Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[LaFlorecita]

I don't know it either, you'd have to ask him. But I trust he knows what he's doing. Generally, when pros give him their data, his estimations prove to be spot on

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

So, he says the actual estimate would be 6.8?

Color me confused, but how does a VAM of 1831 m/h translate to 6.6 W/kg on a 8.96% average climb?

Using the standard VAM formula it's 6.3 something

I don't think ammattipyoraily uses the standard VAM formula. With the flat section at the top and the very steep gradients on the climb I don't think it would be very accurate.

No flat section at the top,the last Km is about 5 %. That valance the harder Kms of that side, so average is no very different to the normal side.

No, there was some (false) flat between the summit of the climb land the descent. The intermediate check was somewhere halfway through that (false) flat section.

Yes, (that false flat, in downhill, is just 1,5 Km), but the data are stimated just for the climb,

ammattipyöräily ‏@ammattipyoraily 9 abr.

#Itzulia, Stage 6 (ITT). intermediate time check at 6.6 km
1. Alberto Contador 16:58
6. Thibaut Pinot 17:59 (+1:01)

The climb was about 4,8 or so and about 15 minutes and something...

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Yes, (that false flat, in downhill, is just 1,5 Km), but the data are stimated just for the climb,

ammattipyöräily ‏@ammattipyoraily 9 abr.

#Itzulia, Stage 6 (ITT). intermediate time check at 6.6 km
1. Alberto Contador 16:58
6. Thibaut Pinot 17:59 (+1:01)

The climb was about 4,8 or so and about 15 minutes and something...

Taxus. It is the time until the intermediate point. The intermediate point. Not the time for the climb. The intermediate point was after some false flat.

6.6km. Look on this image. There is some false flat and even some downhill before the 6.6km mark. No big deal but it does change the estimations a bit. As ammattipyoraily says, add ~3%. He knows his stuff.

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

Yes, (that false flat, in downhill, is just 1,5 Km), but the data are stimated just for the climb,

ammattipyöräily ‏@ammattipyoraily 9 abr.

#Itzulia, Stage 6 (ITT). intermediate time check at 6.6 km
1. Alberto Contador 16:58
6. Thibaut Pinot 17:59 (+1:01)

The climb was about 4,8 or so and about 15 minutes and something...

Taxus. It is the time until the intermediate point. The intermediate point. Not the time for the climb. The intermediate point was after some false flat.

6.6km. Look on this image. There is some false flat and even some downhill before the 6.6km mark. No big deal but it does change the estimations a bit. As ammattipyoraily says, add ~3%. He knows his stuff.

Yes, I put the time of the intermediate point, and as you see is different to the time of the top when the power data was calculated, who was around 15 minutes, no 17.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Yes, (that false flat, in downhill, is just 1,5 Km), but the data are stimated just for the climb,

ammattipyöräily ‏@ammattipyoraily 9 abr.

#Itzulia, Stage 6 (ITT). intermediate time check at 6.6 km
1. Alberto Contador 16:58
6. Thibaut Pinot 17:59 (+1:01)

The climb was about 4,8 or so and about 15 minutes and something...

Taxus. It is the time until the intermediate point. The intermediate point. Not the time for the climb. The intermediate point was after some false flat.

6.6km. Look on this image. There is some false flat and even some downhill before the 6.6km mark. No big deal but it does change the estimations a bit. As ammattipyoraily says, add ~3%. He knows his stuff.

Yes, I put the time of the intermediate point, and as you see is different to the time of the top when the power data was calculated, who was around 15 minutes, no 17.

Yes, the time at the checkpoint minus the approximate time for the flat first 1-2 km. Which still means the false flat kms at the top are included.

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

Yes, (that false flat, in downhill, is just 1,5 Km), but the data are stimated just for the climb,

ammattipyöräily ‏@ammattipyoraily 9 abr.

#Itzulia, Stage 6 (ITT). intermediate time check at 6.6 km
1. Alberto Contador 16:58
6. Thibaut Pinot 17:59 (+1:01)

The climb was about 4,8 or so and about 15 minutes and something...

Taxus. It is the time until the intermediate point. The intermediate point. Not the time for the climb. The intermediate point was after some false flat.

6.6km. Look on this image. There is some false flat and even some downhill before the 6.6km mark. No big deal but it does change the estimations a bit. As ammattipyoraily says, add ~3%. He knows his stuff.

Yes, I put the time of the intermediate point, and as you see is different to the time of the top when the power data was calculated, who was around 15 minutes, no 17.

Yes, the time at the checkpoint minus the approximate time for the flat first 1-2 km. Which still means the false flat kms at the top are included.

Well, nowI understand you, but still I think you are wrong, ..not really you, that profile.

This is the climb to Arrate they did:

I think they took 4,8 for the time, so similar.

Whay you mean false flat and even flat doent exist, it is a 4-5 % climb aftter the Arrate church, the descent they do just before the finish line in the typical Arrate climb and a little bit more.

I thought the intermediate point was after the top, in a false flat in downhill, but I see now it is not, 6,6 Km of the ITT is the top.

I think we were both wrong, but I can still be wrong...

Cheers!

 

[Netserk]

6.6km on the stage profile is after what the climbs profile shows. I have no idea why you would think it's 4.8 on the climb profile.

Look at the stage profile, where does the climb begin? Where does the steep part begin? Both match with the profile of the climb covering km 1-6 on the stage profile.

 

[jens_attacks]

The climb timed by me is 4,9 km, full climb.
From the start of the itt until the start of the climb: 1100 meters. Ridden in around 1:30 by everyone, they were filmed.

From the top of the climb until the intermediate time: around 450 meters ridden in around 40 seconds. Henao was filmed and i verified on strava other riders.

The approximate time for contador then: 14:48

Again this is a special climb unlike the other side of arrate. It has very steep ramps, 2 km@13% or something. On such climbs, you will rarely find performances above 6.5 w/kg. For example on zoncolan, the record saunier did only 6.1 w/kg. Same on climbs like il ciocco, mortirolo or angliru. That is why i consider contador hors-category. In fact i think portoleau will rate it at least with orange or even red.

I hope i made me understood

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re: Re:

so that way better time in Alp huez is not the ITT

Actually they are:
4. 2004: 37:36 Lance Armstrong 22.02 km/h
6. 2001: 38:03 Lance Armstrong 21.76 km/h
14. 2004: 38:40 Jan Ullrich 21.41 km/h
44. 2004: 39:58 Ivan Basso 20.72 km/h
48. 2001: 40:02 Jan Ullrich 20.68 km/h

Their 2003 times are not even in the top 100
More than 1/4 of the top 100 ascents are from 2004
The same happened with the Ventoux ITT from the Dauphine

1. 1995: 36:40 Marco Pantani 22.58 km/h
2. 1997: 36:53 Marco Pantani 22.45 km/h
3. 1994: 37:15 Marco Pantani 22.23 km/h
4. 2004: 37:36 Lance Armstrong 22.02 km/h
5. 1997: 37:40 Jan Ullrich 21.98 km/h

No, as I said the best times in alp Dhuezare no in ITT.

What does Pantani have to do with it? He never even rode an ITT on Alpe. I could similarly claim that no technological advances have been made in cycling since 1998, since the fastest ascents of any climb were before '98
Fact is that the 2004 ITT was the fastest in the post-festina period and everyone who tried was faster then 1 or 3 years prior
Just as they are on Ventoux, which I believe wasn't raced in the 1994-1997 period

 

[Red Rick]

Sooo. Cauberg ascent times?

 

[infeXio]

Re:

Sooo. Cauberg ascent times?

From ammattipyöräily on twitter:

Amstel Gold Race, Cauberg (770 m) | #AGR
Enrico Gasparotto: 1 min 40 sec, 27.72 Kph

 

[TomLPC]

Good *** from Froome here

https://twitter.com/festinaboy/status/726714942322302976

1/2 #TDR2016 Froome "NOTNORMAL" best cycling performance of year ! Barboleuse 2X (7,58 km à 8,13%).1st: 21min52s, 6,1w/kg,424 watts étalon

 

[Red Rick]

Guess we still have to wait for ascent times. Would be interesting to compare Giau ascent times with 2012 and Valparola power estimates with some of the more brutal mountain stages of last year. I'd guess we're looking at something in the 5.5-5.6 region?

 

[doperhopper]

looks like today's VAM on Giau can be around 1640 (est. 33:45 for 922m) - and that's still "only" doms working

 

[Red Rick]

From the finnish guy (or gal)

Stage 14. Passo Giau (9.80 km, 9.41 %, 922 m)
Steven Kruijswijk: 33:33, 17.53 Kph, VAM 1649 m/h

full 21s faster than in 2012, as the penultimate climb, on a harder stage. VAM of 1650 doesn't seem particularly high, but then the stage had been very hard at that point. Guess its like 5.5-5.7.

5.7 is about what Kruijswijk did last year on the Mortirolo

 

[Red Rick]

https://twitter.com/RickyCadel95/status/734146000210776065?lang=nl

Valparola estimate of 5.58 for 28'55"?

 

[Ferminal]

Combined it's a good performance.

Giau 2012 wasn't super impressive (remember how scared of Basso everyone was!) so beating isn't much, and that final climb effort wouldn't rank if it was an MTF, but put them together with the racing that still had to be done to get to the line, with the long hard day before them, and it's strong.

 

[Le breton]

Quick calculation. If I understood it right, the time at the 1092 m altitude, 1800m into the TT, was 2:45 for one of the top guys.
An estimate using analyticcycling for 1800m and 0.28 m^2 CdA for a 6 W/kg racer gives 2:40.
So I guess Kruijwijk climbed the last 9 km in 28:39 - 2:40 ~ 26:00 (against 26:36 for Menchov 2009 according to Ammatti)

9000 m with 1844 - 1092 = 752 m => 8.36%
Taking a normalized cyclist of 75 kg - 8.5 kg = 67.5 kg
and CdA on the climb of 0.3 to 0.35 m^2
air density 1 kg/m^3
0.004 rolling resistance
I get 400 watts (CdA =0.3) to 405 watts (cdA =0.35)
Plus 2.5% transmission losses
=> 410 to 415 watts
HENCE
410 / 67.5 = 6.07 watts/kg
415 / 67.5 = 6.15 W/kg.

Didn't see many flags, just one showing transverse moderate wind.
Could somebody check all this, done rather quickly. Thanks

 

[doperhopper]

Foliforov's VAM after the timecheck: 1785 (1282 -> 1844 18:53)

 

[The Death Merchant]

From ‏@ammattipyoraily:

Giro, Stage 15. Alpe di Siusi (last 6.35 km, 8.85 %, 562 m)
TOP20 + Nibali | Time, Avg. Speed, VAM, W/kg [DrF]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/734497694446714880

 

[SafeBet]

Very believable numbers if you ask me, apart from one.

 

[Red Rick]

That's not the full climb. Also, what was the wind like yesterday? Looked to be cross/head wind on the final part at least

 

[Le breton]

Re:

That's not the full climb. Also, what was the wind like yesterday? Looked to be cross/head wind on the final part at least

Head wind unlikely, see
viewtopic.php?p=1927365#p1927365
Unless of course the location is irrelevant, have not checked.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

To compare.. Giro last year

kruijswijk this year

 

[Red Rick]

Really not comparable, Risoul will be the most interesting I think.