Speeds are down (or not)

Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Eufemiano ‏@oufeh

According to Strava De Maar averaged 409w for 17mins40 in San Luis st6 (68kg) That's 6w/kg.Quintana 57secs faster that confirms 6.4-6.5 w/kg
vetooo ‏@ammattipyoraily

@oufeh Thus 20 cyclists above 6.0 W/kg for 16'30" - 17'40".
Ok, short effort but still.. its only january.

So we have riders talking about getting extra "help". Basso feeling something special in the air. Nibali losing weight and gaining power (again)

Is the dark era back? the days of only Wiggins and Froome climbing at 6.0w/kg max seem long gone.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
the sceptic said:
Ok, short effort but still.. its only january.

So we have riders talking about getting extra "help". Basso feeling something special in the air. Nibali losing weight and gaining power (again)

Is the dark era back? the days of only Wiggins and Froome climbing at 6.0w/kg max seem long gone.
Wiggo was doing 430-450W for an hour+ at 69kg on the last stage of the 2012 Tour de France, bent over on a TT bike.

17 minutes is chicken feed.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
Damn it is going to be another long year. flinging dirt without a story to discuss? another thread in violation of the principles of fair discussion. Rat on. Has Quintana been in violation of a doping rule? has a story been published in the cycling or world press suggesting something extra terrestrial or pharmaceutical? if yes then speculate on if not then close the thread please mods. Or are you suggesting it is a training thread about watts per KG?
Is there some kind of contest on who can post the most in the clinic?
Is the only change we need in cycling from the riders? how about some fan responsibility? I do want to know all about the positives and the convicted. It is important to be aware of techniques and trends but the endless accusations over every winning performance does nothing to the credibility of the discussion. While I am not a fan of the clinic I can participate in intelligent and fact based discussion of doping but why cannot we wait for a legitimate discussion instead of tabloid forumism? Do you know something or just phishing? never mind I have decided its phishing.
 
I for one would like to see an in-depth analysis of climbing speeds throughout the years. Say, 2006-2013. Long efforts, short efforts, the works.

This kind of info is out there, waiting for someone to organize it.
 
hrotha said:
I for one would like to see an in-depth analysis of climbing speeds throughout the years. Say, 2006-2013. Long efforts, short efforts, the works.

This kind of info is out there, waiting for someone to organize it.
The problem is, the efforts aren't apples-to-apples comparisons.

I read an opinion somewhere else mentioning the fantastic finishing times from rider who are not climbers on hilltop finish at Tour de San Luis. Maybe the cat is out of the bag because 17 minutes is pure aerobic power.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
hrotha said:
I for one would like to see an in-depth analysis of climbing speeds throughout the years. Say, 2006-2013. Long efforts, short efforts, the works.

This kind of info is out there, waiting for someone to organize it.
It's been done. Someone has the link, if I find it I'll post it.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
hrotha said:
I for one would like to see an in-depth analysis of climbing speeds throughout the years. Say, 2006-2013. Long efforts, short efforts, the works.

This kind of info is out there, waiting for someone to organize it.
DirtyWorks said:
The problem is, the efforts aren't apples-to-apples comparisons.
Dear Wiggo said:
It's been done. Someone has the link, if I find it I'll post it.
http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/a-different-approach-to-comparing-climbing-performances/
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Phil Gaimon was 9 seconds back from Quintana. Not many riders I would put my hand in the fire for but Phil is one of them. Wait till later in the year.

Climbing times for the peloton are down from 10 or 15 years ago when 60 riders would break 45 minutes up Alp d'Huez, maybe 10 did this year.

Most numbers point to the front group being slower then the 90's, slightly slower then the early 00's, and not much different from 07-09.

One thing we do have is access to more accurate information. SRM files from multiple riders makes the calculations more precise.

Don't we already have a thread on this?
 
Sep 18, 2013
146
0
0
Indeed, it is easy to rubbish the climbing analysis which is done based on a power model and timing the riders up climbs. Even though such a model is subject to sources of error like wind and rolling resistance, looking at the model over the course of a grand tour does show trends. For example the work done by Vayer et al. clearly shows the increase in power associated with the switch from the pre-blood vector doping days of the 80's to when EPO use was rampant in the '90s, switching to blood transfusions in the 00's and now perhaps AICAR and some other special sauce.

Cycling performance science ( non-pharmaceutical ) has greatly improved in the last 20 years but whether that improvement has been enough to mean 'clean' riders producing doped performances is highly suspect.
 
Apr 2, 2013
12
0
0
the sceptic said:
Ok, short effort but still.. its only january.

So we have riders talking about getting extra "help". Basso feeling something special in the air. Nibali losing weight and gaining power (again)

Is the dark era back? the days of only Wiggins and Froome climbing at 6.0w/kg max seem long gone.
You have a link for me of that? (not disagreeing or smth, just haven't followed the scene for some time)
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Race Radio said:
Phil Gaimon was 9 seconds back from Quintana. Not many riders I would put my hand in the fire for but Phil is one of them. Wait till later in the year.

Climbing times for the peloton are down from 10 or 15 years ago when 60 riders would break 45 minutes up Alp d'Huez, maybe 10 did this year.

Most numbers point to the front group being slower then the 90's, slightly slower then the early 00's, and not much different from 07-09.

One thing we do have is access to more accurate information. SRM files from multiple riders makes the calculations more precise.

Don't we already have a thread on this?
So you dont think Gaimon would have dropped Froome on Ventoux?
 
Whoever has pulled the San Luis "data" it's not SRMs is it? And there's no TV so it's not a verifiable timing either. Based on a Strava estimate which is most inaccurate of all and as it's a time based method it's pointless without knowing the tactics.
 
Apr 21, 2012
411
0
9,280
Ferminal said:
Whoever has pulled the San Luis "data" it's not SRMs is it? And there's no TV so it's not a verifiable timing either. Based on a Strava estimate which is most inaccurate of all and as it's a time based method it's pointless without knowing the tactics.
Actually, De Maar's data's on Strava are from his power meter (409w for the mirador climb, that's about 6w/kg if he's 68-70kg as internet seems to tell) http://www.strava.com/activities/108969475/segments/2375687973
De Maar doing 6w/kg was about one minute behind Quintana, so 6,5w/kg for Quintana seems credible but not Froomesque (6.8 w/kg for same duration in Vuelta 2012)
 
I'm interested to see what pops out of Veloclinic's current models when he puts in performances from the big guns on this years big climbs. His models are starting to go beyond curve (over-)fitting and he's more or less at the stage where he can accurately go from observed times to actual watts with high accuracy (tested on efforts we have proper SRM data for).

He gave nice summaries for all the big climbs in last year's Tour and Vuelta, comparing vs Armstrong-era times and vs the slower times that happened after the passport came in. Since then he's made a better model via basically crowdsourcing SRM data for a variety of circumstances. One thing I'd like to see him do would be to test an Armstrong-era bike vs the current state-of-the-art and see what the difference is (not much, I'm guessing).
 
Speed has relation with doping, but as well with a lot of factors, so speed could even be faster, with lees doping or even without doping than in a period dominatied by doping.

But speed, in general, is slower nowadays.

In Táchira speed has been clearly higher than in Australia, with bad roads and in more altitude. Except in the ITT, where the thecnic and the phisical capacity, are more important.
 
Factors in relation with speed in general that could change from an era to another one:

Doping

Training (Technic, altitude,...)

Material

Quality of the peloton (in relation with globalization)

Roads

Routes (lengh of stages, mountain passes, etc...)


Factors in relation with an stage or climb

Beside of some of the above:

Wind (this is the most important, speed with tailwind is very different than with headwind, but it depends as well of every climb or stage, of its protection or people on the roads)

Situation of the stage in the race. In the first mountain stage the speed shoudl be higher that at the end of a GT.

Weather conditions (very cold, very hot or rainy afect)

If you talk just of a stage, it depends of how power has been wasted the previous stages.. after two easy days is it not the same that after two hard and stressfull stages, or a rest day.

if you talk of a climb, it depends of how is raced: if you do the climb wheeling at a hight level, and at the end you do alone just one km, that is better that if you do alone all the climb. If you go attacking and sttoping, you will do bad time. if you go all the climb wheeling, but with a slow pace, you will do a big last attack, but the time climb will be bad.


If you consider all of that factors, you can asseverate: this performance is better than this other one.

By the way, just to say a time in a climb and compare with another one, and to say: All those people were doped, and now this time is even better, he must be doped, that is too simple.

I say that Porte performance the other day in Willunga was better than Slagter, despite it was 16 seconds slower, becouse the headwind, as I say Froome performance in Ax 3 Domaines, is clearly worse than Lance, Mayo, Zubeldia, Ulle, Vino in 2003, despite a similar time, becouse this one was in the second part of the Tour, after big battles in the Alps, a hard tour in general. With a hot wave, and Froome time was after a quite first week, firts mountain stage.
It is a very different situation to compare.

Laiseka hold the best time in Ax 3 domaines. Is he the best rider that has climb there? it was he more doped than the others in that era? So, it is just not quality or doping that counts.

In Mont Ventoux, Andy wanst impressed: Froome did the same time than me in 2009, and we were attacking and stopping. I watched the videos again and the wind direction was the same both years. When Pantani and Lance, the wind was more headwind.

Thanks if you read me.:)
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Taxus4a said:
Speed has relation with doping, but as well with a lot of factors, so speed could even be faster, with lees doping or even without doping than in a period dominatied by doping.

But speed, in general, is slower nowadays.

In Táchira speed has been clearly higher than in Australia, with bad roads and in more altitude. Except in the ITT, where the thecnic and the phisical capacity, are more important.
is Horner cleans?
 
the sceptic said:
is Horner cleans?
Is Horner the average??? Don't think so.

When whoever talks about speeds being down, they are usually referring to the overall peloton and the average speed of the whole bunch. Then Froome or Horner or Quintana gets thrown out as counterproof of that statement which is silly.

You do understand those guys could be riding at their level yet the average speed is still down. Maybe the average speed of the peloton on a climb used to be 30kph but now is 28kph, that means there are more guys riding at a slower speed but doesn't automatically preclude the fact that there are 10-15 guys riding at 32kph.

Aix-3-Domaine is a good example this year, Froome's time was in the top handful of fastest times ever(2nd/3rd???) but then the rest of the times started to fall well down the fastest times list. I think only 2-3 times(Froome, Porte, Valverde) made the Top 20. Froome right up there but on average times slower than previous years.

At the time it was said Froome had a tailwind but what was puzzling was if there was a tailwind, why were the rest of the times comparatively slower even with a tailwind or did just Froome have the tailwind?
 
pmcg76 said:
Aix-3-Domaine is a good example this year, Froome's time was in the top handful of fastest times ever(2nd/3rd???) but then the rest of the times started to fall well down the fastest times list. I think only 2-3 times(Froome, Porte, Valverde) made the Top 20. Froome right up there but on average times slower than previous years.

At the time it was said Froome had a tailwind but what was puzzling was if there was a tailwind, why were the rest of the times comparatively slower even with a tailwind or did just Froome have the tailwind?
When you are followed by Brailsfraud, there is a lot of hot air blowing in your direction. It is like having your own personal tail wind.
 
the sceptic said:
is Horner cleans?
I think so, and there isnt anything for me to think in other way.

Any argument to talk about?

I think you are agree with my post that way. That is good.


P.D. By the way, it is clean, no cleans, you use to have that mistake. I did that mistake sometimes as well, I didnt realize about, so you can correct it as well.

:)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS