Whatever people were taking at the Vuelta

[Tyler'sTwin]

Nibali's Bola del Mundo performance is comparable to Samuel Sanchez's Tourmalet performance.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/07/power-from-tourmalet-6wkg-anyone.html

 

[BikeCentric]

Not sure why you have to be quite so rude --edited by mod--.

If you could explain what the pay rate of low level pros in America has to do with anything in this thread you didn't post, It would be greatly appreciated.

Let's test some things you might have meant -

"American pros make chicken****, therefore you can't possible know someone who can put out 6W/Kilo"

Nope, that doesn't make sense, and would only be a valid argument if American pros were well paid (ex falso quodlibet)

"American pros make chicken****, therefore Nibali is doped"

See above.

"American pros make chicken****, therefore Nibali's performance was actually historically impressive compared to other GT winners"

Nope, still absolutely and completely irrelevant.

Do you have anything whatsoever to contribute other than insults and a singular lack of cogency?

Look, I thought my point was pretty clear. Pros don't make much any at all in the USA, which was beside the point, but they sure do in Europe. Vince Nibali makes some very good cash. I would have thought that if your amateur friend really has power numbers comparable to a Grand Tour winning pro then one would think he'd be a pro and getting paid for his athletic gifts. But he's not. Ergo: I think you're exaggerating and/or wrong.

 

[pmcg76]

So since I last checked in, Flicker has been spouting his usual thread disrupting BS, ACF94 has added her stupid teenage girl opinion and BikeCentric is talking about how much US pros get paid(I expected more of you good sir).

Can anyone give a logical explanation on why the VAM figures for the Vuelta are so low in comparison to other GTs, were they not jacked as usual? were the climbs easier? Did they take it easier? What? We dont want to hear "of course they were all jacked" generalisations. Logical explantions please.

I am not an expert of VAMs, watts etc so it would be nice to hear from the experts on here and what they think.

 

[Fowsto Cope-E]

Yes, if 19 year olds all wished to give up very good degree courses (which allow for a training focussed lifestyle) and ride for peanuts right now, rather than waiting a couple of years.

Moreover, having looked at those tables, they're very lax on the endurance end. I've seen the same table producted by Andy Cogan with 20 minutes replaced by 1 hour, which then becomes far more sensible.


Just looked again and CozyBeehive claims it is from Andy's book - Andy's website definately says 1 hour for those figures in the final column - probably explains your confusion.

yeah . . . just looked at Coggan's book and it said 20 minutes . . .

 

[Fowsto Cope-E]

So since I last checked in, Flicker has been spouting his usual thread disrupting BS, ACF94 has added her stupid teenage girl opinion and BikeCentric is talking about how much US pros get paid(I expected more of you good sir).

Can anyone give a logical explanation on why the VAM figures for the Vuelta are so low in comparison to other GTs, were they not jacked as usual? were the climbs easier? Did they take it easier? What? We dont want to hear "of course they were all jacked" generalisations. Logical explantions please.

I am not an expert of VAMs, watts etc so it would be nice to hear from the experts on here and what they think.

i believe that over the last few years, doping regulations have gotten to the point that the dopers aren't AS doped as before to the point that a rider can win cleanly. Basically, the VAM has gone down due to the fact that riders cannot get away with being doped to their gills.

 

[flicker]

So since I last checked in, Flicker has been spouting his usual thread disrupting BS, ACF94 has added her stupid teenage girl opinion and BikeCentric is talking about how much US pros get paid(I expected more of you good sir).

Can anyone give a logical explanation on why the VAM figures for the Vuelta are so low in comparison to other GTs, were they not jacked as usual? were the climbs easier? Did they take it easier? What? We dont want to hear "of course they were all jacked" generalisations. Logical explantions please.

I am not an expert of VAMs, watts etc so it would be nice to hear from the experts on here and what they think.

OK the vuelta doesn't matter very much anymore. Riders come in tired. It is good because it gives riders a chance who would not have a chance in any of the other 4 GTs.
Also dope is used for recovery instead of rocket fuel.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

So since I last checked in, Flicker has been spouting his usual thread disrupting BS, ACF94 has added her stupid teenage girl opinion and BikeCentric is talking about how much US pros get paid(I expected more of you good sir).

Can anyone give a logical explanation on why the VAM figures for the Vuelta are so low in comparison to other GTs, were they not jacked as usual? were the climbs easier? Did they take it easier? What? We dont want to hear "of course they were all jacked" generalisations. Logical explantions please.

I am not an expert of VAMs, watts etc so it would be nice to hear from the experts on here and what they think.

The numbers aren't low compared to last year's Tour if you exclude Contador and Schleck, who are clearly better than Nibali and Mosquera.

The numbers aren't low compared to last year's Giro, except for Basso, Scarponi and Nibali on the Mortirolo stage.

 

[auscyclefan94]

So since I last checked in, Flicker has been spouting his usual thread disrupting BS, ACF94 has added her stupid teenage girl opinion and BikeCentric is talking about how much US pros get paid(I expected more of you good sir).

Can anyone give a logical explanation on why the VAM figures for the Vuelta are so low in comparison to other GTs, were they not jacked as usual? were the climbs easier? Did they take it easier? What? We dont want to hear "of course they were all jacked" generalisations. Logical explantions please.

I am not an expert of VAMs, watts etc so it would be nice to hear from the experts on here and what they think.

Welcome to my ignore list ****wit!

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

yeah . . . just looked at Coggan's book and it said 20 minutes . . .

He obviously changed his mind then -

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/power-profiling.aspx

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

He obviously changed his mind then -

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/power-profiling.aspx

I tend to think that these lower power numbers for GT winners is a sign that less dope is being used overall.

Of course there are still significant numbers of riders taking PEDS, and just because Nibali's 5.5w/kg for 1hr was less than has been seen in a GT before doesn't mean HE can do it clean....but it does indicate there is SOMEONE who could win the Vuelta clean. So the whole "you have to dope to win a GT" might be an insidious piece of misinformation, which serves only to encouraged young wanabes to dope.

 

[acoggan]

having looked at those tables, they're very lax on the endurance end. I've seen the same table producted by Andy Cogan with 20 minutes replaced by 1 hour, which then becomes far more sensible.


Just looked again and CozyBeehive claims it is from Andy's book - Andy's website definately says 1 hour for those figures in the final column - probably explains your confusion.

Functional threshold power is, always has, and always will be based on ~1 h data. Hunter, though, likes to estimate functional threshold power as 95% of 20 min power. Thus, the version of the power profiling tables included in the first edition of our book used 20 min, not 1 h - however, the values were adjusted accordingly (e.g., Boardman's 6.4 W/kg for 1 h was extrapolated/interpolated to 6.62 W/kg), so that the end results was the same.

The other comment I would make is that the power profiling tables were never intended to be used to define the level at which a person should be successful as a racer, and cannot be used for such. That is why I have always indicated overlapping ranges, used "e.g.", at one point stripped off the category guidelines and simply used descriptors such as "excellent", etc. Despite such efforts, people still persist in missing the point and thus misusing the tables...

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

Nibali's VAM 1437 m/h

Yes Your figure is spot on.

Compare this figure to the highest VAM'S ever recorded in the Tour De France.


http://www.sportsscientists.com/

 

[Fowsto Cope-E]

Functional threshold power is, always has, and always will be based on ~1 h data. Hunter, though, likes to estimate functional threshold power as 95% of 20 min power. Thus, the version of the power profiling tables included in the first edition of our book used 20 min, not 1 h - however, the values were adjusted accordingly (e.g., Boardman's 6.4 W/kg for 1 h was extrapolated/interpolated to 6.62 W/kg), so that the end results was the same.

The other comment I would make is that the power profiling tables were never intended to be used to define the level at which a person should be successful as a racer, and cannot be used for such. That is why I have always indicated overlapping ranges, used "e.g.", at one point stripped off the category guidelines and simply used descriptors such as "excellent", etc. Despite such efforts, people still persist in missing the point and thus misusing the tables...

thank you for clearing that up

 

[halamala]

Yes Your figure is spot on.

Compare this figure to the highest VAM'S ever recorded in the Tour De France.


http://www.sportsscientists.com/

Yeah. More very high VAM's in the Tour de France:

Jan Ullirch, Arcalis, Tour 1997: VAM 1826 m/h
Frank Schleck, Col de Romme, Tour 2009, VAM 1807 m/h
Andy Schleck, Col de Romme, Tour 2009, VAM 1807 m/h
Alberto Contador, Col de Romme, Tour 2009, VAM 1807 m/h
Andreas Klöden, Col de Romme, Tour 2009, VAM 1807 m/h
Miguel Indurain, Hautacam, Tour 1994: VAM 1797 m/h
Richard Virenque, Hautacam, Tour 1996: VAM 1797 m/h
Laurent Dufaux, Hautacam, Tour 1996: VAM 1797 m/h
Alexandre Vinokourov, Col du Peyresourde, Tour 2003: VAM 1795 m/h
Iban Mayo, Col du Peyresourde, Tour 2003: VAM 1795 m/h
Marco Pantani, Hautacam, Tour 1994: VAM 1783 m/h
Marco Pantani, Luz Ardiden, Tour 1994: VAM 1771 m/h
Richard Virenque, Col de Joux Plane, Tour 2000: VAM 1770 m/h
Roberto Heras, Col de Joux Plane, Tour 2000: VAM 1770 m/h
Lance Armstrong, Hautacam, Tour 2000: VAM 1746 m/h
Marco Pantani, Plateau de Beille, Tour 1998: VAM 1724 m/h

***

Marco Pantani, Col de Joux Plane (last 5.0 Km), Tour 1997: VAM 2041 m/h

[I have personally calculated all those VAM's]