State of Peloton 2023

[zlev11]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1682799197546766338

View: https://twitter.com/CyclingGraphs/status/1682799197546766338?s=20


6.8 w/kg for 20min in the third week, insane (i ran the numbers as well, 1833 VAM gets you 6.8). Vingegaard did 6.9 for 20min on Marie Blanque but that was in the first 5 days.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1682799197546766338

View: https://twitter.com/CyclingGraphs/status/1682799197546766338?s=20


6.8 w/kg for 20min in the third week, insane (i ran the numbers as well, 1833 VAM gets you 6.8). Vingegaard did 6.9 for 20min on Marie Blanque but that was in the first 5 days.

No way 1830 of VAM on 8%+ climb is 6.8 w/kg. It's more like 6.5-6.6 w/kg. Still an impressive climbing performance by Gall, no doubts.
Pog & Vinge sustained an almost identical climbing speed for 29 minutes on Joux Plane BTW.

 

[QueenStagiaire]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1682799197546766338

View: https://twitter.com/CyclingGraphs/status/1682799197546766338?s=20


6.8 w/kg for 20min in the third week, insane (i ran the numbers as well, 1833 VAM gets you 6.8). Vingegaard did 6.9 for 20min on Marie Blanque but that was in the first 5 days.

The funny thing is that Vingegaard was riding side by side with Gall, moving across the road and staring at Pogačar as if they were doing track stands, meanwhile Gall was going full gas.

 

[zlev11]

No way 1830 of VAM on 8%+ climb is 6.8 w/kg. It's more like 6.5-6.6 w/kg. Still an impressive climbing performance by Gall, no doubts.
Pog & Vinge sustained an almost identical climbing speed for 29 minutes on Joux Plane BTW.

1833 VAM at 65kg gives me ~445w = 6.83w/kg

 

[Red Rick]

6.8 makes no sense to me judging simply by the fact that Vingegaard and Pogacar looked like falling asleep.

Verbier was higher VAM, lower gradient, longer, and was still a lower W/kg estimate.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

1833 VAM at 65kg gives me ~445w = 6.83w/kg

I don't know what formula it's but most estimations for climbs around 1800 m/h on 8%-ish gradients are centered around 6.4 w/kg (so circa 6.5 for 1830 m/h). Ferrari formula VAM /( 200 + 10*grade %) gives almost 6.5 w/kg for 8.3% climb. 6.8 w/kg would makes sense if there was a strong head wind, I suppose.

 

[zlev11]

6.8 makes no sense to me judging simply by the fact that Vingegaard and Pogacar looked like falling asleep.

Verbier was higher VAM, lower gradient, longer, and was still a lower W/kg estimate.

maybe because Contador was in the wind for less time? I forget how far down he attacked

 

[Red Rick]

I don't know what formula it's but most estimations for climbs around 1800 m/h on 8%-ish gradients are centered around 6.4 w/kg (so circa 6.5 for 1830 m/h). Ferrari formula VAM /( 200 + 10*grade) gives almost 6.5 w/kg for 8.3% climb. 6.8 w/kg would makes sense if there was a strong head wind, suppose.

LR guys and finding headwinds, name a more iconic duo.

 

[Red Rick]

maybe because Contador was in the wind for less time? I forget how far down he attacked

Contador attacked with 5.5 km to go on a 8 km climb or something like that.

 

[Salvarani]

Fastest peloton ever.

Craziest and all-time best performance ever by a rider (athlete) on stage 16.

One of the fastest recorded stages ever in the TdF on stage 19.

Absolutely ridiculous Tour. We back in the matrix for real. We are in twilight zone for real. Only unimaginable chaos and madness can top this.

 

[zlev11]

I don't know what formula it's but most estimations for climbs around 1800 m/h on 8%-ish gradients are centered around 6.4 w/kg (so circa 6.5 for 1830 m/h). Ferrari formula VAM /( 200 + 10*grade %) gives almost 6.5 w/kg for 8.3% climb. 6.8 w/kg would makes sense if there was a strong head wind, I suppose.

is there a chart or some kind of literature that has this VAM to w/kg estimate?

edit: nvm I found Dr. Ferraris conversion formula, yeah its more like 6.5

 

[Krzysztof_O]

is there a chart or some kind of literature that has this VAM to w/kg estimate?

There are some formulas that can be found, including those on wikipedia. Obviously it's all estimations. The problem OFC is varying wind, surface condition and drafting effect (the steeper the climb the smaller the second effect though). Gall was leading for a significant time so his wattage could've been higher than those 6.5. But on those steep fragments aero drag differences shouldn't be big. it's usually been circa 0.1 w/kg of estimation difference between guys on front and behind on steeper climbs.

 

[Mayomaniac]

LR guys and finding headwinds, name a more iconic duo.

In a dense forest, of all places. The wind might have been a factor on the open plateau with it's rolling terrain after the KoM.

 

[zlev11]

i dunno if they're finding headwinds or if their formula is just bad. the place i was plugging in numbers was also too high (climbbybike) so who knows.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

That must have been good booze.

I have to admit I didn't even really know Gall existed before the TdS, and a quick look at his results tells me there was no reason to either.

That's quite an improvement, congrats I guess.

 

[Riek s]

i dunno if they're finding headwinds or if their formula is just bad. the place i was plugging in numbers was also too high (climbbybike) so who knows.

Yeah, its a nuisance. From what i understood they are using a formula that includes drag assumptions/bike weight/ etc..

Any metric you use can change it rather dramatically.
FYI: they describe here (but do not provide the formula used:

Watts per Kilogram Explained - Lanterne Rouge

The ratio of a rider's watts produced per kilogram of bodyweight (w/kg) is the key metric which determines how fast they can ride uphill. We analyse and compare climbing performances primarily based on estimated w/kg, while also taking into account other factors such as altitude or spent kj/kg/h...

lanternerouge.com

Still a bonker strong performance giving the hardness of the tour and its the 3rd week.
Gall started relative slow in the tour but ended on a high. (and i'm assuming his high performance wise higher than with what he started... most of the time not a good sign...).

Maybe he will be the guy who will give a hard time to those 2 stoogies next year.

note: we see more and more people jumping out of 'nowhere' putting rather high climb numbers.

 

[ontheroad]

That must have been good booze.

I have to admit I didn't even really know Gall existed before the TdS, and a quick look at his results tells me there was no reason to either.

That's quite an improvement, congrats I guess.

Gall has found a formula that works for him this season. Very impressive numbers again today.

As the wattages required to stay competitive are upped each season with very little or no positive tests, I expect that more riders will take a leap forward like Gall has done. Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

 

[Forever The Best]

This Tour was exciting with 2 riders looking evenly matched until Vingegaard had that TT in stage 16, which ruined it for me. If Vingegaard is dominant like that, then it is not good for entertainment either.

 

[the delgados]

I'll wait for it to release to see if it really lives up to the salacious outline and tell-all promise, those things rarely do.

Ullrich seems aloof enough to be the one to open up to this though.

I just finished reading Jan Ullrich -- The Best there Never Was, and the author Daniel Friebe has opened the door for him.
Friebe provides a comprehensive account of Ullrich's career from the very beginning, and it includes interviews with all the major players -- doping doctors included -- except for one: Jan Ullrich.

 

[noob]

I just finished reading Jan Ullrich -- The Best there Never Was, and the author Daniel Friebe has opened the door for him.
Friebe provides a comprehensive account of Ullrich's career from the very beginning, and it includes interviews with all the major players -- doping doctors included -- except for one: Jan Ullrich.

Noob question; so it's not as good as Dekkers book? Dekker book for a noob was very good. Since he painted a portrait of himself as a complete douche in almost every single respect.

 

[the delgados]

Noob question; so it's not as good as Dekkers book? Dekker book for a noob was very good. Since he painted a portrait of himself as a complete douche in almost every single respect.

Ha! I haven't read Dekker's book, but no, Jan's not a douche.
In fact he is pretty much universally loved by everyone except his ex partner.
I think the word "guileless" is an apt description of good ol' JU.

 

[Riek s]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683188040980733952

View: https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/1683188040980733952


Seems the tailwind really picked up since 2021.

 

[Nick2413]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683188040980733952

View: https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/1683188040980733952


Seems the tailwind really picked up since 2021.

No, the will to win is just unmatched these days .

 

[hender-retour]

In a way this TDF was less mutant than last year. Sure Vingo might have upped a bit but it was not a Jumbo dominance throughout. Neither did we get a WVA or Schumacher scenario of stupendous magnitude.

 

[Hugh Januss]

No, the will to win is just unmatched these days .

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683188040980733952

View: https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/1683188040980733952


Seems the tailwind really picked up since 2021.

Much stronger in 2022 though.