• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Cycling News community!

Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread

Page 115 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I was recently (re-)reading the five monuments thread, saw a post stating that you may have a chance if you start as a GT rider, win the two hilly ones early and "bulk up" towards the end of your career for Roubaix. First thing I thought was Pogacar. For a fact I could see him able to win MSR or/and RVV if he peaks and is lucky enough.

If Pog wins all the monuments and all the GC's (especially if he does it 2022-2023), for me he'd be up there with Merckx.
Certainly the only rider in my 30 years watching mens pro road cycling that it feels realistic to see win all 3 grand tours AND all 5 monuments.

Only injury or loss of motivation can stop him joining the Grand Tour Triple slam club and he has already knocked off 2 of the 5 monuments in just 3 seasons.
 
Reactions: stonerider
He's out doing some training. Imagine getting 142 achievements on Strava just from your training ride :eek:



I don't have a subscription to Strava and i think i'm not able to see some relevant info. Looking at the segments, i notice a lot of different segments refer to the "top" of the climb 3k further down from where Pog and Ayuso actually ended up (for instance there is one segment called "last k col des rates"and "final sprint rates" but both are 3k from the point Pog and Ayuso "finished"). I can see that it's a "dead end" climb at the top, so riders have to backtrack the same way down like they climbed up. On the "main" segment / part of the climb (which people seem to refer to as the actual climb, just going by the segment names) their times aren't that extraordinary. On that part of the climb you have guys like Van Garderen, Ben Hermans, Cavagna etc... putting down faster times over 6.5k. But those names are absent on the overall segment or the top segment that Pog and Ayuso did. Again, i don't have a subscription and can only view the top 10 names per segment, so in theory it's possible those guys actually did do the same climb, but just completely tanked on the final part, i guess.

So, is it possible that the part to the top where they finished, is actually not a common part of the climb, or maybe restricted for certain periods of the year, or simply easy to miss or skip, or just hard to access? Like i said, it's a dead-end climb, maybe that part of the climb is commonly skipped by most riders? Because if that's the case, then it's hard to really judge the effort, considering they weren't exactly ripping the top times to shreds on the main part of the climb.

EDIT: looking at Ben Hermans' ride, he did actually skip the final part of the climb. Same goes for Van Garderen, Cavagna and the rest of the guys in the top 10 of the "main part" of the climb. None of them did the final part where Pog and Ayuso set the best time.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a subscription to Strava and i think i'm not able to see some relevant info. Looking at the segments, i notice a lot of different segments refer to the "top" of the climb 3k further down from where Pog and Ayuso actually ended up (for instance there is one segment called "last k col des rates"and "final sprint rates" but both are 3k from the point Pog and Ayuso "finished"). I can see that it's a "dead end" climb at the top, so riders have to backtrack the same way down like they climbed up. On the "main" segment / part of the climb (which people seem to refer to as the actual climb, just going by the segment names) their times aren't that extraordinary. On that part of the climb you have guys like Van Garderen, Ben Hermans, Cavagna etc... putting down faster times over 6.5k. But those names are absent on the overall segment or the top segment that Pog and Ayuso did. Again, i don't have a subscription and can only view the top 10 names per segment, so in theory it's possible those guys actually did do the same climb, but just completely tanked on the final part, i guess.

So, is it possible that the part to the top where they finished, is actually not a common part of the climb, or maybe restricted for certain periods of the year, or simply easy to miss or skip, or just hard to access? Like i said, it's a dead-end climb, maybe that part of the climb is commonly skipped by most riders? Because if that's the case, then it's hard to really judge the effort, considering they weren't exactly ripping the top times to shreds on the main part of the climb.

EDIT: looking at Ben Hermans' ride, he did actually skip the final part of the climb. Same goes for Van Garderen, Cavagna and the rest of the guys in the top 10 of the "main part" of the climb. None of them did the final part where Pog and Ayuso set the best time.
Yes the last 3 km are a lot more brutal than the previous 7, seems 10+%

 
Yes the last 3 km are a lot more brutal than the previous 7, seems 10+%

Sure, but that's not really why i'm asking. I'm sure it shouldn't be a problem for pro climbers, yet a lot of them simply don't seem to ride that part, and a lot of segments refer to the point 3k down as "the end" of the climb. Is it maybe a dirt road or a narrow path...? With a lot less people riding that segment it's more difficult to find a reference and rate the achievement. Going by times by other riders on the first part of the climb it doesn't seem to be a thermonuclear time, but obviously they would manage their efforts differently.

EDIT: according to a youtube channel, the final section is gravel/sterrato. I assume that's the reason.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
Sure, but that's not really why i'm asking. I'm sure it shouldn't be a problem for pro climbers, yet a lot of them simply don't seem to ride that part, and a lot of segments refer to the point 3k down as "the end" of the climb. Is it maybe a dirt road or a narrow path...? With a lot less people riding that segment it's more difficult to find a reference and rate the achievement. Going by times by other riders on the first part of the climb it doesn't seem to be a thermonuclear time, but obviously they would manage their efforts differently.
Taking account only first part of the climb it's almost just half of the total elevation gain, so to say they #manage their efforts differently" is putting it mildly. It's a completely different climb if you don't go to the top and you can't compare just the first part and claim it indicates it is not a thermonuclear effort. It may just as well be...
 
Reactions: Salvarani
Taking account only first part of the climb it's almost just half of the total elevation gain, so to say they #manage their efforts differently" is putting it mildly. It's a completely different climb if you don't go to the top and you can't compare just the first part and claim it indicates it is not a thermonuclear effort. It may just as well be...
The dudes in the youtube i posted say to have calculated the power from their ride, and it is definitely not a superb time, according to their claim.
 
The dudes in the youtube i posted say to have calculated the power from their ride, and it is definitely not a superb time, according to their claim.
Sure, but this is a new argument which I noticed after I hit post. Your initial claim, to which I was referring, was still weakly founded though...

As for "estimating" power consumption on a climb based on merely speed and altitude data (along with mass, friction estimates, etc.), I actually have some experience with that and have frequently compared the measured power with my own calculations and it is quite tough to be precise. Delta speed, which can never really be accurately measured, can cause substantial spikes in calculated power output. That's why even if you ride very steadily, you will still get 5% error, while if you are accelerating/deccelerating a lot, this error only grows.

Then there is an altimeter precision issue. Even if you have barometric altimeter, the measured pressure depends on the speed of air, surrounding the sensor (Bernoulli's principle) and if the relative wind speed is not stable you can have spikes in altitude measurements as well.

I'm not disputing the end results, they do look pretty comfortably off the "montrous effort level" TBH - just pointing out some of my own observations which make me very cautious when discussing power estimates...
 
Reactions: Salvarani
Sure, but this is a new argument which I noticed after I hit post. Your initial claim, to which I was referring, was still weakly founded though...

As for "estimating" power consumption on a climb based on merely speed and altitude data (along with mass, friction estimates, etc.), I actually have some experience with that and have frequently compared the measured power with my own calculations and it is quite tough to be precise. Delta speed, which can never really be accurately measured, can cause substantial spikes in calculated power output. That's why even if you ride very steadily, you will still get 5% error, while if you are accelerating/deccelerating a lot, this error only grows.

Then there is an altimeter precision issue. Even if you have barometric altimeter, the measured pressure depends on the speed of air, surrounding the sensor (Bernoulli's principle) and if the relative wind speed is not stable you can have spikes in altitude measurements as well.

I'm not disputing the end results, they do look pretty comfortably off the "montrous effort level" TBH - just pointing out some of my own observations which make me very cautious when discussing power estimates...
My initial "claim"? I was simply asking if people knew why few riders had actually contested the segment Pog and Ayuso did, asking whether it was closed off or hard to access. Because now it was missing a frame of reference.

I then said it didn't "seem" like thermonuclear (which as it turns out, it wasn't).

Yeah, my claim. I think it's your claim of me claiming anything, that is weakly founded.
 
Going by times by other riders on the first part of the climb it doesn't seem to be a thermonuclear time, but obviously they would manage their efforts differently.
Is that not a claim?

If you start your post by asking yourself a question and the proceed to anwer that question, it's a claim - even if you put "seem" in the sentence to make it a milder claim.

But ok let's call it deduction if it pleases you more. Your assumption that just by "Going by times by other riders on the first part of the climb" you can deduce anything, is in my opinion false...
 
As I understand it most/all of the fast times on the mostly used Strava segment have been set as part of a team/group ITT. Jacob Hindsgaul, who has the KOM, did 13:30 on his own, but 13:00 with the rest of Team ColoQuick, where he only rode alone in the last five minutes or something like that. In comparison Jonas Vingegaard did 13:02 with ColoQuick in 2018, though apparently there was a lot of headwind at the top during Hindsgaul's attempt which slowed him down. But It obviously makes a difference how strong the other riders are, so I'd definitely assume UAE could do it faster if they tried.
 
Last edited:
Is that not a claim?

If you start your post by asking yourself a question and the proceed to anwer that question, it's a claim - even if you put "seem" in the sentence to make it a milder claim.

But ok let's call it deduction if it pleases you more. Your assumption that just by "Going by times by other riders on the first part of the climb" you can deduce anything, is in my opinion false...
It's not a claim and it's not even a deduction, considering i'm posing a counter argument to what you perceive as a deduction or claim in the final part of that very sentence. Furthermore you are pulling it out of its context. The context that dictated all the posts i made on the subject, that there is a lack of reference due to the segment not being popular, and the reason why that is the case.

It's called managing your effort. You can't go all-out for six kilometers to then have nothing for the final 3 at harder gradients. Thus the speed is lower in the first part, when compared to others who only are tested on that first part. It's elementary my dear Watson.
Is reading also elementary, or optional?

"obviously they would manage their efforts differently "

And the effort was already proven not to be earthshattering.
 
Last edited:
Then, you must consider that tests of 6 vs, 9-10 k climbs those goin a bloc on the shorter distance, would loose more time than they gained to someone managing the 10 k effort. In other words, it seems Pogi would have destroyed his r
It's not a claim and it's not even a deduction, considering i'm posing a counter argument to what you perceive as a deduction or claim in the final part of that very sentence. Furthermore you are pulling it out of its context. The context that dictated all the posts i made on the subject, that there is a lack of reference due to the segment not being popular, and the reason why that is the case.
Well, we can be pretty sure that had the others done the full climb, they would necessarily have done the popular segment slower. It remains to be seen, however, if, given that slower first part scenario, they would have been with Pogi from the last 3k till the top as the grades turned steeper.
 
Reactions: Salvarani
It's not a claim and it's not even a deduction, considering i'm posing a counter argument to what you perceive as a deduction or claim in the final part of that very sentence. Furthermore you are pulling it out of its context. The context that dictated all the posts i made on the subject, that there is a lack of reference due to the segment not being popular, and the reason why that is the case.


Is reading also elementary, or optional?

"obviously they would manage their efforts differently "

And the effort was already proven not to be earthshattering.
I can well read, but you didn't place your statement within any meaningful context. Nor does the source you posted, which assumes a "non earthshattering performance," but doesn't account for the different efforts.
 
Reactions: Salvarani
I can well read, but you didn't place your statement within any meaningful context. Nor does the source you posted, which assumes a "non earthshattering performance," but doesn't account for the different efforts.
The source i posted simply calculated watt/kg outputs over the length of the climb which showed it was not nearly as remarkable as one would have thought by looking at the KOM.

And how was my statement not within any meaningful context, when all my posts shared the same context.

Anyway, i found my answers. Only few riders do the ride all the way to the top due to being on gravel, that's why the most contested segment stops there. Hence the frame of reference for the final part/segment is rather poor comparatively. Looking at the calculated power data for the entire climb, the effort was not as exceptional as it seemed at first glance.

That' s it for me.
 
The source i posted simply calculated watt/kg outputs over the length of the climb which showed it was not nearly as remarkable as one would have thought by looking at the KOM.

And how was my statement not within any meaningful context, when all my posts shared the same context.

Anyway, i found my answers. Only few riders do the ride all the way to the top due to being on gravel, that's why the most contested segment stops there. Hence the frame of reference for the final part/segment is rather poor comparatively. Looking at the calculated power data for the entire climb, the effort was not as exceptional as it seemed at first glance.

That' s it for me.
But the power to weight ratio was for totally different efforts! At least we can agree on that. Thus if the shorter effort were recalibrated to the longer (i.e. the others did the last 3 k and if they still rode the first 6 k as if that were the finish), then the watts would drop precipitously. It's physiological.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Salvarani
But the power to weight ratio was for totally different efforts! At least we can agree on that. Thus if the shorter effort were recalibrated to the longer (i.e. the others did the last 3 k and if they still rode the fist 6 k as if that were the finish), then the watts would drop precipitously. It's physiological.
I do not care about the shorter climb, i am also not comparing both efforts. I think i made that clear when i said they would manage their efforts differently. Why are we still talking about this? The only reason i ever mentioned the shorter part is because it has a much broader frame of reference and whether a thermonuclear effort on the entire climb would already be apparent on the shorter climb compared to a non-climber like Cavagna who has a faster time at that point.
 
I do not care about the shorter climb, i am also not comparing both efforts. I think i made that clear when i said they would manage their efforts differently. Why are we still talking about this? The only reason i ever mentioned the shorter part is because it has a much broader frame of reference and whether a thermonuclear effort on the entire climb would already be apparent on the shorter climb compared to a non-climber like Cavagna who has a faster time at that point.
Lol. The length and steepness of a climb has everything to do with gauging performance. We can assume that being tested on "half" of a climb does not hold true for a full ascent, all the more so when the part not ridden gets considerably steeper. The average watts per kilo will be higher on a "half" climb effort than a full one, because the extra kilometers necessitate that a rider reserve something for the supplemental effort, which diminishes what he would have (had) expressed previously. Consequently, it remains to be seen if the numbers calculated on the shorter climb, can be dublicated on the one Pogi did, which is certainly doubful.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Salvarani
Good point!

Look no matter what kind of mental excersises you are trying to pull now - it’s a fact that you were comparing two efforts where one was 30% longer and had almost 50% more elevaton gain and some posters prostested that is a bit far reaching comparison, no matter the circumstances. Whether you call that claim, deduction, wondering, gibbering - you did try to compare apples and oranges and you shouldn’t get all insulted now…
 
Reactions: Salvarani
Good point!

Look no matter what kind of mental excersises you are trying to pull now - it’s a fact that you were comparing two efforts where one was 30% longer and had almost 50% more elevaton gain and some posters prostested that is a bit far reaching comparison, no matter the circumstances. Whether you call that claim, deduction, wondering, gibbering - you did try to compare apples and oranges and you shouldn’t get all insulted now…
Why "good point" or am I missing something? Because basically I agree with what you wrote after.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY