Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[roundabout]

Kinda amusing that the "clean" Carlos Sastre did 24:28 after going on the attack on Pailheres and setting the fastest ever time with only Mercado for company.

But he is clean and Froome is the devil.

 

[BroDeal]

Kinda amusing that the "clean" Carlos Sastre did 24:28 after going on the attack on Pailheres and setting the fastest ever time with only Mercado for company.

But he is clean and Froome is the devil.

Who is daft enough to believe Sastre was clean?

 

[Bavarianrider]

Who says Sastre is clean

 

[zastomito]

Who is daft enough to believe Sastre was clean?

The same kind of people that believe that Froome is clean.

 

[BroDeal]

The same kind of people that believe that Froome is clean.

Since all those muppets seem to be Brits, I am pretty sure they would be the first to tell you Sastre cannot be trusted. He is Spanish afterall. Those English lads--well, a Enligsh via Monaco via South Africa via Kenyan and a Tasmanian--surely would not dope. That would not be cricket.

 

[Shardi]

Pretty curious about what contador and schleck the younger wouldve managed in 2010, had they not start-stopped. With Sanchez/Menchov hitting home in 23.45 is it unreasonable to believe that the two duellists could've gone home in 23.15 or thereabout if they went full bore?

From a pure numbers perspective. A guy like Andy schleck takes almost no heat for his past performances (2009 2010 (W/kg)), while froomes 6.5 w/kg is prime beef. Wasn't Andy Schlecks verbier pretty juicy as well? I guess it drowned under Contadors extraordenary achievement.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Pretty curious about what contador and schleck the younger wouldve managed in 2010, had they not start-stopped. With Sanchez/Menchov hitting home in 23.45 is it unreasonable to believe that the two duellists could've gone home in 23.15 or thereabout if they went full bore?

From a pure numbers perspective. A guy like Andy schleck takes almost no heat for his past performances (2009 2010 (W/kg)), while froomes 6.5 w/kg is prime beef. Wasn't Andy Schlecks verbier pretty juicy as well? I guess it drowned under Contadors extraordenary achievement.

Nobody with a working brain doubts they were heavily on the juice in those days.

 

[Netserk]

 

[Shardi]

The Ax-3 top 3 finishers graph looks to be in good spot for a linear first grade fit... but froome kind of ruins it ..!

 

[BigBoat]

Well Froom's 23:14 was certainly very impressive up Ax 3 Domaines but the gaps for me were what really were amazing.

1) Froome: 6.5 w/kg
2) Porte : 6.15
3) Valverde: 6.1
4) Mollema: 6.1
5) Ten Dam: 6.0
6) Ituralde: 5.9
7) Contador: 5.85

Rodriguez: 5.75

Evans: 5.35
Teejay: 4.6

 

[blackcat]

Who is daft enough to believe Sastre was clean?

lots lots lots

 

[hrotha]

6) Ituralde: 5.9

*groan*
Nieve!

 

[Race Radio]

Well Froom's 23:14 was certainly very impressive up Ax 3 Domaines but the gaps for me were what really were amazing.

1) Froome: 6.5 w/kg
2) Porte : 6.15
3) Valverde: 6.1
4) Mollema: 6.1
5) Ten Dam: 6.0
6) Ituralde: 5.9
7) Contador: 5.85

Rodriguez: 5.75

Evans: 5.35
Teejay: 4.6

FYI. I have heard reports that Froome's weight may be as low as 65 kilos

 

[mewmewmew13]

@veloclinic doc has some very interesting info on his site...
http://veloclinic.tumblr.com

 

[the sceptic]

FYI. I have heard reports that Froome's weight may be as low as 65 kilos

did you look him in the eye and ask him?

 

[kingjr]

Walsh said on NOS some days ago that he weighs 66kg.

 

[Netserk]

65kg would only mean that he'd have to have a higher W/kg to go the same speed, right?

 

[WillemS]

Edited: rubbish post, please delete this.

 

[l.Harm]

65kg would only mean that he'd have to have a higher W/kg to go the same speed, right?

Yes I think so

 

[BroDeal]

65kg would only mean that he'd have to have a higher W/kg to go the same speed, right?

If his actual weight is lower than what was used initially then the weight of the bike becomes a larger percentage of the total weight, so W/kg of body weight would go up. If the bike is not accounted for then a change in weight would make no difference.

 

[burning]

If his actual weight is lower than what was used initially then the weight of the bike becomes a larger percentage of the total weight, so W/kg of body weight would go up. If the bike is not accounted for then a change in weight would make no difference.

Actually it does, because you rode against the same air resistance in both cases unless you become somehow more aerodynamic
The difference would be very small though

 

[WillemS]

Well, the actual weight of the rider does not make much difference on the estimate of watts/kg needed to obtain a certain speed on a certain slope. This is both an adventage and a disadventage of the method, but I'll come back to this at the end of my post.

The watts needed to obtain a certain speed on a certain slope is linearly related to the weight of the object, as one can see in one of the more simplistic formula's used to estimate the watts for cyclists:

Watts = total mass * slope * speed in meters/sec * 9.8 m/sec^2

As you can see here, the estimated amount of watts covaries lineairly with the total mass of the rider + equipement. For example, if a 40kg object requires 200watts to achieve 30km/h on a certain slope, then a 20kg object would only require a 100 Watts to achieve that same speed on the same slope. However, if you now devide the watts needed by the mass, you would see that both objects require 5 watts per kg to obtain that speed on that slope. In more mathematical terms, it would look like this:

Watts = total mass * slope * speed in meters/sec * 9.8 m/sec^2

W/kg = Watts / total mass
= (total mass * slope * speed in meters/sec * 9.8 m/sec^2) / total mass
= slope * speed in meters/sec * 9.8 m/sec^2

So even if the weight varies, the estimate of watts/kg stays the same and that's why you can use a standardized weight of 70 kg in the calculations, as the actual weight drops out of the equations. This is the adventage of the method.

What's the disadventage?

Well, the method assumes that any difference in weight between riders is due to a difference of effective body mass (i.e. muscles). Imagine a rider of 100 kg going up Alp D'Huez with 10 watts/kg, producing a massive, impossible 1000 watts in a record Alp D'Huez time of 20 minutes. Now imagine the guy losing half his weight (all fat), going up Alp D'Huez equaling his record time of 20 minutes. As the weight drops out of the equation of w/kg, he has still produced 10watts/kg, but the total amount of watts is less, only 500 watts. Both performances are equal in terms of w/kg, but not in total watts produced. The second performance was worse than the first, despite the same w/kg estimate.

 

[BigBoat]

*groan*
Nieve!

I simply listed the estimated average power for each top contender yesterday at the speed they were able to complete the final climb. Some riders blew up, or bonked or "hit the wall" whatever you like to call it. Only the top hand full or less seemed to actually be able to ride at FTP. Froome managed to get above his FTP for the final 23 minute average, as it is around 6.2 w/kg.

 

[thehog]

FYI. I have heard reports that Froome's weight may be as low as 65 kilos

Yay! Race Radio is back!

What did you do to Porte? Take him out for KFC?

 

[Eshnar]

I simply listed the estimated average power for each top contender yesterday at the speed they were able to complete the final climb. Some riders blew up, or bonked or "hit the wall" whatever you like to call it. Only the top hand full or less seemed to actually be able to ride at FTP. Froome managed to get above his FTP for the final 23 minute average, as it is around 6.2 w/kg.

I suspect hrotha was just complaining about the surname you chose Better call him Nieve, not Ituralde. I guess. Spaniards have way too many names.