Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 44 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
What ?! Regardless of the visual impression (mountain sprints, stop and go attacks, etc...), overall climbing level/intensity on Vuelta was way off the level of the TDF in terms of VAM, just look at the data that was posted for the TDF, starting with PDBD.

PS - There is better data for today's stage just above...
 
May 19, 2011
248
0
0
I do think th level in the Vuelta has been higher on climbing stages, do you seriously believe that any of the top 5 could go with the top 3 in the vuelta? No chance, Froome would be the only one close if fresh
 
Jun 26, 2012
168
0
0
luckyboy said:
Last 3.1km today, thanks to @ammattipyoraily

Bola del Mundo (last 3.1 km, 12.0 %, 372 m). Rodriguez 13:12, Valverde 13:37, Contador 13:56, Moreno 13:56, Talansky 14:15, Mentshov 14:30.

Bola del Mundo (last 3.1 km, 12.0 %, 372 m). Rodriguez 13:12, 14.09 Kph, VAM 1691 m/h, 5.7 W/kg (57 kg) (poor road surface)

Shouldn't it be 6.18 W/kg (not considering wind and surface - taking both into account it should be even higher)? I got 5.42 W/kg from VAM, but then you have to multiply with total weight (+8kg) and after that divide with riders weight. At least if we compare with Brajkovic's data from Tour, where W/kg were given per rider weight.
 
Jul 28, 2011
141
1
8,835
Real data

I'm surprised no one has brought in actual real data from 2010 - from Nibali, no less - as reference: http://www.srm.de/us/srm-blog/road/...vuelta-espana-2010-bergankunft-bola-del-mundo

Based on this it would seem the wattage estimates for the last 3 kms are pretty close. Of course, the VAM method is extremely accurate for a 12% gradient where virtually no drafting takes place. All other things being equal, for climbs less steep the VAM method overestimates wattages because it doesn't take into account drafting. Especially on tempo climbs or climbs where there are a lot of guys still left at the end this can be substantial.
 
Aug 5, 2012
2,290
0
0
The Lagos de Covadonga stand out to me 26 minutes climbing, 6.55w/kg for Purito, 6.45 for Contador and 6.35 for Valverde.

Though I should say I'm not particularly au fait with all of this.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
hrotha said:
:eek: ..........

I got a similar value for Brad Wiggins.

vo2max.png


If you take Brad's weight down to 69kg, the .23/.24 efficiency values move up to 95/99 ml/m/kg. I deliberately kept it at 72kg so the hater haters don't get their knickers in a twist.
 
Apr 21, 2012
412
0
9,280
For such steep climbs, my experience is that precision is close to 1%
(power models vs powertap, no drafting)

So I'm afraid 7.60 w/kg is correct

By the way, having just finished TH's book... I'm afraid the spanish circus is still going very well !
 
Gregga said:
For such steep climbs, my experience is that precision is close to 1%
(power models vs powertap, no drafting)

So I'm afraid 7.60 w/kg is correct

By the way, having just finished TH's book... I'm afraid the spanish circus is still going very well !
Powertap vs. SRM? Properly lubed drivetrain or not? 1% is a joke, sorry.

Whatever, if I want to make somebody look supercharged, I'll make him look supercharged. That's what The Clinic is about after all.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Mr.38% said:
What if the error is 5%?

1. According to Vayer (via SoS), the 95% confidence limit is +/- 6%.

2. What struck me about that dataset was the way the four rider's estimated power outputs moved up/down together. That suggests that the data may be biased.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
the big ring said:
I got a similar value for Brad Wiggins.

vo2max.png


If you take Brad's weight down to 69kg, the .23/.24 efficiency values move up to 95/99 ml/m/kg. I deliberately kept it at 72kg so the hater haters don't get their knickers in a twist.

83% of VO2max is awfully low for that duration/quality of athlete, don't you think? I'd say that 90 +/- 5% would be a far more reasonable estimate.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
acoggan said:
83% of VO2max is awfully low for that duration/quality of athlete, don't you think? I'd say that 90 +/- 5% would be a far more reasonable estimate.

90% -5% = 85%. 83% is only slightly less.

95% of VO2max for what is effectively FTP duration sounds a bit fantastical to me.

For a 33 minute climb, Wiggins did 6.1W/kg @ 72kg (80% of 547W). Here he's TTing at 6.29W/kg (83% of 547) for a 42% longer duration. I'm already gifting him 3% increase in %VO2max and he's doing it significantly longer.

I'm basing my values on what he has done, what we have data for.

I am failing to see how doing intervals in Tenerife would lower his VO2 max - which would have to be the case if he were riding at 90 - 95% VO2 max for 453W.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
roundabout said:
Eh?

I thought 83% is the figure coggan himself came up with? Boardman was 84%.

Has science moved on since we had the last discussion in July?

I have been looking for some of those posts but the in-built forum search is not that useful. I could use google with site:cyclingnews.com I guess, but am tired now.

These are curious times.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
the big ring said:
90% -5% = 85%. 83% is only slightly less.

95% of VO2max for what is effectively FTP duration sounds a bit fantastical to me.

For a 33 minute climb, Wiggins did 6.1W/kg @ 72kg (80% of 547W). Here he's TTing at 6.29W/kg (83% of 547) for a 42% longer duration. I'm already gifting him 3% increase in %VO2max and he's doing it significantly longer.

I'm basing my values on what he has done, what we have data for.

Ah, I see the source of your confusion: power during a pursuit is equal to 110-120% of VO2max, not ~100% of VO2max.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
roundabout said:
Eh?

I thought 83% is the figure coggan himself came up with? Boardman was 84%.

Peter Keen estimated that Boardman maintained 90% (not 84%) of his VO2max (of 90 mL/min/kg) during his hour record.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
acoggan said:
Ah, I see the source of your confusion: power during a pursuit is equal to 110-120% of VO2max, not ~100% of VO2max.

I'm not confused. His pursuit power was 570W. If I thought pursuit was 100% of VO2max I would have used 570W, not 547W.

I took a 5 minute value from the CP graph you put together.

I recognise VO2 max is 5-8 minutes, but giving him a higher VO2 max provided realistic values.

Changing his P @ VO2 max to 570/1.1 gives a P @ VO2 max of 518W, and a commensurate drop in VO2 to 79 ml/m/kg @ 23% efficiency and 76 ml/m/kg @ 24% efficiency.

That just doesn't smell right for a world class IPer to me. Boardman's VO2 was 90 m/ml/kg according to one of your posts.

570/1.2 gives a P @ VO2 max of 475W which is patently ridiculous, as he's ridden that for 19:14 on the road.