Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Red Rick]

Cool post MI. Really interesting stuff

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

One of the discussions you might be thinking about :
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8170&start=20

I have to admit that the labs view of the efficiency situation looks pretty pathetic.

No, I was not thinking about Coyle's study of LA, which has been discussed to death here.

The studies discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29830&p=1773705&hilit=efficiency#p1773705

Note that in one of the studies, the SD of efficiency was 2.6%.

These are just the studies in which very high efficiencies were reported. Most literature reports somewhat lower efficiencies, but these are usually not studies of elite riders. And in any case, even in these studies, the variation of efficiencies is fairly large, e.g., 18-23% might be a typical range.

I didn't go to the thread but there are a few studies on pros that report GE.
here's another:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15179176
with SD of +/-2% absolute (which is a sizeable range)

this one report DE instead of GE (removes impact of baseline energy consumption) for pro cyclists:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19346977
and reports even larger SD values of 2.8% to 3.7%. Again as absolute variances, that's quite a range, suggests a 20% relative variance in efficiency between pros is not unusual.

there are others.

as with all these things, one must take caution in drawing conclusions when just reading abstracts. Always better to view the underlying data and methodology.

 

[vedrafjord]

@ammattipyoraily
I'm on vacation in July. Follow @faustocoppi60 for climbing times and @PDiegner, @procyclistsdata for power analyzes. #TDF2016 June 26, 2016

 

[Taxus4a]

Fat Ullrich climbing much better than superclimbing talent Quintana in Arcalis...

What a times!

Ullrich in normal conditions like now should climb Arcalis 2 minutes slower than Quintana, Froome,...and he was 2 minutes faster.

So the difference with his ultradoping was 4 minutes in just 10 km...so it worths a lot.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re:

Ullrich in normal conditions like now should climb Arcalis 2 minutes slower than Quintana, Froome,

How exactly did you come to this? Why should Ullrich climb slower than anyone?

 

[infeXio]

Re: Re:

Ullrich in normal conditions like now should climb Arcalis 2 minutes slower than Quintana, Froome,

How exactly did you come to this? Why should Ullrich climb slower than anyone?

There is generally no logic behind anything Taxus says

 

[SeriousSam]

Take Mollema's ascent and subtract 10 to 20 seconds or whatever.

What do we get?

 

[jens_attacks]

the question is how strong the tailwind was
because the numbers are way too high.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

 

[SeriousSam]

Doing the full ascent should entail a slower time in the common portion of the climb, but then it was an ITT (which, if Alpe is anything to go by, yields quicker times) and only Iban Mayo was quicker.

Must have been a steep tailwind

 

[The Hitch]

lol, so Quintana wasn't struggling, the riders are just even more doped than before.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

FWIW, the forecast was for strong x-wind (20 mph wind from NNW in Bedoin, climb heads mainly ENE to Chalet Reynard but is well sheltered of course by trees and the crowds). Quintana was complaining of strong headwind when his attacks were easily chased down by Sky

 

[Mr.38%]

Mollema had a couple of Sky motos pulling him, so no wonder he was that fast. Poels' tempo was insane. And yes, you benefit a lot by drafting.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

So what was Froome's W/kg during the Ventoux run leg?

 

[biker jk]

Re:

So what was Froome's W/kg during the Ventoux run leg?

Pointless since the W/kg estimate is always overstated due to tailwinds, power meter calibration errors, etc. :razz:

 

[Le breton]

Re:

So what was Froome's W/kg during the Ventoux run leg?

I guess the emoticone is the most important part of your message

 

[Fergoose]

Any chance of a calculation for todays last climb by Bardet and peloton? Or a comparison to any previous years on the same climb? It looked very ordinary and believable to me (with the exception of a couple of riders that I personally don't buy) and I'd be pretty surprised if it was over 6.0 w/kg despite being relatively short. Its the first climb of this years TdF where we've had the peloton going full tilt from early on and didn't seem as wind affected as other mountain stages, so it might be a suitable one for comparisons.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

Any chance of a calculation for todays last climb by Bardet and peloton? Or a comparison to any previous years on the same climb? It looked very ordinary and believable to me (with the exception of a couple of riders that I personally don't buy) and I'd be pretty surprised if it was over 6.0 w/kg despite being relatively short. Its the first climb of this years TdF where we've had the peloton going full tilt from early on and didn't seem as wind affected as other mountain stages, so it might be a suitable one for comparisons.

The 14th fastest did 6.0 W/kg (see vetooo). Several riders did a fair bit more than that.

 

[Fergoose]

Darn. Cheers, will check that out.

 

[adamfo]

Highest watts 2016 Tdf : Bardet 444 W on Le Bettex

 

[Tonton]

Re:

Highest watts 2016 Tdf : Bardet 444 W on Le Bettex

I saw this graph today in Vayer's article in Le Monde. Since 2010, only Wiggo, Froome, Quintana, Nibal had been above the 410W-suspicious mark, and this year there were nine suspicious riders - the ones in yellow on the graph. Vayer made it very clear that he believes Bardet doped.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

So on average the fastest riders in this tour were 100 seconds (7%) slower than Pantani et al.
Ranging from 42 to 160 seconds slower.

Why is 410W suspicious?

 

[Le breton]

Re:

So on average the fastest riders in this tour were 100 seconds (7%) slower than Pantani et al.
Ranging from 42 to 160 seconds slower.

Why is 410W suspicious?

It's not the 410 W per se that Vayer deems suspicious, but 410/70 = 5.86 Watts/kg on the LAST climb of a heavy mountain stage. 70 kg = weight of std cyclist.
This for a 30-40 min. effort.
See here
http://sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2013-vs-2014-Tour-power-outputs.png
Cheers
PS : Ventoux should have been excluded from the average I think (wind)

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

So on average the fastest riders in this tour were 100 seconds (7%) slower than Pantani et al.
Ranging from 42 to 160 seconds slower.

Why is 410W suspicious?

It's not the 410 W per se that Vayer deems suspicious, but 410/70 = 5.86 Watts/kg on the LAST climb of a heavy mountain stage. 70 kg = weight of std cyclist.
This for a 30-40 min. effort.
See here
http://sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2013-vs-2014-Tour-power-outputs.png
Cheers
PS : Ventoux should have been excluded from the average I think (wind)

I see nothing particularly convincing.
First time I've heard that <5.9W/kg for half an hour triggers some doping suspicion radar. Next year Vayer will tell us that 5.4 is the new 6.4 because he'll probably need the attention he seems to crave.

 

[SeriousSam]

Alex, if you had to guess, who has the better aero coefficient with full TT equipment, Froome or Dumoulin?