Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 50 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
That isn't the point. You can do that easily looking at individual performances.

The point of aggregation is to see if there are any trends. There are too many factors which cannot be accounted for in such a simple analysis. Any conclusions drawn will be weak, although I still hope it is enough to give us a bit more of an idea than we currently have.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
WinterRider said:
I would love to see these graphs color coded so we can distinguish individual riders' efforts.
Yes, in particular we need to know which ones are LA's so we will know where to concentrate our vitriol.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Ferminal said:
There were some, but the time is not always taken from the bottom and Cuitu Negru/Pajares are separated.

Next year is a dream for 40+min climbs though.
I'd think longer climbs would suit the diesel more than the shorter, steeper ones. Yet Wiggins is scared.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
del1962 said:
These averages from all 3 grand tours?
I think they are the specific instances of climbs in each GT - see previous posts where the climbs themselves and their gradients are listed.
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Yellow. The boy is yellow. Why else would he be avoiding the Tour and aiming to win the Giro?
The boy won yellow...
Maybe Froome was all but promised a chance as leader at the Tour for 2013. Perhaps, he wants to try and win each of the GTs. Perhaps, he decided that the course does not suit him.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Don't be late Pedro said:
The boy won yellow...
Maybe Froome was all but promised a chance as leader at the Tour for 2013. Perhaps, he wants to try and win each of the GTs. Perhaps, he decided that the course does not suit him.
Perhaps he's scared :)
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Don't be late Pedro said:
Perhaps you are making things up to try and fit your narrative :)
Yes I am sure people just choose to race different races until they have a full "set" of them. That's why they race the exact same race every year on the track, never deviating from that single minded focus.

All the utter BS from Krebs Cycle et al saying Brad's performance this year is explainable from his track results and suddenly the course doesn't suit him.

Right.

Gotcha.
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Yes I am sure people just choose to race different races until they have a full "set" of them. That's why they race the exact same race every year on the track, never deviating from that single minded focus.
First of all your comparison of different GTs to track racing is rubbish at best. With the exception of some tracks being slightly different in length, they are essentially the same race. Are you going to tell me that the 2012 Tour is similar to the 2011 Tour or 2011 Giro?

Second, can you really not see the appeal of wanting to have one win in each of the GTs versus multiple Tour wins?
 
Dear Wiggo said:
Yes I am sure people just choose to race different races until they have a full "set" of them. That's why they race the exact same race every year on the track, never deviating from that single minded focus.
Eddy Merckx went out of his way to fill gaps in his palmares.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Perhaps he's scared :)
The Giro is before the Tour, as we all know.

Wiggo rides the Giro with the best Sky squad, ie this year's Tour squad, less Froome and Cav, with Thomas and Kennaugh.

Froome races the Tour, with the second tier Sky squad, including a tired Wiggo "heroically" riding for Froome after Froome's efforts in this year's Tour, at least for a few stages before he withdraws.

Wiggo and the top team are then fresh for the Vuelta.

End result, Wiggo does the double, Froome doesn't win the Tour, Wiggo is an even bigger hero for "helping" Froome, Mrs Froome is back in her box and Mrs Wiggo is happy.

Job done.
 
I don't know, I'm trying to normalise for time. I've seen numbers thrown around here but can't remember what they were or how solid their foundations.

I can't invent it with the data I have as it's all too scattered. Or you have something like 2007 where it's positive :eek:
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
Ferminal said:
Does anyone have a link to literature which shows the decline in output over exertion time?
Well I call the below "science" but apparently dear wiggo thinks it's just "BS"....

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Oct;42(10):1876-90.
Critical power: implications for determination of V˙O2max and exercise tolerance.
Jones AM, Vanhatalo A, Burnley M, Morton RH, Poole DC.
Source
School of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, England. a.m.jones@exeter.ac.uk
Abstract
For high-intensity muscular exercise, the time-to-exhaustion (t) increases as a predictable and hyperbolic function of decreasing power (P) or velocity (V ). This relationship is highly conserved across diverse species and different modes of exercise and is well described by two parameters: the "critical power" (CP or CV), which is the asymptote for power or velocity, and the curvature constant (W') of the relationship such that t = W'/(P - CP). CP represents the highest rate of energy transduction (oxidative ATP production, V˙O2) that can be sustained without continuously drawing on the energy store W' (composed in part of anaerobic energy sources and expressed in kilojoules). The limit of tolerance (time t) occurs when W' is depleted. The CP concept constitutes a practical framework in which to explore mechanisms of fatigue and help resolve crucial questions regarding the plasticity of exercise performance and muscular systems physiology. This brief review presents the practical and theoretical foundations for the CP concept, explores rigorous alternative mathematical approaches, and highlights exciting new evidence regarding its mechanistic bases and its broad applicability to human athletic performance.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20195180
 
Sep 4, 2012
250
0
0
Ferminal said:
What it all looks like so far:
Hi Ferminal
I'm interested in your comparison, but not sure I understand, and hoping you can take a moment to explain.

Presumably the relationship between (average?) W/Kg and time to complete a climb should be more or less a constant. The more watts/kg you generate the faster you move those kg up the hill. That is, even if a team is cheating we would expect the relationship between power and time to complete to remain the same, there's just more PED power.

If the point is to compare average watts/kg across years, I think it would be easier to see any trend if you aggregate over the time to complete; eg a bar chart showing average and variance W/Kg for each year. Then we could see more easily how/if power changes over years (and between tours)

Sorry if I've missed your point entirely
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
1
0
Cramps said:
Hi Ferminal
I'm interested in your comparison, but not sure I understand, and hoping you can take a moment to explain.

Presumably the relationship between (average?) W/Kg and time to complete a climb should be more or less a constant. The more watts/kg you generate the faster you move those kg up the hill. That is, even if a team is cheating we would expect the relationship between power and time to complete to remain the same, there's just more PED power.

If the point is to compare average watts/kg across years, I think it would be easier to see any trend if you aggregate over the time to complete; eg a bar chart showing average and variance W/Kg for each year. Then we could see more easily how/if power changes over years (and between tours)

Sorry if I've missed your point entirely
Intuitively, you can hold more than your functional threshold power for a short time, therefore the length of climbing effort is relevant when you want to know whether someone's power output is believeable or not.

What might be useful would be to estimate the sustainable W/kg associated with each climbing performance and collect those. Not that I can help.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
Well I call the below "science" but apparently dear wiggo thinks it's just "BS"....
I think you will find you claimed to be able to calculate someone's FTP based on ONE time for a 4km pursuit. I have never claimed the hyperbolic function to be BS, ever.

Nice try though, I am sure you will fool someone.

Would you care to enlighten us as to why you deleted a post referring to MAOD and Wiggins?

It's the post that has been part-quoted here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=956871&postcount=3709


Don't jump on the bandwagon dude. You evidently know more about physiology than some of the trolls around here, but you made some assumptions in your post earlier that were incorrect, specifically the bit about high VO2max and high % type II fibres. Learn and understand what MAOD is first then read the following.....
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Ferminal said:
I don't know, I'm trying to normalise for time. I've seen numbers thrown around here but can't remember what they were or how solid their foundations.

I can't invent it with the data I have as it's all too scattered. Or you have something like 2007 where it's positive :eek:
If it helps at all, studies or reviews thereof seem to indicate that EPO usage whilst improving VO2max to a certain extent has a far more significant effect on time to exhaustion. I will find the study if it's of any perceived benefit in what you are doing, but they showed an increase in ~5% VO2max but a ~50% increase in time to exhaustion in one study I read.
 
Cramps said:
Hi Ferminal
I'm interested in your comparison, but not sure I understand, and hoping you can take a moment to explain.

Presumably the relationship between (average?) W/Kg and time to complete a climb should be more or less a constant. The more watts/kg you generate the faster you move those kg up the hill. That is, even if a team is cheating we would expect the relationship between power and time to complete to remain the same, there's just more PED power.
That is correct, but I don't know precisely what the relationship is. Time needs to be accounted for somewhere as 1800m/h over 40' is more impressive than the same VAM over 20'. In that case it's obvious, what about when the margins are much tighter? At the moment the only way I can tell is on an xy scatter. My desire is to somehow convert that into numbers. I could do it by taking the slope but it's not very reliable. It would have to be the slope of each year too as time becomes less of a factor in explaining power (which we expected) when comparing the years.

It is not a big issue though, I just thought it would be nice to have a performance rating with time removed from the equation.

e.g. something like this (using approx -1.5%/10min):

Output Time (h) Rating
5.84 0.45 96.06
5.69 0.54 94.34
5.85 0.56 97.22
6.05 0.50 100.00
5.77 0.51 95.45
5.94 0.49 98.04
5.91 0.58 98.39
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts