Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Netserk]

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.

People also complain when Contador is called Velasco

 

[the sceptic]

vetooo ‏@ammattipyoraily

#TDF, Ax-3-Domaines, Intermediate Times | 2001 Armstrong, 2003 Ullrich, 2005 Armstrong, 2010 Menchov, 2013 Froome | http://pastebin.com/bh27B2vA

Imagine if they had drilled the pace hard from the bottom this year.. wow

 

[jw1979]

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

65-66kg sounds more appropriate. i think he was listed as 72kg at last years tour.

by his own admission, Froome's threshold is 440-460w. 7 x 65 = 455, which reminds me of the w/kg magic number to win the tour often quoted by dr. evil.

 

[thehog]

Imagine if they had drilled the pace hard from the bottom this year.. wow

More to the point after 1.30km Porte & Froome smashed it! Take the timing from that point and they're faster than Armstrong.

Froome was better than Ullrich!

I now buy the theory at Porte backed off today. That's scary ***, right there.

 

[kingjr]

More to the point after 1.30km Porte & Froome smashed it! Take the timing from that point and they're faster than Armstrong.

Froome was better than Ullrich!

That's a bad comparison, Ullrich couldn't do **** on mountains until he started doping.

 

[SeriousSam]

Did he zig zag up mountains or something?

 

[webbie146]

That's a bad comparison, Ullrich couldn't do **** on mountains until he started doping.

lol "couldn't do ****' on mountains? He got second that year behind Lance and was LA biggest opponent. Second best climber in the whole peleton in 01...

 

[EnacheV]

I'm sorry but this is not science, it's on the same level as 1500's "earth is flat" theory

There is no scientific correlation between any of these indicators and presence of certain substances in the human body.

That's why nobody get's doping bans over any of these meaningless numbers (meaningless from the above mentioned scientific cause-effect requirement).

Edit: If i dope myself i may get 50% less power than the worst TDF clean rider. The only scientific method to prove that X doped with substance Y is to find Y trace in tests.

I'm really amazed that people take seriously this "scientific" numbers.

 

[the sceptic]

youre right sir Dave. Its now possible to be clean and ride faster than Armstrong. Doping can in fact make you slower.

 

[hrotha]

Friendly word of advice: don't talk about science right after claiming people in the 1500s (or 1400s or 1000s or 800s or whenever) thought the Earth was flat.

 

[BYOP88]

@EnacheV your Ph.D was in what?

 

[SeriousSam]

I'm sorry but this is not science, it's on the same level as 1500's "earth is flat" theory

There is no scientific correlation between any of these indicators and presence of certain substances in the human body.

That's why nobody get's doping bans over any of these meaningless numbers (meaningless from the above mentioned scientific cause-effect requirement).

Edit: If i dope myself i may get 50% less power than the worst TDF clean rider. The only scientific method to prove that X doped with substance Y is to find Y trace in tests.

I'm really amazed that people take seriously this "scientific" numbers.

I'm really amazed that you apparently don't understand what correlation is. There most obviously is a positive correlation. Perhaps you should read the wiki article on correlation. While you're at it, think about why there is no cause and effect requirement, contrary to what you say.

 

[Mr. 64%]

I'm sorry but this is not science, it's on the same level as 1500's "earth is flat" theory

There is no scientific correlation between any of these indicators and presence of certain substances in the human body.

That's why nobody get's doping bans over any of these meaningless numbers (meaningless from the above mentioned scientific cause-effect requirement).

Edit: If i dope myself i may get 50% less power than the worst TDF clean rider. The only scientific method to prove that X doped with substance Y is to find Y trace in tests.

I'm really amazed that people take seriously this "scientific" numbers.

To be honest, it seems like a pretty fair comparison.
Yes, there are variables of which we can't be certain.
No, these numbers will never give a one-sided answer as to who is juicing and who isn't.

It sure does give a very fine indication, though.

 

[Cookster15]

That's a bad comparison, Ullrich couldn't do **** on mountains until he started doping.

No it is a good comparison. Ullrich was doping in 2001. See webbie's comment.

 

[BroDeal]

That's a bad comparison, Ullrich couldn't do **** on mountains until he started doping.

Neither could Froome.

I don't recall Ullrich being disqualified for hanging onto motor vehicles during climbs.

Heck! Quotes from Froome's mom show he couldn't do **** on flat ground.

 

[The Hitch]

@EnacheV your Ph.D was in what?

Post of the year

 

[Le breton]

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

OF course not
At the level of a a very few kilos it really doesn't matter.

 

[EnacheV]

@EnacheV your Ph.D was in what?

In something that is not phony science or forum science or guys look at me science

Seriously, if you don't see why this is not science there is no way i can demonstrate that to you.

Just to put it simple, all these numbers correlate only with results of a human in a certain situation (simpler, winners have bigger numbers, over years they go up and down) not with a certain balance of input factors like :

- genes
- training
- feeding regime
- state of mind
- drugs
- environment factors at race moment (pressure, temperature, etc - even stuff like how close was the moon - you can laugh, it matters)
- cycling rules, tech status

and 1000's of other input factors.

Yes, bigger numbers = winners but the cause of those bigger numbers is not always drugs. And there is no scientific relation between them. If it was than riders would be banned already based on this indicators.

Hope was clear as my english is not good.

 

[Le breton]

Yes I think so

This is hopeless

 

[Le breton]

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.

Thanks BroDeal

 

[kingjr]

Neither could Froome.

I don't recall Ullrich being disqualified for hanging onto motor vehicles during climbs.

Thing is, we know for sure that Ullrich doped from 1996 onwards, whilst we know **** all about Froome.

 

[Turner29]

That's a bad comparison, Ullrich couldn't do **** on mountains until he started doping.

1996 Tour de France, Mountain Finish Results:

Stage 8: Sunday, July 7, Bourg St. Maurice - Val d'Isère 30.5 km Individual Time Trial

Major Climb: hilltop finish at Val d'Isère

Evgeni Berzin: 51min 53sec
Bjarne Riis @ 35sec.
Abraham Olano @ 45sec
Tony Rominger @ 1min 1sec
Miguel Indurain s.t.
Jan Ullrich @ 1min 7sec
Peter Luttenberger @ 1min 36sec
Chris Boardman @ 2min 30sec
Alex Zulle @ 2min 36sec
Udo Bolts @ 2min 52sec

Stage 9: Monday, July 8, Le Monetier les Bains - Sestriere, 46 km.

Major climbs: Originally the Iseran and Galibier were scheduled, but dangerous weather caused the stage to be shortened to include only the Montgenèvre and Sestriere ascents.

Bjarne Riis: 1hr 10min 44sec
Luc Leblanc @ 24sec
Richard Virenque @ 26sec
Tony Rominger @ 28sec
Miguel Indurain s.t.
Udo Bolts @ 41sec
Fernando Escartin @ 42sec
Jan Ullrich @ 44sec
Peter Luttenberger @ 46sec
Abraham Olano @ 54sec

Stage 16: Tuesday, July 16, Agen - Lourdes/Hautacam, 199 km.

Major climb: Lourdes/Hautacam

Bjarne Riis: 4hr 56min 16sec
Richard Virenque @ 49sec
Laurent Dufaux s.t.
Luc Leblanc @ 54sec
Leonardo Piepoli @ 57sec
Tony Rominger @ 1min 33sec
Jan Ullrich s.t.
Piotr Ugramov s.t.
Laurent Brochard @ 1min 41sec
Fernando Escartin @ 1min 46sec

I guess your definition of "can't climb" is different than most.

 

[kingjr]

The **** is that post supposed to tell me? Ullrich was doping in 1996. Post climbing results from pre-1996 if you want to make a point.

 

[Le breton]

I'm sorry but this is not science, it's on the same level as 1500's "earth is flat" theory

There is no scientific correlation between any of these indicators and presence of certain substances in the human body.

That's why nobody get's doping bans over any of these meaningless numbers (meaningless from the above mentioned scientific cause-effect requirement).

Edit: If i dope myself i may get 50% less power than the worst TDF clean rider. The only scientific method to prove that X doped with substance Y is to find Y trace in tests.

I'm really amazed that people take seriously this "scientific" numbers.

Nobody certainly will take your post seriously.

 

[BYOP88]

The **** is that post supposed to tell me? Ullrich was doping in 1996. Post climbing results from pre-1996 if you want to make a point.

Ok look at Froome's climbing times on mountain stages and ITT's pre-Vuelta 2011 and compare them from then to now.