Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Considering that in swimming
1) the exerted power goes up roughly as the FIFTH power of the velocity, there is not all that much to be gained from doping (if we compare to cycling up mountains)

2) competitors are not in their natural environment

I would expect gains to come from
a) better techniques
b) better pools, deeper, no use of the outside lanes, etc.

Didnt you once do a calculation for Herrera on Ventoux in 1987's TT? Maybe I missed it.

 

[Le breton]

Wow, that's beautiful. <3

10.9 kg makes more sense.

The guy who does this work is Emile Arbes, last time we talked was on the finish line of the Etape du Tour in 2007 in Loudenvielle. A few months earlier I had sent him one of my inherited old bikes (pre WW2) for his "museum".

Emile is Hubert Arbes' brother ( teammate of B. Hinault).

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Considering that in swimming
1) the exerted power goes up roughly as the FIFTH power of the velocity, there is not all that much to be gained from doping (if we compare to cycling up mountains)

2) competitors are not in their natural environment

I would expect gains to come from
a) better techniques
b) better pools, deeper, no use of the outside lanes, etc.

From my brief look at the literature (Toussaint et al), I though swim power output was proportional to the third power of the swimmer's velocity.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Considering that in swimming
1) the exerted power goes up roughly as the FIFTH power of the velocity, there is not all that much to be gained from doping (if we compare to cycling up mountains)

2) competitors are not in their natural environment

I would expect gains to come from
a) better techniques
b) better pools, deeper, no use of the outside lanes, etc.

I'm not necessarily talking about IC doping. OOC doping - particularly recovery - is more important, imo, in most cycling races up to a week, and any swimming event.

 

[BigBoat]

Well Vayer described Froome as being in the 'miraculous' range. In fairness to Vayer, by the limited accounts of the conditions I've heard, there was a headwind on Axe 3.

There certainly will be plenty of climbing in the final week, so the sports scientist can run some more numbers. Perhaps slightly reduced power from Froome by then, due to fatigue or simply having a huge lead and only needing to ride at the "2nd speed" of 2 speed pack which appears to be 2nd place on down this year...

 

[acoggan]

One thing that stopped more challenges (and there were some at the time) is the reputation that Coyle has/d and the way the paper was written. There is nothing directly outlandish in the paper, but the conclusions subsequently drawn from it are ridiculous.

For example, based on Coyle's work, there were conclusions drawn that LA was clean because his performances were due to adaptations in his body over time. Those conclusions were not stated in the paper, but were pretty public.

Pretty good summary.

 

[Ferminal]

We should get one more flat out reading, he has to go for it on Ventoux. Never know what could happen in the few days after, so the 3 minute lead after the ITT will probably not be comfortable enough.

 

[acoggan]

Bulldust. There was no study whatsoever until Lance took an insurance company to court. There was only a poster, with pretty pictures and what not. The study was published, in haste, after Lance called on Ed for some back up, and employed him as an expert witness.

We've been over this before: Coyle first presented the study a couple of years before the SCA trial.

 

[acoggan]

I'd rather comparisons be done on like data, so not comparing a timed GT climb to a P-N TT with SRM data to an hour record to some feat someone says they did clean.

Working my way backward through the recent posts, so perhaps this has been covered, but I think you're overlooking a key point: data from stage races (or, in Merckx's case, a laboratory test) provide a minimal estimate of the maximal power a ride can produce 'clean' (assuming, of course, that the examples given are from undoped riders). As such, they serve to push the 'doping line' higher than many here seem to believe where it should be drawn.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

We've been over this before: Coyle first presented the study a couple of years before the SCA trial.

He presented a poster. Not a study. To you and a bunch of other people, in a closed room, invite only event.

The "study" was not published until Lance needed back up in the SCA case, and offered Coyle the expert witness gig.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

1964
http://velosvintage.over-blog.com/article-velo-margnat-paloma-1964-105448106.html

He turns eighty five to day.

 

[acoggan]

BTW, I did address "Mr. Verifiable Facts" in person, face-to-face. The subsequent discussion with his stooge Arnie Baker became quite heated.

Am I "Mr. Verifiable Facts"? Presumably yes...but how does Arnie Baker qualify as my "stooge" (I've never met him, or even been in the same room w/ him).

 

[acoggan]

He presented a poster. Not a study. To you and a bunch of other people, in a closed room, invite only event.

Just keeping the facts straight.

The "study" was not published until Lance needed back up in the SCA case, and offered Coyle the expert witness gig.

So you know this for a fact?

 

[acoggan]

Using Obree and Boardman attempting hour records on indoor tracks with no wind resistance and specialised equipment which both had planned for is hardly comparable to riding a climb after a 5 hour + mountainous stage after a week of racing, more like apples and oranges.

Data obtained while fully rested serves to provide a maximal estimate of what is possible when fatigued.

Likewise with Vaughters, was that after a 5 hour effort or just going flat out for 15-20 minutes. What were the circumstances??

Based on the quote, it appears to be flat out in training...so again, a maximal estimate (for Vaughters, anyway).

Merckx and Bahomantes I would have serious issues with accuracy etc.

And yet you will accept Stava-ized estimates from modern day?? (Perhaps you won't, so apologies if I'm distorting your personal position.)

 

[acoggan]

First of all, Dr. Coyle had his doubts about Armstrong and undertook the student (study - AC) with reservations.

I can confirm the first part, but lack any knowledge re. the second.

 

[acoggan]

All the Skybots who have been smearing the Sports Scientist guys might want to change their tune

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/tour-rest-day-pondering-unanswerables.html

Funny how they've changed their tune over the past few years...

 

[acoggan]

So a doper is now the benchmark for what is possible "undoped" ?

Referring to Merckx? As I noted in my post, I included his power because it was measured 1) pre-EPO, and 2) under conditions in which it is unlikely that he would have blood doped. You can ignore it if you wish.

 

[Parrot23]

PS : JV elsewhere on the forum said that after a number of hours of racing he could at best produce 85% of his "fresh" power output, i.e. if his fresh undoped FTP was 6.35 Watts/kg, his undoped end of mountain stage FTP was more like 0.85 times 6.35 = 5.4 Watts/kg.

Equally, the standard correction factor for estimating FTP (hour sustainable power) is to subtract 5-8% from a 20-min test. In Froome's case nothing like seems to be done to the putative estimate of 6.5 watts/kg on Sunday's climb--a 20-24 min climb, etc.?

Anyone here EVER ride with a power meter and see the standard critical power curve (of watt values by duration) of the results? No? It's not incidental: it's absolutely central to all the results.

The benchmark watt/kg values are for 40+ min climbs--not 20 mins. Just say'in....

(Also, you have to remember that in JV's case his particular, self-acknowledged, weakness as a GT rider was his singular inability to produce big numbers at the end of a long ride. Not everyone who does is/was doped.)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Funny how they've changed their tune over the past few years...

I don't see you saying the same of Krebs Cycle... Apparently it's the done thing by scientists learning new information.

Or by "funny" did you mean "commendable"?

 

[acoggan]

Why do the clinic crazies seem to have a much better track record of detecting doping frauds than the science guys have?

Shame on you for bringing up the Sports Science guys' extensive defense of Oscar Pistorius.

More seriously: my record is 0 for 0, since I've never accused or defended any specific individual. I leave that to those with more "common sense".

 

[acoggan]

I don't see you saying the same of Krebs Cycle... Apparently it's the done thing by scientists learning new information.

Or by "funny" did you mean "commendable"?

Changing one's conclusions in light of new data wouldn't be so much commendable, but expected. However, there aren't any new data, so I just find it funny.

 

[SaxonUK]

Why do the clinic crazies seem to have a much better track record of detecting doping frauds than the science guys have?

When you're accusing everyone you're bound to get one right!

 

[Ferminal]

Working my way backward through the recent posts, so perhaps this has been covered, but I think you're overlooking a key point: data from stage races (or, in Merckx's case, a laboratory test) provide a minimal estimate of the maximal power a ride can produce 'clean' (assuming, of course, that the examples given are from undoped riders). As such, they serve to push the 'doping line' higher than many here seem to believe where it should be drawn.

That would be the same for a doper too, which is kind of my point I think.

 

[acoggan]

That would be the same for a doper too, which is kind of my point I think.

Sorry, I thought you were objecting to presenting stage race data and hour record data in the same breath, not referring to doping (note that I downgraded Vaughter's doped performance in training using his 4-6% estimate to project his undoped performance).

 

[Le breton]

From my brief look at the literature (Toussaint et al), I though swim power output was proportional to the third power of the swimmer's velocity.

I take it from Di Prampero