The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get

[sniper]

Ferrari's magic number.

I'm surprised he put it print. Then again I'm sure he had a MG attributed to it for a clean justification.

Sad. Really sad.

And we're told cycling got slower

indeed interesting he brags about it in print.
he appears quite confident about not getting caught. Could mean he's clean rolleyes or the UCI (and ASO) are completely in Sky's pocket. Or they are extremely confident about the undetectability of their PEDs.

@JV1973, what's your take on those numbers?

 

[SundayRider]

I can't remember exactly how it is phrased in the book but there is a section describing a mountain stage in the Tour when virtually the whole peloton (bar Sky) is going backwards and Wiggins states he was 'completely in control' and when he watched the stage back on TV 'couldn't believe how much his rivals were suffering'.

 

[thehog]

Yeah I was surprised as well. The weight was included in a different part of the book to the wattage but still...

The book is aimed at the "Evans/Halfords" newbie crowd so they won't be doing the math.

Over confidence.

And yes he knows he's won't be getting caught.

 

[thehog]

I can't remember exactly how it is phrased in the book but there is a section describing a mountain stage in the Tour when virtually the whole peloton (bar Sky) is going backwards and Wiggins states he was 'completely in control' and when he watched the stage back on TV 'couldn't believe how much his rivals were suffering'.

Sure you weren't reading Lance's book?

 

[Mellow Velo]

Just been reading Wiggins book. Interesting observation in describing the first long TT in the Tour he says he 'held 470 watts all the way and hit 500 at times'. 470/69Kg = 6.81 watts/kilo. Ferrari's magic number.

indeed interesting he brags about it in print.
he appears quite confident about not getting caught. Could mean he's clean rolleyes or the UCI (and ASO) are completely in Sky's pocket. Or they are extremely confident about the undetectability of their PEDs.

@JV1973, what's your take on those numbers?

He'd probably say something along the lines of "SundayRider needs to read the section again".
What Wiggins actually describes is taking his effort up another level (to hold said 470 watts) through a 6km section of flat, towards the end of the course.
Also mentions hitting 500 watts on one early section.

So, no 470 watt average for the whole ITT, I'm afraid.

Welcome back from the sin bin, Hoggie.
Knew you had returned when a Sky thread re-emerged after it's hiatus.

 

[the sceptic]

He'd probably say something along the lines of "SundayRider needs to read the section again".
What Wiggins actually describes is taking his effort up another level (to hold said 470 watts) through a 6km section of flat, towards the end of the course.
Also mentions hitting 500 watts on one early section.

So, no 470 watt average for the whole ITT, I'm afraid.

Welcome back from the sin bin, Hoggie.
Knew you had returned when a Sky thread re-emerged after it's hiatus.

Almost as good as the olympics 480 watts then. Or was that also in just a small section in the beginning

 

[Gregga]

He'd probably say something along the lines of "SundayRider needs to read the section again".
What Wiggins actually describes is taking his effort up another level (to hold said 470 watts) through a 6km section of flat, towards the end of the course.
Also mentions hitting 500 watts on one early section.

So, no 470 watt average for the whole ITT, I'm afraid.

Welcome back from the sin bin, Hoggie.
Knew you had returned when a Sky thread re-emerged after it's hiatus.

450/69=6.52 W/kg

According to acoggan, Wiggins' SRM value is overestimated of 4% due to the Osym rings, let's correct it in 6.52*0.96=6.26W/kg

That's still a lot, far above Hesjedal's values for example, close to Schleck/Contador in 2010/2011, IMO clearly due to blood doping.

 

[xcleigh]

indeed interesting he brags about it in print.

Oh he's bragging is he? I didn't think you'd read the book?

 

[sniper]

450/69=6.52 W/kg

According to acoggan, Wiggins' SRM value is overestimated of 4% due to the Osym rings, let's correct it in 6.52*0.96=6.26W/kg

That's still a lot, far above Hesjedal's values for example, close to Schleck/Contador in 2010/2011, IMO clearly due to blood doping.

interesting section.

question to Wiggo-fans: why is Brad giving away his secret ingredients so cheaply? The marginal gains have allowed him to be way ahead of the game in 2012. Doesn't seem like a smart move to reveal all that so easily, does it?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Nice info. Seems like Sir Knighthood is so sure of himself he even is bragging about his wattages. I know a certain Texan who did the same.

But let's calculate. Given the fact Sir was 69 kilos he would have been doing 69 times 6 [because 6w/k is nowadays believable, doesn't matter who it is doing, it is humanly possible so it is acceptable for the apologists] is 414 watts for the whole TT. Given his statement he did 480 for, we learned from the Veldude, 6K, he would have been riding like me for some other 6K [358 watts], I must say that is quite unconvincingly, or at least sounds unconvincingly.

No, be a good sport Sir Knighthood, now protected by the Queen, and make your powerfiles public, and while you are at it do your bloodvalues as well, like you have stated yourself: ''make it public, put it on the internet''.

Shenanigans.

EDIT: well well well, muchos gracias Gregga, nice numbers for SIr Knighthood.

 

[Benotti69]

Oh he's bragging is he? I didn't think you'd read the book?

see post #799.

 

[xcleigh]

see post #799.

Two points.

Firstly, where's the bragging in that quoted section?

Secondly, Sniper appeared to know it was bragging without even having read the book? There's his crystal ball again? Sniper post 793. The quote, post 799.

 

[Benotti69]

Two points.

Firstly, where's the bragging in that quoted section?

Secondly, Sniper appeared to know it was bragging without even having read the book? There's his crystal ball again? Sniper post 793. The quote, post 799.

2 points

1st. If he isnt boasting about his power output what is he doing? apart from proving doping by admitting to numbers that are above the human limit!

2nd. I am not Sniper, but he was right about the book. He must be psychic

 

[xcleigh]

2 points

1st. If he isnt boasting about his power output what is he doing? apart from proving doping by admitting to numbers that are above the human limit!

2nd. I am not Sniper, but he was right about the book. He must be psychic

Ah, I guess he's doing what I would call imparting information about how he rides a time trial, using known data so as to inform and engage the reader. It's all the rage in books. Still can't see the boasting or bragging bit.

Above the human limit? Really? You've got scientific data to back that up? Oh and if you have, could you impart said data not in a bragging style.

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

Above the human limit? Really? You've got scientific data to back that up? Oh and if you have, could you impart said data not in a bragging style.

I dont have scientific data, but various sources have stated what is humanly possible in power. Greg LeMond, Aldo Sassi, and others.

Wiggins has gone over that.

There is at least 1 thread in here about power output.

 

[Gregga]

EDIT: well well well, muchos gracias Gregga, nice numbers for SIr Knighthood.

You're welcome.
I must confess I bought the ebook, quite interesting but a few boring chapters. From a clinic point of view it's hard not to read it as a long, long list of justifications by marginal gains of his superiority in 2012.
(The funniest one is "washing my hands" as dear Wiggo already noticed)

Another funny thing in the book is the apology of Sean Yates, all the advantages of having him in the team and in the car behind especially during the ITT and the mountain stages, his science of race etc. Many good things about Rogers too, at one point I thought to myself "how will he be able to ride his bike without these two guys next year". Of course the book was written before both were fired.

 

[xcleigh]

(The funniest one is "washing my hands" as dear Wiggo already noticed)

A healthy athlete is good though. Survival of the Healthiest article on Pez mentions it, not so odd and often overlooked?

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=11080&status=True&catname=Latest News

 

[Gregga]

Above the human limit? Really? You've got scientific data to back that up? Oh and if you have, could you impart said data not in a bragging style.

Apart from LeMond or Sassi point of view, you may just consider the pre-epo era : on long climbs the performances in the 80's were around 5.7-5.8 W/kg, then they went to 6.7, even 6.9 in 1996 for Riis in Hautacam in the full-epo era then went down a little with the 50%Hct limit (1997), a bit more with the EPO test, 6.4W/kg most of the time in the Armstrong years, 6.2-6.3 W/kg since the bio passport is efficient for Conta/Schleck, sometimes less in 2012 (Hesjedal in the Giro, Contador in the Vuelta)

So if you consider the lightest bikes, the better roads (very marginal in France), the better effort management and training due to SRM, I think 6.0 is a good limit. Above 6.0, you can be a good little climber and TT quite well (Sastre, Contador) or be a tall TT specialist and climb with the best - and I think this is not normal. Before 1990 you were a climber or a TTer, very rarely both, except when you where just the ideal synthesis of power/weight (Hinault, LeMond, Fignon, maybe Roche and Delgado in the 80's). Since the EPO era, suddenly appeared many tall climbers (Rooks, Theunisse, Indurain, Riis) and climbers able to be in the top ten of ITT (Chiappucci first, then Pantani, why not Sastre)

 

[Mellow Velo]

interesting section.

question to Wiggo-fans: why is Brad giving away his secret ingredients so cheaply? The marginal gains have allowed him to be way ahead of the game in 2012. Doesn't seem like a smart move to reveal all that so easily, does it?

I only posted my response for the sake of accuracy.
Gregga's figure of around 6.3 watts/kg being more "believable" than the 6.8, that was posted, but incorrect.

Is it still too high?
Debatable.
Interesting to look at a "clean" comparison.
Greg Lemond talks of being capable of producing 450-460 watts.
Last (shorter) ITT of '89 talks of as being "down" at averaged about 420, 430 watts.
Weighed 67kgs or less (source here)
So, somewhere around the 6.4 watts/kg range.


I recently read over on the road section that Lars Boom posted a new PB at 548 watts, but for duration: who knows?

 

[Gregga]

I only posted my response for the sake of accuracy.
Gregga's figure of around 6.3 watts/kg being more "believable" than the 6.8, that was posted, but incorrect.

Is it still too high?
Debatable.
Interesting to look at a "clean" comparison.
Greg Lemond talks of being capable of producing 450-460 watts.
Last (shorter) ITT of '89 talks of as being "down" at averaged about 420, 430 watts.
Weighed 67kgs or less (source here)
So, somewhere around the 6.4 watts/kg range.


I recently read over on the road section that Lars Boom posted a new PB at 548 watts, but for duration: who knows?

Please forget about the '89 ITT : short duration, downhill, probable tailwind, cobblestones in the last km on the other hand, SCx very hard to evaluate... mountain stages are far better ways of estimating power. If LeMond had 6.4W/kg in July 1989 he would have crushed Fignon (5.85W/kg on his best day in Villars de Lans according to Portoleau http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2305 )

EDIT :

I recently read over on the road section that Lars Boom posted a new PB at 548 watts, but for duration: who knows?

It was a MAP test, which represents about 80% of FTP so for L.Boom (81kg) that's 6.8W/kg@MAP, about 5.5 W/kg@FTP, not a GC contender, for sure.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It was a MAP test, which represents about 80% of FTP so for L.Boom (81kg) that's 6.8W/kg@MAP, about 5.5 W/kg@FTP, not a GC contender, for sure.

Stop here please, he only needs a Sir Knighthood Special Diet, loose 11 kilo and he will be up there on the Alpe later this year, losing no watts, only k's.

Next year at Sky, for sure.

 

[SundayRider]

He'd probably say something along the lines of "SundayRider needs to read the section again".
What Wiggins actually describes is taking his effort up another level (to hold said 470 watts) through a 6km section of flat, towards the end of the course.
Also mentions hitting 500 watts on one early section.

So, no 470 watt average for the whole ITT, I'm afraid.

Welcome back from the sin bin, Hoggie.
Knew you had returned when a Sky thread re-emerged after it's hiatus.

It actually states he can hold 460 no problem so I was 10 watts out, I didn't have the book to hand at that time.

 

[SundayRider]

Anyway if you have to dope like crazy to achieve 6.8w/kg then you can produce 6.5w/kg cleaner than clean, hmmm.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It would be interesting to know what Sir Knighthood's power outputs of 2007 were, autobus Brad that is, nowhere near Sir Knighthood of now is my guestimate.

 

[taiwan]

It would be interesting to know what Sir Knighthood's power outputs of 2007 were, autobus Brad that is, nowhere near Sir Knighthood of now is my guestimate.

No way. All that's changed since then is he's switched focus from track to road and lost weight, so if anything his power output should have been higher in '07.