Power to weight ratios

[amrstrongvscontador2010]

Escara ---
The numbers stated above in regards to michelle ferrari with 6.7 watts per kilogram is a one hour power , it is high , and could be completed by dopers but i guess its high to show how hard it really is to win the tour de france..

 

[Escarabajo]

Escara ---
The numbers stated above in regards to michelle ferrari with 6.7 watts per kilogram is a one hour power , it is high , and could be completed by dopers but i guess its high to show how hard it really is to win the tour de france..

It is you again. Are you writing from another Starbucks?

Let's make a bet of how long does it take for the moderators to ban you?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Sort of. The lighter riders tend to have smaller cross sectional area so they do less work against air resistance. The difference is smaller at lower speeds (climbing), but tends to cancel the effect you describe.

This is intuitive, but incorrect. If you look at surface area vs volume, the lighter riders are at a disadvantage. This means that on the flats, the larger riders will have an aerodynamic advantage and therefore be faster for a given W/kg @ FTP. This is why classics riders tend to be big, and historically the tiny climbers suck at time trials.

John Swanson

 

[Le breton]

6.7 W/Kg????

That is a huge number. In the calculations that I have made I have not seen this value unless the rider is doped to the gills.

In his Ventoux record climb (55'51") Mayo produced 6.75 W/kg. Was caught soon after.

For endurance racers you can get a rough estimate of VO2max from their Watt/kg value.

The Watt/kg value given being for a sustained effort pf about 1hr, it corresponds to about 90% odf W/kg max and VO2 max.

Anyway, to get that rough VO2 you multiply by 12.8

This gives you 12.8 times 6.7 = 86 ml/mn.kg for sustained VO2, hence about 86 times 1.11 = 95 ml/mn.kg.

So, I would say that ferrari is pretty close to the mark on that one : ie no undoped racer can win the TdF nowadays.

However you have clean racers with a VO2 max of about 88 ml/mn.kg . Moncoutié for example.

 

[iliveonnitro]

In his Ventoux record climb (55'51") Mayo produced 6.75 W/kg. Was caught soon after.

For endurance racers you can get a rough estimate of VO2max from their Watt/kg value.

The Watt/kg value given being for a sustained effort pf about 1hr, it corresponds to about 90% odf W/kg max and VO2 max.

Anyway, to get that rough VO2 you multiply by 12.8

This gives you 12.8 times 6.7 = 86 ml/mn.kg for sustained VO2, hence about 86 times 1.11 = 95 ml/mn.kg.

So, I would say that ferrari is pretty close to the mark on that one : ie no undoped racer can win the TdF nowadays.

However you have clean racers with a VO2 max of about 88 ml/mn.kg . Moncoutié for example.

Your formula for a "rough" VO2 is past rough into the territory of "completely inaccurate."

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

This is intuitive, but incorrect. If you look at surface area vs volume, the lighter riders are at a disadvantage. This means that on the flats, the larger riders will have an aerodynamic advantage and therefore be faster for a given W/kg @ FTP. This is why classics riders tend to be big, and historically the tiny climbers suck at time trials.

John Swanson

Doh, my bad!

 

[Le breton]

I expected reactions like yours

Your formula for a "rough" VO2 is past rough into the territory of "completely inaccurate."

Of course I didn't explain how I worked it out but it's actually quite simple and works for endurance type cyclists. It might not work for you.

If we take the case of Chris Boardman in his superman days, he once produced 442 watts to cover 56.375 km in 1 hr. His weight was 68 kg, ratio 6.5 watts/kg. Data can be found on the web.

My formula gives for his VO2 6.5 times 12.8 = 83.2 ml/mn.kg
Leading to a VO2 max of 83.2 times 1.11 = 92.3 ml/mn.kg

Chris Boardman is the very type of racer that falls in the range of validity of my formula. His gross efficiency was then 22.6% (like other endurance cyclists), and from this you can easily obtain my formula, I'll let you do the calculation by yourself to give you the pleasure of proving me completely wrong.

 

[Big GMaC]

Of course I didn't explain how I worked it out but it's actually quite simple and works for endurance type cyclists. It might not work for you.

If we take the case of Chris Boardman in his superman days, he once produced 442 watts to cover 56.375 km in 1 hr. His weight was 68 kg, ratio 6.5 watts/kg. Data can be found on the web.

My formula gives for his VO2 6.5 times 12.8 = 83.2 ml/mn.kg
Leading to a VO2 max of 83.2 times 1.11 = 92.3 ml/mn.kg

Chris Boardman is the very type of racer that falls in the range of validity of my formula. His gross efficiency was then 22.6% (like other endurance cyclists), and from this you can easily obtain my formula, I'll let you do the calculation by yourself to give you the pleasure of proving me completely wrong.

Was Boardman's VO2 ever measured that high?

Because that puts him right in Greg LeMond Territory.

Is Boardman generally accepted as clean? Because if so, seeing how he struggled in GTs really shows the powar of the dope they were knocking back in those days

 

[blackcat]

This is intuitive, but incorrect. If you look at surface area vs volume, the lighter riders are at a disadvantage. This means that on the flats, the larger riders will have an aerodynamic advantage and therefore be faster for a given W/kg @ FTP. This is why classics riders tend to be big, and historically the tiny climbers suck at time trials.

John Swanson

there are actually exceptions to the rule.

Jani Brajkovic is so skinny, his aero coefficient is gonna be close to zero. He looks like a lollypop, the air wont touch him.

Even with great tt positions like Contador and DZ, Brajkovic is just so small a frontal area, think he will be the exception, versus the rule of the power and frontal area of Canc versus the lighter chrono riders.

 

[Escarabajo]

In his Ventoux record climb (55'51") Mayo produced 6.75 W/kg. Was caught soon after.

For endurance racers you can get a rough estimate of VO2max from their Watt/kg value.

The Watt/kg value given being for a sustained effort pf about 1hr, it corresponds to about 90% odf W/kg max and VO2 max.

Anyway, to get that rough VO2 you multiply by 12.8

This gives you 12.8 times 6.7 = 86 ml/mn.kg for sustained VO2, hence about 86 times 1.11 = 95 ml/mn.kg.

So, I would say that ferrari is pretty close to the mark on that one : ie no undoped racer can win the TdF nowadays.

However you have clean racers with a VO2 max of about 88 ml/mn.kg . Moncoutié for example.

Show me when Moncoutie ever pulled a 6.75 W/kg? Not even remotely close.

The second topic is pulling it on the second or third week of the Tour.

The Max I have seen is around 6.4 to 6.5 W/kg Pre 90's era. And that was on fresh legs like an Hour record from Merkx or one day efforts. Anything post-90's would be doubful anyway, no matter how strong case your have for a rider being clean.

By the way, I believe Moncoutie is clean or cleanish.

 

[Le breton]

read before quoting please

Show me when Moncoutie ever pulled a 6.75 W/kg? Not even remotely close.
..........
By the way, I believe Moncoutie is clean or cleanish.

I wish you would read before answering!
The day Mayo did 55'51, Moncoutié did 59'27" ( 58'31 in1999).
Clearly, if I claim that Mayo produced 6.75 watts/kg that day, moncoutié did not.
Just doing a rough comparison he must have produced just under 6.75 (55.85/59.45) = 6.34 watts/kg.

THIS BTW WOULD CORRESPOND TO A VO2 MAX OF about90 ML/MN.KG.

If I claimed 6.75 watts/kg for Moncoutié I would be also claiming that he most likely was not clean.

 

[Le breton]

boardman VO2 max?

Was Boardman's VO2 ever measured that high?

Because that puts him right in Greg LeMond Territory.

Is Boardman generally accepted as clean? Because if so, seeing how he struggled in GTs really shows the powar of the dope they were knocking back in those days

What I did was calculate an estimate of Boardman's VO2 max that day. I believe it to be credible.

I seem to remember Boardman posting a VO2 max of 88 on his website at one time.

Therefore, although I tend to believe he was a clean rider, I have some little doubts about that particular day at 442 watts.

What puzzles me somewhat is that his performances as a climber were not quite what they should have been considering his high VO2 max. There is probably an explanation along the lines of overheating on said climbs.

 

[BikeCentric]

What puzzles me somewhat is that his performances as a climber were not quite what they should have been considering his high VO2 max. There is probably an explanation along the lines of overheating on said climbs.

Or lack of EPO? Purely speculation of course, but one would think he would be a prime candidate for kicking *** when pumped up with a high hematocrit given that he has a larger build like an Indurain or a Riis or a Ulrich for that matter. One would think if he were doped to the gills he'd be climbing well once all that muscle mass got all the oxygen it craved.

 

[Escarabajo]

I wish you would read before answering!
The day Mayo did 55'51, Moncoutié did 59'27" ( 58'41 in1999).
Clearly, if I claim that Mayo produced 6.75 watts/kg that day, moncoutié did not.
Just doing a rough comparison he must have produced just under 6.75 (55.85/59.45) = 6.34 watts/kg.

THIS BTW WOULD CORRESPOND TO A VO2 MAX OF about90 ML/MN.KG.

If I claimed 6.75 watts/kg for Moncoutié I would be also claiming that he most likely was not clean.

Point well taken.

I still would expect Moncoutie to do better with that VO2 max undoped. He might have issues with recoveries.

 

[Ripper]

Of course I didn't explain how I worked it out but it's actually quite simple and works for endurance type cyclists. It might not work for you.

If we take the case of Chris Boardman in his superman days, he once produced 442 watts to cover 56.375 km in 1 hr. His weight was 68 kg, ratio 6.5 watts/kg. Data can be found on the web.

My formula gives for his VO2 6.5 times 12.8 = 83.2 ml/mn.kg
Leading to a VO2 max of 83.2 times 1.11 = 92.3 ml/mn.kg

Chris Boardman is the very type of racer that falls in the range of validity of my formula. His gross efficiency was then 22.6% (like other endurance cyclists), and from this you can easily obtain my formula, I'll let you do the calculation by yourself to give you the pleasure of proving me completely wrong.

Good to see the interest, but you will need to present many more examples to demonstrate this example is even roughly accurate. An n of one won't do it.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

Good to see the interest, but you will need to present many more examples to demonstrate this example is even roughly accurate. An n of one won't do it.

This "12.8" number matches pretty well with the literature. It is set by the two numbers:
1/ 21.3 kJ of energy yield when metabolising carbohydrate (CHO) with 1L of oxygen (sub-max efforts use more fat, less CHO, causing the number to tend toward 20 kJ/L).
2/ A gross efficiency (GE) of about 22% .

It'll give pretty good ballpark figures (say +/- 5% due to the unknown GE) for O2 consumption for a given power output, for well-trained cyclists at FTP efforts or greater.

The second source of error is estimating the %VO2max that an athlete is riding at. This will probably bring the total error up to +/- 10% ? (Making it nearly useless to estimate VO2max?)

 

[Le breton]

ok / not OK

.........

It'll give pretty good ballpark figures (say +/- 5% due to the unknown GE) for O2 consumption for a given power output, for well-trained cyclists at FTP efforts or greater.

The second source of error is estimating the %VO2max that an athlete is riding at. This will probably bring the total error up to +/- 10% ? (Making it nearly useless to estimate VO2max?)

I pretty much agree with your first point

You are probably off the mark on that second point since it implies a +/- 8.7% uncertainty on the canonical sustainable 90% of VO2 max for 1hr efforts. It would of course depend on the sample of racers to be considered, but i was referring to endurance type athletes, like top TdF contenders.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

I pretty much agree with your first point

You are probably off the mark on that second point since it implies a +/- 8.7% uncertainty on the canonical sustainable 90% of VO2 max for 1hr efforts. It would of course depend on the sample of racers to be considered, but i was referring to endurance type athletes, like top TdF contenders.

OK you're right, I've done my errors wrong (doing it the lazy way they teach here in high-school physics).

But the typical ranges in %VO2max over a one hour effort is between 80% and 95%?

 

[Le breton]

turning in his grave

OK you're right, I've done my errors wrong (doing it the lazy way they teach here in high-school physics).

Geez ... in Rutherford's country!

 

[ihavenolimbs]

Geez ... in Rutherford's country!

Rutherford, NZs Nobel Prize winning chemist, WTF!?

OK, to back up my claim that FTP @ 80% of VO2max is quite common, take Armstrong. In the year he won the world champs, he had an FTP of 374 W and a VO2max of 6.1 l/min. Using the 20.9 kJ/l of O2 figure commonly used @ FTP, his FTP is bang-on 80% of VO2max. It wasn't until he had his engine tuned by Ferrari that his FTP reached 490 W. (You gotta admit that Dr Ferrari is very, very good at what he does.)

Other examples are Adam Hansen and Gustav Larsson, they seem to TT at quite low %HRs as well.

 

[Le breton]

much ado about not much

Rutherford, NZs Nobel Prize winning chemist, WTF!?

OK, to back up my claim that FTP @ 80% of VO2max is quite common, take Armstrong. In the year he won the world champs, he had an FTP of 374 W and a VO2max of 6.1 l/min. Using the 20.9 kJ/l of O2 figure commonly used @ FTP, his FTP is bang-on 80% of VO2max. It wasn't until he had his engine tuned by Ferrari that his FTP reached 490 W. (You gotta admit that Dr Ferrari is very, very good at what he does.)

Other examples are Adam Hansen and Gustav Larsson, they seem to TT at quite low %HRs as well.

-------------
Some of the things you say are quite right.
If you want to know more go look at Scientific American June 96 page 47-49 : LA's lactate threshold was at a dismal 75%. Which may not be so bad for a 1-day racer, but obviously totally inadequate for a TdF winner wannabe.

I have to assume that this was due to a high proportion of fast twitch fibers which don't do so well at using oxygen. I agreee, he must have had a poor "oxygen efficiency" then. The formula does not probably work very well for the likes of LA version 1996.

Between 96 and 99 he did the same transformation as Jalabert did between 94 and 95. Don't ask me how, I'm not a sorcerer ( or even an apprentice).

So what I said earlier has not been disproved.

You will even notice in that Sci Am article that LA96, with his 75% at threshold was 10% below the US national team average!!! even though there were not many Grand tour winners among them

OK, now, if you put that SciAm article together with the one Coyle wrote in 2005 you will get a better grasp of the physiological changes operated on LA between 96 and 99-2005. Nothing (or not much) to do with weight loss in his so-called efficiency gain. Part is real, part fake. Quite interesting the article by Coyle, looks like an indictment of LA as a doper.

OK, I am going to bed. But first, thinking about this brought another idea to my mind : it would seem to stand to reason that using EPO should also increase the %age of VO2max you can work at over extended durations.

PS
What a fate, poor Rutherford, one of the very greatest physicists of his time (and also of all times) being remembered as a chemist! Oh well, Marie Curie also got a Nobel for chemistry, but at least she got another one for physics and she did a lot of chemistry work.

Actually I should check whether Rutherford didn't get a second Noble, he sure deserved more than one.

PS2 . the issue of %age of FTP at threshold is independent of the mechanical efficiency and it does not have anything to do with the 12.8 figure i was promoting ( which means 78 Watts per liter of oxygen/mn used). A pure foot runner on an ergocycle will probably get at best 70 watts per ml. O2 even if he has endurance, just due to bad motions of his crank, poor coordination.

 

[Winterfold]

Is Boardman generally accepted as clean? Because if so, seeing how he struggled in GTs really shows the powar of the dope they were knocking back in those days

If Boardman wasn't clean no-one is/was.*

The power output on the hour ride(s) serves as a useful marker to the top end of what can be achieved IMO.

Boardman was a world class track and pursuit rider who could do 6.4 w/kg for one hour in a one hour TT having prepared for it for months and then not getting on the bike again for months afterwards. This both explains why he wasnt a GT contender, and makes you raise your eyebrows when riders put out that kind of power at the end of a GT.

* the dude is completely battered from ostereoposis, yet he chose to continue competing even though he could not take the drugs (HGH, testosterone) that would lessen the decline. Makes me think he had not taken them before, and had a huge amount of guts. So I think that riders who perform at Boardman like levels who do not suffer in that way, may well be doing something that prevents it.

 

[Le breton]

osteoporosis link with cortisone.

If Boardman wasn't clean no-one is/was.*

Boardman was a world class track and pursuit rider who could do 6.4 w/kg for one hour .............

* the dude is completely battered from ostereoposis, yet he chose to continue competing even though he could not take the drugs (HGH, testosterone) that would lessen the decline. Makes me think he had not taken them before, and had a huge amount of guts...........it.

In fact, as I said earlier, he did 6.5 watts/kg during his superman hour, which seems to be just a bit too much.

Now, when you say that he is completely battered with osteoporosis, something immediately springs to my mind : abuse of cortisone and such products.

So, what are you really saying/implying? That Mr. Clean wasn't really anywhere near that clean?

 

[Escarabajo]

(A bit off topic)

Isn't Boardman the rider who did the Hr record with a Merckx type bike at sea level?

I thought so. Andrew Coggan brought to my attention the performance of this fine athlete. So I decided to do the calculations for the Hour record with a racing bike (Not a Superman position). I got ~6.7 watts/Kg. I thought it was a little on the high side but decided not to mention anything since the calculation contains a lot more uncertainty for the variables than it would for a climb in the tour. The key to the calculation was the heavy air at sea level. That increased the power output quite a bit. Maybe somebody has done the calculations and can share it with me.

Thanks.

Input numbers:
Distance: 49.441 km
Weight: 68 kg
Drag Factor: Racing: 0.88 (Old Racing bike)
CDA: 0.32
Density: 1.1885 kg/m3 ( a little on the heavy side. This corresponds to an elevation of 38 m in Manchester.)

The average temperature for Manchester in the month of October is about 10°C. I took a hotter temperature just to be less drastic.

I seems like the density is a big factor in the calculation, and that's why I like to hear more input.

 

[Le breton]

Ola hombre

(A bit off topic)

Isn't Boardman the rider who did the Hr record with a Merckx type bike at sea level?

I thought so. Andrew Coggan brought to my attention the performance of this fine athlete. So I decided to do the calculations for the Hour record with a racing bike (Not a Superman position). I got ~6.62 watts/Kg. I thought it was a little on the high side but decided not to mention anything since the calculation contains a lot more uncertainty for the variables than it would for a climb in the tour. The key to the calculation was the heavy air at sea level. That increased the power output quite a bit. Maybe somebody has done the calculations and can share it with me.

Thanks.

Input numbers:
Distance: 49.441 km
Weight: 84 kg
Drag Factor: Racing: 0.88 (Old Racing bike)
CDA: 0.32
Density: 1.1885 kg/m3 ( a little on the heavy side. This corresponds to an elevation of 38 m in Manchester.)

The average temperature for Manchester in the month of October is about 10°C. I took a hotter temperature just to be less drastic.

I seems like the density is a big factor in the calculation, and that's why I like to hear more input.

---------
No need to do the calculation, the data are known!

You should have talked a bit longer with Coggan, he certainly would have brought to your attention the fact that all the data are already available!

I don't have time right now to look up the reference but I remember quite well the result.

On that 49.441 km day, Boardman,according to information provided by his trainer Peter Keen( you have to do a bit of interpolation) only produced 401 watts, ie 5.9 watts/kg. He weighs 68kg. In other words he was far from his best.

I remember reading something that made me think that they had pushed the temperature inside the velodrome a bit too high, probably close to 30°C.

Anyway, you have enough info now to infer his CdA.

Que te vaya bien

If/when i come across that paper I'll tell you.
see http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/A...ycling_world_hour_records,_1967_1996_.25.aspx