• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 37 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I timed the last 10k for Froome at 22'19" and I think the altitude gain is about 525m so a VAM of 1412m/hr. Slow, but not surprising given the shallow gradient and the way the rest of the stage was ridden.
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Visit site
Bala Verde said:
Ferrari calculated the following figures:



He was also surprised to see the high cadence:


The Sky riders are pedaling uphill with very high cadences of pedaling (often over 100 RPM), which seem quite excessive in relation to the power outputs, around 420-440W: either these athletes are riding below their limit, or the asymmetrical chainrings used by most of them require higher cadences in order to get the best out of them.
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=131

I think it's a stretch to attribute it to asymmetrical chainrings. In which case the far more likely alternative, riding below their limit, is the one we're left with.

High cadence on the climbs, a la Armstrong, is BTW indicative of oxygen vector doping because it relies on the least stressed system: that of the (doped) aerobic. Another way of saying it is that it relies on the augmented system, the aerobic.
 
Oct 29, 2009
357
0
0
Visit site
@inrg:
''One for the sports scientists, Janez Brajkovic was 8th on today's stage with an estimated 5.3W/kg on the final climb''

Christ 5.3W/kg!! The EPO era really has returned with a vengeance!! Lord only knows what crazy power Froome dog had, 5.5W/kg or something the crazy doped up mofo. Lance would be proud of those numbers.

:rolleyes:
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
1
0
Visit site
Slight irony in the use of Ferrari's website to get the figures to judge whether people are doping, but...

It's like "thanks Dr. Ferrari, cornerstone of the anti-doping camp".
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
Visit site
This article, recently posted by the hog i think, says:

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article...-secrete-de-bradley-wiggins_1731653_3242.html

Avec Frédéric Portoleau, ingénieur en mécanique des fluides, nous disséquons depuis 20 ans les puissances développées - en watts - par les coureurs. On peut les calculer indirectement de manière aussi fiable que les compteurs à mesure directe que possèdent plus de 100 coureurs sur cette édition 2012, mais dont l'Union cycliste internationale a interdit curieusement, cette année, la transmission et la publication "en live" pendant les étapes. Les niveaux de puissance nous renseignent sur l'éventuel usage des corticoïdes, de l'Aicar - un produit avec lequel "plus tu manges, plus tu maigris" (sic) -, du TB 500 qui transforme les souris en lièvres, des microdoses d'EPO, des hormones de croissance et autres transfusions.

One can calculate watts indirectly as reliably as power meters, which more than 100 riders in the 2012 edition [of the TdF] have, but which the UCI this year has curiously forbidden for live transmission during the stages.

If the translation is somewhat accurate....

Has anyone heard anything about this?
 
Aug 27, 2009
42
0
0
Visit site
Bala Verde said:
This article, recently posted by the hog i think, says:

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article...-secrete-de-bradley-wiggins_1731653_3242.html

If the translation is somewhat accurate....

Has anyone heard anything about this?

You cannot back calculate power to the extent that people believe without knowledge of variables such as tyre rolling resistance, drivetrain efficiency and aerodynamic drag (yes, even on the climbing stages).

The decision not to allow live power data was purely a rights issue, as ASO want to have control of all data from the race and not allow SRM to do their usual. Would be really easy though, with something like MyTracks you'd have a quality stream of data.
 
The Cobra said:
@inrg:
''One for the sports scientists, Janez Brajkovic was 8th on today's stage with an estimated 5.3W/kg on the final climb''

Christ 5.3W/kg!! The EPO era really has returned with a vengeance!! Lord only knows what crazy power Froome dog had, 5.5W/kg or something the crazy doped up mofo. Lance would be proud of those numbers.

:rolleyes:
This is faulty logic.

If I were to start producing 4.5 W/kg, you can bet I'd be doped to the gills.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
The Cobra said:
@inrg:
''One for the sports scientists, Janez Brajkovic was 8th on today's stage with an estimated 5.3W/kg on the final climb''

Christ 5.3W/kg!! The EPO era really has returned with a vengeance!! Lord only knows what crazy power Froome dog had, 5.5W/kg or something the crazy doped up mofo. Lance would be proud of those numbers.

:rolleyes:

He did 340W for 45:00. I've seen his weight listed as low as 58 KG, so that puts him around 5.86 w/kg. If you think he actually weighs 64 kilos, please beware of solicitation e-mails from Nigeria...
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
This is faulty logic.

If I were to start producing 4.5 W/kg, you can bet I'd be doped to the gills.

True. Looking at W/kg is usefull for finding general trends in the peloton, but judging a rider to be completely clean based on that would be terrible logic. In fact, using this method you would have to conclude that everyone before 1991 was clean, while we know the vast majority weren't. An average rider can still make a big jump using doping without ever coming close to clean human limits.

If somebody was generating insane wattages on climbs (6.4 W/kg or something) he would surely be doping, but nobody has been doing that on longer climbs for 3 or 4 years.
 
Jul 25, 2011
157
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
This is faulty logic.

If I were to start producing 4.5 W/kg, you can bet I'd be doped to the gills.

I see your point, numbers don't say everything about doped or not. A lower number doesn't necessarily mean cleanness BUT well .. they are pro's :) 5+ w/kg is like the minimum norm there.

I mean if I can produce 4.8w/kg ftp, being limited gifted (and even suck at local races), I think pro's whom are well beyond average gifted can produce those numbers totally clean.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Visit site
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
Visit site
Has anybody compared the times on La Toussuire to those in 2006? That was a different stage, with the final climb ridden more agressively, but it would be an interesting comparison.
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Visit site
mektronic said:
Because people are using largely fictitious estimates of body mass, bike mass and rolling resistance equivalents.

No, they are not estimated based on ascent times. They are from their published SRM files. The only uncertainty is rider weight. Nibali's weight is listed either at 64 of 63 kg. At 63kg, his average on that last climb would be 5.7 watts/kg.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Visit site
The problem is their data show the same % increase in power from Croix de Fer to Toussuire, even though they were in the same group and both sheltered on CdF, while Nibali climbed Toussuire considerably faster than Jani. How can that be correct? :confused:
 
Jan 10, 2012
451
0
0
Visit site
Tyler'sTwin said:
The problem is their data show the same % increase in power from Croix de Fer to Toussuire, even though they were in the same group and both sheltered on CdF, while Nibali climbed Toussuire considerably faster than Jani. How can that be correct? :confused:

Nibali maybe drafted more than Jani? Especially with the the less steep parts of La Toussuire it could have led to some difference...