Vincenzo Nibali

[SeriousSam]

EPO is so effective, we might as well call steroids and he like being clean.

 

[deValtos]

Now why does this matter with climbing: The time gains by aerodynamics are substantial. At 20 kmh and a mild headwind boxed rims versus more aero is tens of seconds. Even if we go to the conservative ten seconds (deep section would be up to 30 seconds) it would push someone up and down the standings at Hautacam.

Time for some ****ty maths, disclaimer: may be mistakes (hopefully not)

If we only consider drag, the power required to maintain a constant velocity of 20kmph is approx ~ 22.5W for your average size cyclist.

Now what percentage do we reckon of the bike + rider do the wheels contribute to the drag ? Spokes included 15% sounds reasonable ? I'd assume the rider takes up at least 65%.

So 15% of 22.5W is 3.375W.

Now by how much are we assuming aerodyanmics on wheels have improved since 1980 ? 25% ? I honnestly have no idea.

Going with a 25% improvement, 3.375/1.25 = 2.7W

So that's a 0.675 W reduction the rider can "save" when travelling at 20kmph.

Using a bike calc someone going at a constant speed, pushing 387 Watts, 66kg, 6.8kg bike, 13.5km, 7.9% constant grade ... does ~ 40mins,31.4 secs (19.99kmph)

Pushing 430.675 W gives 40mins,27.6 secs (20.02kmph).

3.8 second difference, mmm, well it's something.

Considering hautacam isn't a constant grade and they'd be travelling at 30kmp on some bits I can push it up to say 6 seconds, but not 30 !

Just out of interest I thought I'd see what savings someone could make travelling up the Cipressa at 33kmph. 101.31W ~ for drag, 15.20W solely for wheels, 12.16W with improvements, difference 3.04W. 5.7km @ 4.1%.

@494W gives 10 minutes, 21.6 secs (33.01kmph)
@497.04W gives 10 minutes, 19.2 secs (33.13kmph)

Improvement of 2.4 seconds.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Considering hautacam isn't a constant grade and they'd be travelling at 30kmp on some bits I can push it up to say 6 seconds, but not 30 !

It doesn't work like that. If you average 20km/hr and spend some time at 30km/hr you will spend more time at the slower speed. Because speed is a fraction.

If you want to compare Mavic open pro 32s to other wheels, head to this page: http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/ComponentAerodynamics.aspx

I entered:
baseline CdA: tops (0.4)
wheels: Mavic Open Pro 32h
wind: 10km/hr
bearing: S (direct headwind)
distance: 13km
speed: 21km/hr

the greatest saving was 24 seconds for HED 3s. You know, tri spoke wheels that weigh a tonne.

The list of wheels and their comparisons is pretty extensive.

The weight of the wheel is not considered as it's for flat riding.

Average of the differences looks to be around 10 seconds, and equate to 1-2 W savings. Not measurably different. This is .4% of 37:20. My estimate was .5%.

You're welcome.



Given I had 16 spoke deep dish rims in 1991, as a poor uni student, I am guessing pros had much better equipment than is being claimed for the 1980s.

And the bearings meant the wheels rolled for weeks.

My coach at the time had drilled out every component on his bike. It was light. As soon as aluminium frames came out, guys in the club had them. And these were state / national level riders, sure, but they were forking out the dough themselves. Very light bikes.

I'll stand by my claim: aero wheels make sweet FA difference to climbing times up an 8% gradient vs box section rims. And add that I think pros were riding better equipment than that.

 

[Merckx index]

Look at it this way. AFAIK, the best power values of the 80s and earlier were around 5.50 watts/kg for extended climbs, 30’ or longer. Now they are around 6.0 watts/kg, an improvement of about 10%. You might pick up a few % gain in climbing times with better roads, lighter and more aero bikes, lighter and more aero clothing, and so on, but nowhere near 10%. So if you believe this improvement was clean, much of that 10% has to be physiological.

Power is a result of V02max, lactate threshold, and efficiency. Lemond had one of the highest V02max/kg ever recorded, >90. I think it’s reasonable to assume that even with better training, there are no riders in the peloton today with a higher value. Froome claimed his was measured at around 85 back in 08 or 09, and Grappe, looking at his power files, estimated in the upper 80s, possibly a little more. Riders try to improve this with weight loss, but it’s very difficult to lose much weight from where they’re already at and maintain power. We all know this is an area where new doping methods could have an impact.

So do Froome, and other riders over 6 watts/kg, have a much higher efficiency or lactate threshold than Lemond? Though there is some controversy a la Coyle, there isn’t much evidence that efficiency can be improved with training. A few studies have reported very high efficiencies that are presumably natural in some riders. That might account for some outlier, but it’s unlikely to underlie a generational change in power, and it should be noted that one study found an inverse correlation between efficiency and V02max, suggesting that it would not be likely to account for even outliers.

That leaves LT. Maybe Lemond had a relatively low LT, but I doubt it was much lower than all the riders who today put out more power than he did and at the same time probably have a lower V02max. Maybe new training methods have resulted in some improvement, but LT has an obvious limit, so not very much improvement is going to be possible. Maybe all the other riders of the earlier generation had high LTs but much lower V02max than Lemond. Maybe, maybe, maybe…

Incidentally, this is another argument for an FTP passport, as I discussed in another thread. Several posters claim there is too much variation in power to use it as an indicator of doping, but if generational changes of 10% can occur, we certainly ought to want to know what the factors are underlying it, regardless of its utility as an anti-doping tool. Imagine if we had detailed power data from Lemond, Hinault, Fignon and other riders of that era, not to mention Merckx and so on. We could pinpoint to a much greater degree what factors underlie the greater power output of today’s riders.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Le Monde article

Good article in Le Monde

Astana, recycled past

Central Office for the fight against environmental damage and public health (OCLAESP) cell investigators OCLAESP closely monitored the comings and goings of the training Kazakh. In vain.
Same vigilance this year to the team that is about to join the Champs-Elysées, Sunday, July 27, the yellow jersey on his shoulders. With the same result. Without commission, the police could not perform wiretapping, for example, and have been reduced to " observation . " , they are wary of us "Guys are on the defensive. These are "pros", " summarizes a source close to the investigators.

http://mobile.lemonde.fr/tour-de-fr...tana-l-astre-noir-double_4462715_1616918.html

 

[deValtos]

It doesn't work like that. If you average 20km/hr and spend some time at 30km/hr you will spend more time at the slower speed. Because speed is a fraction.

I'll read the rest of your post later when my head doesn't hurt as much, but to quickly adress this point ... yes you're right you spend more time at the slower speed BUT the savings at higher speeds exponentially increase.

For example it's approx 22.5W to overcome drag at 20kmph but approx 75.6W to overcome drag at 30kmph which is considerably more than double. So even if you do spend a lot less time at the higher speed that's where you get the big savings.

 

[Parker]

Look at it this way. AFAIK, the best power values of the 80s and earlier were around 5.50 watts/kg for extended climbs, 30’ or longer. Now they are around 6.0 watts/kg, an improvement of about 10%. You might pick up a few % gain in climbing times with better roads, lighter and more aero bikes, lighter and more aero clothing, and so on, but nowhere near 10%. So if you believe this improvement was clean, much of that 10% has to be physiological.

I'm guessing you never watched cycling the 80s. The race dynamics were a lot different.

For a start, up to 1988 the Tour was about 1000km longer.

Also the main contenders like LeMond, Fignon, Hinault etc would typically ride the Giro and almost all of the Classics (and those that could do all tended to get team leadership). Often they'd fit a Tour de Suisse in between the Giro and Tour.

And teams were much weaker meaning that the race broke up earlier and much smaller groups arrived at the base of the last climb. Teams setting a fast pace on the lower slopes was a rarity.

And the big names would attack each other before the final climb.

And gaps tended to be fairly large (the field as whole would lack depth) - they only had to go as quick as they needed.

This the problem with just looking a numbers and not the race. Context is crucial.

 

[Merckx index]

I'm guessing you never watched cycling the 80s. The race dynamics were a lot different...

I know, people have brought that up. But Lemond posted some lab numbers that were very consistent with what he performed in a climbing stage, and he even emphasized that fact. This was posted here a few years ago, maybe I can find it.

As far as tactics go, you could make just the opposite argument. Many stages today are raced very hard, with the aim to tire out GT contenders so that when they get to the mountains they won't have enough left in the tank. The number of riders left at the base of the mountain doesn't necessarily correlate one way or another with the pace up that climb.

I don't buy the quick as needed argument, because the goal is always to put as much time into your rivals as possible.

Yes, Lemond often rode the Giro before the Tour, but he was only competitive in it twice, and again, AFAIK, his times up climbs in those stages were no better than what he did in the Tour.

I think you make a valid point, but I regard it as an open issue how much differences in tactics can account for differences in times.

Edit: Well, I stand corrected a little. Here is what Lemond said, according to that thread:

My wattage, relative to VO2 Max...a VO2 Max of 92 or 93 in a fully recovered way...I think I was capable of producing 450 to 460 watts. The truth is, even at the Tour de France, my Tour de France climb times up l'Alpe d'Huez yielded a wattage of around 380 and 390. That was the historic norm for Hinault and myself. You've got times going back many, many years. But what was learned recently, in the last 5 years, was that when you start the Tour de France, you start with a normal hematocrit of, say, 45 percent. By the time you finish, it's probably down 10 or 15 percent. Which means my VO2 Max dropped 10 or 15 percent. So that's why I was never producing the same wattage. And then there a lot of other factors that help performance if you've recovered. My last time trial in '89, I averaged about 420, 430 watts, which would match or be slightly down from what my real VO2 Max was.

So Lemond did do quite a bit fewer watts in the race than in the lab. But he attributes that primarily to a drop in HT, typical plasma expansion, though he does make a further reference to other factors, but he doesn't allude to tactics or anything that might result in his not going all out. I guess you could read in that statement some belief that a heavy racing schedule affected his performance. But he notes that in that final ITT, his watts were almost as good as the lab numbers, though that ITT was pretty short, and he should have been capable of > FTP.

If we assume that 450-460 watts was FTP or some similar extended time, and his weight was 67 kg, then he was putting out about 6.8 watts/kg, which a lot of people think can't be done clean. But with his V02max of 92-93, that would theoretically be possible with a LT of 90% and an efficiency of 23%, or LT of 85% and efficiency of 24.5%.

Just to muddy the issue further, while plasma expansion reduces HT, it doesn't reduce the actual number of red cells or Hb mass, and I believe there are some studies claiming that it doesn't necessarily result in a detriment in performance. I posted some of this stuff about a year ago, maybe I can find it.

OK, here it is: http://jap.physiology.org/content/101/3/707.long

Discussed here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1187629&highlight=plasma+expansion#post1187629

 

[Parker]

^^^ So, MI, I'm guessing that's confirmation that you didn't watch cycling in the 80s. I suggest that instead of clinging to a stat you actually go and watch some and understand it. It was very different. Learn the dynamics. The idea that the sport has been unchanged in 30 years is bizarre.
Climbs are rarely run as time trials, they always have a context. To ignore that context is either stupid or fraudulent. Just looking at theoretical numbers on spreadsheet without looking at anything practical is clueless.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Whether he's clean or not, I like the Nibs.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Just to muddy the issue further, while plasma expansion reduces HT, it doesn't reduce the actual number of red cells or Hb mass, and I believe there are some studies claiming that it doesn't necessarily result in a detriment in performance. I posted some of this stuff about a year ago, maybe I can find it.

OK, here it is: http://jap.physiology.org/content/101/3/707.long

Discussed here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1187629&highlight=plasma+expansion#post1187629

Yeah Lemond is not a good source for scientific explanation. My reading says BV expansion enhances performance - it's why the body does it, for improved cooling, etc.

The nett effect of lower Hct due to BV expansion is pretty much negligible in terms of performance.

If you're EPOing that 3rd week there's a major difference, because you have more RBCs.

 

[thehog]

"Nibali, sotto il grande campione un uomo con la faccia pulita"

A great champion with a "clean face".

Love it. Gazetta celebrate their champion. Finally a real bike rider wins the Tour. Even Cipo said he'd given up on he Tour for the last 2 years and now he can watch again.

 

[hfer07]

despite all the "Hautacam dissection" elaborated here, I quite honestly believe that Nibali is the "cleanest" Tour winner of the last 5 years, along with Evans---

Please let me be clear: Cleanest- I'm not stating he's 100% clean- I do believe however that his performance is somewhat "credible" within the parameters of human physiology, perhaps edging the high end of the curve, but not above it or ridiculously beyond it, like the way we have seen it in the last year for instance- He simply was much better than the competition left when Contador & Froome abandoned.

 

[Franklin]

Whether he's clean or not, I like the Nibs.

His cobble stage did a lot of good for his image for the true followers. I hope that Race Radio's source is correct, but no... can't make myself believe it.

Funny that Hfer mentions Cadel. Cadel also had a TdF where he attacked at every possible terrain.

Personally I'd say both are typically dirty riders, but with panache compared to the lukewarm robots.

 

[Benotti69]

His cobble stage did a lot of good for his image for the true followers. I hope that Race Radio's source is correct, but no... can't make myself believe it.

Funny that Hfer mentions Cadel. Cadel also had a TdF where he attacked at every possible terrain.

Personally I'd say both are typically dirty riders, but with panache compared to the lukewarm robots.

WTF is a true follower?

 

[King Boonen]

WTF is a true follower?

I'm a NEW follower!!!

 

[TheSpud]

Look at it this way. AFAIK, the best power values of the 80s and earlier were around 5.50 watts/kg for extended climbs, 30’ or longer. Now they are around 6.0 watts/kg, an improvement of about 10%. You might pick up a few % gain in climbing times with better roads, lighter and more aero bikes, lighter and more aero clothing, and so on, but nowhere near 10%. So if you believe this improvement was clean, much of that 10% has to be physiological.

Some interesting points have been made.

A question for me though is, isn't it valid to consider the bike weight in combination with rider weight? After all the rider has to drag that up the mountain as well as himself. The current minimum is 7kg (6.8 but lets say 7) - what were they in the 80s, 9-10kg maybe? Even at 9kg that's 2kg difference - something riders fight like hell for with their weight loss.

So lets say GLeM used to produce 6 w/kg based on being, say 70kg = 420w. Would it be valid to instead do the calc with the bike weight? So say 420w @ a combined (old bike) weight of 79kg = 5.316 w/kg. Now if he was to do that on a combined (new bike) weight of 77kg = 5.455 w/kg. That's 2.6% of your 10% you're looking for. If you could combine that with relatively modest 2kg weight loss of the rider (with no power loss) then you're over 5% already. And riders today on the whole do seem to be stick thin compared with the past.

Does that make sense as a calculation?

EDIT: And what I'm saying is that he doesn't magically produce more power, but that more of the power gets translated in to forward motion than previously.

 

[sittingbison]

Some interesting points have been made.

A question for me though is, isn't it valid to consider the bike weight in combination with rider weight? After all the rider has to drag that up the mountain as well as himself. The current minimum is 7kg (6.8 but lets say 7) - what were they in the 80s, 9-10kg maybe? Even at 9kg that's 2kg difference - something riders fight like hell for with their weight loss.

So lets say GLeM used to produce 6 w/kg based on being, say 70kg = 420w. Would it be valid to instead do the calc with the bike weight? So say 420w @ a combined (old bike) weight of 79kg = 5.316 w/kg. Now if he was to do that on a combined (new bike) weight of 77kg = 5.455 w/kg. That's 2.6% of your 10% you're looking for. If you could combine that with relatively modest 2kg weight loss of the rider (with no power loss) then you're over 5% already. And riders today on the whole do seem to be stick thin compared with the past.

Does that make sense as a calculation?

EDIT: And what I'm saying is that he doesn't magically produce more power, but that more of the power gets translated in to forward motion than previously.

Don't forget shoes. Kevlar and carbon fibre instead of wet leather... and it's rotational weight. And jerseys, they are now sweat wicking micro fibres, not heavy wet wool.and gyro helmets only weigh a few grams, those cotton caps and leather sconces were heavy. Gel gloves are now also super light compared to the old days. And chamois,dont get me started on modern chamois compared to the skin of a dear.and they no.longer carry pumps and spare tubes.in fact they dont have tubes now theyve invented tubeless tires.one thing thats heavier though are the calf length socks compared to ankle socks GleM wore.

I estimate 10-15kg weight difference, with an increase in power. GleM managed a puny 5.8w/kg not 6.x

Now, getting bsvk to his Nibs....

 

[maxmartin]

His cobble stage did a lot of good for his image for the true followers. I hope that Race Radio's source is correct, but no... can't make myself believe it.

Funny that Hfer mentions Cadel. Cadel also had a TdF where he attacked at every possible terrain.

Personally I'd say both are typically dirty riders, but with panache compared to the lukewarm robots.

what did his source say? sorry late to the party

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Some interesting points have been made.

A question for me though is, isn't it valid to consider the bike weight in combination with rider weight? After all the rider has to drag that up the mountain as well as himself. The current minimum is 7kg (6.8 but lets say 7) - what were they in the 80s, 9-10kg maybe? Even at 9kg that's 2kg difference - something riders fight like hell for with their weight loss.

So lets say GLeM used to produce 6 w/kg based on being, say 70kg = 420w. Would it be valid to instead do the calc with the bike weight? So say 420w @ a combined (old bike) weight of 79kg = 5.316 w/kg. Now if he was to do that on a combined (new bike) weight of 77kg = 5.455 w/kg. That's 2.6% of your 10% you're looking for. If you could combine that with relatively modest 2kg weight loss of the rider (with no power loss) then you're over 5% already. And riders today on the whole do seem to be stick thin compared with the past.

Does that make sense as a calculation?

No, it doesn't. The bike does not produce any power. You do not include the weight of the bike when calculating relative power (W/kg).

ETA: you're on the right track. You just need to calculate speed instead, based on the power and then you do use the weight of the bike and the rider. The lighter bike therefore allowing more speed for the same power, due to the significant proportion of the power being sucked up by gravity (or being converted into potential energy).

 

[TheSpud]

No, it doesn't. The bike does not produce any power. You do not include the weight of the bike when calculating relative power (W/kg).

ETA: you're on the right track. You just need to calculate speed instead, based on the power and then you do use the weight of the bike and the rider. The lighter bike therefore allowing more speed for the same power, due to the significant proportion of the power being sucked up by gravity (or being converted into potential energy).

Indeed speed is much more relevant - but aren't a lot of these power figures estimates based speed up the mountain and known weight of the riders? So in doing a 20 year comparison it would be relevant to think about lighter bikes assuming we only knew rider weights (if indeed we do know from 20 years ago)?

Slightly off topic for this thread as its about Nibs - maybe it should be in the power estimates one.

 

[hfer07]

His cobble stage did a lot of good for his image for the true followers. I hope that Race Radio's source is correct, but no... can't make myself believe it.

Funny that Hfer mentions Cadel. Cadel also had a TdF where he attacked at every possible terrain.

Personally I'd say both are typically dirty riders, but with panache compared to the lukewarm robots.

I've never claimed Cadel is clean either

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Indeed speed is much more relevant - but aren't a lot of these power figures estimates based speed up the mountain and known weight of the riders? So in doing a 20 year comparison it would be relevant to think about lighter bikes assuming we only knew rider weights (if indeed we do know from 20 years ago)?

Slightly off topic for this thread as its about Nibs - maybe it should be in the power estimates one.

They are based on the total weight of the system, but you can't calculate the power to weight of a rider by including the weight of the bike in the calculation because the bike is irrelevant in terms of producing power.

You asked if the calculation made sense. It doesn't. Arguing about it is pointless.

 

[bigcog]

I'm confused I thought Vayer had calculated Nibali's average and peak VAM were higher than Froome's last year. Is that not case or is that just being ignored because Vayer's analysis is only used as evidence when it's used against Froome ?

 

[red_flanders]

I'm confused I thought Vayer had calculated Nibali's average and peak VAM were higher than Froome's last year. Is that not case or is that just being ignored because Vayer's analysis is only used as evidence when it's used against Froome ?

Don't know, why don't you pull up both measurements and we can discuss?