Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Shardi]

Whats remarkable is that Eddy has a whopping 0 three years straight where he produces quality results/performances in the pinnacle of races.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

USADA also seems to think Lance was in a decade long conspiracy with UCI. So it is no surprise he is in the average group
The only surprise is that he is not lower I guess.




I don't think these numbers have anything to do with actual values in the passport (which are affected by events), but are a suspicious quotient, being the liklihood a prosecution could succeed.

I thought the passport was the main source of data for the index. The passport has certain tolerances that when exceeded can be seen a proof of doping. i.e. The bigger the anomaly the higher the index. However, these tolerances are set quite high to avoid false positives, right? So it seems you really have to be going some to actually get held accountable.

Also, when you have guys that score 10 why have they not been held accountable? Its possible that it has been done privately and they have been warned.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

see my post #4874 above

I saw your post too. I have asked this question in this thread and in the JV thread, no one seems to be willing/bothered to answer that question. Since LeMond was one of the first riders using power meters he should know a little thing about the stuff we might say.

Whats remarkable is that Eddy has a whopping 0 three years straight where he produces quality results/performances in the pinnacle of races.

Eddy has some talent we might say.

 

[the big ring]

In the tour in 2009 his TT results were good but not remarkable and its pretty obvious he didn't improve at all in this dept compared with his 2007. However, what DID change was his training focus. A loss of 40min MP due to dropping race weight from 77kg down to 71kg could be offset (or partially offset) by altered training in combination with a slightly decreased CdA.

This would be an awesome, awesome point in your favour EXCEPT for the following:

Cd is inversely related to weight (presumably it was found that bulkier riders have a smoother shape overall than wirey ones). With weight affecting Cd more significantly than it affects FA, heavier riders at the same height have BETTER CdA, not worse.

He was still pretty much even with Martin in the TT at the Dauphine in 2011 and maybe his weight was slightly higher then since he had another month to go until the TdF anyway.

Another awesome point EXCEPT: here's the map for the stage:

and here's the race report:

Weather was certainly a factor in the day's outcome, as rain fell on the earlier starters, including Martin, who set out as the 45th of 175 riders. Despite the wet roads, he posted an intimidating standard for the later starters with a 55:28, averaging just shy of 46km/h.

“It was a really technical course because the road was also a little wet,” Martin said immediately after winning the stage. “I quickly found my rhythm though and so I’m satisfied with my ride.

...

Roads dried up for some of the later starters, but still no one was able to challenge Martin's time until Sky's Bradley Wiggins came through the second intermediate check after 27.5km with a time equal to the German's.

The morning's race leader, Alexandre Vinokourov (Astana) had difficulty with the technical descents as the rain began to fall anew and was trailing two minutes behind Wiggins, who looked set to take over the Critérium du Dauphiné lead.

The roads dried up for Wiggins and the rest of the top men on the general classification on the final leg of the course, but they were unable to match the powerful German talent.

Huh. So Brad Wiggins is NEARLY as good as Tony Martin, as long as Tony rides a wet (look at the friggin map) technical circuit but Brad rides on dry roads. Riiiight. Good grief.

Later in the year however in Sept he was 1:15 behind Martin at the TT world championships. So compared with Martin at the Dauphine he went slower (which you might expect since he was recovering from the crash).

Another awesome point EXCEPT for the very obvious fact that in August, Brad finished 3rd at the Vuelta. I'm not sure about you, but coming 3rd at the Vuelta in August and struggling with TT in September due to a crash in July sounds a biiiit weird to me.

This year at the olympics he was only 40sec in front of Martin. I did the sums and compared with the Dauphine in 2011 it represents a 1.2sec/km improvement which is about a 2% improvement. <snipped some stuff about "CV of TT" being 2-4%.>

Hmmm... let me get my calculator out and see if I can do the same sums. Rather than show just the summary, however, I will show the working too, and that way you can verify that my maths makes sense, and is not some fantasy I am creating to support my argument.

2011 Dauphine TT: 42.5km
Wiggins: 55:38 (45.84km/hr, 78.54 s/km)
Martin: 55:27 (45.99km/hr, 78.28 s/km)

2012 Olympic TT: 44km
Wiggins: 50:40 (52.1km/hr, 69.09 s/km) (9.46 s difference)
Marthin: 51:22 (51.4km/hr, 70.05 s/km) (8.23 s difference)

Ahhh yes there's the 1.2 s/km difference: 9.46-8.23 = 1.23 s / km. I'm really not sure how you go from there to a 2% difference, but if I look at speed, Brad is 0.33% slower (45.99/45.84) at the Dauphine and 1.38% (52.1/51.4) faster at the Olympics - an improvement of 1.7%. But that's speed difference increase. To get that improvement, power increases as the cube of the speed increase (assuming a flat course). 1.017% increase in speed = 5% difference increase in power. Now I have no idea what "CV in TT" is, but I do know 5% difference increase in power is not trivial.

My problems with this comparison (Dauphine vs Olympics) are threefold:
1. the Dauphine course is technical (ie hairpin bends) and hilly
2. the Dauphine speeds are much, much slower
3. Martin raced in the rain / on wet roads at the Dauphine

If we assume for the moment that Brad was fit in September of that year (given he came 3rd at the Vuelta a month earlier, it's a safe thing to say), and compare an equally fast course with similar weather conditions for both riders, the 2011 WC TT is an ideal candidate. As is the long TT at the Vuelta.

2011 Vuelta Stage 10 TT: 47km
Wiggins: 57:16 (49.24 km/hr)
Martin: 55:54 (50.45 km/hr)


2011 WC TT: 46.4km
Wiggins: 54:59 (50.62km/hr, 71.11 s/km) (453W)
Martin: 53:44 (51.81km/hr, 69.48 s/km)

2012 Olympic TT: 44km
Wiggins: 50:40 (52.1km/hr, 69.09 s/km) (2.02 s/km difference to WC)
Marthin: 51:22 (51.4km/hr, 70.05 s/km) (0.57 s/km difference)

Now the improvement is 2.02-0.57 = 1.45 s / km. If we look at speed differences as a % again, we get Brad 2.35% slower (2.44% in the Vuelta, so very similar) and then at the Olympics, 1.38% faster. A difference of 3.7% Both TTs are flat, so we can cube the speed difference much more confidently to get: 1.037^3 = 11% difference improvement in power.

11%

What does that say for your CV of TT?

NB: this is not an absolute increase in power - it's the difference between 2 riders between 2 races. In absolute terms, Brad's power anecdotally increased 9% (52.1/50.62)^3. I stress anecdotally as the courses and conditions are clearly not the same. But it's a fair comparison compared to the Dauphine vs Olympics comparison that a scientist once discussed.

All I can think is that this stuff goes way over the head of most of you, so you just ignore it and think I'm crazy or something because I'm missing the forest which is Leinders, Rogers, Porte and Froome. You are all putting your eggs in one basket which is Rogers off the cuff remark about his "best numbers ever". Yes it is cause for suspicion but I'd really like to see some hard and fast data before making assumptions and pretending to know how tight this remark actually is.

No, I think your arguments are perfectly reasonable and rational, until you examine them. Then you realise the pertinent details are missing (Martin TTing in the wet on a technical course vs DRY for Wiggins), or wrong (Brad suffering from July accident in September even though he podiumed at the Vuelta in August / lighter riders have better CdA), or your comparisons are apples to oranges (hilly, technical, slow Dauphine TT vs fast, flat, Olympic TT).

I wouldn't mind all these mistakes or errors of omission if it was Joe Blogs the janitor. But this is allegedly a scientist. Who in every post denigrates those not party to his esoteric "PhD + 10 years experience working with elite athletes and coaches" circle.

Your posts are too easy to dismantle with cold, hard facts and analysis.

 

[sittingbison]

I saw your post too. I have asked this question in this thread and in the JV thread, no one seems to be willing/bothered to answer that question. Since LeMond was one of the first riders using power meters he should know a little thing about the stuff we might say.Eddy has some talent we might say.

I have also said the same thing on numerous occasions, over the Sky, cadence, Froome, GB track etc threads. Namely why would anyone think that anything approaching Lance power figures is legitimate.

No answer back.

Thats why I found these LeMond level figures JV tweeted quite interesting, less than 6W/kg and less than 350W

 

[sittingbison]

I thought the passport was the main source of data for the index. The passport has certain tolerances that when exceeded can be seen a proof of doping. i.e. The bigger the anomaly the higher the index. However, these tolerances are set quite high to avoid false positives, right? So it seems you really have to be going some to actually get held accountable.

Also, when you have guys that score 10 why have they not been held accountable? Its possible that it has been done privately and they have been warned.

Yup, I think I misinterpreted you before. The passport is meant to take into account fluctuations, so the things you mentioned such as coming back from injury, having a hard race etc should be taken into account. Its not the actual numbers in the passport (such as after a hard race) but variations in the numbers that cannot be accounted for that lead to the suspicions.

6 Knees
7 Rogers
8 Kanstantsin Siutsou, Jurgen Van Den Broeck
9 Denis Menchov
10 Carlos Barredo,Yaroslav Popovych

Barredo is in the process of being questioned. There is a possibility Popovych is co-operating with WADA (maybe even in Lance case) given the Italian cops raided his house and confiscated his computer. In the mean time Sky went and employed Rogers, Knees and Siutsou lol

 

[the big ring]

I am curious now, and wonder if an exercise physiologist can help clear up a question.

While I admire Brad as an athlete, I can tell you he was a nightmare to work with and certainly did not listen to much advice I gave him...beyond "wow, brad, most of your power produced in a 4 minute pursuit is via aerobic metabolism...that's unique...You could be a stage racer"

And that's where Brad and I stopped.

Please provide a link to the protocol that explains the difference between aerobic AND anaerobic sources of power production in IP events, and how you would measure them accurately enough to be able to state that a person (ie Brad) is doing it more aerobically than the average world IP pursuiter?

Sorry, I know I'm late to the party, but to answer your question: see our book, http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com, and/or visit the fixedgearfever website for a .ppt on track applications for a powermeter for examples on how to do this.

Ok, I know I'm nuts for even bothering here, but here goes:

My major point had to do with the percentage of anearobic work done in a 20 minute efforts vs a 40 min effort. The bike weight, etc etc, probably does only account for 20 watts assuming a perfectly steady effort (which is an invalid assumption if you've ever watched a bike race). However, the amount of power produced beyond what is produced aerobically in a 20 minute effort is considerable, it is not in a 40 minute effort - in my experience!

Which was a defence of this article on CN: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-defends-ucis-biological-passport

Walsh had previously pointed to Antoine Varey, a former coach for Festina, who now analyses riders' performances on the major climbs as evidence that the sport was still short of catching doping. However Vaughters, who once held the record for the ascent of Mont Ventoux, disagreed with Varey's results. "Firstly, if you do a direct comparison with VAM from 2009 to 1996, and you're comparing Hautacam or Alpe d'heuz with Verbier, well that's just not a fair comparison. Alpe d'Huez is about a 40-minute climb while Verbier is around half of that so the biggest error in the calculation that he's making is that the component of anaerobic work done in a 20-minute period is 30 to 40 percent larger than the component of anaerobic work done in a 40-minute period. It's flawed from a scientific perspective."

So on the one hand, we have JV and Krebs telling us Wiggins produces most of his short-term, well-rested (IP) standing start power aerobically.

Then JV turns around and says the contribution from ANaerobic sources, when climbing a mountain for 20 minutes, during stage 15 of a 3 week tour, at the end of a 207km stage, after 5 x consecutive 200km stages, is significant enough to cast doubt on power estimates for climbs.

Is it just me, or is JV trying to have his aerobic power sourced Wiggins cake and eat it too?

 

[Benotti69]

Yup, I think I misinterpreted you before. The passport is meant to take into account fluctuations, so the things you mentioned such as coming back from injury, having a hard race etc should be taken into account. Its not the actual numbers in the passport (such as after a hard race) but variations in the numbers that cannot be accounted for that lead to the suspicions.

6 Knees
7 Rogers
8 Kanstantsin Siutsou, Jurgen Van Den Broeck
9 Denis Menchov
10 Carlos Barredo,Yaroslav Popovych

Barredo is in the process of being questioned. There is a possibility Popovych is co-operating with WADA (maybe even in Lance case) given the Italian cops raided his house and confiscated his computer. In the mean time Sky went and employed Rogers, Knees and Siutsou lol

Tony Martin on HTC was a number 8 on the famous list. Wiggins beating an 8. We know that Martin rides for OPQS who works with Dr Ibarguren.

How can Wiggins only on 'Marginal gains' beat Martin then?

 

[johnnycash]

You seem to be looking at these atheletes as if they are machines, they are not. Riders have good days and bad days, periods of good form and bad.

Martin in 2011 was a different prospect to 2012, as Wiggins was vice versa. Similarly with Gilbert. Doesn't mean any of them are or were dopers.

Crashes, injuries, illness, confidence, weather conditions, type of ITT, there are too many variables which you can't put numbers on for this type of conclusion.

 

[the big ring]

You seem to be looking at these atheletes as if they are machines, they are not. Riders have good days and bad days, periods of good form and bad.

Agreed. Many GC riders in GTs have a jour sans - a day when things don't quite gel.

Except Brad. Not a single bad day since he won the Tour of Romandie in April till the Olympic TT in August...

Sure looks like a machine to me.

 

[The Hitch]

Whats remarkable is that Eddy has a whopping 0 three years straight where he produces quality results/performances in the pinnacle of races.

Those aren't 3 straight years. The results are all from 2010 and for 2011 and 2012 the poster copied the 2010 numbers together with the names.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Those aren't 3 straight years. The results are all from 2010 and for 2011 and 2012 the poster copied the 2010 numbers together with the names.

Yes .

 

[johnnycash]

Agreed. Many GC riders in GTs have a jour sans - a day when things don't quite gel.

Except Brad. Not a single bad day since he won the Tour of Romandie in April till the Olympic TT in August...

Sure looks like a machine to me.

Yes thats a good point, but in the races that he's done this year, Sky have been quite lucky that an in-form Schleck (either), Cadel or AC, or even Sanches has not been there to hurt them. Don't forget that was it PN when Westra dropped Wiggins on the Mende and would have won the race overall if he hadn't slowed for the line? Sky have had an amazing year but a lot of factors played into their favour, making them appear more invincible than they really are, I believe.

A lot of the 'jour sans' in the past, from say Ullrich or Armstrong may have been because they buried themselves the day before on a hard stage. Its all a bit circular because Sky never suffered any sustained pressure. Perhaps if AC was ragging the Sky train all over the place on tourmalet, we might have seen cracks open up if not there, the day after. 2012 is only one year, and we're really only talking about PN, CDD, TdR, TdF aren't we? I'd give Sky and Brad another GT before arousing suspicion.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

You seem to be looking at these atheletes as if they are machines, they are not. Riders have good days and bad days, periods of good form and bad.

Martin in 2011 was a different prospect to 2012, as Wiggins was vice versa. Similarly with Gilbert. Doesn't mean any of them are or were dopers.

Crashes, injuries, illness, confidence, weather conditions, type of ITT, there are too many variables which you can't put numbers on for this type of conclusion.

Are you really stating Martin has a bad year? How about his equal TT time with Wiggins in the Algarve? Did you bother to watch the TT at the Tour of Belgium where he obliterated a pretty good field?

Yes the crash in april hampered some of his pre - season but no way this is a bad year for der Toni. There was just this one British cyclist who went with a 'lower cadence' in comparison to last year.

 

[the big ring]

Yes thats a good point, but in the races that he's done this year, Sky have been quite lucky that an in-form Schleck (either), Cadel or AC, or even Sanches has not been there to hurt them. Don't forget that was it PN when Westra dropped Wiggins on the Mende and would have won the race overall if he hadn't slowed for the line? Sky have had an amazing year but a lot of factors played into their favour, making them appear more invincible than they really are, I believe.

A lot of the 'jour sans' in the past, from say Ullrich or Armstrong may have been because they buried themselves the day before on a hard stage. Its all a bit circular because Sky never suffered any sustained pressure. Perhaps if AC was ragging the Sky train all over the place on tourmalet, we might have seen cracks open up if not there, the day after. 2012 is only one year, and we're really only talking about PN, CDD, TdR, TdF aren't we? I'd give Sky and Brad another GT before arousing suspicion.

From a strictly Brad Wiggins POV, I would say Brad and Nibali, based on recent (last 2-3 years) form, finished in the right order, with the right separation. Except for one fact: Brad was already at a higher level than Nibali at the Dauphine (1st vs 28th) a month earlier. Nibali follows an understandable (to me) progression towards the end of the TdF, "riding himself into form", whereas Wiggins remains at the top of the heap winning multi-stage races 3 months earlier.

Sky's collective level was so high at the TdF that noone had a hope of applying pressure - Sky were applying it all, every day, without fail.

And this is explained away by saying a guy who had no clue about cyclists and their training, analysed cycling races and worked out the wattages the guys needed to do, and they just worked on hitting those wattages.

Even though Evans' coach Sassi said pretty much the exact same thing (you need 6W/kg to win the TdF) long before Kerrison started working with Sky / Wiggins.

Kerrison also has them training & maintaining top end @ 95% all the time, like a swimmer does. Then he analysed Wiggins' cadence, comparing it to one other rider (T Martin), dropped it a bit, and allowed Brad to make a 2 minute difference on Tony Martin over 44km. wtf?

If you go back to 2008 - to when people might accept Brad was "clean" on the road, Wiggins is good in the Giro final time trial (28.5km), but still gets beaten by Tony Martin and Marco Pinotti. They are all on the same team - with Marco winning the TT itself. NFI what HighRoad were even doing in the race - going for stages?

Brad goes on to win gold medals at the Olympics on the track that year, so I don't think you can say his form is off or anything.

If we now add in Froome, and, as loathe as I am to say it - Porte and Rogers to this mix, all smashing any of the GC guys up the climbs and even on the TTs, it's just too hard to accept.



This is a really handy tool to compare riders head to head: http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/h2h.asp

Rider names are type <surname, first name>.

 

[Catwhoorg]

I don't think these numbers have anything to do with actual values in the passport (which are affected by events), but are a suspicious quotient, being the liklihood a prosecution could succeed.

The description as I understood it was more a targeted list for testing. So if someone hadn't had a particular test done for a while, then they would naturally drift upwards.

It never was really clearly stated what criteria the list was based on, but it was clarified that the numbers changed regularly in response to ongoing testing.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

This is a really handy tool to compare riders head to head: http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/h2h.asp

Rider names are type <surname, first name>.

Thanx!

Nice comparison:

and

Froomey vs Nibali that is.

I like statistics.

 

[the big ring]

Thanx!

Nice comparison:

and

Froomey vs Nibali that is.

I like statistics.

Don't look at Wiggins then. His current CQ ranking is 3200+.

I like statistics also - and you can download their data, which I will do when I get one o them round tuits.

ETA: delta CQ is a very interesting study. Check the usual suspects like Wiggins, Froome, Gilbert, Evans, Contador, etc. (dCQ/dt). Very interesting.

I'd like to be able to substitute age for calendar year on the X-axis for S&G too.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Don't look at Wiggins then. His current CQ ranking is 3200+.

I like statistics also - and you can download their data, which I will do when I get one o them round tuits.

ETA: delta CQ is a very interesting study. Check the usual suspects like Wiggins, Froome, Gilbert, Evans, Contador, etc. (dCQ/dt). Very interesting.

I'd like to be able to substitute age for calendar year on the X-axis for S&G too.

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=990

Now, that's marginal gains. A lot of them.
Then look at SKY 2010/2011, the year the doctors came in:
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/team_stats.asp?year=2010&teamcode=sky

2011:
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/team_stats.asp?year=2011&teamcode=sky

You do not need a phd in statistics to see what's going on there.

I do believe Sky tried to do it clean in 2010 and saw it couldn't be done.

 

[Bumeington]

2011 WC TT: 46.4km
Wiggins: 54:59 (50.62km/hr, 71.11 s/km) (453W)
Martin: 53:44 (51.81km/hr, 69.48 s/km)

2012 Olympic TT: 44km
Wiggins: 50:40 (52.1km/hr, 69.09 s/km) (2.02 s/km difference to WC)
Marthin: 51:22 (51.4km/hr, 70.05 s/km) (0.57 s/km difference)

Numbers I have heard:

2011 WC TT: Wiggins says 456W, Shane Sutton says 459W, you say 453, ball park all the same.

Olympics TT: Martin tells german media he could barely hold 450W, whilst normally he holds 450-500W all the way in a long TT.

So assuming in the 2011 WC TT Wiggins and Martin have similar cdA, then Martin comes out as (51.81/50.62)^3*456 = 489W (!).

So, Wiggins 456/71 = 6.42W/kg, Martin 489/75 = 6.52 W/kg.

Boardman's 96 hour record (442/69 = 6.4 W/kg). The numbers fit with both of them being the two of the most gifted TTers ever.

Given Martin's comments re 2012, I don't think Wiggins improved much between 2011 and 2012.

As to whether they are doped to achieve these numbers, that's a very good question as you have to either believe that or that they are two of the very best ever.

As for the Vuelta TT 2011, you have to remember Wiggins started too fast (1 second faster than Martin at the first split) before fading, so could have been closer if he'd ridden more conservatively.

 

[the big ring]

Numbers I have heard:

2011 WC TT: Wiggins says 456W, Shane Sutton says 459W, you say 453, ball park all the same.

Olympics TT: Martin tells german media he could barely hold 450W, whilst normally he holds 450-500W all the way in a long TT.

So assuming in the 2011 WC TT Wiggins and Martin have similar cdA, then Martin comes out as (51.81/50.62)^3*456 = 489W (!).

So, Wiggins 456/71 = 6.42W/kg, Martin 489/75 = 6.52 W/kg.

Boardman's 96 hour record (442/69 = 6.4 W/kg). The numbers fit with both of them being the two of the most gifted TTers ever.

Given Martin's comments re 2012, I don't think Wiggins improved much between 2011 and 2012.

As to whether they are doped to achieve these numbers, that's a very good question as you have to either believe that or that they are two of the very best ever.

As for the Vuelta TT 2011, you have to remember Wiggins started too fast (1 second faster than Martin at the first split) before fading, so could have been closer if he'd ridden more conservatively.

Ahhh interesting. So Martin did 450W for Olympic TT? I do not speak German at all but a link to the report would be nice?

ETA: My primary concerns with this are:
1. Martin's CdA is better
2. Wiggins' weight is listed as 69kg, not 71kg.

ie at a minimum (due to CdA considerations): ((52.1/51.4)^3*450)/69 = 6.79W/kg

 

[roundabout]

Ahhh interesting. So Martin did 450W for Olympic TT? I do not speak German at all but a link to the report would be nice?

That's what he wrote himself I presume

http://www.tony-martin.de/aktuelles/259-uebergluecklich-nach-silber.html

Edit: what he actually says is that he had to fight to reach his "normal" level of 450-500w. He doesn't say his exact performance.

 

[the big ring]

That's what he wrote himself I presume

http://www.tony-martin.de/aktuelles/259-uebergluecklich-nach-silber.html

Edit: what he actually says is that he had to fight to reach his "normal" level of 450-500w. He doesn't say his exact performance.

Du sprechen zie Deutch?

There's a website that has modeled both the 2011 WC course and the Olympic course, using weather data and rider height / weight to approximate CdA. http://www.cyclingpowermodels.com/OlympicTimeTrial.aspx

The model is incredibly accurate, given the data we know (453W for Wiggins from Xavier, who then went on to say he would have to do 477W or reduce his CdA from ~0.224 (wind tunnel) to 0.21 to match Martin's time. Wiggins had done 480W before, but only for 18 minutes).

1 Tony Martin 75kg = 481W (vs 477W estimated for Wiggins to do this time vs basic speed differential (51.81/50.62)^3*453W = 485W)
2 Bradley Wiggins 69kg = 447W (vs 453W actual)

Their predictions for the Olympic TT had the rider order reversed, but was within 15 seconds of the actual winning time:

1 Tony Martin 50:24 (actual winning time B Wiggins 50:39)
2 Bradley Wiggins 52:05

I realise there's a lot of guess-work and assumption made in these models, but to be within 2% accuracy based on actual figures from people directly involved with the cyclists gives me a lot of confidence in their modeling.

An in-form Martin doing 450-500 "easily" may hit 480 average.
A suffering Martin doing 450-500 "painfully" may hit 460 average.

Here's the guesstimates from their Olympic model using results and weather data, as well as course data and rider height/weight as on team websites: http://www.cyclingpowermodels.com/ProRaceAnalysis.aspx

1 Bradley Wiggins (Great Britain) (1.9,69) ------ Time: 0:50:39 ------ CdA 0.227 ------ Avg power 480 ------ 6.96W/kg
2 Tony Martin (Germany) (1.86,75) --------------- Time: 0:51:21 ------ CdA 0.222 ------ Avg power 461 ------ 6.14W/kg

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Du sprechen zie Deutch?

There's a website that has modeled both the 2011 WC course and the Olympic course, using weather data and rider height / weight to approximate CdA. http://www.cyclingpowermodels.com/OlympicTimeTrial.aspx

The model is incredibly accurate, given the data we know (453W for Wiggins from Xavier, who then went on to say he would have to do 477W or reduce his CdA from ~0.224 (wind tunnel) to 0.21 to match Martin's time. Wiggins had done 480W before, but only for 18 minutes).

1 Tony Martin 75kg = 481W (vs 477W estimated for Wiggins to do this time vs basic speed differential (51.81/50.62)^3*453W = 485W)
2 Bradley Wiggins 69kg = 447W (vs 453W actual)

Their predictions for the Olympic TT had the rider order reversed, but was within 15 seconds of the actual winning time:

1 Tony Martin 50:24 (actual winning time B Wiggins 50:39)
2 Bradley Wiggins 52:05

I realise there's a lot of guess-work and assumption made in these models, but to be within 2% accuracy based on actual figures from people directly involved with the cyclists gives me a lot of confidence in their modeling.

An in-form Martin doing 450-500 "easily" may hit 480 average.
A suffering Martin doing 450-500 "painfully" may hit 460 average.

Here's the guesstimates from their Olympic model using results and weather data, as well as course data and rider height/weight as on team websites: http://www.cyclingpowermodels.com/ProRaceAnalysis.aspx

1 Bradley Wiggins (Great Britain) (1.9,69) ------ Time: 0:50:39 ------ CdA 0.227 ------ Avg power 480 ------ 6.96W/kg
2 Tony Martin (Germany) (1.86,75) --------------- Time: 0:51:21 ------ CdA 0.222 ------ Avg power 461 ------ 6.14W/kg

Thats very interesting, thanks. How much effect does CdA have on the final calculation. For instance if you change it for 0.001 how much impact does that have on W/kg?

 

[the big ring]

Thats very interesting, thanks. How much effect does CdA have on the final calculation. For instance if you change it for 0.001 how much impact does that have on W/kg?

I think the formula is
F = CdA x p x V^3/2

where p = air pressure.

Check the site out, it has a wealth of information, including the Stage 19 and prologue TTs from this year's Tour