Tour de Suisse 2025 - Men's (June 15- June 22)

[scribers]

Poor Alaphilippe!

He's still coming in

 

[Tim Cahill]

"I hope that this result we have can bring sponsors, help Manu Hubert and the Arkéa-B&B Hotels team. We show that the staff and the riders are giving their all with the limited resources we have."

Respect Kévin Vauquelin

 

[Cookster15]

Great ride by Almeida - smashed it! Reminds me when Roglic stole the 2023 Giro from Geraint Thomas on Monte Lussari. Congrats to him for winning this race. He is obviously in great shape for the Tour.

 

[Pippo_San]

As someone who just wants to be entertained, I'm hoping deep down that all 3 will go to the Giro and they let them sort it out on the road, though unlikely I admit. They have dug a bit of a hole for themselves with too many cowboys, and with Ayuso/IDT both on long and lucrative contracts I'm not sure any team has the kind of funding to pry anyone away, plus there's the issue of how much specialised knowledge they give to other teams when riders this high up the chain end up leaving. Perhaps Movistar with their new billionaire backer will work out a deal, but I doubt Ayuso will be wanting to take a large pay cut, even if he does end up on the ciciban schedule for the next 4 years at UAE. Almeida who's contract ends in 2026 could be the one to go. His coach, Sola, also coaches many other riders on other teams (Portuguese included), so I don't think it would be an issue if he carried on with Joao on another team.

The best thing for Ayuso to do at this point is to ride himself into the ground working for others in the smaller late season races to try and regain some credibility within the team.

Literally I'm laughing my arse off that in the TdS thread the most curious stuff is that we're talking Ayuso 😂
I admit it's quite a shame that he's so unlikeable 'cause I see he's a very good racer it's just that his ego doesn't compare to his legs.
At least until now (but I'm not believing in great outstanding changes).

He should go the Almeida route. 1 week races and super domestique in GTs. And maybe one day GT captain again.

 

[yaf2]

So what are your calculations?
I had a VAM of 1872 m/h which means 6,44 w/kg. A VAM of 1900 means 6,53 W/Kg according Ferrari. The climb was pretty regular so this might be accurate.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1936868701606728166

View: https://x.com/Na1chaca/status/1936868701606728166?t=l3szCfSDdPZ-DrnEU-LC1w&s=19

Here is the boys calculation as usual +0.1 watts/kilo to the watts to win calculations. Now someone should ask himself why he did a -0.2 w/kg estimation on comblaux? The answer is clear...

 

[Froome]

So what are your calculations?
I had a VAM of 1872 m/h which means 6,44 w/kg. A VAM of 1900 means 6,53 W/Kg according Ferrari. The climb was pretty regular so this might be accurate.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1936902278835052835

View: https://x.com/ammattipyoraily/status/1936902278835052835?t=wN7JWlcBOHy45im0Po2JIQ&s=19

 

[Peyroteo94]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1936902278835052835

View: https://x.com/ammattipyoraily/status/1936902278835052835?t=wN7JWlcBOHy45im0Po2JIQ&s=19

Do you know how they make these calculations?
Ferrari's formula is always underestimating a rider's performance compared to these guys on Internet.

 

[Berniece]

Do you know how they make these calculations?
Ferrari's formula is always underestimating a rider's performance compared to these guys on Internet.

Isn't the most important part that the same method would be used? There are a couple of different sources with different numbers, if you stick to just 1 source, it's much easier to grasp how well riders are doing. Just ignore all the rest.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Do you know how they make these calculations?
Ferrari's formula is always underestimating a rider's performance compared to these guys on Internet.

More parameters are taken into account. In case of an ITT the lack of drafting ups estimates by 0.05-0.1 W/kg. Plus the average is calculated from multiple sections (from shallow to steep), which can produce different results from a simple estimate for the whole climb.

 

[Red Rick]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1936902278835052835

View: https://x.com/ammattipyoraily/status/1936902278835052835?t=wN7JWlcBOHy45im0Po2JIQ&s=19

There's a very short flat section in the climb, making the estimate a bit difficult, and it should probably be a fraction higher.

That's not to say we should overreact to this MTT numbers. In fact this being a low altitude MTT should set off all alarms for this climb overestimating climbing ability.

6.8 for 27 seems nuts, but even then Roglic and Bernal were doing that sort of number in the Romandie MTT back in 2018 when Froome was taking half a year to climb Finestre.

I'm fairly sure that in MTTs, especially short ones, W/kg should get higher because the total energy used is low enough that riders don't need to start with full glycogen stores and thus also retain less fluids without being dehydrated. Now normally this sounds like a *** idea if you have to race the day after, but in this case, with the race being over the day after, I'm pretty sure it's the right way to go.

The other red flag is Felix Gall saying he had a bad day, despite doing what's probably career best W/kg he's done on a climb.

Gaps are likely big because of fatigue at the end of an 8 day stage race, which can dull the edge in an effort such as todays, which is only exacerbated by a lot of riders probably going a little too hard in the first split of the climb.

 

[Froome]

Do you know how they make these calculations?
Ferrari's formula is always underestimating a rider's performance compared to these guys on Internet.

I think formula ferrari is also for 70 kg standard weight, so it will always underestimate at least a bit for 65 kg standard weight.

 

[Peyroteo94]

Isn't the most important part that the same method would be used? There are a couple of different sources with different numbers, if you stick to just 1 source, it's much easier to grasp how well riders are doing. Just ignore all the rest.

Yes and no. I don't want to follow just one method if it is wrong and not accurate.

 

[Berniece]

Yes and no. I don't want to follow just one method if it is wrong and not accurate.

Yeah that's true, but is there a completely correct one? Aren't there too many unknown variables?

 

[Peyroteo94]

Yeah that's true, but is there a completely correct one? Aren't there too many unknown variables?

Of course but I would like to know what method is more reliable.

 

[Froome]

Yeah that's true, but is there a completely correct one? Aren't there too many unknown variables?

I usually follow the calculations of chronoswatts from the Engineer Frederic Portoleau. He is got background in that area, so i think he is very accurate.

ChronosWatts.com

chronoswatts.com Chronos et simulations en Watts des grandes performances cyclistes dans les ascensions mythiques des Grands Tours.

www.chronoswatts.com

Ammattipyoraily is normally viewed as accurate, but i don't know his background.

Naichaca and watts2win i don't find very reliable. They always overestimate a lot and do 60 KG standard weight for sensationalism.

As a example, Naichaca calculated 7.6 w/kg for Vingegaard on ITT Combloux, and it was impossible to be real. Some days later, he did a correction to 7.3 w/kg but it was stil a bit to high compared to other calculations.

 

[Red Rick]

I usually follow the calculations of chronoswatts from the Engineer Frederic Portoleau. He is got background in that area, so i think he is very accurate.

ChronosWatts.com

chronoswatts.com Chronos et simulations en Watts des grandes performances cyclistes dans les ascensions mythiques des Grands Tours.

www.chronoswatts.com

Ammattipyoraily is normally viewed as accurate, but i don't know his background.

Naichaca and watts2win i don't find very reliable. They always overestimate a lot and do 60 KG standard weight for sensationalism.

As a example, Naichaca calculated 7.6 w/kg for Vingegaard on ITT Combloux, and it was impossible to be real. Some days later, he did a correction to 7.3 w/kg but it was stil a bit to high compared to other calculations.

The 7.6 W/kg estimate is reason #1 why it does my *** brain in people follow that guy seriously in the first place. It's so baffingly bad. They put in a lot of volume work and pseudo rationalizations and suddenly people eat it up when they *** out the worst numbers possible.

 

[Berniece]

Of course but I would like to know what method is more reliable.

Maybe that deserves it's own topic to find out which method is best, and get to a consensus with the forum such that most members push to use the same source.

 

[Peyroteo94]

I usually follow the calculations of chronoswatts from the Engineer Frederic Portoleau. He is got background in that area, so i think he is very accurate.

ChronosWatts.com

chronoswatts.com Chronos et simulations en Watts des grandes performances cyclistes dans les ascensions mythiques des Grands Tours.

www.chronoswatts.com

Ammattipyoraily is normally viewed as accurate, but i don't know his background.

Naichaca and watts2win i don't find very reliable. They always overestimate a lot and do 60 KG standard weight for sensationalism.

As a example, Naichaca calculated 7.6 w/kg for Vingegaard on ITT Combloux, and it was impossible to be real. Some days later, he did a correction to 7.3 w/kg but it was stil a bit to high compared to other calculations.

They said Pogacar did 473 watts in PdB. Seems too high. I don't get how they came with 6,78 W/Kg (for 66 Kg). 473/66 gives 7,17 W/Kg.

Tour de France 2024, Pogacar le nouveau mutant. Par Frédéric Portoleau

Tadej Pogacar vient de réaliser le doublé Tour d'Italie / Tour de France, une performance inattendue dans ce cyclisme dense en coureurs de très haut niveau. Performance historique au plateau de Beille. Le Slovène a vraiment pris le dessus sur son rival danois Vingegaard au Plateau de Beille...

www.chronoswatts.com

 

[Red Rick]

Maybe that deserves it's own topic to find out which method is best, and get to a consensus with the forum such that most members push to use the same source.

Ammattipyoraily has basically been considered the most reliable for a long time, but he doesn't post as often as he used to anymore IMO.

The issue is which analysts get pushed and why. Most often the numbers that get propagated the hardest by fans/posters are the ones that come out first, or the ones that are highest, because fans wanna hype their guy.

For example, Watts2win consistently craps out super high numbers because it doesn't even take into account drafting. It's basically just meant to be the most basic analysis trying to standardize everything without taking everything into account, and it's meant to work basically as something that takes little work because they put out estimates for so many climbs I'm pretty sure they're actually data scraping. Yet it's gone from not being there to treated like one of the main analyses out there becuase it's usually first and usually the highest number.

 

[Rou]

Ammattipyoraily has basically been considered the most reliable for a long time, but he doesn't post as often as he used to anymore IMO.

The issue is which analysts get pushed and why. Most often the numbers that get propagated the hardest by fans/posters are the ones that come out first, or the ones that are highest, because fans wanna hype their guy.

For example, Watts2win consistently craps out super high numbers because it doesn't even take into account drafting. It's basically just meant to be the most basic analysis trying to standardize everything without taking everything into account, and it's meant to work basically as something that takes little work because they put out estimates for so many climbs I'm pretty sure they're actually data scraping. Yet it's gone from not being there to treated like one of the main analyses out there becuase it's usually first and usually the highest number.

Watts2win is the source that I use and I don't care for any other sources.
There are two reasons for it:
First is their big data base. Having all the performances and races there so you can follow a rider's seasonal and year by year progress.
Second reason is that they are unbiased. They don't prioritise certain riders. If Evenepoel does a monster climb in Norway you can see it. If Vingegaard does the same you can see it as well.
It doesn't matter if they are 0.1 or 0.2 W/KG off. By using the same metric for everyone they are making it fair.
And no, they don't overestimate. Literally 99% of their numbers are lower than the Lanterne Rouge guys (who have their agenda of course).

 

[Red Rick]

Watts2win is the source that I use and I don't care for any other sources.
There are two reasons for it:
First is their big data base. Having all the performances and races there so you can follow a rider's seasonal and year by year progress.
Second reason is that they are unbiased. They don't prioritise certain riders. If Evenepoel does a monster climb in Norway you can see it. If Vingegaard does the same you can see it as well.
It doesn't matter if they are 0.1 or 0.2 W/KG off. By using the same metric for everyone they are making it fair.
And no, they don't overestimate. Literally 99% of their numbers are lower than the Lanterne Rouge guys (who have their agenda of course).

They literally don't take into account drafting and or wind.

This is why you get the lol metrics like Montserrat where suddenly everyone does 6.7 for 19 minutes becuase it's a 6% climb that's paced in a group of 20 until 2km to go.

Unbiased does not mean good. It just means they standardize everything when you should not you just get garbage going in leading to garbage going out.

And numbers being lower doesn't say much, because they are basically frauds tweaking the numbers at any given chance.

 

[Froome]

They said Pogacar did 473 watts in PdB. Seems too high. I don't get how they came with 6,78 W/Kg (for 66 Kg). 473/66 gives 7,17 W/Kg.

Tour de France 2024, Pogacar le nouveau mutant. Par Frédéric Portoleau

Tadej Pogacar vient de réaliser le doublé Tour d'Italie / Tour de France, une performance inattendue dans ce cyclisme dense en coureurs de très haut niveau. Performance historique au plateau de Beille. Le Slovène a vraiment pris le dessus sur son rival danois Vingegaard au Plateau de Beille...

www.chronoswatts.com

I think is 473 watts in a standard weight of 70 kg=6.75 w/kg.

 

[Peyroteo94]

I think is 473 watts in a standard weight of 70 kg=6.75 w/kg.

Right. So Pogacar did 447,48 watts which means 6,88 w/kg (weight: 65 kg) in PdB (his weight oscilated during the Tour. He started with 64,5 kg and hit a max weight of 65,5 kg during the Tour).