Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Le breton]

TheGame :
How do we know that Pappi hasn't tampered with the SRM data?

I'd say that it is too close to power estimated using our model for that to be likely. Sure, he could have fudged the data by a couple of %, but why bother?

Come on Andy, you don't make any sense.
You have been claiming that you don't know Horner's weight and that basically nobody on this forum knows it either.

Therefore you claim that nobody can calculate Horner's watts/kg values from his published SRM watts files.

But now you are claiming that it is too close to power estimated using our model ....
--------------
PS
On the SRM site his weight is given at 65 kg.
Many here - 131313 for example - think he might be 62 kg.
Ferrari uses 56 kg !!!

 

[python]

let me register my opinion on horner's performance, all the numbers being nothing more than a cloud too close or too far, depending on where you stood when the rain started...

is he talented ? beyond a doubt, yes !

is the 15+ minute effort exceeding 420 W (normalized or average does not matter much) suspicious for an athlete his size? absolutely, but his weight has to be known to allocate the doping blame more or less accurately based on the known W/kg doped for the same duration

how much the guy weigh ?
it appears a reliable number, he is 5'-10' tall. then, 65 kg would make more sense to me than some assumed 62 kg or even sub-60. in fact, his ITT performance gaps to nibali (compared a light climber like rodriguez), indicate he's heavier than purito by a good measure...

also, as we just learned, he failed to appear for an ooc test. granted, the details may be sketchy, but this hardly improves my confidence in the 42 yo athlete.

all in all, i am more skeptical of horner, than NOT skeptical.

 

[FunkyChamois]

also, as we just learned, he failed to appear for an ooc test. granted, the details may be sketchy, but this hardly improves my confidence in the 42 yo athlete.

all in all, i am more skeptical of horner, than NOT skeptical.

please elaborate on how Chris Horner "failed to appear". Own up to your claim. Realize that if you take it back, then really, you should NPA.

 

[python]

i dont have to own up. horner has to.

the testers showed up in his team hotel where all his teammates were but horner.

...read tyler on how they manipulated the whereabouts system by entering changes in the latest possible moment to confuse the testers.

 

[FunkyChamois]

I see it as a lie told by you, but you project it back on Horner. i forget what kind of logic fallacy that is, but i know it's one of them.

this type of commenting is why, to keep it on topic here, nobody wants to release power data. I'm not sure a single member of any team... be it a rider, mechanic, doctor or DS, would ever want to share a single thing.

 

[FunkyChamois]

i dont have to own up. horner has to.

the testers showed up in his team hotel where all his teammates were but horner.

...read tyler on how they manipulated the whereabouts system by entering changes in the latest possible moment to confuse the testers.

What does Chris Horner owe you? What would make you lose your skepticism and go back to just being a racing fan?

 

[python]

I stated clearly why i am suspicious of horner without calling him a doper downright. in fact you missed entirely the qualifiers i put about his weight etc which contradict the doping angle...

 

[acoggan]

TheGame :
How do we know that Pappi hasn't tampered with the SRM data?



Come on Andy, you don't make any sense.
You have been claiming that you don't know Horner's weight and that basically nobody on this forum knows it either.

Therefore you claim that nobody can calculate Horner's watts/kg values from his published SRM watts files.

But now you are claiming that it is too close to power estimated using our model ....
--------------
PS
On the SRM site his weight is given at 65 kg.
Many here - 131313 for example - think he might be 62 kg.
Ferrari uses 56 kg !!!

I'm saying that I think it is possible to guess his weight to w/in a small enough margin of error (say, +/- 5%) to not make fudging the actual power data worthwhile, while that same margin of error is too large to make the estimated power sufficiently reliable to really determine the accuracy of such estimates.

To put it another way: I would consider the former to be roughly analogous to getting a new medical test approved by the FDA (which only requires +/-10% accuracy), whereas IMO the latter requires scientific, not clinical, accuracy and precision.

Of course, on top of that is the fact that it is far easier to just leave your actual body mass a mystery, versus massaging an SRM file...

 

[red_flanders]

I see it as a lie told by you, but you project it back on Horner. i forget what kind of logic fallacy that is, but i know it's one of them

this type of commenting is why, to keep it on topic here, nobody wants to release power data. I'm not sure a single member of any team... be it a rider, mechanic, doctor or DS, would ever want to share a single thing

Totally. It's Python's fault that people think cyclists lie about doping. Good points.

 

[sittingbison]

Horners wiki page (edited yesterday) lists him as 63.5kg

Chris reads the clinic, decided to split the difference between acoggans 65 and race radios 62 haha

 

[zigmeister]

I see the clinic is in full *** mode.

 

[ElChingon]

Horners wiki page (edited yesterday) lists him as 63.5kg

Chris reads the clinic, decided to split the difference between acoggans 65 and race radios 62 haha

No, according to wikipedia the weight was edited to 63.5kg on October 21st, 2009.

Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...=historysubmit&diff=321122144&oldid=211363538

 

[FunkyChamois]

Totally. It's Python's fault that people think cyclists lie about doping. Good points.

The lie Python told was that Horner "failed to appear" for a test. no such thing has happened, which makes it a lie.

His response was to say that it doesn't matter what he says, because Tyler Hamilton told a story about evading testers in his book.

so... one more time, Python, when you say Horner "failed to appear" for an out of competition test, do you really think you're not lying?

 

[red_flanders]

The lie Python told was that Horner "failed to appear" for a test. no such thing has happened, which makes it a lie.

His response was to say that it doesn't matter what he says, because Tyler Hamilton told a story about evading testers in his book.

so... one more time, Python, when you say Horner "failed to appear" for an out of competition test, do you really think you're not lying?

I wasn't addressing that-the part I was responding to was redacted. Anyway, while Python was incorrect about Horner, I don't think it was a "lie".

 

[sittingbison]

No, according to wikipedia the weight was edited to 63.5kg on October 21st, 2009.

Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...=historysubmit&diff=321122144&oldid=211363538

the page was updated that day to include his Veulta result. Did they not update his weight at the same time?? To his new fat weight of 65kg? After all he edited his weight down from 70kg to 63.5kg in October 2009

It wouldn't be in his best interests after all to list his weight as too light so my guess is he is lighter than 63.5kg ...the heaviest he could get away with given his visible skeletal skinniness

 

[sittingbison]

The lie Python told was that Horner "failed to appear" for a test....

...while Python was incorrect about Horner, I don't think it was a "lie"...

they seek him here they seek him there
those Spanish seek him everywhere
Is he in heaven or is he in hell *
the damned elusive [The Smiler, The Redneck, The Yahoo Kid, Wookdooks take your pick ]

* He claimed he was in Megan

 

[whatsperkilo]

Lets remember Horner's data from 2010 on the SRM site.

Here it mentions a few different power efforts, if you divide watts by w/kg.
1) 380w / 5.9w/kg = 64.4kg
2) 352 w / 5.5w/kg = 64kg
3) 355w / 5.6w/kg = 63.4kg
4) 356w / 5.6w/kg = 63.6kg

......and here's a pic of him, looking fit & trim but a tad less stressed than at the Vuelta.

For 1) above it mentions>
"Chris Horner's average power for the Col de Peyresourde was 380 watts (5.9 w/kg), and after 29:22 minutes he reached the top with the group in front. The data we have for Chris Horner's weight might be too high (or the weight we have for other riders is too low)"

.............mmmmmm.....not sure what to make of that comment.

Also from here, 2012 TDF, stage 8 it mentions>
"Horner's 8 minute max was 408 watts, with a body weight around 64kg, this translates into 6.4 watts/kg"

408 / 6.4w/kg = 63.75kg

So, I think it's fair to say he looked leaner/thinner at the Vuelta, definitely below 65kg anyway.

 

[blackcat]

As to a point you made earlier, something to the effect of "if they're WT riders they're already subject to scrutiny", I'm not sure you're aware of just how few controls many of the riders actually get, particularly OOC. The three world tour riders I know best have had 4 OOC tests between them this year. So, more testing is obviously necessary. But targeting testing really seems to yield the best results, and power data could help do that--more than just race results, since racing obviously involves a lot more variables than power production.

I have been thru the 12 steps of anti-doping sobriety. I just assume everyone winning a selective race is on something.

Question, how would you feel, if there was no testing, apart from every cent thrown at the top 20 riders that are nominated at the start of the season (for the pre-season too). Includes a select few sprinters, and classics riders.

Monitor the riders who have/are receiving the spoils. Major libertarian contraventions i presume, and the lack of universality.

Obviously, you can do a Jose Antonio Pecharroman and jump into the testing pool.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Question, how would you feel, if there was no testing, apart from every cent thrown at the top 20 riders that are nominated at the start of the season (for the pre-season too). Includes a select few sprinters, and classics riders.

Monitor the riders who have/are receiving the spoils. Major libertarian contraventions i presume, and the lack of universality.

Obviously, you can do a Jose Antonio Pecharroman and jump into the testing pool.

The "manifesto for clean cycling" I started working on has something very similar to this.

 

[blackcat]

The "manifesto for clean cycling" I started working on has something very similar to this.

i presume the norm in the continental peloton, still is, if it does not show up, then it is not doping. Wiggins/Froome are feted not shunned.

if it was much more difficult to win dirty, like Armstrong, you would have those that can win, enforce an inverted norm. they wont appreciate dirty riders stealing their just deserts if they cannot fight them on a (somewhat) level playing field. If the peleton were to be the cops, then you may get somewhere.

 

[mb2612]

Is there any way of getting timings for this stage?
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/may06/catalunya06/?id=results/catalunya064

I've looked on cycling torrents and can't seem to find anything. It seems to be Hesjedal's best performance in 05-06 so it would be interesting to see what sort of watts he put out.

 

[Ferminal]

I don't think it was televised but you can try jens_attacks. 1'20" behind Moreau is ~5% on Arcalis (~27min). You can look at Ventoux in the Dauphine later that year. I'm not sure what his 15km Ventoux time was but likely something 48-50 and 5% of that is 2'30". Hesjedal was actually there that day and lost 3'13" to him so only ~2% more. If that relationship was consistent (big assumption) in the Tour he would have lost 2.5 minutes on La Toussuire and two minutes on Joux Plane which would have him around 15th both days.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Study reveals the scope of imprecision in climbing power estimates based on ascension rates:

http://journals.humankinetics.com/A...umentItem/Millet_IJSPP_2013_0320-in press.pdf

From that paper - a chart plotting the percentage difference in power estimates versus actual power measured with SRM power meter:

Main reason for the imprecision? Inability to quantify impact of variable air drag. Gee, who'd have thunk it?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

And the error bars on those measured values is roughly +/- 2.5%...

John Swanson

 

[ralphbert]

Main reason for the imprecision? Inability to quantify impact of variable air drag. Gee, who'd have thunk it?

Notice there is a bigger variation for the wheelsuckers in the 250-350W range than the winners/leaders in the 350W+ range. Its not super important to estimate pack fodders outputs because nobody cares what power they put out.