Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[acoggan]

Boardman allegedly had 90 ml/m/kg and managed 4:24 for the 4k.

??

Boardman's WR in the pursuit (since broken by Bobridge) was 4:11.114.

 

[acoggan]

what I am comparing is a fit and rested, ready to place 4th in the TdF Wiggins doing 33 minute test at 439W to the same Wiggins doing 57' (that's 72% longer) at 453W (14W more) 2 years later.

Given the flatness of the power-duration relationship at that point, I don't think the difference in time really matters.

What might be relevant, though, is that the first effort was uphill, and the second a flat* TT. Some individuals can actually generate slightly more power in the latter situation (for many/most, it is the opposite), and we do have Wiggins' statement that he/they had worked diligently to improve his climbing ability, especially on steeper stuff where he struggled.

Hmmm...the above makes Wiggins sound a bit like Boardman, no? (I.e., a pursuiter-turned-road-racer who TTs really well but whose climbing ability is a relative weakness, despite not being excessively heavy.)

Of course, the apparent improvement in power could also be due to the fact that Sky heavily relies upon tools such as the Performance Manager.

*I haven't checked the route profile, but assume that at best the course was the Brits would call "sporting".

 

[will10]

??

Boardman's WR in the pursuit (since broken by Bobridge) was 4:11.114.

Boardman's superman WR. Not sure what his best time was under what you might call the 'current' pursuit position rules.

 

[the big ring]

??

Boardman's WR in the pursuit (since broken by Bobridge) was 4:11.114.

??

It would be interesting to compare times with people racing the superman position, but we only have Boardman's time in that regard.

 

[the big ring]

Boardman's superman WR. Not sure what his best time was under what you might call the 'current' pursuit position rules.

4:24 - as previously stated.

acoggan is a PhD in sports science or something. Expert in aerodynamics. I am sure the superman and standard "legal" position are equivalent and that is why he is mentioning it.

 

[will10]

4:24 - as previously stated.

acoggan is a PhD in sports science or something. Expert in aerodynamics. I am sure the superman and standard "legal" position are equivalent and that is why he is mentioning it.

OK well claiming 13s difference between a superman and a standard position is BS obviously.

CB reckoned 0.5s/km advantage for superman over a legal position you could use now. Pretty sure he said it around the time Bobridge broke the record, I'll find a link. Which would put CB's ride in 4.13 territory.

EDIT: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/boardman-calls-bobridges-pursuit-record-phenomenal

"I just thought 'wow, what an awesome ride'. It's quite something to be done in a standard position," Boardman told Cyclingnews. "I always thought someone who was around 4:13, or even low 4:14s, has got to be pretty much the same [as my record ride] when you take the bikes into account. It's a phenomenal ride.

 

[workingclasshero]

acoggan is a PhD in sports science or something.

he's also got a phd in defending ridiculous "studies" by his master Ed Coyle

 

[Von Mises]

Perhaps you feel I have not refuted this 4th excuse (fatigue, heat, tactics, now "mucking around") for weird results from Wiggins. I really would love to hear a 5th.

Maybe he had a bad night sleep? Maybe he ate a rotten orange for a breakfast? Maybe...

Point is, you are trying to make a conclusion from very little data. We just do not know every relevant piece of information. I very much agree with V3R1T4S. There are so many uncertanties to make a call for one side or other.

 

[Parrot23]

You guys are both "right" as you are arguing over two different concepts. Perhaps the misunderstanding is American English versus Australian English and "percent" vs "percentage point" and in what contexts they are used. I am neither sure nor care.

Look, here's how I see it. In essence I agree with both of you. Yes, I agree that something does not smell right. However, by all objective mathematical analysis it is impossible to make a definitive call one way or the other if something truly fishy is going on - there are too many degrees of freedom with unknown uncertainties. Even the accuracy of the SRM (quoted to within +/- 2%) could be the source of this 20 watts improvement if he changed units. Also the funny rings I believe introduce some source of inflation over round ring watts, even when the slope is properly calibrated and the offset properly zeroed. This is due to the comparative oversampling in the power phase since crank based units assume a constant angular velocity for each revolution in calculating the power output. Did he always use q-rings, even on the track? On all his training bikes? Etc, etc.

The biggest uncertainty, as Andy Coggan identified, is his weight. We have 131313's statement that he knows someone who saw him standing on the scale at the TdF this year at 72kg, so that's probably the best figure to use, although I do remember reading somewhere that in 2011 he came into the TdF at 69kg, his lightest ever. Whether that remained the same for the WC TT that year or not, who knows.

The frustrating thing is obviously at this level 20 watts can be the difference between winning the TdF or not. It is also a gain that can very easily be achieved via micro-dosing and/or other methods. However, as we are seeing, even with published power data 20 watts is still within fundamental uncertainties in the assumptions. IMHO this is why you guys are arguing with equal passion.

+1 precisely. The problem with the excess amounts of "data" nowadays, SRMs included, is that it encourages a spurious sense of accuracy--and dogmatism, paradoxically indeed.

Look at HR meters and cardiac drift, temperature, and all sorts of things affecting HR. Anyone picking up a popular explanation or book about statistics, numbers, markets and risk management (VAR, what have you) etc. would know how careful one has to be in making inferences. Do cyclists and racing wannabes not read? There are just so many examples pointing this out, I'm surprised how anyone can be dogmatic with data, estimates, anything. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Better to be ignorant and know one is ignorant.

What's interesting it that people who deal with data the most, scientists in all fields, including physiologists, are the most careful/circumspect in deriving inferences; they've been burned too many times. My first lesson in this was my high school science teacher yelling at us about the idiocy of rounding off to several decimal places the results of experiments. It seems that wannabe cyclists with SRM tools and a smidgen of knowledge about physiology are the most dogmatic at reaching conclusions based on shakey foundations.

Margin of error is really the critical/central concept in statistical inference and its basis in Gaussian distributions (bell curves) or others. It's not an adjunct or afterthought; it's the whole game.

So a definite +1 for V3R1T4S (and Von Mises) above. Nuff said.

 

[iZnoGouD]

he trained hard it's normal that he is getting results, don't you think?

 

[Bumeington]

Ah yes. The magical defense for seeming incongruous performances. Nice try. Here's the original post from JV that provides the data for this discussion.



1. If Wiggins was fatigued, 5 days after an 18minute TT, he shouldn't be placing 4th in the Tour de France 4 weeks later.
2. If the heat was affecting Wiggins power up the climb, he shouldn't be placing 4th in the Tour de France 4 weeks later.
3. JV was testing Wiggins up the climb, there were no tactics involved. It's a test.


As JV mentions above, Wiggins did 434W for 49'10" in the final TT (40km).

What we're saying here is that between 2009 (29 years of age / 7 years in the professional peloton) and 2011 (31 years of age), Wiggins power increased by 4% (to 453W) for an increased duration of 16% (49 to 57 minutes). His P @ VO2 max is irrelevant.

Magical marginal gains!

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

Ok this is just from an interview, but LeMond says 3 things: 450-460 watts fully recoverd, 420-430 watts final TT 1989, 380-390 watts tour climbs. Just anecdotally then, 453W in the worlds TT with full tapered lead up, and 434W at the end of the tour looks ok, maybe Brad could have gone 453W in the worlds TT 2009 with a perfect lead up to it (although I doubt it given this was the losing time/bike throw strop incident).

Also, Brad said he had one of his highest power reports from Tour 2012 TT (although maybe he is comparing like with like versus tour 2009).

I guess my point is be careful to compare like with like if you want to keep the moral high ground over our careless forum physiologists

 

[the big ring]

Also, Brad said he had one of his highest power reports from Tour 2012 TT (although maybe he is comparing like with like versus tour 2009).

I didn't see this. Do you remember where you read it? Was it purely qualitative, or did he mention a figure?

 

[Bumeington]

I didn't see this. Do you remember where you read it? Was it purely qualitative, or did he mention a figure?

Qualitative. I thought it was in one of his guardian blogs but I just looked for it and all I could find was powering the gear rolleyes.

Edit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/22/bradley-wiggins-childhood-dream-tour

I've just a done a world-class time trial, on Saturday, averaging a ridiculous amount of power after three weeks of bike racing and two really tough Pyrenees stages, a 222km stage on the Friday at a 44km per hour average speed with a lead-out in the finale, and then I still did that on Saturday.

He's talking to Joe Public about how can he win the olympics if he's raced a hard three weeks of tdf just before, so ok he doesn't actually say one of his best but that's how I read it and therefore how I remembered it.

I think it is important to compare like with like, final tour tt 2009 versus final tour tt 2012 would be ideal. However, it does seem obvious to me that 1. Wiggins' power has increased since 2009 (question is how much) 2. If Boardman can go 442W for one hour at 69kg whilst sustaining 90% VO2 max with a VO2 max of 90, then Wiggins must have very similar numbers to go 453W at a similar weight (although maybe slightly heavier according to 131313)

 

[acoggan]

4:24 - as previously stated.

acoggan is a PhD in sports science or something. Expert in aerodynamics.

Exercise physiology, actually, but these days I'm more of a metabolic physiologist.

But in any case: it would help if you made your allusions clearer.

 

[acoggan]

CB reckoned 0.5s/km advantage for superman over a legal position you could use now.

For me, and based on direct wind tunnel measurements, it was closer to 1 s/km at the yaw angles typical of indoor track cycling. Everyone is different, though, so it is difficult to say precisely how much advantage Boardman might have obtained. (Back in the day Keen presented data for Boardman's power-speed relationship using the Superman vs. the Obree Mk. I vs. a standard drop-bar position (and equipment), but not for a standard aero bar position.)

 

[the big ring]

For me, and based on direct wind tunnel measurements, it was closer to 1 s/km at the yaw angles typical of indoor track cycling. Everyone is different, though, so it is difficult to say precisely how much advantage Boardman might have obtained. (Back in the day Keen presented data for Boardman's power-speed relationship using the Superman vs. the Obree Mk. I vs. a standard drop-bar position (and equipment), but not for a standard aero bar position.)

I am confused as to what Boardman is claiming here - does he think he'd do 4:14 on a normal bike the same year he did 4:11 on the superman bike?

 

[will10]

I am confused as to what Boardman is claiming here - does he think he'd do 4:14 on a normal bike the same year he did 4:11 on the superman bike?

If by normal bike you mean 'standard' aero position (that would be legal under current rules) - then yes.

 

[the big ring]

If by normal bike you mean 'standard' aero position (that would be legal under current rules) - then yes.

Weird. Coz everyone else was doing 4:23-4:16s for the next 7 years or so - he could have cleaned up!

I guess gold medals and world championships aren't all they're cracked up to be eh?

 

[will10]

Weird. Coz everyone else was doing 4:23-4:16s for the next 7 years or so - he could have cleaned up!

I guess gold medals and world championships aren't all they're cracked up to be eh?

When he set the record he beat his opponent in the final (who was also using the superman position) by over nine seconds. Read into that what you will.

 

[acoggan]

When he set the record he beat his opponent in the final (who was also using the superman position) by over nine seconds. Read into that what you will.

Check the splits: Collinelli went out faster than Boardman, but Boardman gradually sped up until he pulled ahead. At that point, Collinelli either pulled up because he knew he was beaten, or he blew sky-high.

 

[the big ring]

Qualitative. I thought it was in one of his guardian blogs but I just looked for it and all I could find was powering the gear rolleyes.

Edit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/22/bradley-wiggins-childhood-dream-tour



He's talking to Joe Public about how can he win the olympics if he's raced a hard three weeks of tdf just before, so ok he doesn't actually say one of his best but that's how I read it and therefore how I remembered it.

I think it is important to compare like with like, final tour tt 2009 versus final tour tt 2012 would be ideal. However, it does seem obvious to me that 1. Wiggins' power has increased since 2009 (question is how much) 2. If Boardman can go 442W for one hour at 69kg whilst sustaining 90% VO2 max with a VO2 max of 90, then Wiggins must have very similar numbers to go 453W at a similar weight (although maybe slightly heavier according to 131313)

Thanks. Empathically, I'd never describe a power I'd done previously as "ridiculous" - that would be reserved for a big jump / PB. Even to Joe Public.

The cycling model people modeled Brad's power for both the 2012 Olympic TT and final 2012 TdF TT at 480W / 6.8W/kg.

Curiously, after calculating a maximum theoretical power of 9W/kg, and then a more realistic theoretical max power of 6.8W/kg, acoggan simply stated the cycling models website had overestimated something.

They got so many other things right or within 2% that it was difficult to just dismiss them like that.

Anecdotally - via Darryl Webster - the other question that needs to be asked is, was Boardman's performance natural?

 

[acoggan]

The cycling model people modeled Brad's power for both the 2012 Olympic TT and final 2012 TdF TT at 480W / 6.8W/kg.

Odd - in this article they estimated 447 W, which even if you believe Wiggins weighs only 69 kg, is "only" 6.48 W/kg.

http://www.cyclingpowermodels.com/OlympicTimeTrial.aspx

Guess that demonstrates the fallacy of thinking that you can precisely predict a rider's power output simply by making *** u mptions about their CdA, etc., eh?

Curiously, after calculating a maximum theoretical power of 9W/kg, and then a more realistic theoretical max power of 6.8W/kg, acoggan simply stated the cycling models website had overestimated something.

Apples and oranges.

In the first case, you're talking about maximal theoretical power outputs based on the physiological characteristics of some hypothetical individual, who may or may not have ever walked the face of the earth.

In the second case, you're talking about estimates of power output of a particular individual based on physical assumptions, coming from people who have no specific knowledge of the situation.

 

[the big ring]

Odd - in this article they estimated 447 W, which even if you believe Wiggins weighs only 69 kg, is "only" 6.48 W/kg.

http://www.cyclingpowermodels.com/OlympicTimeTrial.aspx


Guess that demonstrates the fallacy of thinking that you can precisely predict a rider's power output simply by making *** u mptions about their CdA, etc., eh?

That's their estimate for the 2011 WC TT in Copenhagen.

Xavier posted Wiggins power as 453W.

Pretty accurate imo, all things considered.

 

[acoggan]

Xavier posted Wiggins power as 453W.

Pretty accurate imo, all things considered.

You must have pretty low standards if you consider a 6% overestimate to be "pretty accurate".

 

[the big ring]

You must have pretty low standards if you consider a 6% overestimate to be "pretty accurate".

eh?

Based on Wiggins' time, they estimated his power at 447W.
Xavier told wattage groups Wiggins' power was 453W.

They underestimated it by 6W. Not overestimated by 6%.

6/447 = 1.3%

Maybe if you have a problem with the math you could show the working so everyone else can understand what you're talking about.