Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Waterloo Sunrise]

The speed just was not amazing. It was very good, and then showed up the fact that the 2 best climbers aren't here, and the most of the best of the rest have crashed or punctured.

 

[BoxCoppi]

Comparing a Cat 1 climb, is a little different to comparing a Cat 3 or 4 though. That's simply splitting hairs.

Reality was, when you look at who did it, VAM and calculated wattage are enough to set alarm bells ringing.

Yeah, I know. I just prefer going to extremes to make a point

I had that feeling right after the stage, but I'm actually not that sure. Nibali was there. Taaramae was (mostly) there. Monfort in top10. If we consider their performances normal, I can hardly see why Wiggins/Evans shouldn't be slightly better. I could put up a long list of why the good climbers weren't 100 % (injuries etc.). I don't think we would discuss Sky's performance if AC and AS had been at the Tour in form.

However, I only believe in numbers. So I'll be better at making my own verdict when we have performances and numbers for the rest of the Tour. Now I'll just send Froome some happy thoughts for making my 100:1 bet on him as stage winner come true

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

That's hardly an objective comment as steepness and shortness of the climb favours high VAM. If we don't consider this we might as well calculate the VAM for Sagans ascent on stage 3...

Rather look at the w/kg where the calculated 6.7 is incredible high, but for a climb lasting 16 minutes not enough to have all the bells ringing. Also, the calculations seem to be questioned maybe indicating a w/kg closer to 6.

I believe the highest (considered clean) performance was 6.4 w/kg over an hour? However, around 6 seem to be a more conservative threshold for clean performances.

This is certainly not my field of science, so do correct me if (where) I'm wrong.

6-6.1 W/Kilo for an hour is the limit for a clean performance.

This was a 16 minute effort with fresh legs, and people are using VAM to reach unrealistic wattage estimates, given the steepness, and the drafting.

Wait until Thursday if you want a climb you can make sweeping statements off.

The time yesterday was not amazing - people are inferring things because of the depth of Sky, not the objective performance of the winner.

 

[Franklin]

The speed just was not amazing. It was very good, and then showed up the fact that the 2 best climbers aren't here, and the most of the best of the rest have crashed or punctured.

Indeed, it was a HUGE coincidence that only the Ferrari clients Evans and Nibbles could keep up.

Nothing to see here, move along

 

[webbie146]

Indeed, it was a HUGE coincidence that only the Ferrari clients Evans and Nibbles could keep up.

Nothing to see here, move along

Nibali and Evans work with Ferrari? I never knew that? Interesting!

 

[hrotha]

Wasn't the "Evans works with Ferrari" thing a misattribution by some journo who got him mixed with Rogers?

 

[rghysens]

The speed just was not amazing. It was very good, and then showed up the fact that the 2 best climbers aren't here, and the most of the best of the rest have crashed or punctured.

So, basically 1999 all over again

 

[Cavalier]

This was a 16 minute effort with fresh legs, and people are using VAM to reach unrealistic wattage estimates, given the steepness, and the drafting.

Is it just me or are people exaggerating the effectiveness of drafting? Surely the higher the gradient, the less of an effect drafting will have, due to a slower overall speed - it's one thing to be in the slipstream of a guy doing 40-50kph, but doing 15-20kph isn't exactly going to be punching the same type of clean hole in the air for you to ride into.

Indeed, it was a HUGE coincidence that only the Ferrari clients Evans and Nibbles could keep up.

Nothing to see here, move along

I know it's a favourite thing to attach a label, but calling Cadel a Ferrari client is taking the **** a bit. One visit eleven years ago hardly makes him the doctor's client for life. Can we work with things that are known to be true?

 

[Franklin]

Wasn't the "Evans works with Ferrari" thing a misattribution by some journo who got him mixed with Rogers?

Ferarri himself is proud on how he advised Rominger and Evans and posts this openly at his website. (Evans will be thrilled ^^ )

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=123

Besides, the trainer of Evans was Sassi, the third of the Triumvirate of dottore's of Moser (Ferrari, Conconi and Sassi).

 

[roundabout]

Is it just me or are people exaggerating the effectiveness of drafting? Surely the higher the gradient, the less of an effect drafting will have, due to a slower overall speed - it's one thing to be in the slipstream of a guy doing 40-50kph, but doing 15-20kph isn't exactly going to be punching the same type of clean hole in the air for you to ride into.



I know it's a favourite thing to attach a label, but calling Cadel a Ferrari client is taking the **** a bit. One visit eleven years ago hardly makes him the doctor's client for life. Can we work with things that are known to be true?

Drafting behind 1 rider would be worth about 20 watts at 20 kmh.

 

[webbie146]

Ferarri himself is proud on how he advised Rominger and Evans and posts this openly at his website. (Evans will be thrilled ^^ )

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=123

Besides, the trainer of Evans was Sassi, the third of the Triumvirate of dottore's of Moser (Ferrari, Conconi and Sassi).

Any evidence that he worked with Nibali?

 

[Franklin]

Any evidence that he worked with Nibali?

He was directly accused along with Pellizotti by Ivano Fanini. He denies of course.

 

[Ferminal]

Yes Evans met with Ferrari through Rominger, it's unclear if their relationship continued though.

There was a very strong rumour around the 2010 Giro that Nibali and Pellizotti had been working with Ferrari.

 

[mb2612]

Jani's twitter:

@Scienceofsport there's some data missing (+-1min no power). Avg power should be a bit higher

So from science of sport:

So adjusting @janibrakovic power for missing minute gives ± 6.1 W/kg. So ± 6.4-6.5W/kg for stage winners. Again,nothing alarming for 16min

Pretty much the same as the earlier calculations now.

Again this is near the limit, but until we see the hour climbs you can't really tell anything.

 

[iZnoGouD]

6.7 w/kg for 16 mins it not that high, what would happen if Contador and A. Schleck were there with their 6.4 w/kg FTP

 

[BigBoat]

Is someone able to put these numbers into layman's terms? I understand the gist of what the numbers represent but have no idea what is considered 'normal' (read clean).

5.95 watt/kg average over 1 hour is probably what the most talented rider in the world could do clean and also rested. Over 15 minutes in a rested state maybe 6.3 w/kg.

That final climb yesterday was more of a 60 minute effort though than a 15 based on Levi's comments.

Power file says Brajkovic was riding at 355 watts on the final climb, he weighs about 63 kg. His normalized power for the whole race was 266 though, or 75% of threshold. Os it would not have been possible to really go harder than FTP at that point. I mean in all serousness, as a cat 1 rider myself; go out there and do a 4 hour tempo ride and try to ride at FTP for longer than 15 minutes. Its impssible.

 

[python]

Brajkovic looks like he's put on a bit since The Hog's harsh regime.

i agree...based on jani's own data from the subject stage, he entered 63 kg into his SRM. But of course, a rider’s weight is always a guess and sometimes a ploy to have others guessing…

I don't get this. Jani was 351 for the final climb (17 min) how is Wiggins 472 when he was only 48 sec ahead of Jani? Even factoring marginal weight differences it seems like a huge difference. Also Wiggins sat on the entire climb while Jani rode mostly by himself. Not a huge difference at 22kmh but it does save a few watts

I agree with this too. The difference between their respective average watts on the climb is unrealistically too great. My estimate, and I hope no one reads into it more than an estimate, is wiggo averaged 430 - maximum 450 watts for 16+ minutes. Just my opinion, take it for whatever it’s worth, NOTan alarming wattage.

 

[goggalor]

Cobo was pushing ~6.1 W/kg on Hautacam 2 years ago. Just because someone is within what is theoretically possible for a clean rider doesn't mean he's clean. It annoys me that the Science of Sport guys always looks at the data and conclude that there's "nothing to worry about", when the reality is cycling is dirty as hell. The fact that Sky had 3 of 8 riders in the final group, and that that has been the story the whole year, is much more interesting to me than the winner's power being 6.4 or 6.8 W/kg on yesterday's climb.

Also, not surprised Jani's power data was wrong. They were obviously going much faster than what his data suggested.

 

[mastersracer]

method question. Watts/kg is calculated from rider's weight, not taking into account total weight. Why are some people listing bike/gear weight? That would obviously dilute watts/kg.

 

[python]

method question. Watts/kg is calculated from rider's weight, not taking into account total weight. Why are some people listing bike/gear weight? That would obviously dilute watts/kg.

watts/kilo traditionally accounts for a rider's mass/weight only.

the reason bike/gear weight is listed in some estimates is due to the fact it is an essential component of the method/formula used to estimate wattage - mostly based on the total weight a rider has to lift upward, his own and the bike/gear. thus a superlight rider, (say 50kg) is always in a relative disadvantage required to lift 7.5-8 kg bike/gear compared to a 70kg rider required to lift the same bike/gear weight...

 

[mastersracer]

watts/kilo traditionally accounts for a rider's mass/weight only.

the reason bike/gear weight is listed in some estimates is due to the fact it is an essential component of the method/formula used to estimate wattage - mostly based on the total weight a rider has to lift upward, his own and the bike/gear. thus a superlight rider, (say 50kg) is always in a relative disadvantage required to lift 7.5-8 kg bike/gear compared to a 70kg rider required to lift the same bike/gear weight...

thanks. FWIW, Ten Dam posted his day on strava. Last climb listed as 5.8km, 19:10 time, 18.2 km/hr, 1585 VAM, finished 2:53 down.

 

[_frost]

5.95 watt/kg average over 1 hour is probably what the most talented rider in the world could do clean and also rested. Over 15 minutes in a rested state maybe 6.3 w/kg.

That's interesting. Do you have a link to a study?

 

[BigBoat]

Cobo was pushing ~6.1 W/kg on Hautacam 2 years ago. Just because someone is within what is theoretically possible for a clean rider doesn't mean he's clean. It annoys me that the Science of Sport guys always looks at the data and conclude that there's "nothing to worry about", when the reality is cycling is dirty as hell. The fact that Sky had 3 of 8 riders in the final group, and that that has been the story the whole year, is much more interesting to me than the winner's power being 6.4 or 6.8 W/kg on yesterday's climb.

Also, not surprised Jani's power data was wrong. They were obviously going much faster than what his data suggested.

Yeah.... true. The riders were probably at FTP or slightly above it for the climb in my humble humble opinion. After such a hard day of racing....to produce threshold power for a sustained period is challenging in itself.

I really do think 5.9 w/kg is a good boundary to draw though. Gives a predicted V02 right around 75-80 ml/kg/min at 5.05 kcal/liter 02. Anyways I agree with Antoine Vayer's opinions. There his ideas, not mine.

 

[iZnoGouD]

Having a high ftp doesn't necessarily imply having a high vo2 max...

 

[function]

Yeah.... true. The riders were probably at FTP or slightly above it for the climb in my humble humble opinion. After such a hard day of racing....to produce threshold power for a sustained period is challenging in itself.

I really do think 5.9 w/kg is a good boundary to draw though. Gives a predicted V02 right around 75-80 ml/kg/min at 5.05 kcal/liter 02. Anyways I agree with Antoine Vayer's opinions. There his ideas, not mine.

and for athletes with a vo2max above 80? does that imply doping?