Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[karlboss]

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.

I thought the new "data" was froome's stage 8 victory.

 

[acoggan]

I thought the new "data" was froome's stage 8 victory.

So you're saying that Tucker and Dugas are "Skybots"?

 

[karlboss]

So you're saying that Tucker and Dugas are "Skybots"?

lol, nope just that there was a new thing to talk about that I called "data". Using inverted commas as the extra light this information sheds on any topic is pretty close to zero.

 

[Ferminal]

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).

I originally meant that if you want to set some "doping line" that holds true for everyone (which I don't) it should only be used to compare performances of the same type. Even the difference between an MTF at the end of a stage and the same climb as an MTT is noticeable, comparing to an hour record someone trained towards for months is going even further. Sure you can make a somewhat educated guess, but that defeats the whole purpose of a doping line providing certainty.

If you want to see how Tour MTFs fare against a doping line the doping line should be established based on the historical best efforts of clean riders in the Giro or Tour, a task which is practically impossible sans the small bits of info we get from le breton. Unfortunately the only plentiful data we have is of dopers which is a bit unfair, just because they doped doesn't beyond any doubt rule out a clean rider matching their feats. Thus my point that it's a pretty futile exercise and not one which should be relied upon to provide us with any real certainty. It is my uninformed opinion that we can get the same degree of uncertainty/certainty out of looking at times for the same climb in the past and accounting for the differences as we can from trying to work out the W/kg for the climb and then compare it to some special number we derived from equally error prone measurements, or some number from Eddy in Mexico which is pushing the limits of the domain. That's just me, others may find a higher degree of certainty in the single number.

 

[acoggan]

I originally meant that if you want to set some "doping line" that holds true for everyone (which I don't) it should only be used to compare performances of the same type. Even the difference between an MTF at the end of a stage and the same climb as an MTT is noticeable, comparing to an hour record someone trained towards for months is going even further. Sure you can make a somewhat educated guess, but that defeats the whole purpose of a doping line providing certainty.

If you want to see how Tour MTFs fare against a doping line the doping line should be established based on the historical best efforts of clean riders in the Giro or Tour, a task which is practically impossible sans the small bits of info we get from le breton. Unfortunately the only plentiful data we have is of dopers which is a bit unfair, just because they doped doesn't beyond any doubt rule out a clean rider matching their feats. Thus my point that it's a pretty futile exercise and not one which should be relied upon to provide us with any real certainty. It is my uninformed opinion that we can get the same degree of uncertainty/certainty out of looking at times for the same climb in the past and accounting for the differences as we can from trying to work out the W/kg for the climb and then compare it to some special number we derived from equally error prone measurements, or some number from Eddy in Mexico which is pushing the limits of the domain. That's just me, others may find a higher degree of certainty in the single number.

We seem to be in complete agreement. I only started pointing out values of 6+ W/kg because those who do believe that it is possible to establish a definitive 'doping line' generally seem to think that even that is impossible w/o assistance.

 

[BigBoat]

We seem to be in complete agreement. I only started pointing out values of 6+ W/kg because those who do believe that it is possible to establish a definitive 'doping line' generally seem to think that even that is impossible w/o assistance.

I think a common misconception when it comes to those who want to use performance as a doping indicator, is that we want a "doping line" or boundary. I saw this on a website a while ago (can remember which one) saying we want a speed limit or a "brake" on bikes if a rider pedals beyond a certain wattage. Although I think there is certainly a human limit for various durations, you dont need to set a "speed limit" in cycling to see a guy who's blood doping with his own blood. Now we cant unfortunately see an anabolic steroid (as its subtle).

Tracking sudden variations in performance to me would much more helpful when targeting riders. In my opinion (since there is no test for Autologous transfusion) that we have one team in particular that is exploiting this (other teams too) but one team in particular that have a sophisticated doping program on their best riders.

If you simply read Tyler Hamilton's book and the part about riding up the short little hill out of breath, after having blood drawn off, hardly being able to complete a short ride you get the idea of how weak a rider is immediately afterwards.

If we truly had FULL TRANSPARENCY, and that means a neutral party imbedded with teams with their goal of monitoring every single training ride, and race it would be easy to see weird stuff like this.

For example, Froome's FTP being 375 watts in March, then he goes to Tenerife for a "training" camp and suddenly his heart rate is pegged to the red zone while riding up the hill away from beach at 220 watts.

 

[blackcat]

but how about athletes who should be no more than a weekend warrior, who make themselves into steve austin 6million$ men thru androgens.

seems much of the power statistics is premised upon us seeing a peloton full of eddy merckx not a peloton full of Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Jonathan Vaughters is pretty open now about his past and states that during training, undoped, he could hit 6.5 w/kg for 15-20 minutes. This implies an undoped FTP of over 6.0 w/kg, consistent with his undoped FTP estimate of 6.2 w/kg.

Maybe instead of estimating JV's undoped 1h FTP, based on Coggan's estimate of JV's undoped 20 min threshold, based on JV's estimate of his Ventoux TT and his claimed gains from EPO, maybe someone should just ask him what his undoped 1h FTP was? Well, as it turns out, someone did, and JV said his FTP was 5.8-6.0 W/kg (360 W, 60-62 kg). Aren't you glad you don't have to speculate anymore?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

By now, you may have figured out that JV's story doesn't add up.

For me, it didn't make such a huge difference, as my hct% was quite high anyway (47-51% range naturally). roughly, I was around 360 watts at 1 hour power, at sea level, without doping. With EPO, I was around 375 watts at 1 hour power. My weight was pretty consistent in the 60-62kg range.

My biggest problems had to do with glycogen resythesis and protein degradation, not 02 consumption. Otherwise: I didn't recover too well after day 7-8 or so. Maybe that would have been solved with insulin or something, but I didn't try.

And there you go, JV

As I look at some old SRM files, there's one 45 min effort at 381 watts. So, maybe a bit more.

@fmk_RoI 1999 dauphine, ventoux stage: VAM 1912, w/kg 6.8.... See why I feel cycling is clean now?

https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/225617454045478913

 

[blackcat]

By now, you may have figured out that JV's story doesn't add up.







https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/225617454045478913

?

his power at 6.8 for his Ventoux record, is between 408 (60kg) - 422 (62kg).

i can give Vaughters a wide berth on this trivia. i had come to the conclusion JV was sometimes fluid with the truth, pending on the situation. Time are CA, would not dope. But then, it comes out later, that did dope post USPS. The wasp sting on the eye, was always used as a symbol into the anti-doping philosophy he held, and Roger Legeay. Not availing oneself of a corticoid jab to reduce swelling and finish the tour.

i have come around to the position, JV has a commitment to a different sport. But I wish they would stop with the testing instruments are not accurately calibrated every crit test result they do not like.

i dont think the sport is clean, but it may well be cleaner. i still dont think one wins a GT nor a monument on bread and water. but i can reconcile this now.

 

[Krebs cycle]

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

Of course, any normal person would change their opinion when new information is presented.

You sound more like a deluded religious fundamentalist who stubbornly believes the earth was created in 7 days despite 200yrs of scientific evidence which completely disproves the creation myth.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Of course, any normal person would change their opinion when new information is presented.

You sound more like a deluded religious fundamentalist who stubbornly believes the earth was created in 7 days despite 200yrs of scientific evidence which completely disproves the creation myth.

Please. Tell us the fairy tale of riders slowing down on the climbs again. That's a good one.

 

[Race Radio]

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2013/07/08/you-dont-have-the-power/

Joe Lindsey's take is a good one

 

[Boeing]

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2013/07/08/you-dont-have-the-power/

Joe Lindsey's take is a good one

exceptional find great read thanks. For some time I have been at a loss as to why more people haven't challenged Brainsford.


Brailsford’s wisecrack is unfortunate and unnecessary. What he disagrees with Vayer about is the interpretation of the data, not necessarily the data itself. Worse, Brailsford’s argument seems to be that people aren’t expert enough to correctly interpret the data, and we aren’t going to release data, thus ensuring that you can’t become expert enough to correctly interpret it.

The Team Sky boss isn’t on Twitter but, if he was, he’d be directly confronted with a reality of the internet age.
'

RR I hope you can transfer your energy to this topic now with the same intensity you did the one

 

[yespatterns]

Good article. I hope there will come a time when tech/regulation catches up and viewers can square in on real time power data during races... won't prove a positive, but glaring anomalies can at least give credence to what we can and can't trust.

 

[Le breton]

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

Not that I remember. I wrote that his time was 58:40 and far more believable as undoped performance than Jeff's 58:08.
-----------
Next day : in fact Herrera did 58:38 ( just checked in l?Equipe)

 

[Race Radio]

Not that I remember. I wrote that his time was 58:40 and far more believable as undoped performance than Jeff's 58:08.

Wow. 58:40 is impressive.

 

[Trond Vidar]

For those crunching out numbers: Laurens Ten Dam releases all the TDF stages on Strava, usually the same evening. You can use his times and locations to validate your numbers. The map in conjunction with time is quite useful if the peloton wasn't filmed at the start of a climb etc.

He confirmed his weight to be 67-68 on twitter just a day ago

http://app.strava.com/activities/65157191

 

[Bexon30]

For those crunching out numbers: Laurens Ten Dam releases all the TDF stages on Strava, usually the same evening. You can use his times and locations to validate your numbers. The map in conjunction with time is quite useful if the peloton wasn't filmed at the start of a climb etc.

He confirmed his weight to be 67-68 on twitter just a day ago

http://app.strava.com/activities/65157191

Yea, I follow Ten Dam. How accurate is Strava because it assumes one person is riding alone not a peloton or group of 20+ etc. or that that make little or any difference up hill. Also the % of climbs seems a little out to me sometimes... Might just be me though.

 

[Trond Vidar]

Yea, I follow Ten Dam. How accurate is Strava because it assumes one person is riding alone not a peloton or group of 20+ etc. or that that make little or any difference up hill. Also the % of climbs seems a little out to me sometimes... Might just be me though.

I think it is most useful for verifying times, ie when they hit a climb and such. If he uses a power meter if would show next to the calculated watts. He seems not to record the power data.

 

[heart_attack_man]

https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/225617454045478913

LOL @ Vaughters quote here from last year RE: Climbing Times being 10% slower. Slightly nescient based on what we saw in Stage 8...

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I think it is most useful for verifying times, ie when they hit a climb and such. If he uses a power meter if would show next to the calculated watts. He seems not to record the power data.

The power and VAM reported by Strava seem very unreliable, paricularly power. Two riders of the same size can ride up the same climb at the same speed and get wildly different reported powers.

VAM only seems to account for net height change. OK for climbs that go straight up; not so good where there is a dip and a re-gain of height.

For known climbs it is very good. For example there's a segment called "Alpe d'Huez - official chrono course" which is 14k and appears to be the climb from the lamp post at the bottom to the Tour finish and thus allows comparisons with times quoted in the pre Strava era.

There's a margin for error on exactly when you go through the start and finish of each segment due to inaccurate GPS tracking, but this doesn't affect comparisons over non-trivial segments. It did manifest itself one day for me when in sprint practice, I clocked an average of 65kmh for 200m. If only!

 

[red_flanders]

Strava power is in fact way off. I get up to +/- 20 watts for the same climb with the same time to the second frequently (short climb, cat 3).

 

[acoggan]

The power and VAM reported by Strava seem very unreliable, paricularly power.

But, but, but...how can that be?!? After all (to quote Joe Lindsey), "what we’re dealing with here isn’t pseudo-science at all: it’s physics".

 

[the sceptic]

Lets say Martin was doing 470 watts today, similar to the dauphine
If Froome produced the same power, that makes his w/kg sky high doesnt it? Almost the magical 7w/kg
(yes i know im just a pseudo scientist)