• 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!

State of Peloton 2023

Page 32 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Rick
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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:



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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ripper
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.
 

TRENDING THREADS