Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Don't be late Pedro]

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

I will do - I was just being lazy

 

[the big ring]

Chris Anker Sorensen (185, 64) averaged 357W for 45.28km/hr (from trainingpeaks website).
Brad (190, 69) did 49.99km/hr.

For Chris to go the same speed as Brad (and they left within 15 minutes of one another, so am assuming very similar conditions), Chris would have to do

(49.99/45.28)^3*357W = 480W (7.5W/kg).

Ouch.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

There's just no way Brad can sustain nearly 7 W/kg for 50 minutes but produces such relatively measly VAM's at the TdF. It makes no sense.

 

[johnnycash]

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.

Er no, how did you interpret that? I would also be saying Wiggo had a bad 2011 then, which he didn't. 2011 was a great year for Brad, just not at 2012 level which for Tony was the exact opposite.

 

[johnnycash]

It might make for an interesting debate, but i wouldn't base your opinions on the 'science' being put on display on this forum. Its not my field so I can't comment but are there any sports scientists on here who can verify the outputs being calculated?

I also think Brad should have a go at the hour record, he wouldn't be far off.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Er no, how did you interpret that? I would also be saying Wiggo had a bad 2011 then, which he didn't. 2011 was a great year for Brad, just not at 2012 level which for Tony was the exact opposite.

So we agree Wiggins power must have gone up this year, since last year he was bullied by Toni on almost every TT.

That would contradict to some scientists on this board. It was the change in cadence we are led to believe, not extra powering up?

 

[johnnycash]

So we agree Wiggins power must have gone up this year, since last year he was bullied by Toni on almost every TT.

That would contradict to some scientists on this board. It was the change in cadence we are led to believe, not extra powering up?

Yes, assuming Martins power hasn't dropped in 2012 compared to 2011, which it probably has done.

 

[DirtyWorks]

There's just no way Brad can sustain nearly 7 W/kg for 50 minutes but produces such relatively measly VAM's at the TdF. It makes no sense.

Tyler, get with the program. It makes perfect sense. "Incremental gains" is the new ephemeral twin!

 

[Benotti69]

It might make for an interesting debate, but i wouldn't base your opinions on the 'science' being put on display on this forum. Its not my field so I can't comment but are there any sports scientists on here who can verify the outputs being calculated?

I also think Brad should have a go at the hour record, he wouldn't be far off.

You are criticising the science on here as ropey while admitting to knowing nothing about science. Huh?

I think Wiggins should stay on Majorca smoking and drinking his head off.

 

[sniper]

From Ullrich's Eurosport column:

Valverde is in fact very popular in the peloton

Another indication that the pro-peloton is indeed getting cleaner day by day.

http://de.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs...-sich-valverde-aufregt-115644461.html#more-id

 

[acoggan]

T
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.

Just a side note: that's only been speculated (by Dan Heil), not directly demonstrated. Indeed, the data Kyle has presented show no correlation between Cd (at 0 deg of yaw) and either body mass or body mass index.

 

[acoggan]

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

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?

Either Vaughters was misquoted, or he's confused: it is impossible to determine the source (i.e., aerobic vs. anaerobic) of the power estimated from VAM.

About all that really can be said is that, for the durations of the climbs to which VAM is routinely applied (power is routinely estimated), the contribution of anaerobic energy production to total power output is small.

 

[the big ring]

Just a side note: that's only been speculated (by Dan Heil), not directly demonstrated. Indeed, the data Kyle has presented show no correlation between Cd (at 0 deg of yaw) and either body mass or body mass index.

It sounded like a good speculation to me.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11560092

Further analysis of wind tunnel data reported in the literature suggests that the coefficient of drag (CD) is proportional to mb raised to the -0.45 power. When combined with the present study findings, it is suggested that the drag area (CD x AP), which should be proportional to Ws at submaximal cycling velocities, is proportional to mb to the +0.312 power (i.e. CD x AP is directly proportional to mb-0.45) x (mb+0.762) = mb+0.312), which is consistent with the +0.32 exponent for Ws in the literature.

 

[acoggan]

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

That estimate is way too high.

 

[acoggan]

It sounded like a good speculation to me.

Speculation is speculation.

 

[the big ring]

Either Vaughters was misquoted, or he's confused: it is impossible to determine the source (i.e., aerobic vs. anaerobic) of the power estimated from VAM.

About all that really can be said is that, for the durations of the climbs to which VAM is routinely applied (power is routinely estimated), the contribution of anaerobic energy production to total power output is small.

Intuitively that is what I thought it would be - and hence the question. Would the anaerobic contribution for a 20min vs 40min climb be any more significant, or is it too small to even factor?

 

[the big ring]

That estimate is way too high.

There are 6 numbers on that line, which estimate would you call too high?

 

[the big ring]

Speculation is speculation.

A duck is a duck.

 

[acoggan]

are there any sports scientists on here who can verify the outputs being calculated?

No. .

 

[acoggan]

Intuitively that is what I thought it would be - and hence the question. Would the anaerobic contribution for a 20min vs 40min climb be any more significant, or is it too small to even factor?

A 4 km pursuit is, typically, 85% aerobic in nature. By the time you get out to even 20 min, the anaerobic contribution is negligible.

 

[the big ring]

A 4 km pursuit is, typically, 85% aerobic in nature. By the time you get out to even 20 min, the anaerobic contribution is negligible.

Thanks. I thought as much, good to have the hunch backed up.

 

[the big ring]

Either Vaughters was misquoted, or he's confused: it is impossible to determine the source (i.e., aerobic vs. anaerobic) of the power estimated from VAM.

About all that really can be said is that, for the durations of the climbs to which VAM is routinely applied (power is routinely estimated), the contribution of anaerobic energy production to total power output is small.

I think he's confused. Here is his post on the forum - a direct quote:

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!

 

[acoggan]

Okay, enough fun and games, let's see if I can kill this thread (or at least this branch of it):

*If*, as Vaughters has apparently suggested (I haven't seen the quote), Wiggins generated more of his (reported Beijing target) pursuit power of ~570 W via aerobic metabolism than is typically the case, then yes, absolutely, he would have more *potential* as a road racer/stage racer than if the converse were true.

As for determining the relative contribution of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism to a pursuit (or pursuit-like) effort, there are both direct and indirect ways of doing so, but kreb's is absolutely correct that knowing someone's MAOD would provide significant insight into this question. (Indeed, while it is not without limitations MAOD should still probably be considered the gold standard laboratory test of anaerobic capacity, just as VO2max is considered the gold standard laboratory test of aerobic power.)

 

[acoggan]

There are 6 numbers on that line, which estimate would you call too high?

Well, we know his time is correct, and I don't think anyone would believe that he weighs less than 69 kg, so...

 

[the big ring]

Okay, enough fun and games, let's see if I can kill this thread (or at least this branch of it):

*If*, as Vaughters has apparently suggested (I haven't seen the quote), Wiggins generated more of his (reported Beijing target) pursuit power of ~570 W via aerobic metabolism than is typically the case, then yes, absolutely, he would have more *potential* as a road racer/stage racer than if the converse were true.

As for determining the relative contribution of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism to a pursuit (or pursuit-like) effort, there are both direct and indirect ways of doing so, but kreb's is absolutely correct that knowing someone's MAOD would provide significant insight into this question. (Indeed, while it is not without limitations MAOD should still probably be considered the gold standard laboratory test of anaerobic capacity, just as VO2max is considered the gold standard laboratory test of aerobic power.)

Is this potential quantifiable at all and to what level of accuracy?

Can you give us an indication of the impact on potential and what that means in real terms for say:

anaerobic contribution at 85, 90 and 95%? I am guessing it's not 100% given it's a standing start from a rested state, right?

Or does this branch of the thread really die here because it's all pie in the sky conjecture and there have been no longitudinal studies whatsoever to cover this particular theory?