Alex Simmons/RST said:OK. What I don't get why the focus should be to keep a lid on performance, when we should be focussed on keeping a lid on doping. The two are not the same thing.
@BikeMuntz said:@veloclinic @ammattipyoraily @Scienceofsport K.A.Arvesen said Froome's numbers up Madone while commentating on Eurosport(norway) today
@BikeMuntz said:@veloclinic @ammattipyoraily @Scienceofsport didn't say accurat time, but accurat power:-o Arvesen:"Around 40 min and 456 watts before tour"
Tyler'sTwin said:Heard on twitter:
I assume he must've meant around 30 min.
zastomito said:I said in an earlier post that you would be having data for different type of riders. So you are bound to have data for sprinters as well as GT contenders. In a various type of races. I am sure scientific community is able to establish some boundaries in specific circumstances based on that.
thehog said:#TDF, Alpe d'Huez (13.80 km, 8.11 %). Nairo Quintana ["55 kg"]: 39:50.
DrF: 6.00 W/kg. CPL: 6.30 W/kg. BCR: 6.40 W/kg. rst: 6.45 W/kg.
DirtyWorks said:Power increases significantly in highly trained athletes on oxygen vector doping routines. It's a strong signal a rider is doping with the good stuff.
thehog said:#TDF, Alpe d'Huez (13.80 km, 8.11 %). Nairo Quintana ["55 kg"]: 39:50.
DrF: 6.00 W/kg. CPL: 6.30 W/kg. BCR: 6.40 W/kg. rst: 6.45 W/kg.
DirtyWorks said:It's not limiting performance, it's measuring it.
Power increases significantly in highly trained athletes on oxygen vector doping routines. It's a strong signal a rider is doping with the good stuff.
All of which is moot when most organizers will not pay for the EPO test. That leaves the UCI ordering the test at the right time, out of competition, and then actually processing a positive.
Alex Simmons/RST said:Measuring performance tells you what happened. It doesn't tell you why.
Your weight for Quintana looks too low. I have around 6 watts/kilogram for him in Alpe d'Huez.thehog said:#TDF, Alpe d'Huez (13.80 km, 8.11 %). Nairo Quintana ["55 kg"]: 39:50.
DrF: 6.00 W/kg. CPL: 6.30 W/kg. BCR: 6.40 W/kg. rst: 6.45 W/kg.
Alex Simmons/RST said:Measuring performance tells you what happened. It doesn't tell you why.
Alex Simmons/RST said:So, do we ban him for two years, or what?
That would be true if the bikes weighted 0kg.Almeisan said:Maybe he would have won the TdF if he did have a power meter. Seems that in some stages he suffered because he didnt have one.
Also, when estimating power, weight doesn't enter the equation. That's also why the result is in watts/kg.
I do wonder though how inaccurate the formulas get for ether very heavy or very light riders.
That's incorrect!Almeisan said:Maybe he would have won the TdF if he did have a power meter. Seems that in some stages he suffered because he didnt have one.
Also, when estimating power, weight doesn't enter the equation. That's also why the result is in watts/kg.
I do wonder though how inaccurate the formulas get for ether very heavy or very light riders.
That's only true for Ferrari's formula. Other formulas include weight in the calculations. (which they should)Almeisan said:It's not incorrect. You calculate based off VAM. If you think VAM is not about gravity, you need to rethink VAM. If you weight more or less is already reflected in your VAM. And hence the result is in he unit of watts/kg, not watts.
Weight doesn't enter the equation. That's a fact. And that's why I wonder about how outliers in weight like, Quintana and Voigt, skew the formula that's based off your average climber. The ratio of bike weight to bodyweight changes.
Almeisan said:So when performances go down, it is a sign that the peloton is cleaner (universally accepted and cited). But when it goes back up again, it doesn't tell you anything?
Hmmm, makes sense. Did you get your PhD from Coyle as well?
Unless science can confirm that there are genetic outliers possible that have unusual quirks that allow them to ride a TdF top10 with their hemoglobin levels naturally keeping level, all this talk is nonsense anyway.
pretty sure we can ban him for 2 years based off his biological passport.
I never use VAM. I use the energy equation integrated for power. In other words energy over power. It is called physics. VAM is an empirical calculation. The energy equation is a natural law. It is not empirical. And it includes weight. Because of the gravitational portion of the energy equation.Almeisan said:It's not incorrect. You calculate based off VAM. If you think VAM is not about gravity, you need to rethink VAM. If you weight more or less is already reflected in your VAM. And hence the result is in he unit of watts/kg, not watts.
Weight doesn't enter the equation. That's a fact. And that's why I wonder about how outliers in weight like, Quintana and Voigt, skew the formula that's based off your average climber. The ratio of bike weight to bodyweight changes.
I would say it's because that's their livelihood.zigmeister said:Is this due to shear numbers attempting, or the fact that they are physiologically superior than others?
Escarabajo said:That's incorrect!
So gravity is not an issue?![]()
zigmeister said:Do you not believe the fact that more Sherpas in Nepal have scaled Everest than any other people as evidence of genetic differences in humans?
Is this due to shear numbers attempting, or the fact that they are physiologically superior than others?