• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 65 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
zastomito said:
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.
 
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.
 
Shardi said:
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.
 
BOh808FCYAAbA6Z.jpg
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
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
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
BigBoat said:
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
 
Netserk said:
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.
 
BroDeal said:
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
 
Aug 6, 2011
738
0
0
Visit site
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.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
*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.
 
BigBoat said:
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 :D Better call him Nieve, not Ituralde. I guess. :confused: Spaniards have way too many names.