• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 42 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
iZnoGouD said:
Sigmund said:
i don't understand correlation betwen power and vo2 max, isn't power everything?
Lars Petter Nordhaug has a vo2max of 92 and he can't follow the best climbers...

In basic terms, VO2 max determines how much fuel you can get involved in the process.

There are then further steps to determine how much of that fuel you can convert in to useful power output.
 
Jul 8, 2012
113
0
0
Visit site
Just continuing off the part about Coppi. Would we expect modern cyclistbto be ablemtomproduce more watts than Coppi, clean? Ro me the answer is an obvious yes. If we look at the evolution of the 10 000 m record for running it has been reduced by app 100 sec from 1953 to 1984, and lets stop there before EPO. That is an improvement of app 6 %. some of it no doubt due to better surface, sovlets put it on 5 %.

If Coppi did 5,9 then a similar improvement would put us on 6,2 or there abouts, corresponding to Science of Sports postulated limit.
 

iZnoGouD

BANNED
Feb 18, 2011
1,325
0
0
Visit site
Ferminal said:
Contador will keep himself within human limits though, giving us proof that he is clean.

I think more riders will want to dope because clearly sky doped and they don't want to be humiliated :D
Froome will do the race of his life, do you think Contador will let him win easily? I don't think so
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
1
0
Visit site
Dekker_Tifosi said:
The translation of the article

It's Schleck who is right, the poison still works
Fränk Schleck, the excluded doper, is right : le Tour is "poisoned". It has been for a long time, but the poison still works. To get convinced, comparing the power outputs of riders, in Watts, is enough. We noticed four of them that are particularly shocking this year. The first one kills more than it wounds. It's about the crowds' pet, Thomas Voeckler, who, as his clone, the Virenque of the greatest Festina years, holds the king of mountains polka dots jersey up, and the French hearts. Saint Thomas, in his own admittance, neglecting the will of his almost fleshless calves that seem so thin that they look like they're reduced to (the size of) his shin bones, is capable, like Richard once was, to perform mountain raids, maintaining over four mountains an engine power of "375-390" Watts, without weakening, accelerating whenever he wishes. He was first to cross the line atop Aubisque, Tourmalet, Aspin, Peyresourde, in 5 h 32 min 2 s, victorious concluding, fresh as a daisy, the 197 km at an average of 35,59 km/h.

This Pau - Bagnères-de-Luchon is a classical Tour de France stage (1980, 1983, 1998). In 1998 - always the Festina affair -, Marco Pantani let Massi win in 5 h 49 minutes 40 s on 196,5 km at 33,72 km/h : almost 2 km/h slower. Another reference got broken the next day by Thomas Voeckler : Menté, 9,3 km at 9,1 %. In 28'20", with an alien power of 442 Watts, he's carving his name on the tables, on the biggest chain ring in the last 300 m, on an 8 % slope. There, he is rather looking like the Rasmussen-Contador duo of the Great Years. It's the second important comparison : it knocks down more than it scares.

With an average of 430 W, the favourites swallowed, like during the great days, Peyresourde in 26 min 45 sec. From Saint-Aventin, they only conceded 34 seconds to the unreal time of Contador and Rasmussen in 2007 (23 minutes and 26 seconds), who were trying to drop each other with many sprints, just like as many injections. From there on, Froome and Wiggins then accelerated in the last climb, Peyragudes. They produced 470 Watts during 7'03" (2,95 km at 7,93 %). Froome waited for Wiggins, but was capable of getting near 500 Watts. If he doesn't restrict his engine any more to wait for his leader, he could enter the caste of world record owners, the best "performers" of all times : Pantani, Armstrong, Contador.

The third comparison, which makes smile more than it surprises, is to be credited to a suspended rider "Stronger Than Before", title of a book by Virenque. Alejandro Valverde won in Peyragudes, achieving a performance equal to Vinokourov's in 2007. The two riders, with a 5 years interval, climbed the Port de Balès and Peyresourde at the same level of power output, managing 285 then 405 Watts on both these ascents. Vinokourov, who had left the peloton with the morning break, won it solo in Loudenvielle. The Kazakhi was then excluded because of a blood transfusion.

The last comparison is more thrilling than bluffing. In 2011, after 16 years of scrambling for heavy doping products, we were at last cheering, in these columns, for the absence of riders performing above an average of 410 Watts on the last ascents of mountain stages : the detection threshold of poison. Alas ! There is again four of them, this year who crossed that bar : Wiggins, Froome, Nibali and Van den Broecke, with 415 Watts for the first three of the classification, and 410 Watts for the fourth one. We are now longing for 2013 and the return of Contador and his tainted meat ! Until then, it's doubtful a cure will have been found.

Former coach of Team Festina, Antoine Vayer is a performance specialist.

Antoine Vayer


***

So can we conclude there's nothing exttraterrestrial here, apart from Voeckler's ascent of the Col du Mente, which is wrong?
 
taiwan said:
So can we conclude there's nothing exttraterrestrial here, apart from Voeckler's ascent of the Col du Mente, which is wrong?

Without seeing power readings from their computers, we can't conclude a thing. He's not taking into account the drafting effect that most of the big favourites would have had up that climb because they weren't on the front. I seem to remember that the commentators stated they had a big backwind that day also.

I love the way he states as a fact that Froome was capable of 500W. Notwithstanding the above, he's no idea how much more Froome was capable of.
 
Jun 25, 2009
190
1
0
Visit site
Dekker_Tifosi said:
The translation of the article

Another reference got broken the next day by Thomas Voeckler : Menté, 9,3 km at 9,1 %. In 28'20", with an alien power of 442 Watts, he's carving his name on the tables, on the biggest chain ring in the last 300 m, on an 8 % slope. There, he is rather looking like the Rasmussen-Contador duo of the Great Years. It's the second important comparison : it knocks down more than it scares.
Thomas Voeckler

Tour de France 2012, Stage 17, Col de Menté


Elevation / Höhenmeter [m] : 847 m
Distance / Streckenlänge [Km] : 9.3 Km
Time in seconds / Fahrzeit in Sekunden [sec] : 1700 = 28 min 20 sec = 28:20
Weight rider / Gewicht Fahrer [kg] : 66 kg [TeamEuropcar.com]
Weight bicycle, clothes etc. / Gewicht Fahrrad [kg] : 8 kg

Grade / mittlere Seigung : 9.1 %
Average speed / mittlere Geschwindigkeit : 19.6 Km/h
Total weight / Gesamtgewicht : 74.0 kg

Power : 421.8 Watt
Power / kg : 6.3 Watt / kg

Source: [ http://www.rst.mp-all.de/bergauf.htm ]
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
1
0
Visit site
Using distance and elevation from Chris Anker Sorensen's Trainingpeaks data you get 410W, 6.2 W/kg form that online calculator. Phack knows where Le Monde got their 442W from. That would be "alien power".
King Of The Wolds said:
Without seeing power readings from their computers, we can't conclude a thing. He's not taking into account the drafting effect that most of the big favourites would have had up that climb because they weren't on the front. I seem to remember that the commentators stated they had a big backwind that day also.
I love the way he states as a fact that Froome was capable of 500W. Notwithstanding the above, he's no idea how much more Froome was capable of.
Yeah in the article there isn't anything of interest to the clinic, apart from the unrealistic Voeckler figure. Indeed 'Froome was capable of 500W' - he seems to have pulled out of his ar$e. And that's irrelevant if you're not stating for how long he can push 500W.

Only thing is how credible the performances are during a 5 hour stage of a 3 week race, but I have not been clued up yet on what is posible under those circumstances.
 
Mar 22, 2011
368
0
0
Visit site
King Of The Wolds said:
I love the way he states as a fact that Froome was capable of 500W. Notwithstanding the above, he's no idea how much more Froome was capable of.

That's one of the disappointing aspects of the article, he makes guesses as to what the rider is capable of at the time (500W) and then states that the "guess" is physiologically impossible, ergo the rider is doping.

I much prefer the more analytical approach of the scienceofsports guys, although i don't fully agree with some of their conclusions they at least provide the data objectively.
 
Jan 10, 2012
451
0
0
Visit site
taiwan said:
Using distance and elevation from Chris Anker Sorensen's Trainingpeaks data you get 410W, 6.2 W/kg form that online calculator. Phack knows where Le Monde got their 442W from. That would be "alien power".
Yeah in the article there isn't anything of interest to the clinic, apart from the unrealistic Voeckler figure. Indeed 'Froome was capable of 500W' - he seems to have pulled out of his ar$e. And that's irrelevant if you're not stating for how long he can push 500W.

Only thing is how credible the performances are during a 5 hour stage of a 3 week race, but I have not been clued up yet on what is posible under those circumstances.

No, 442W is pretty much the same number. Vayer calculates with a rider weight of 70 kg, so it would be 442/70=6.31 W/kg according to Vayer.
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
1
0
Visit site
Nilsson said:
No, 442W is pretty much the same number. Vayer calculates with a rider weight of 70 kg, so it would be 442/70=6.31 W/kg according to Vayer.

If it's that easy to express as W/kg, and scale to a different rider weight, then why not just publish a W/kg or an estimate based on Voeckler's 66kg? Does anyoe have a link for Vayer's actual method, because it's clearly more complex than VAM multiplied by a constant? In any case, 6.3 W/kg for 28 min - it's not actually superhuman is it?
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
Nilsson said:
No, 442W is pretty much the same number. Vayer calculates with a rider weight of 70 kg, so it would be 442/70=6.31 W/kg according to Vayer.

Yeah that would place his threshold at 6.1 w/kg or so! Definitely super human in my book. :)
 
Jan 10, 2012
451
0
0
Visit site
taiwan said:
If it's that easy to express as W/kg, and scale to a different rider weight, then why not just publish a W/kg or an estimate based on Voeckler's 66kg? Does anyoe have a link for Vayer's actual method, because it's clearly more complex than VAM multiplied by a constant? In any case, 6.3 W/kg for 28 min - it's not actually superhuman is it?

I don't know which formula he uses exactly, but it won't be very much different than most guys here use. For example http://www.rst.mp-all.de/bergauf.htm which halamala used some posts back (and he got pretty much the same relative number, 6.3 W/kg)

The difference is that instead of specifically calculate the absolute power for each rider, and than make it relative, Vayer uses the 'standard' numbers (weight rider 70 kg, plus of course the 8 kg for bike etc.). It's easy to do it like that, although it would have been better if Vayer made his (not specific) power numbers relative in the comparison.
 
Mar 22, 2011
368
0
0
Visit site
BigBoat said:
Yeah that would place his threshold at 6.1 w/kg or so! Definitely super human in my book. :)

BigBoat said:
5.95 watt/kg average over 1 hour is probably what the most talented rider in the world could do clean and also rested. :)

Hehe but then again you have a really low threshold (pun intended) for superhuman.

To reference someone closer to the forum, Chase Pinkham (chase196126) is stating 5.8-6W/kg for 20minutes, according to you that makes him very close to the most talented rider in the world as he might be able to push that 20minutes out to 40-60 minutes after more years of training.

What do you make of that?
 
function said:
Hehe but then again you have a really low threshold (pun intended) for superhuman.

To reference someone closer to the forum, Chase Pinkham (chase196126) is stating 5.8-6W/kg for 20minutes, according to you that makes him very close to the most talented rider in the world as he might be able to push that 20minutes out to 40-60 minutes after more years of training.

What do you make of that?

The dude has a VO2 Max of ~82 at 4500 feet, and that was a few years ago when he was very young. What is it now at sea level?
 
taiwan said:
If it's that easy to express as W/kg, and scale to a different rider weight, then why not just publish a W/kg or an estimate based on Voeckler's 66kg? Does anyoe have a link for Vayer's actual method, because it's clearly more complex than VAM multiplied by a constant? In any case, 6.3 W/kg for 28 min - it's not actually superhuman is it?

I don't see that the actual method matters much as long as he is consistent from year to year. He could convert everything to "Vayer units" and it would serve just as well for comparisons as estimated Watts. The main weakness is the number of data points. There are not enough to minimize environmental effects, the way a race developed, etc.
 
Sep 21, 2011
287
1
0
Visit site
Just found some data about the 04 MTT of Alpe D'Huez:

http://letour.over-blog.com/article-1572872.html

Moncoutié forever the best

Stage result:

1. Lance Armstrong 39 min 41 s
2. Jan Ullrich 1 min 01 s
3. Andreas Klöden 1 min 41 s
4. José Azevedo 1 min 45 s
5. Santos Gonzalez 2 min 10 s
6. Giuseppe Guerini 2 min 11 s
7. Vladimir Karpets 2 min 14 s
8. Ivan Basso 2 min 22 s
9. David Moncoutié m.t.
10. Carlos Sastre 2 min 27 s
 
Mar 22, 2011
368
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
The dude has a VO2 Max of ~82 at 4500 feet, and that was a few years ago when he was very young. What is it now at sea level?

No idea, that's a good question for him.

But if we assume that Lemond is clean and has a vo2max of 94, then at 85% vo2max you end up with an FTP of ~6.6W/kg which is also a long way from 6W/kg.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Visit site
taiwan said:
If it's that easy to express as W/kg, and scale to a different rider weight, then why not just publish a W/kg or an estimate based on Voeckler's 66kg? Does anyoe have a link for Vayer's actual method, because it's clearly more complex than VAM multiplied by a constant? In any case, 6.3 W/kg for 28 min - it's not actually superhuman is it?

To express as W/kg, Vayer should have known weight of each rider at THAT day.
 
Jul 8, 2012
113
0
0
Visit site
No, again as I have said earlier in this thread. When calculating from distance, time and altitude meters you do not need to know the weight, you get w/kg straight from the equation. It is when converting to absolute watts you need the weight.

Also, since Voeckler were at the front only for about 2 min at the end he would be a good bit below 6,3 due to drafting effects. Factor in the slight adjustments to distance mentioned above and you get app 5,9 - 6 w/kg. for the first climb of the day. Not at all,super human.
 
Sigmund said:
No, again as I have said earlier in this thread. When calculating from distance, time and altitude meters you do not need to know the weight, you get w/kg straight from the equation. It is when converting to absolute watts you need the weight.

Also, since Voeckler were at the front only for about 2 min at the end he would be a good bit below 6,3 due to drafting effects. Factor in the slight adjustments to distance mentioned above and you get app 5,9 - 6 w/kg. for the first climb of the day. Not at all,super human.

I'm glad that there are some sane voices in here.
 

TRENDING THREADS