Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 96 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Merckx index said:
From the second link I posted previously:
was that a study that was done to compared VAM methods to actual power for a group of cyclists?

I read that study and it was pretty clear they felt the estimation errors for riders in road race climbs would be no where near that precise as they are subject to many variables.
 
From Uriage-les-Bains right?

Armstrong was 47.46 from there to the top in 2001


ammattipyöräily @ammattipyoraily · 25m
#TDF, Stage 13. Chamrousse (18.10 km, 7.36 %, 1333 m) | prov.
Vincenzo Nibali: 50:03, 21.70 Kph, VAM 1598 m/h, 5.84 W/kg [DrF]
 
luckyboy said:
From Uriage-les-Bains right?

Armstrong was 47.46 from there to the top in 2001


ammattipyöräily @ammattipyoraily · 25m
#TDF, Stage 13. Chamrousse (18.10 km, 7.36 %, 1333 m) | prov.
Vincenzo Nibali: 50:03, 21.70 Kph, VAM 1598 m/h, 5.84 W/kg [DrF]
Interesting. 5.84 w/kg seems reasonable enough. 2:17 off Armstrong's TT time and 1:17 off Ullrich's doesn't seem reasonable at all.

Thoughts? Numbers accurate for time and w/kg? Interesting stage.
 
Alex Simmons/RST said:
was that a study that was done to compared VAM methods to actual power for a group of cyclists?

I read that study and it was pretty clear they felt the estimation errors for riders in road race climbs would be no where near that precise as they are subject to many variables.
I don’t know what you are referring to when you say “that study”. The link I provided simply shows the correlation of values derived from his method to SRM values. If that is what you mean by “that study”, then I saw nothing there that indicated he thought his values would not be that precise. If you are referring to some other study, I don’t know which one that is, and how it’s relevant to the original linked study.

Interesting. 5.84 w/kg seems reasonable enough. 2:17 off Armstrong's TT time and 1:17 off Ullrich's doesn't seem reasonable at all.

Thoughts? Numbers accurate for time and w/kg? Interesting stage.
Armstrong's power by VAM would be 6.11 watts/kg, which is believable, at least for some riders.

Unless there was a stiff headwind, and it seems that definitely was not the case, Nibs' time does seem quite reasonable.

To say that Porte did not live up to his claimed performance on the Madone would be one of the understatements of the century. I think he was with Nibs on the bottom of the climb? If so, his VAM indicates 4.96 watts.kg., vs. 6.86 on the Madone. That was a shorter climb, and he did it fresh, but still...

I'm more inclined now to believe Froome was talking smack, considering that the time he reported does not fit the power profile he reported, assuming he began the climb where LA and others have. Even downgrading his reported watts, though, Richie still vastly underperformed.

Edit: Just heard something about Porte's being sick? Makes sense to me.
 
Merckx index said:
Armstrong's power by VAM would be 6.11 watts/kg, which is believable, at least for some riders.

Unless there was a stiff headwind, and it seems that definitely was not the case, Nibs' time does seem quite reasonable.
When I look at the top ten for that 2001 Chamrousse TT, I see a list of confirmed dopers barring Swen Montgomery (?) and a very dirty top 20. I assume these doping riders were all oxygen vector doping on Stage 11? Maybe not.

Anyway, it's weird to me that those clearly doped times are barely over 6 w/kg, so I took a look at the stages, and the Chamrousse TT in 2001 came after a tough stage to Alpe d'Huez, potentially made more difficult by the need to make up time due to the Pontalier break a couple days previously.

But it was the stage before the one rest day in that Tour. That may have dramatically reduced the efficacy of whatever doping (blood bags for LA, some EPO or bb's for others?) they were doing.

Anyway, academic but interesting. Either way the stage today doesn't seem to fall into the "clearly they're doping" category. Which is somewhat hopeful, though I'm having a hard time seeing this version of Nibali as clean all the same.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,821
0
0
red_flanders said:
Interesting. 5.84 w/kg seems reasonable enough. 2:17 off Armstrong's TT time and 1:17 off Ullrich's doesn't seem reasonable at all.

Thoughts? Numbers accurate for time and w/kg? Interesting stage.
There's only one conclusion we can draw from that 5.84...NIBALI IS CLEAN!!! :D
 
Merckx index said:
I don’t know what you are referring to when you say “that study”. The link I provided simply shows the correlation of values derived from his method to SRM values. If that is what you mean by “that study”, then I saw nothing there that indicated he thought his values would not be that precise. If you are referring to some other study, I don’t know which one that is, and how it’s relevant to the original linked study.
Ah, I thought you might have been referring to a recent published study which compared the W/kg estimates from VAM models with actual measured SRM data from calibrated power meters. I must have missed whatever link you referred to.

Anyway, the conclusion of the study IIRC was in benign wind conditions and for a solo rider on steeper climbs, the models work pretty well, but once wind and group riding comes into play, well the models are less reliable and have a greater range of error.

Not sure I can lay my hands on the study link right now.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
His performance was, that's certain.
His performance was in no way clean, maybe the figure is within the realms of what is achievable but shouldn't the rider be tired, a little out of breath maybe some signs of fatigue ? Or do you hit a certain figure on the boundary of what's possible and then and only then get tired ?
 
Just a quick question, would you guys expect a TT time or a normal race time to be faster?

I get that TT it is full on the whole time, but then again you don't have team mates setting a tempo
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
observer said:
Just a quick question, would you guys expect a TT time or a normal race time to be faster?

I get that TT it is full on the whole time, but then again you don't have team mates setting a tempo
TT for sure, fully fueled and hydrated at the start haven't ridden 150K beforehand so obviously much fresher physically and mentally. Also no slowing down to watch for attacks, team mates positioning etc.
 
SundayRider said:
TT for sure, fully fueled and hydrated at the start haven't ridden 150K beforehand so obviously much fresher physically and mentally. Also no slowing down to watch for attacks, team mates positioning etc.
2004 was ITT up ADH:



So the speeds of more riders is higher, however the average speed of top 5 was faster when it was final climb of a road race on several occasions:

 
thehog said:
I'm enjoying the new clean cycling.
Scratch that.

->

Station de Risoul
2014:12,6 km@6,9%---31:40---average speed 23.87 km/h (Vincenzo Nibali)-RECORD
2013:13,9 km@6,7%---36:47---average speed 22.67 km/h(Froome-Talansky)
2010:12,8 km@6,9%---32:36---average speed 23.56 km/h(Nairo Quintana)
2010:12,8 km@6,9%---34:21---average speed 22.36 km/h(Nicolas Vogondy)

http://www.climbing-records.com/2014/07/new-record-of-speed-on-risoul.html
 
thehog said:
Scratch that.

->

Station de Risoul
2014:12,6 km@6,9%---31:40---average speed 23.87 km/h (Vincenzo Nibali)-RECORD
2013:13,9 km@6,7%---36:47---average speed 22.67 km/h(Froome-Talansky)
2010:12,8 km@6,9%---32:36---average speed 23.56 km/h(Nairo Quintana)
2010:12,8 km@6,9%---34:21---average speed 22.36 km/h(Nicolas Vogondy)

http://www.climbing-records.com/2014/07/new-record-of-speed-on-risoul.html
Do we know what specifically accounts for the different distances and gradients? Difficult comparison otherwise.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts