53 min 25 sec. What am I doing wrong now?
The Science of Sport said:Ah, but you should!
Your analysis of yesterday's Tourmalet stage was excellent. Here's the link:
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2010/07/tour-de-france-stage-17-col-du.html
Sure, they're estimates, but the approach is great, and I think your figure of 6W/kg is about right, it corresponds to what I would have calculated using a much more simple method. As you say in the post, Horner's data will make for interesting 'validation'.
Nice job!
Ross
Edit: Sorry, I see the link had already been provided by page 7 - I responded, then checked. My bad.
The actual climb - a mistake on the road?
And just another thing, for everyone calculating the VAM yesterday based on a climb of 18.6km at 7.5%.
On the TV footage, the 18.6km to go banner has to have been in the wrong place. It wasn't 18.6km. You know this because the section from 18.6km to go to 15km to go (3.6km) was covered in about 6 minutes, a speed of 36km/hour!
The climb from that point on was done at about 21 km/hour. So yes, they were fast entering the climb, but not almost twice as fast as for the rest of the climb...
Also, from the 20km banner to the 18.6km banner, it took 4:42 (a speed of 17.8km/hour). And that was on a relatively flat section.
So clearly, that 18.6km to go banner was not correct. I would estimate that it was about 1 km late. Which is why I agree more with Ron's calculation that the 18.4km took about 53 minutes and not the 49 min that I timed from that banner.
That 49:10 that some of you have timed (I got it at 49:08) is from the banner, right? Well, I think the banner was actually about 17.6-17.8km from the finish, and the gradient should thus be 7.6%.
if you do this, then you get can estimate a power output for the whole climb of 5.94 W/kg, which is mighty close to what Ron worked out for the final part after the attack. I think this is a reasonable figure, but Horner's data later will shed some light.
So, bottom line - about 6W/kg, when clearly race strategy dictated that the very best riders give it everything they can today. The (correct) argument about power outputs being lower because of race situation can now be used to say that today was a maximal effort, and still, they're only at 6W/kg. Compare the 6.2W/kg to 6.5W/kg of the 90s and early 2000s. A good sign for cycling...
Oh, and finally, also look at the time gaps between Schleck and Contador and the chasers. It grew quickly to a minute, then edged out to 1:30, and then stayed pretty much there. A sign that the attack, which was fierce, was above the level that even the very best climbers in the Tour could sustain.
DarkWing said:yes my time of about 49minutes was from the banner.
I did however, notice that when the breakaway was at the 18.6km banner the graphic on the screen said about 17.3km to go.
Le breton said:i.e, that there was a distance of 1.3 km between the leaders and the Schelk-Contador group I guess.
Le breton said:According to my notes the leaders did the 2 km between GPS -18.7 km and -16.7 km in exactly 4 minutes, that sounds quite reasonable for roughly 4.5% incline : 30 km/h.
http://www.climbbybike.com/fr/profil.asp?Climbprofile=Col-du-Tourmalet&MountainID=26
I should add that the GPS km data seemed to be quite reasonable yesterday. For example, at - 11km you could see that they were in Barèges. At -18.7 km that they were in Luz, at -20km that they were still outside of Luz.
For the GPS time difference data, there is always a time delay so that they can never be very accurate, at least not at better than 10s level.
Le breton said:To verify the above iI ran analyticycling for different slopes until I got reasonable power values for the leading group.
Result
Forces On Rider
Frontal Area 0.60 m2
Coefficient Wind Drag 0.50 dimensionless
Air Density 1.130 kg/m3
Weight 78.0 kg
Coefficient of Rolling 0.004 dimensionless
Grade 0.040 decimal
Wind Resistance 11.7 kg m/s2
Rolling Resistance 2.8 kg m/s2
Slope Force 30.6 kg m/s2
Cadence 100. rev/min
Crank Length 170. mm
Pedal Speed 1.78 m/s
Average Pedal Force 209.9 kg m/s2
Effective Pedaling Range 70. degree
Effective Pedal Force 539.8 kg m/s2
Speed 8.30 m/s
Power 373.7 watts
--------
Hence 30 km/h in drop position (CdA =0.3 m^2)
possible on 4% incline with less than 5.5 W/kg.
4.5 % incline gives too much power required.
Now, what power does Cancellara need to exert to regain about 50 s over those 2km as actually happen?
You will know in a minute