• 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!

Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread

Page 602 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Why should he attack on the first ascent?

He somehow "gifted" Passo Brocon win after all, attacking from GC so close to the finish. He could probably grab that stage as well, attacking with 6-5 kms from finish would be enough.

Anyway, Pog wants Monte Grappa so he won't be that merciful on Saturday.

From a secret source I know that Teddy has a bet with G. about if he can lap the field on Grappa. Apparently their wives are at stake.
 
I'm starting to think, seeing how this Giro is developing, that it's not going to be such a bad preparation for the Tour. He is making the efforts when he wants, how he wants and at the intensity he wants, and he has only really fought anyone in the first stage.
Yes, he looks amazingly strong and getting to chose whenever an effort is made is very good for Pog. Obviously the competition isn't the best with Vingo and Roglic and their respective dedicated GC teams missing but still.

It would be nice if Visma at least can rock UAE at the Tour. This complete dominance isn't just overwhelming. In the longer run it's bad.
 
After thinking a bit about stage 15 to Livigno. It was even more impressive IMO:

1) Last 13-14 minutes of Foscagno were at 6.8-6.9 w/kg - huge numbers at an average altitude of almost 2100 m. Comparable to last year's Tourmalet by Vingo and Pog. But it's not the whole story.

2) After like 3-4 minutes of descent Pog continues pushing 6.7 w/kg for 10 minutes until the finish at almost 2400 m.

This was a really big performance by him, his best at altitude and also maybe his best mountain performance besides Romme+Colombiere (it's hard to compare performances varying greatly in altitude or duration though).
 
After thinking a bit about stage 15 to Livigno. It was even more impressive IMO:

1) Last 13-14 minutes of Foscagno were at 6.8-6.9 w/kg - huge numbers at an average altitude of almost 2100 m. Comparable to last year's Tourmalet by Vingo and Pog. But it's not the whole story.

2) After like 3-4 minutes of descent Pog continues pushing 6.7 w/kg for 10 minutes until the finish at almost 2400 m.

This was a really big performance by him, his best at altitude and also maybe his best mountain performance besides Romme+Colombiere (it's hard to compare performances varying greatly in altitude or duration though).
Of course it was. He had his first date with Urska's boyfriend's girlfriend there ;)
 
Yet another person stating that Pogocar and Merckx comparisons are grounded. Sorry haters :tearsofjoy:


"The first elements that distinguish them are the smile of one, the marble face of the other, the taste for play of one and the work of the other, the humor of one, the seriousness of the other, the apparent lightness of one, the earthy density of the other."
 
Pog wasnot joking,when he said he is going after mercx.I know people see pog as nice humble guy and he is .but in reality pog is maniac,he doesnot give afuk.No kids,pure cycling till he is 40.Pog has similar mentality as another slovenian maniac Jure Robic,who is most insane sportsmen ihave ever saw,probably in history.They different in their head.Pog doesnot care,ih he dies on bike,he dies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salvarani
After thinking a bit about stage 15 to Livigno. It was even more impressive IMO:

1) Last 13-14 minutes of Foscagno were at 6.8-6.9 w/kg - huge numbers at an average altitude of almost 2100 m. Comparable to last year's Tourmalet by Vingo and Pog. But it's not the whole story.

2) After like 3-4 minutes of descent Pog continues pushing 6.7 w/kg for 10 minutes until the finish at almost 2400 m.

This was a really big performance by him, his best at altitude and also maybe his best mountain performance besides Romme+Colombiere (it's hard to compare performances varying greatly in altitude or duration though).
It is a legendary performance on the Queen-stage of this edition. Showcasing his brilliance and domination.
 
Pog wasnot joking,when he said he is going after mercx.I know people see pog as nice humble guy and he is .but in reality pog is maniac,he doesnot give afuk.No kids,pure cycling till he is 40.Pog has similar mentality as another slovenian maniac Jure Robic,who is most insane sportsmen ihave ever saw,probably in history.They different in their head.Pog doesnot care,ih he dies on bike,he dies.
I assume you've already been told but just in case you haven't been - reading text without spaces after punctuations is unpleasant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
After thinking a bit about stage 15 to Livigno. It was even more impressive IMO:

1) Last 13-14 minutes of Foscagno were at 6.8-6.9 w/kg - huge numbers at an average altitude of almost 2100 m. Comparable to last year's Tourmalet by Vingo and Pog. But it's not the whole story.

2) After like 3-4 minutes of descent Pog continues pushing 6.7 w/kg for 10 minutes until the finish at almost 2400 m.

This was a really big performance by him, his best at altitude and also maybe his best mountain performance besides Romme+Colombiere (it's hard to compare performances varying greatly in altitude or duration though).
According to some calculations 6.75 w/kg in the last 13 minutes of Foscagno(tailwind close from the top), and 5.6 w/kg during the last 7/8 min on mottolino(he faded a little here). Even so, good perfomance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Berniece
According to some calculations 6.75 w/kg in the last 13 minutes of Foscagno(tailwind close from the top), and 5.6 w/kg during the last 7/8 min on mottolino(he faded a little here). Even so, good perfomance.

It seems Velonews was off with those estimations. I decided to do my own from Eurosport Player replay: about 13 minutes for the last climb, average VAM about 1660 m/h, which on a 7.6% climb corresponds to about 6 w/kg.

Not as thermonuclear as Velonews assessment. However they mentioned 10 minutes effort. Excluding the last kilometer it was about 1780 m/h of VAM for 9 minutes, so a considerably higher value, which is about 6.4 w/kg. Judging by this, last km was slower but this is assuming we believe in accurate climb profiles 100 % - in Oropa I actually found out that it's not that accurate (I was a spectator).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Froome
It seems Velonews was off with those estimations. I decided to do my own from Eurosport Player replay: about 13 minutes for the last climb, average VAM about 1660 m/h, which on a 7.6% climb corresponds to about 6 w/kg.

Not as thermonuclear as Velonews assessment. However they mentioned 10 minutes effort. Excluding the last kilometer it was about 1780 m/h of VAM for 9 minutes, so a considerably higher value, which is about 6.4 w/kg. Judging by this, last km was slower but this is assuming we believe in accurate climb profiles 100 % - in Oropa I actually found out that it's not that accurate (I was a spectator).
How do you do those calculations? I noticed you are very knowledgable about this subject. Do you divide the effort by segments (lets say 0.1 km each) based on the remaining distance and then use timestamp of the broadcast recording at the change of decimal values of the remaining distance or something completely different? Do you use software/scripts to do that or do you do it manually?
 
How do you do those calculations? I noticed you are very knowledgable about this subject. Do you divide the effort by segments (lets say 0.1 km each) based on the remaining distance and then use timestamp of the broadcast recording at the change of decimal values of the remaining distance or something completely different? Do you use software/scripts to do that or do you do it manually?

Not really. I don't perform that accurate estimations, one would need a very accurate profile and time intervals. Just time stamps for a given section (sometimes I could be off by a dozen or so seconds due to another image shown at that time). When you have time for a section then you divide elevation difference (from the profile so we need to believe the profile is 100% correct) by this time (measured in hours) and you get average VAM. The rest are w/kg estimation formulas for given VAM and section average gradient. Ferrari formula is quite popular and in most cases consistent with some twitter guys doing estimations. Obviously the situation changes a bit when they go in a larger group vs a single cyclist, so additional corrections (reduced aero drag) are done when riding in a group.

BTW: doing "integration" over 100 meters intervals would be better but one needs very accurate data plus on homogenous climb sections (little gradient variations) it would make little difference. It's also worth noting that if a cyclist produces some average VAM over a given section (let's say 1800 m/h, roughly corresponding to 6.4 w/kg) then if his effort is for some reason uneven on this section then he actually does an even bigger effort (bigger so called normalized power) so in this sense averaging over bigger section is a kinda lower bound (but usually close to actual if a cyclist performs an even effort during solo ride, which is desired).
 
Last edited:
Not really. I don't perform that accurate estimations, one would need a very accurate profile and time intervals. Just time stamps for a given section (sometimes I could be off by a dozen or so seconds due to another image shown at that time). When you have time for a section then you divide elevation difference (from the profile so we need to believe the profile is 100% correct) by this time (measured in hours) and you get average VAM. The rest are w/kg estimation formulas for given VAM and section average gradient. Ferrari formula is quite popular and in most cases consistent with some twitter guys doing estimations. Obviously the situation changes a bit when they go in a larger group vs a single cyclist, so additional corrections (reduced aero drag) are done when riding in a group.

BTW: doing "integration" over 100 meters intervals would be better but one needs very accurate data plus on homogenous climb sections (little gradient variations) it would make little difference.
I was thinking about doing something like that but of course, it would have to be programatically. Enter the route gps coordinates (what is usually called shape), then retrieve altitude data from an online service for each route datapoint. The rest is entering timestamp and remaining distance whenever they occur. You could even get wind speed&direction from online service for each such datapoint.

Of course this could only work for the leader of the race since for the rest of them would not be able to obtain remaining distance data. So it makes very little sense in the end...
 
I was thinking about doing something like that but of course, it would have to be programatically. Enter the route gps coordinates (what is usually called shape), then retrieve altitude data from an online service for each route datapoint. The rest is entering timestamp and remaining distance whenever they occur. You could even get wind speed&direction from online service for each such datapoint.

Of course this could only work for the leader of the race since for the rest of them would not be able to obtain remaining distance data. So it makes very little sense in the end...

I'm actually a programmer so it wouldn't be that difficult to do but good formulas and most importantly precise input data is needed (both time and space). Otherwise one can overdo it without improvement vs average estimations. BTW I just edited the previous post with some additional info in the last paragraph.
 
Isn't there only Strava data available for us?

TBH I'm not familiar with this data, its format and accuracy. Isn't that what twitter guys use? (or maybe just official profiles) I tend to think that they don't perform calculations with 100 m interval. IMO they take bigger sections to calculate, maybe 1 km or even averaging over longer homogenous sections or just between key moments of the race.
 
TBH I'm not familiar with this data, its format and accuracy. Isn't that what twitter guys use? (or maybe just official profiles) I tend to think that they don't perform calculations with 100 m interval. IMO they take bigger sections to calculate, maybe 1 km or even averaging over longer homogenous sections or just between key moments of the race.
You can get tcx or gpx files, deserialise and get the data you need (distances, elevation data, times, etc). Basically, you can do full auto calculation if you get these files (programmer as well). Of course, not all riders will post their rides publically (Roglic for instance never does)…
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
It seems Velonews was off with those estimations. I decided to do my own from Eurosport Player replay: about 13 minutes for the last climb, average VAM about 1660 m/h, which on a 7.6% climb corresponds to about 6 w/kg.

Not as thermonuclear as Velonews assessment. However they mentioned 10 minutes effort. Excluding the last kilometer it was about 1780 m/h of VAM for 9 minutes, so a considerably higher value, which is about 6.4 w/kg. Judging by this, last km was slower but this is assuming we believe in accurate climb profiles 100 % - in Oropa I actually found out that it's not that accurate (I was a spectator).
I checked the data from Mottolino, on Chronoswatts by frederic Portoleau. From Foscagno he doesn't give a specific estimation, but looking at the VAM of ammattipyoraily and the estimation from watts in cycling he did around 6.75 w/kg in the end of foscagno.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan