Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Ferminal]

Bayern-Rundfahrt, Stage 4 : Friedberg - Friedberg I.T.T. (26 km)

Much respect from Bavarianrider

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

You are not seriously suggesting that Chris Boardman could have had the same level of success ad Sir Wiggo in GTs? Winning the Tour de France and 2nd in the Veulta?

He diminished levels of testosterone meant a 3 week tour would be out of the question. However, didn't he come second in Indurain in the Dauphine Libere (And that would have been during the EPO peak)? Assuming he was clean he would def. have a much better palmarès if he raced during a cleaner period.

One thing that goes against him is that he was never a great bike handler. So the longer the race goes on the more chance of something going wrong.

 

[acoggan]

Is anyone else amazed that Wiggins, who has definitely been training 3-6 hours / day since 2008, has not once been cited as an example of "efficiency improvement"?

I mean.

It's the reason Armstrong's power increased 8% - why hasn't Wiggins' power increased 8%? Or even 2%?

According to acoggan's critical power graph, Wiggins' critical power has remained static since 2004.

What gives?

How old was Armstrong when Coyle fist tested him? How old was Wiggins in 2004? How long had each been training exclusively as a cyclist at those times?

 

[acoggan]

8% power apparently.

If you *** u me that all else is equal.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

How old was Armstrong when Coyle fist tested him? How old was Wiggins in 2004? How long had each been training exclusively as a cyclist at those times?

Armstrong fist "tested" @ 21 study concludes at 28 - looks like he started at 21 solely on the bike.

Wiggins in 2004 is 24 comes 4th at the Tour in 2009 at 29 - looks like he's been riding 3 years, also starting full-time at 21.

 

[sittingbison]

He diminished levels of testosterone meant a 3 week tour would be out of the question. However, didn't he come second in Indurain in the Dauphine Libere (And that would have been during the EPO peak)? Assuming he was clean he would def. have a much better palmarès if he raced during a cleaner period.

One thing that goes against him is that he was never a great bike handler. So the longer the race goes on the more chance of something going wrong.

Assuming he was clean, his road palmares might have been better in a cleaner period.

The comparison was to Sir Wiggo in road stage racing. However looking at Sir Wiggos road palmares, it wasn't much chop until 2011 with the win in the Dauphine Libere and 3rd in Veulta, then the miracle of 2012.

There is nothing in Chris Boardmans road stage racing palmares or GT performances to suggest he could become a GC rider. Perhaps the actual comparison with Sir Wiggo should be that likewise there was nothing in Sir Wiggos road stage racing palmares prior to 2011 to indicate HE would be a GC contender let alone winner.

If only Chris Boardman had concentrated on the road, hired a swimming instructor and a dodgy doping doctor, changed his cadence and that stuff, and had a few marginal gains.

 

[acoggan]

Armstrong fist "tested" @ 21 study concludes at 28 - looks like he started at 21 solely on the bike.

Wiggins in 2004 is 24 comes 4th at the Tour in 2009 at 29 - looks like he's been riding 3 years, also starting full-time at 21.

And IIRC Coyle's data on Armstrong correctly, the reported changes in efficiency were non-linear over time (i.e., they tended to plateau).

So, one possible explanation (out of MANY) is that efficiency increases during the 1st ~5 y of training/up until age ~25, then levels off. If so, the apparent difference between Armstrong and Wiggins could be the period over which the measurements were made (i.e., earlier in Armstrong's development).

(BTW, this might also explain why Dave Martin et al. have reported the Cadel Evans' efficiency hasn't changed, i.e., he started training very young, and may have already reached the limits of his potential w/ respect to efficiency before they ever tested him.)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And IIRC Coyle's data on Armstrong correctly, the reported changes in efficiency were non-linear over time (i.e., they tended to plateau).

Doesn't look like a plateau to me, but hey, I'm just a millenial student, apparently.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Assuming he was clean, his road palmares might have been better in a cleaner period.

The comparison was to Sir Wiggo in road stage racing. However looking at Sir Wiggos road palmares, it wasn't much chop until 2011 with the win in the Dauphine Libere and 3rd in Veulta, then the miracle of 2012.

There is nothing in Chris Boardmans road stage racing palmares or GT performances to suggest he could become a GC rider. Perhaps the actual comparison with Sir Wiggo should be that likewise there was nothing in Sir Wiggos road stage racing palmares prior to 2011 to indicate HE would be a GC contender let alone winner.

If only Chris Boardman had concentrated on the road, hired a swimming instructor and a dodgy doping doctor, changed his cadence and that stuff, and had a few marginal gains.

Yes, and as I said Boardman proved he could compete for GC in week races such as Dauphine (Paris-Nice and Romandie) and this at the height of EPO.

Does Wiggins have a similar debilitating illness to Boardman. No. So it is not a fair comparison is it?

 

[mastersracer]

Did Wiggins win an elite long ITT before 2012?

before that, he was being beaten by Luigi, who beat him by 23 seconds in the 2007 TdF prologue. Cancellara's SRM file showed he averaged about the same as Wiggins' 2004 pursuit gold medal performance - despite the fact that it was over twice the distance (Wiggins 2004 Olympic weight was about Cancellara's 2007 weight, BTW). And in 2007, Luigi beat him by over 2 minutes at Worlds ITT.

Of course, this was all before Cancellara 'improved' according to Dear Wiggo.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Of course, this was all before Cancellara 'improved' according to Dear Wiggo.

My, my.

Someone disagrees that pre-2009 TT podiums @ 49% and post-2009 TT podiums @ 68% is an improvement.

Or is trying to imply the improvement only came about due to improvement in power.

tsk tsk.

Go back up a few posts, where I mention the peloton got cleaner thanks to Pat McQuaid and his BP, and allowed Fabian to reclaim his throne.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Question: does 02vector doping help with aerobic capacities?

Of course, but it does squat for your aerodynamics.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

before that, he was being beaten by Luigi, who beat him by 23 seconds in the 2007 TdF prologue. Cancellara's SRM file showed he averaged about the same as Wiggins' 2004 pursuit gold medal performance - despite the fact that it was over twice the distance (Wiggins 2004 Olympic weight was about Cancellara's 2007 weight, BTW). And in 2007, Luigi beat him by over 2 minutes at Worlds ITT.

And you have access to Cancellara's SRM and bathroom scales. You do get about.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

8% power apparently.

Well more like a 5.5 - 6.0% improvement in power to aerodynamic drag ratio actually.

You can't simply isolate power alone since aerodynamic changes can have a bigger impact to TT (and pursuit) performance than what power changes a rider does/does not make.

 

[Ferminal]

before that, he was being beaten by Luigi, who beat him by 23 seconds in the 2007 TdF prologue. Cancellara's SRM file showed he averaged about the same as Wiggins' 2004 pursuit gold medal performance - despite the fact that it was over twice the distance (Wiggins 2004 Olympic weight was about Cancellara's 2007 weight, BTW). And in 2007, Luigi beat him by over 2 minutes at Worlds ITT.

Of course, this was all before Cancellara 'improved' according to Dear Wiggo.

2007 was post-Fuentes.

 

[mastersracer]

2007 was post-Fuentes.

do you think Cancellara didn't dope after 2006? That he sustained a gold medal pursuit power for 8 kms (with traffic circles he had to coast through, in part because he was faster than his lead motorcycles could go) - suggestive that Wiggins was also beat by Kloden and Hincapie in that prologue.

What about the 2010 accusations of mechanical doping? Weren't they suggestive of old-fashioned doping? Or beating Armstrong in the 2004 TdF prologue?

Wiggins' performance relative to Cancellara is getting closer (e.g., 2012 Tdf prologue) because Wiggins' absolute performance has remained relatively constant and Cancellara's has only recently (2012) declined.

 

[Ferminal]

I think Cancellara has doped his entire career (well since he joined CSC at least).

Remember 2008-2011 were his best years, was this not a clean era?

 

[sittingbison]

Yes, and as I said Boardman proved he could compete for GC in week races such as Dauphine (Paris-Nice and Romandie) and this at the height of EPO.

Does Wiggins have a similar debilitating illness to Boardman. No. So it is not a fair comparison is it?

I didnt make the comparison, acoggan did in reply to this post:

...it is entirely plausible that Wiggins' ABSOLUTE performance has been relatively constant while that of his competitors has declined, thereby improving his relative performance.

Extending that logic a bit further, you could argue that someone like Boardman might have had similar success previously if not for the fact that so many others were doping.

Pedro I understand you saying Boardman once got a second place in the DL but was hampered in stage races by his physiological issues and lack of bike handling skills. It is my belief that nobody in their right mind however should suggest Boardmans palmares reveals he is capable of Sir Wiggos 2012 miracle season let alone capable of a 3rd in the Veulta and 1st in the Tour.

So my question remains: is acoggan seriously suggesting Chris Boardmans palmares reveal he was capable of similar success to Sir Wiggo if both are clean and the entire peletons are not?

 

[sittingbison]

I think Cancellara has doped his entire career (well since he joined CSC at least).

Remember 2008-2011 were his best years, was this not a clean era?

No, the clean era started in 2006 according to Levi, Big George, DaveZ, Barry and the like. And Lance confirmed it by saying he never doped after 2005

 

[andy1234]

I didnt make the comparison, acoggan did in reply to this post:




Pedro I understand you saying Boardman once got a second place in the DL but was hampered in stage races by his physiological issues and lack of bike handling skills. It is my belief that nobody in their right mind however should suggest Boardmans palmares reveals he is capable of Sir Wiggos 2012 miracle season let alone capable of a 3rd in the Veulta and 1st in the Tour.

So my question remains: is acoggan seriously suggesting Chris Boardmans palmares reveal he was capable of similar success to Sir Wiggo if both are clean and the entire peletons are not?

I think acoggan is suggesting that the reason Wiggins is now able to compete at the level he is, is because of the relative performance drop in the peloton, as a result of the bio passport etc.
Also, that Chris Boardmans palmares, would suggest that he may have been able to achieve similar results during his career, had the peloton been under similar constraints, doping wise.

If Boardman achieved wins in the Criterium International, 2nd in the Dauphine, 3rd in Paris Nice etc as a clean rider, against a non controlled peloton, it seems like a resonable assumption.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Pedro I understand you saying Boardman once got a second place in the DL but was hampered in stage races by his physiological issues and lack of bike handling skills. It is my belief that nobody in their right mind however should suggest Boardmans palmares reveals he is capable of Sir Wiggos 2012 miracle season let alone capable of a 3rd in the Veulta and 1st in the Tour.

If Boardman was clean (and I personally believe he was) then the fact that he could compete in week long stage races in the 90s and podium shows the level of talent he had. Based on that I think he had the engine. However, for a 3 week race you need a bit more. That is where I think the lack of bike handling and certainly his testosterone levels would fail him. That does not change if you were able to transport him to the here and now.

So my question remains: is acoggan seriously suggesting Chris Boardmans palmares reveal he was capable of similar success to Sir Wiggo if both are clean and the entire peletons are not?

While no one is arguing that doping has gone if you cannot reconcile the difference between competing during the early to late 90s and competing now then there is no point arguing further.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Well more like a 5.5 - 6.0% improvement in power to aerodynamic drag ratio actually.

My background is rowing, and on the static machines, there is an accepted cubic relationship between the power applied to the flywheel and the speed recorded. Actually, what happens is that power is measured by how quickly the flywheel decelerates due to air resitance and speed is then derived via:

Power = 2.8 * Speed^3, where Speed is in m/s.

The constant 2.8 was arbitrarily chosen by the manufacturers so that an international rower would row at the same speed as a typical international coxless 4.

So I'm curious as to how a 2% increase in IP speed can lead to a signficiantly smaller increase in power than (1.02)^3-1 ie 8%, unless by going faster, the rider adopted a more "aero" position.

I suspect that you may be the man to satisfy my curiosity, so thanks in advance!

 

[Bumeington]

There is nothing in Chris Boardmans road stage racing palmares or GT performances to suggest he could become a GC rider....

Considering the era, 2nd Dauphine, 2nd Romandie, 1st Criterium International and 3rd Paris-Nice don't look too bad.

 

[acoggan]

My background is rowing, and on the static machines, there is an accepted cubic relationship between the power applied to the flywheel and the speed recorded. Actually, what happens is that power is measured by how quickly the flywheel decelerates due to air resitance and speed is then derived via:

Power = 2.8 * Speed^3, where Speed is in m/s.

The constant 2.8 was arbitrarily chosen by the manufacturers so that an international rower would row at the same speed as a typical international coxless 4.

So I'm curious as to how a 2% increase in IP speed can lead to a signficiantly smaller increase in power than (1.02)^3-1 ie 8%, unless by going faster, the rider adopted a more "aero" position.

I suspect that you may be the man to satisfy my curiosity, so thanks in advance!

Other sources of resistance (i.e., rolling, bearing friction, drivetrain friction) increase less rapidly as a function of speed. Thus, if you simply fit a power function to the power-vs.-speed relationship, you get a "blurred" exponent of 2.6-2.8 (depending on the data set and range of speeds it entails).

 

[acoggan]

Doesn't look like a plateau to me, but hey, I'm just a millenial student, apparently.

Note the apparently rapid improvement between the 1st two measurement points. Also note that over the period which Wiggins' power data are available (i.e., from age ~25 on), Armstrong's efficiency apparently improved by only 1% (in absolute terms). So yes, if you fit a mathematical function to Armstrong's data then used it to predict how much Wiggins' efficiency might have improved from 2004 on, the resulting improvement could easily be lost in the "noise" surrounding self-reported power data.

Finally, note that there's no reason to expect every individual to follow precisely the same developmental time course, or even display precisely the same adaptations. I was simply replying to your request for speculation by proffering one of many possible explanations. Indeed, it is because we don't have a really good understanding of exactly how an elite athlete achieves that status that Coyle's paper on Armstrong was intriguing in the first place.