Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[mastersracer]

I think the different bike makes it look more aggressive, but it is basically the same position. He may have shifted his body this way or that.

pics can be deceiving, but in the Olympic his front appears lower (look at angle from hip to shoulder). Looks more like his old pursuit position.

edit: maybe not - looked at some other Tour pics. May just be the pic angle...

 

[acoggan]

Do you know the CdA of that pic? You look like you're sitting upright!

That was just after the turn-around, so yes, I was sitting up. Unfortunately, that's really the only pic I have of that position.

 

[the big ring]

That was just after the turn-around, so yes, I was sitting up. Unfortunately, that's really the only pic I have of that position.

Appreciate your input regardless.

You should bring your behind the scene string pulling powers to bear and ask to do + release some post-race analysis + power files on the perfection of Bradley's pacing and clean performance

 

[acoggan]

Appreciate your input regardless.

You should bring your behind the scene string pulling powers to bear and ask to do + release some post-race analysis + power files on the perfection of Bradley's pacing and clean performance

He/they don't seem too reticent about sharing his power data, so it wouldn't surprise me if something surfaced sooner or later. Even if it does, though, I don't see that being of much help, as you can't rely on power data to determine whether someone is or isn't doping. Thus, all I think that can be drawn from the publicly available data/present discussion is that Wiggins' absolute power didn't increase discernibly from 2004 to 2011.

 

[WonderLance]

Got a lot of time on your hands there fellas?

Strange to be looking so closely to pics on t'internet, hope you have an old sock close by.

Wiggans improvements were from getting away from no nothing french teams and into an enviroment were he could concentrate properly on becominog the awesome GC rider everyone knew he could be. The potetial was obvious to everyone.

But I'm glad you guys have someting to occupy you time now that He has gracefully retired and still has all His Tdf titals.

 

[acoggan]

He/they don't seem too reticent about sharing his power data, so it wouldn't surprise me if something surfaced sooner or later.

And on that note (although I'm not sure where he's getting his info/to what performance he is referring, i.e., the last TT of the TdF or the Olympic TT):

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/wattage/IsBdRhgJHPY/VIRL7l6YEbQJ

(Xavier Disley's bio: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/sport-exercise/staff/students/disley-b-xavier.aspx)

 

[JimmyFingers]

He/they don't seem too reticent about sharing his power data, so it wouldn't surprise me if something surfaced sooner or later. Even if it does, though, I don't see that being of much help, as you can't rely on power data to determine whether someone is or isn't doping. Thus, all I think that can be drawn from the publicly available data/present discussion is that Wiggins' power didn't increase discernibly from 2004 to 2011.

This I like

 

[the big ring]

He/they don't seem too reticent about sharing his power data, so it wouldn't surprise me if something surfaced sooner or later. Even if it does, though, I don't see that being of much help, as you can't rely on power data to determine whether someone is or isn't doping. Thus, all I think that can be drawn from the publicly available data/present discussion is that Wiggins' power didn't increase discernibly from 2004 to 2011.

And after dropping weight to 69kg, his stamina remained the same, and his power:weight went off the charts.

453/69 = 6.565 > 6.56 W/kg

 

[acoggan]

And after dropping weight to 69kg, his stamina remained the same, and his power:weight went off the charts.

What do you mean? He's not off the top of that version of the power profiling table.

 

[the big ring]

What do you mean? He's not off the top of that version of the power profiling table.

Ah so truncation is the go - very scientific

 

[Krebs cycle]

Gee who would have thunk it?

A sport scientist with a PhD and 10yrs experience working with elite athetes (myself) in complete agreement with an exercise physiologist with a PhD and >20yrs experience in the field of cycling science (acoggan) on the subject of power output, performance variability and evidence of doping in a recent TdF winner.

 

[sittingbison]

Gee who would have thunk it?

A sport scientist with a PhD and 10yrs experience working with elite athetes (myself)..an exercise physiologist with a PhD and >20yrs experience in the field of cycling science (acoggan) on the subject of power output, performance variability and evidence of doping in a recent TdF winner.

Between the 30 years of experience and all that piled higher and deeper, and numerous extremely interesting posts, neither of you could address the actual point of this thread, namely the complete balderdash statement Wiggo made about cadence. You paraphrased him, and tried to guess at what he might have meant, but you did not address the actual subject.

Further he was talking about cadence, and it has been identified there was no appreciable difference to his cadence from either his own or any other top performers style. To which you both blithely made no attempt at addressing what if any improvements could be gained from said minute difference in cadence.

Thanks.

 

[biker jk]

Got a lot of time on your hands there fellas?

Strange to be looking so closely to pics on t'internet, hope you have an old sock close by.

Wiggans improvements were from getting away from no nothing french teams and into an enviroment were he could concentrate properly on becominog the awesome GC rider everyone knew he could be. The potetial was obvious to everyone.

But I'm glad you guys have someting to occupy you time now that He has gracefully retired and still has all His Tdf titals.

You don't need a PhD in Sports Science to realise that Wonderlance is right on the money.

 

[acoggan]

Gee who would have thunk it?

A sport scientist with a PhD and 10yrs experience working with elite athetes (myself) in complete agreement with an exercise physiologist with a PhD and >20yrs experience in the field of cycling science (acoggan) on the subject of power output, performance variability and evidence of doping in a recent TdF winner.

You have done well, grasshopper.

 

[acoggan]

And more:

"Wiggin's CdA (not including traffic, ie. wind tunnel CdA) was around 0.224 at the British National 10 Mile championships in 2011"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/wattage/IsBdRhgJHPY/_xdXyI5mep0J

So, even w/o traffic and ignoring differences in equipment (which Xav believes would favor the UKSI bike), Wiggins is more aero than the 0.23-0.25 that 131313 assumed. Now toss in lead vehicles, a bit of crosswind (given Wiggins' build, his CdA likely decreases at yaw), perhaps a few equipment/positional tweaks, and his effective CdA during the Olympic TT could very well have been 0.20-0.21 m^2. As I said, this value fits with the assumption that his power is comparable to what he was capable of generating in 2004-2011.

Bottom line: he might be lighter, he might even be doping...but he doesn't seem to be producing more absolute power or TTing markedly faster than before. If so, then a healthy and in form Cancellara or Martin will still be able to given him a run for his money at Worlds (assuming, of course, that Wiggins is still going well then).

 

[Benotti69]

You don't need a PhD in Sports Science to realise that Wonderlance is right on the money.

Pity then Wiggins wasn't listening to WL all along! He could have won his 5th TdF this year!

One wonders what else could WL advise Wiggins about! By a the UCI a new blood testing machine? Meet the head of the Cologne Lab? Start a foundation with the 2 separate purposes, and push the one that enriches Wiggins?

 

[acoggan]

And more:

"Wiggin's CdA (not including traffic, ie. wind tunnel CdA) was around 0.224 at the British National 10 Mile championships in 2011"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/wattage/IsBdRhgJHPY/_xdXyI5mep0J

So to continue to beat a dead horse (only because I find such things interesting): using Dan Heil's various formulae for estimating CdA from anthropometric data, you'd expect someone of Wiggins' height, stature, build, and position to have a CdA of 0.221-0.230 m^2 (at 0 deg of yaw).

 

[131313]

A CdA of .21-.215 seems possible, and inline with Wiggin's past performances...on the track, and in a 10 with no/on turns. It seems completely unreasonable on a course like London. Indeed, the delta of your own CdA from "tunnel to road" is in that range of what, .8-1.5 (going on memory from an earlier post). And that's on a course like Moriarty? Really, almost any US tt course can have a reasonably low delta between straight road and event CdA. Most Euro courses are way more technical than that.

I have actually seen 1 power file from the Olympics, and it's right in line with the rider being about .02 higher than a "best" CdA.

Either way, we still come back to the point that he's performing significantly better to the competition compared to '09. This is pretty much unarguable if you look at his results. So, something's going on: everyone's going slower, he's increased his power or he's reduced the energy demands. The article which started all of this suggests that he's done the latter...by reducing his cadence. It's a pretty ridiculous claim, IMO. From a drag perspective I don't see a Tony Martin-like change in his position over the years. I actually don't see any change, not a surprise given his pedigree on the track. So, we' re left with the other two options.

You're right about one thing: according to the power data in the public domain, he hasn't increased his power. Given the long, documented history of TDF winners (and their respective camps) lying, you'll have to excuse me for being a bit distrustful and not accepting those numbers at face value.

 

[acoggan]

A CdA of .21-.215 seems possible, and inline with Wiggin's past performances...on the track, and in a 10 with no/on turns. It seems completely unreasonable on a course like London. Indeed, the delta of your own CdA from "tunnel to road" is in that range of what, .8-1.5 (going on memory from an earlier post). And that's on a course like Moriarty?

Negatory, Batman: my "effective" (i.e., on road) CdA is invariably the same or slightly lower than my tunnel- or field test derived CdA, with the difference most noticeable when winds are modest but swirly (thing breezy spring day and twisty, tree-sheltered course). The difference is likely due to the fact that I "sail" rather well at yaw, something that is more characteristic of skinny, narrow-shouldered riders such as myself (or Wiggins) than of square-shouldered or stockier riders (e.g., Martin, Cancellara).

 

[131313]

Negatory, Batman: my "effective" (i.e., on road) CdA is invariably the same or slightly lower than my tunnel- or field test derived CdA, with the difference most noticeable when winds are modest but swirly (thing breezy spring day and twisty, tree-sheltered course). The difference is likely due to the fact that I "sail" rather well at yaw, something that is more characteristic of skinny, narrow-shouldered riders such as myself (or Wiggins) than of square-shouldered or stockier riders (e.g., Martin, Cancellara).

But on what sort of TT course? It's not that drag magically increases on the road (I think it decreased for a lot of riders at yaw, certainly the equipment does), this issue is the corners and turns out of the bars, and the percentage those events play as an overall percentage of the ride. So again, if you're comparing a course like Moriarty to London it's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[acoggan]

if you're comparing a course like Moriarty to London

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote.

 

[131313]

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote.

I did. I just want to fully understand, so I'll put out differently. What would you estimate your effective drag to be for an event like London as compared to your field tested drag?

 

[acoggan]

What would you estimate your effective drag to be for an event like London as compared to your field tested drag?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=974859&postcount=286

Please do try to keep up.

 

[Ripper]

Negatory, Batman: my "effective" (i.e., on road) CdA is invariably the same or slightly lower than my tunnel- or field test derived CdA, with the difference most noticeable when winds are modest but swirly (thing breezy spring day and twisty, tree-sheltered course). The difference is likely due to the fact that I "sail" rather well at yaw, something that is more characteristic of skinny, narrow-shouldered riders such as myself (or Wiggins) than of square-shouldered or stockier riders (e.g., Martin, Cancellara).

Interesting ... is it because the way a skinner torso forms a wing? Sorry, I'm a bit tired today, so hardly wanting to word smith the question ... let me know if it makes no sense.

 

[Krebs cycle]

A CdA of .21-.215 seems possible, and inline with Wiggin's past performances...on the track, and in a 10 with no/on turns. It seems completely unreasonable on a course like London. Indeed, the delta of your own CdA from "tunnel to road" is in that range of what, .8-1.5 (going on memory from an earlier post). And that's on a course like Moriarty? Really, almost any US tt course can have a reasonably low delta between straight road and event CdA. Most Euro courses are way more technical than that.

I have actually seen 1 power file from the Olympics, and it's right in line with the rider being about .02 higher than a "best" CdA.

Either way, we still come back to the point that he's performing significantly better to the competition compared to '09. This is pretty much unarguable if you look at his results. So, something's going on: everyone's going slower, he's increased his power or he's reduced the energy demands. The article which started all of this suggests that he's done the latter...by reducing his cadence. It's a pretty ridiculous claim, IMO. From a drag perspective I don't see a Tony Martin-like change in his position over the years. I actually don't see any change, not a surprise given his pedigree on the track. So, we' re left with the other two options.

You're right about one thing: according to the power data in the public domain, he hasn't increased his power. Given the long, documented history of TDF winners (and their respective camps) lying, you'll have to excuse me for being a bit distrustful and not accepting those numbers at face value.

No what is ridiculous is claiming that the winner of the TdF is doping because past winners also doped and a highly profile past winner publicly attributed his performances to some of the same elements we have been discussing here.

For like the 100th time. Estimations of power based on velocity contain a large amount of error. Wiggins could have improved his FTP slightly over the last 3yrs due to TRAINING specifically for road instead of track in addition to making small changes in the unknown variables such as CdA and cadence (which effects efficiency). The power improvement is not enough to be detected by these error riddled estimations, but it could be enough to account for his ever so slightly improved performance against Martin and Cancellara (his nearest rivals in ITTs).

Gee who would have thought that training specifically for a particular event for 4yrs could slightly improve one's performance in that event over that time?

You have stated previously that Wiggins' has improved by 10-12%. Yet neither his (estimated) power nor his relative performance compared to Martin and Cancellara has gone up by anywhere near that amount. You haven't produce a single shred of evidence to support that claim.

None of this rules out doping, but the performance data alone is not very convincing when it is viewed by the eyes of qualified professionals the world over. I have discussed this topic with some of my peers (ie: other lecturers and experts in cycling physiology), Tucker has posted an article on his website about it, and everyone is in agreement. It is only unqualified armchair scientists that seem to disagree.