BrindSurch said:Well 6.7+ as that what Armstrong have done and they didn't dope.
What does it mean:Think Mercx undoped, on his best ever day?Waterloo Sunrise said:In an hour record setup, .......... Think Mercx undoped, on his best ever day.
Le breton said:A racer, whom I believe did it clean, climbed Ventoux in 58:31, ie producing about 6.45 watts/kg ( again with 1% added to compensate for altitude), ie just below Boardman 6.5 watts/kg in his superman 56.375 km hour.
what do you consider 'pretty accurately' ? 5%? 10%.. ?Le breton said:<snip>
I have lots of data which allow me to calculate pretty accurately the power needed for that<snip>.
Le breton said:What does it mean:Think Mercx undoped, on his best ever day?
If you imply that Mexico was Merckx best day ever, you are somewhat off the mark. He was tired from a long racing season.
now, the power needed to ride 49,431 km in one hour at 2300m above sea-level is only 80% of that needed at sea-level. However, at 2300m a.s.l. most people can only produce about 90% of their sea-level power.
If Merckx could do 440 watts for 1 hour at sea-level ( on a lab ergometer in Cologne, Köln!!!!!) he likely could produce about 400 watts in Mexico.
python said:what do you consider 'pretty accurately' ? 5%? 10%.. ?
i understand you are trying to contribute some meaningful numbers but id stop short of calling anything 'pretty accurate' when there is much room for unknowns and uncertainty.
(i) did you know mayo's weight that morning, how much he lost in sweat ? how much he drank ? how much was soaked in his clothing ?
(ii) did you consider wind direction changes, road surface changes, CdA changes as the rider stands on the pedals ?
besides, there is no hard fixed coefficient for power loss with altitude that fits everyone - inter-individual variations could be x3 greater than your assumptions....etc...etc
that's why i don't consider these types of threads very meaningful w/o the actual power files or a specified slop.
not buying it for mayo. what you calculated for yourself is your own and is relevant to mayo only remotely.Le breton said:Pretty accurate means 2%.
Why don't you try to do the calculation for yourself and you will see that most of your objections are irrelevant.
no need to. when i estimate these types of data, i prefer my own but i know better than advertise it as "pretty accurate". it's to satisfy my own need for taking a broad glance at a rider. no more.Go on analyticcycling.com if you don't want to do it from scratch.
python said:not buying it for mayo. what you calculated for yourself is your own and is relevant to mayo only remotely.
You mean MAYO was on a different planet, my physics did not apply to him?
have been doing these kinds of calculations for many years including comparing them to my own power data. sticking yourself as a validation technique has limited value to accurately estimating power for another person, on a different day, under different conditions.
Did it occur to you that you just might not be very good at it? Also, do you realize we are talking about power/mass?
. when i estimate these types of data, i prefer my own but i know better than advertise it as "pretty accurate". it's to satisfy my own need for taking a broad glance at a rider. no more.
Maybe your knowledge of physics is not what it ought to be to do these calculations, as for myself I do get an excellent agreement between calculations and observations, and that includes other riders
the rest of your post shows limited knowledge of physiology. averages are useless in accurately estimating an individual.
python said:........... averages are useless in accurately estimating an individual.
le breton, do you mind if i make it short and and not too sweet ?Le breton said:Did it occur to you that you just might not be very good at it?
David Suro said:There is no such things as a physiologic limit that can be clearly defined.
Prior to Sebastian Coe breaking the 4 minute mile, phyhsicians thought the barrier was impossible to beat. The same is true for the 10 sec. 100 meter dash.
Even without doping, there are advances being made in nutrition and training programs that yield improvements in performance. Somewhere, there is a human with a capacity that exceeds that of any other human. If he finds a bicycle and a coach, then his performance will surpass that of anyone else.
Records are made to be broken, and they will likely all be broken at one time or another. Such is the nature of sport and advancement.
Waterloo Sunrise said:You mistake me - I was working on the basis that most people would agree Merckx is the greatest ever cyclist, just to get people thinking about about what is humanly possible - I have no view over whether Merckx ever did put out his best effort in an hour record, or for that matter how doped he was, but just trying to get people to set their expectations high rather than the preveiling wisdom that it's impossible for someone who weights 65KG to ride at 390W for an hour without being doped - a position I consider utterly laughable.
python said:le breton, do you mind if i make it short and and not too sweet ?
you are too full of yourself. claiming 2% accuracy for mayo's numbers on the basis of own performances is to put it mildly naive.
don't know if i'm good at it, but i have worked with the major health products company on a power meter design long BEFORE any commercial models were introduced including the SRM. I also worked closely with the manufacturer of one of the most popular power meters on the market today.
that's as much as i have ever delved in my personal experience and more than i'll merit you with ever again.
i hope you do realize that your entire self congratulatory rants in this thread are as irrelevant as your transposition of personal performances on a professional rider.Le breton said:Don't mind at all that you are short.
I do hope you realize now that some of your arguments are near irrelevant or totally irrelevant.
Just out of curiosity, did you work on powermeters before LOOK Max1 circa 1990?
As for my calculation, I should have phrased things a bit differently concerning the accuracy.
The 2% value is on the method if applied correctly, I don't exclude the possiblity of an actual error in my calculations.
When I have time I'll tell you how it's done.
glad you finally admitted the limitations of your method but as i said before i am not interested given the puffing attitude you seem to have.I don't exclude the possiblity of an actual error in my calculations.
When I have time I'll tell you how it's done
There is always someone to being in an irrelevance - lol.karlboss said:You do know that roger bannister broke the 4 minute mile before Coe was born right?
davidg said:There is always someone to being in an irrelevance - lol.
Actually Bannister and Merckx both fall into a similar category, being that they achieved their records before there was any question of products like EPO being used. This is why the Merckx record is such a good one. I am not suggesting that Coe was a user, but since the product was not available it was not there to use, although blood doping was available.
Why anyone would want to introduce Mayo into a discussion regarding clean performance is beyond me. Apart from being caught, he was a climber and consequently this introduces so many more variables into the calculations.
The hour record is such a good choice for the topic as being on a track, the effect of surface, wind direction etc is greatly reduced. The records were always done when the wind was negligible. It also falls neatly into the definition of Funtional Threshold being 45-60 minutes. (Alex, please feel free to correct)
Unfortunately the one thing missing from this calculation is actual power data, just as there are assumptions in all of the other example choices, such as rider weight, wind speed/direction etc.
I seem to recall on a prior thread, using a consensus of Merckx's power, that I estimated 6W/Kg or thereabouts. As someone else stated, it probably wasn't his peak value.