Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Could also be misleading because these are easier climbs than in 2007.

Peyresourde/Peyragudes is significantly shorter than a climb like the Aubisque for instance. And not quite as hard either.
Neither is La Toussiere a good comparable col because it's only 6%

 

[Race Radio]

Was this posted yet?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...rensen-tears-up-week-three-of-the-tour_231551

 

[Cerberus]

Seems an extra s snuck in there. Luis Herrera was the ultimate Colombian climber of the 80s, I believe he also was the auhtor of the following quote: when riders with asses fatter than my grandmother started climbing cols like airplanes I knew what was happening. Apparently he retired for partially that reason.
Actually, depending on your assumptions you could argue for 5.6 - 6.2 w/kg. and remember that is at the end of 260 km on crappy roads in week two with no recovery shakes, sleeping in dormitories and so on.

And you are not seriously arguing that cycling is one of the few, if not the only sport, with no improvement in 60 years?

I'm arguing thatyou can't claim it's a fact that a clena rider can produce a certain power output without proving it. Cycling certainly ahs improved alongside other sports, but most of this improvemtn has clearly been chemically powered, which again is likely like other sports.

No, they are not best case scenarios but a probable case scenario. If you read they re original article you can clearly see that they use middle assumptions for cycling efficiency, and the percentage of VO2 max which can be achieved after a long day in the saddle. Below is the original article.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010...-possible.html

A handy tip, if you'd even done brief scan in the article for "best case" or "best-case" you'd have found:

>>> Of course, it would be wonderful to know with precision what the power output was, but as I hope to illustrate, the errors in these kinds of calculations can both be minimized and controlled so that you end up with a 'best case scenario"<<<

>>That is, if you make "best-case" assumptions and still your coffee shop is running at a loss, then it clearly is not a viable business. If your "worst-case scenario" (few customers, few sales) still makes a profit, then the business works. Realistic and sensible assumptions are the key to ensuring that your conclusion is accurate, even in the absence of a crystal ball! Similarly, for these physiological calculations, you can make "best-case" assumptions and if the picture still doesn't fit, then you have a good case for a problem.<<<

>>>. So, this is our next assumption - which end of this spectrum do we use, the 4.69 or the 5.05kCal? The answer is the further right extreme, for two reasons. One is that it's physiologically reasonable - a cyclist producing maximum effort is going to be near maximally using carbohydrates. Second, this is the "conservative" or "best-case" assumption, as explained earlier. So we'll run with 5.05 kCal/L O2."

"Again, this shows that 23% [efficiency] is a pretty safe "best case" estimation."

Clearly the article uses, as I said, best case assumptions.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Could also be misleading because these are easier climbs than in 2007.

Peyresourde/Peyragudes is significantly shorter than a climb like the Aubisque for instance. And not quite as hard either.
Neither is La Toussiere a good comparable col because it's only 6%

It's irrelevant because they did the Bales - Peyresourde combo both of the times. The east side of the Peyresourde was probably the hardest ridden climb of 2007. Master dopers and superior climbers Contador and Rasmussen went BERSERK. This year the yellow jersey group was only 34 seconds slower and yet they still had to climb Peyragudes.

How much more circumstantial evidence do people need to see that this performance was at least a wee bit suspect?

 

[sittingbison]

...Master dopers and superior climbers Contador and Rasmussen went BERSERK...

now now, there is ZERO proof they are master dopers - The Chicken never tested positive it was an administrative technicality, and Pistolero was never sanctioned for the blood doping indicative plasticisers and adverse blood data, or even eating the dodgy steak, CAS found he ingested contaminated supplements

 

[Gregga]

...The Chicken never tested positive it was an administrative technicality...

No way, Rasmussen was positive for Dynepo in the 2007 TdF
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rasmussen-took-dynepo-in-tour

 

[Sigmund]

I'm arguing thatyou can't claim it's a fact that a clena rider can produce a certain power output without proving it. Cycling certainly ahs improved alongside other sports, but most of this improvemtn has clearly been chemically powered, which again is likely like other sports.



A handy tip, if you'd even done brief scan in the article for "best case" or "best-case" you'd have found:

>>> Of course, it would be wonderful to know with precision what the power output was, but as I hope to illustrate, the errors in these kinds of calculations can both be minimized and controlled so that you end up with a 'best case scenario"<<<

Well, if you had actually read the article instead of just scanning it for words you would have seen the following: cyclists efficiency have been reported between 21% and 27% though values above 25 are hotly debated. For their estimates of 6.2 w/kg they Assume 23%. Clearly not in the top of the range. The next assumption they make is about percentage of vo2 max for 40 min after a long day in the saddle and havinf raced for a while (they are specific here) and stating that realistic assumptions suggest 85% - 90% of actual vo2max, but closer to 85 than 90.

When stipulating their limit they are clearly going with the 85% percent number and not 90% because they calculate that to produce 6,6 w/kg with 23% efficiency you would need an 96 vo2max at 85 or 91 vo2max at 90. 91 vo2max is clearly achievable, Lemond tested 92,5 supposedly.

So again to arrive at 6,2 as a limit they are assuming 23% efficiency, 85% of vo2max and a vo2max of 90. None of these are at the high range of human possibilities.

In fact, the only assumption they use best case is the 5,05 Kcalories per liter of oxygen.

 

[Von Mises]

The translation of the article

It's Schleck who is right, the poison still works
Fränk Schleck, the excluded doper, is right : le Tour is "poisoned". It has been for a long time, but the poison still works. To get convinced, comparing the power outputs of riders, in Watts, is enough. We noticed four of them that are particularly shocking this year. The first one kills more than it wounds. It's about the crowds' pet, Thomas Voeckler, who, as his clone, the Virenque of the greatest Festina years, holds the king of mountains polka dots jersey up, and the French hearts. Saint Thomas, in his own admittance, neglecting the will of his almost fleshless calves that seem so thin that they look like they're reduced to (the size of) his shin bones, is capable, like Richard once was, to perform mountain raids, maintaining over four mountains an engine power of "375-390" Watts, without weakening, accelerating whenever he wishes. He was first to cross the line atop Aubisque, Tourmalet, Aspin, Peyresourde, in 5 h 32 min 2 s, victorious concluding, fresh as a daisy, the 197 km at an average of 35,59 km/h.

This Pau - Bagnères-de-Luchon is a classical Tour de France stage (1980, 1983, 1998). In 1998 - always the Festina affair -, Marco Pantani let Massi win in 5 h 49 minutes 40 s on 196,5 km at 33,72 km/h : almost 2 km/h slower. Another reference got broken the next day by Thomas Voeckler : Menté, 9,3 km at 9,1 %. In 28'20", with an alien power of 442 Watts, he's carving his name on the tables, on the biggest chain ring in the last 300 m, on an 8 % slope. There, he is rather looking like the Rasmussen-Contador duo of the Great Years. It's the second important comparison : it knocks down more than it scares.

With an average of 430 W, the favourites swallowed, like during the great days, Peyresourde in 26 min 45 sec. From Saint-Aventin, they only conceded 34 seconds to the unreal time of Contador and Rasmussen in 2007 (23 minutes and 26 seconds), who were trying to drop each other with many sprints, just like as many injections. From there on, Froome and Wiggins then accelerated in the last climb, Peyragudes. They produced 470 Watts during 7'03" (2,95 km at 7,93 %). Froome waited for Wiggins, but was capable of getting near 500 Watts. If he doesn't restrict his engine any more to wait for his leader, he could enter the caste of world record owners, the best "performers" of all times : Pantani, Armstrong, Contador.

The third comparison, which makes smile more than it surprises, is to be credited to a suspended rider "Stronger Than Before", title of a book by Virenque. Alejandro Valverde won in Peyragudes, achieving a performance equal to Vinokourov's in 2007. The two riders, with a 5 years interval, climbed the Port de Balès and Peyresourde at the same level of power output, managing 285 then 405 Watts on both these ascents. Vinokourov, who had left the peloton with the morning break, won it solo in Loudenvielle. The Kazakhi was then excluded because of a blood transfusion.

The last comparison is more thrilling than bluffing. In 2011, after 16 years of scrambling for heavy doping products, we were at last cheering, in these columns, for the absence of riders performing above an average of 410 Watts on the last ascents of mountain stages : the detection threshold of poison. Alas ! There is again four of them, this year who crossed that bar : Wiggins, Froome, Nibali and Van den Broecke, with 415 Watts for the first three of the classification, and 410 Watts for the fourth one. We are now longing for 2013 and the return of Contador and his tainted meat ! Until then, it's doubtful a cure will have been found.

Former coach of Team Festina, Antoine Vayer is a performance specialist.

Antoine Vayer


***

How did they get these numbers? If Sorensen poerfiles are correct, then they are hugely overestimating Voeckler numbers.

 

[Cerberus]

Well, if you had actually read the article instead of just scanning it for words you would have seen the following: cyclists efficiency have been reported between 21% and 27% though values above 25 are hotly debated. For their estimates of 6.2 w/kg they Assume 23%. Clearly not in the top of the range. The next assumption they make is about percentage of vo2 max for 40 min after a long day in the saddle and havinf raced for a while (they are specific here) and stating that realistic assumptions suggest 85% - 90% of actual vo2max, but closer to 85 than 90.

When stipulating their limit they are clearly going with the 85% percent number and not 90% because they calculate that to produce 6,6 w/kg with 23% efficiency you would need an 96 vo2max at 85 or 91 vo2max at 90. 91 vo2max is clearly achievable, Lemond tested 92,5 supposedly.

So again to arrive at 6,2 as a limit they are assuming 23% efficiency, 85% of vo2max and a vo2max of 90. None of these are at the high range of human possibilities.

In fact, the only assumption they use best case is the 5,05 Kcalories per liter of oxygen.

I did read the article but if you're simply going to cut out and ignore the places where they repeatedly state, which I even conveniently quoted for you that everything they do is using best case scenarios, including explicitly the 23% efficiency ("Again, this shows that 23% [efficiency] is a pretty safe "best case" estimation."), then I really can't help you.

 

[taiwan]

Isn't that the theoretical 70kg rider on an 8kg bike as usual?

Don't understand. Y ou mean they worked out the VAM, converted to W/kg, then multiplied by a flat 70kg for every rider? I don't see why they would have done that.

 

[Sigmund]

I think we will just have to ask what they mean then instead. But, still, When they state that measurements show between 21 and 27 but figures above 25 are hotly debated, how can 23 be a best case. In any normal understanding of the expression best case, surely that would imply at least 25?

When talking about percentage of vo2 max they use two figures, 85% and 90% without ruling any of them out as impossible, how can 85% then be best case? And finally, when Lemond has been measured at 92,5 vo2max how can 90 for a clean rider be best case?

I am not cutting and ignoring, I am reading what they say. I am assuming their best case relate to the fact that 7 w/kg or the 8 w/kg they talknabout in the beginning is impossible.

They should have expressed themselves more clearly.

 

[Sigmund]

Incidentally, in their post from this years TdF they state that the more reasonable assumption, would be for 24% efficiency. In other words 23 % clearly cannot be the high assumption when they themselves state a higher number to be more reasonable.

 

[Cerberus]

I think we will just have to ask what they mean then instead. But, still, When they state that measurements show between 21 and 27 but figures above 25 are hotly debated, how can 23 be a best case. In any normal understanding of the expression best case, surely that would imply at least 25?

When talking about percentage of vo2 max they use two figures, 85% and 90% without ruling any of them out as impossible, how can 85% then be best case? And finally, when Lemond has been measured at 92,5 vo2max how can 90 for a clean rider be best case?

I am not cutting and ignoring, I am reading what they say. I am assuming their best case relate to the fact that 7 w/kg or the 8 w/kg they talknabout in the beginning is impossible.

They should have expressed themselves more clearly.

They actually do explain, "the combination of high efficiency (and 23% is high) and high VO2max doesn't seem to exist."

In other words you cannot have both high efficiency and high VO2-max. Perhaps they could assume higher efficiency but then they'd have to assume lower VO2-max.

As for Greg Lemond I've heard the number but I'm not familiar with the study. There is a risk though, that if you take (one of?) the highest value ever measured, you'll land up with whatever study screwed up and made an error somewhere.

Incidentally, in their post from this years TdF they state that the more reasonable assumption, would be for 24% efficiency. In other words 23 % clearly cannot be the high assumption when they themselves state a higher number to be more reasonable.

That is funny, because they clearly state that 23% is high in their other article. They are talking about a shorter effort here though, I'm not sure, but that might change the efficiency upwards. Either that or they appear to contradict them-self.

 

[roundabout]

Don't understand. Y ou mean they worked out the VAM, converted to W/kg, then multiplied by a flat 70kg for every rider? I don't see why they would have done that.

I also don't know why they do that. W/kg is easier. I suppose it's easier to point out that so and so was 10 watts better instead of say using 5.7 v 5.85

 

[taiwan]

How did they get these numbers? If Sorensen poerfiles are correct, then they are hugely overestimating Voeckler numbers.

Agree. Watts proportional to speed of ascent and rider weight so TV wattage should = CAS's Wattage x (CAS's time/TV's time) x (TV's weight/CAS's weight) amI right?
So 386 x (29.05/28.33) x (66/64) = ~408W average.

Cool, here's Brice Feillu's (66kg?) data for the same stage... nvm wrong stage.

image

http://www.srm.de/fr/srm-blog/tour-de-france

 

[roundabout]

5.7 w/kg for the last 20 minutes on the Tourmalet. Pretty good considering the average height of over 1750 meters.

No wonder he cracked on the Pyresourde. Funnily, the "mutant" kept on gurning, I mean going.

Edit: just to add a bit of perspective, Nibali did 5.7 w/kg for 20 minutes chasing Mosquera on the Bola del Mundo in 2010.

 

[iZnoGouD]

do you guys think we will see some of the highest power values in the Vuelta? i think so hehe

 

[Franklin]

do you guys think we will see some of the highest power values in the Vuelta? i think so hehe

Considering the steep percentages we always see in the Vuelta I certainly count on it. That would be quite normal.

It's actually more interesting if they don't hit these values....

 

[goggalor]

Was this posted yet?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...rensen-tears-up-week-three-of-the-tour_231551

Is it possible to estimate Wiggins' power in the TT from Sørensen's? Sørensen did 360 W and was 6:41 back. I guess it would be easier if Froome published his file? Or if, you know, Wiggins published his, but that won't happen. (Just in terms of speed it's 10.4%, obviously much more in terms of power, but I suppose we need info on the two riders aerodynamics.)

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Is it possible to estimate Wiggins' power in the TT from Sørensen's? Sørensen did 360 W and was 6:41 back. I guess it would be easier if Froome published his file? Or if, you know, Wiggins published his, but that won't happen.

Total guessing game in a TT where CDA makes so much difference. I'd bet Wiggins is much more efficient through the air that several guys an awful lot smaller than him.

 

[goggalor]

Total guessing game in a TT where CDA makes so much difference. I'd bet Wiggins is much more efficient through the air that several guys an awful lot smaller than him.

Yeah, maybe we can beg Wiggo to publish his files after the olympics (or after he retires, heh).

 

[taiwan]

Is it possible to estimate Wiggins' power in the TT from Sørensen's? Sørensen did 360 W and was 6:41 back. I guess it would be easier if Froome published his file? Or if, you know, Wiggins published his, but that won't happen. (Just in terms of speed it's 10.4%, obviously more in terms of power, but I suppose we need info on the two riders aerodynamics.)

Their drag coefficient or whatever could be quite different, so I don't think you could do that.

 

[Stueyy]

For a bit of a comparison.

http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

 

[iZnoGouD]

I'm arguing thatyou can't claim it's a fact that a clena rider can produce a certain power output without proving it. Cycling certainly ahs improved alongside other sports, but most of this improvemtn has clearly been chemically powered, which again is likely like other sports.



A handy tip, if you'd even done brief scan in the article for "best case" or "best-case" you'd have found:

>>> Of course, it would be wonderful to know with precision what the power output was, but as I hope to illustrate, the errors in these kinds of calculations can both be minimized and controlled so that you end up with a 'best case scenario"<<<

Well, if you had actually read the article instead of just scanning it for words you would have seen the following: cyclists efficiency have been reported between 21% and 27% though values above 25 are hotly debated. For their estimates of 6.2 w/kg they Assume 23%. Clearly not in the top of the range. The next assumption they make is about percentage of vo2 max for 40 min after a long day in the saddle and havinf raced for a while (they are specific here) and stating that realistic assumptions suggest 85% - 90% of actual vo2max, but closer to 85 than 90.

When stipulating their limit they are clearly going with the 85% percent number and not 90% because they calculate that to produce 6,6 w/kg with 23% efficiency you would need an 96 vo2max at 85 or 91 vo2max at 90. 91 vo2max is clearly achievable, Lemond tested 92,5 supposedly.

So again to arrive at 6,2 as a limit they are assuming 23% efficiency, 85% of vo2max and a vo2max of 90. None of these are at the high range of human possibilities.

In fact, the only assumption they use best case is the 5,05 Kcalories per liter of oxygen.

i don't understand correlation betwen power and vo2 max, isn't power everything?
Lars Petter Nordhaug has a vo2max of 92 and he can't follow the best climbers...

 

[simoni]

So did the top riders go faster in the third week than in the first? The numbers seem really high anyway, like 2007 high, as Vayer points out. I guess his calculations could be off, but the times should be accurate, and the groupe maillout jaune going almost as fast as the Chicken/Pistolero up the Peyresourde is crazy. They were going mental on that climb: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WRqxW9Jyt8

Edit: actually, looking at that video, Evans' group isn't far off the 2012 time.

Not looked at the video as I'm at work but my memory was of Contador and Rasmusses slowing and accelerating repeatedly trying to break each other? Thats not the way to set the fastest time.

How much of a difference does heat make to these? Whats the diff between say 15C and 25C given that you've ridden 200km already in the day?