Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[acoggan]

Overruled. Defense has claimed numerous facts not in evidence:

presence and type of wind during Olympic TT
presence and impact of lead vehicles in TT
improved CdA of rider and/or bike over wind-tunnel tested CdA
correlation of one rider's CdA based on another, 7cm shorter rider's CdA
no increase in power

I've claimed none of the above as facts - only pointed to other facts so that people can draw their own conclusions. Specifically:

FACT: I've said nothing about wind.

FACT: Pro cyclists TT w/ lead vehicles, which provide a benefit.

FACT: My "effective" CdA, as well as that of other similarly-built cyclists, is often slightly lower on a course such as the Olympic TT than when measured in a wind tunnel.

FACT: Both my true CdA and Wiggins' true CdA are consistent with what you'd expect based on our size and positions.

FACT: Based on his pre-2012 performances, Wiggins should be capable of producing the 450-460 W needed to explain his 2012 performances (assuming, of course, that any loss in body mass did not result in a loss of absolute power).

What we don't really know, though, is whether he's pedaling any slower this year, and if so, by how much...

 

[the big ring]

I've claimed none of the above as facts - only pointed to other facts so that people can draw their own conclusions. Specifically:

FACT: I've said nothing about wind.

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).

I'm not going to go through every single "FACT" coz I have a French summer to enjoy, but you really should try to keep up

 

[acoggan]

I'm not going to go through every single "FACT" coz I have a French summer to enjoy, but you really should try to keep up

Sorry - I'd forgotten about that offhand comment. I will try to do a better job of keeping up w/ my own posts.

 

[D-Queued]

I don't think any of this guesswork has scientific validity, does it?

sittingbison's post above focuses on the important stuff, real actions by real people that raise alarm bells.

I watched 'Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room' last night. It's interesting to see the behaviour of fraudsters, and very interesting to see the parallels with Team Sky.

Yes.

I particularly like the title of the book. Especially given the educational backgrounds of Skilling et al (i.e. case style classes where you learn from your peers).

They may indeed have been the smartest guys in the room.

But, their ignorance and arrogance betrayed them when they weren't smart enough to realize that the room is always smarter than they are.

Smartest guys in the room, but dumber than all of them.

Dave.

 

[Red Rick]

Maybe he means with higher cadance that he uses drugs to be able to get a higher cadance on the same gear

 

[mastersracer]

Yes.

I particularly like the title of the book. Especially given the educational backgrounds of Skilling et al (i.e. case style classes where you learn from your peers).

They may indeed have been the smartest guys in the room.

But, their ignorance and arrogance betrayed them when they weren't smart enough to realize that the room is always smarter than they are.

Smartest guys in the room, but dumber than all of them.

Dave.

Estimates of power outputs over time have more validity than empty speculation and facile analogies. The Enron analogy is beyond superficial. The trouble for many people that post here is that they begin with subjective certainty of doping and have 0 interest in actually examining evidence. Self-consistent historical estimates of rider power output is the clinic's 'inconvenient truth.'

 

[sittingbison]

But what is also known is almost all estimates and recordings of power output coincide with the last 20 years of EPO, HGH, Testosterone and team based blood transfusions. So exactly what clean cyclists are capable of is unclear. Also an inconvenient truth.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

But what is also known is almost all estimates and recordings of power output coincide with the last 20 years of EPO, HGH, Testosterone and team based blood transfusions. So exactly what clean cyclists are capable of is unclear. Also an inconvenient truth.

You just hit the JACKPOT.

Stating Wiggins is clean because he is not putting the watts pharmstrong did is just insane, compare him with Merkcx, Hinault, Fignon, LeMond, etc etc. Bet he is even beyond those guys.

 

[mastersracer]

You just hit the JACKPOT.

Stating Wiggins is clean because he is not putting the watts pharmstrong did is just insane, compare him with Merkcx, Hinault, Fignon, LeMond, etc etc. Bet he is even beyond those guys.

stating that these estimates aim to show a rider is clean misrepresents their entire point. Go back and read Acoggan's comments. What the critical power plot Acoggan provided shows is that Wiggins power output is self-consistent from 2004-present day. This is inconsistent with the thrust of the Sky threads, which accuse Wiggins of a sudden jump in power that is then linked to a secret Sky team-wide program, secret doctors, etc.

As far as links to Lemond's power etc., you might want to rethink that before putting any real $ on your bet.

 

[the big ring]

stating that these estimates aim to show a rider is clean misrepresents their entire point. Go back and read Acoggan's comments. What the critical power plot Acoggan provided shows is that Wiggins power output is self-consistent from 2004-present day. This is inconsistent with the thrust of the Sky threads, which accuse Wiggins of a sudden jump in power that is then linked to a secret Sky team-wide program, secret doctors, etc.

As far as links to Lemond's power etc., you might want to rethink that before putting any real $ on your bet.

Except acoggan had to introduce significant guesswork to reduce Brad's CdA to ~0.20 - 0.21 to give him the speed at a "normal" power output to win the Olympic TT in the fashion he did.

Without that CdA improvement, his power increasing is the only other explanation (lowered cadence or not).

It is also incredible to me that the powerplot is self-consistent vs the weight of Wiggins, which falls from 82kg to 69kg. Dumbfounding.

 

[the big ring]

FWIW (possibly very little although I have seen it used in a discussion re: Evans), here is Michael Rasmussen:

His BMI is 19.48 (59 / 1.74^2).

Brad Wiggins, at 1.9m and 69kg has a BMI of 19.1.

 

[Parrot23]

What we don't really know, though, is whether he's pedaling any slower this year, and if so, by how much...

Exactly.

What we do have is a YouTube analysis of a very brief snippet of a race positing a 2-3 rpm reduction in cadence, which is then adopted as a "fact".

Utterly laughable basis to say anything. Reminds me of this: a whole pattern of circumstantial evidence for group-thinkers, whose major problem is an alternative point of view--in this case on Wiggins, and in that case on putative WMD in Iraq.

Substitute dope for WMD, and we should tread more carefully before arriving at circumstantial conclusions.

(And this is not a political statement in any way either for or against the Bush Administration, just for use as a point of argument.)

 

[mastersracer]

Exactly.

What we do have is a YouTube analysis of a very brief snippet of a race positing a 2-3 rpm reduction in cadence, which is then adopted as a "fact".

Utterly laughable basis to say anything. Reminds me of this: a whole pattern of circumstantial evidence for group-thinkers, whose major problem is an alternative point of view...which must be crushed as heresy in the forum.

(And this is not a political statement in any way either for or against the Bush Administration, just a point of argument.)

no one adopted the decreased cadence as a fact other than references to peer-reviewed studies on gross efficiency and cadence. Wiggins suggested he was aiming to lower cadence as a strategy to increase power (presumably because he endorsed the belief that increasing power at a high cadence was too difficult and the only way he could thereby increase power was via greater gross efficiency). It is entirely moot, by the way, 1) if his power in fact hasn't increased recently, as appears to be the case, or 2) he was simply wrong and could develop more power at his standard cadence. His comments appeared in a newspaper OP-ed, so it isn't exactly equivalent to a rigorous, validated claim in any case.

 

[Parrot23]

It's been repeatedly bandied about by 131313 and others as a premise that 2-3rpm is the magnitude of the reduction; hence, Wiggins is said to be making idiotic claims.

The foolishness is that one can identify a 2-3 rpm reduction by eyeballing a YouTube video for a tiny fraction of one part of the race.

That's a laughable basis for a valid argument. It's grossly inaccurate and circumstantial nonsense trotted out as fact.

We just don't know.

 

[Ferminal]

But what is also known is almost all estimates and recordings of power output coincide with the last 20 years of EPO, HGH, Testosterone and team based blood transfusions. So exactly what clean cyclists are capable of is unclear. Also an inconvenient truth.

What are the best power numbers produced by a clean GT winner in the last decade?

 

[131313]

It's been repeatedly bandied about by 131313 and others as a premise that 2-3rpm is the magnitude of the reduction; hence, Wiggins is said to be making idiotic claims.

The foolishness is that one can identify a 2-3 rpm reduction by eyeballing a YouTube video for a tiny fraction of one part of the race.

That's a laughable basis for a valid argument. It's grossly inaccurate and circumstantial nonsense trotted out as fact.

We just don't know.

You are completely wrong, and it's pretty obvious you didn't bother looking at any of the videos. There's about 6-8 minutes of Wiggins footage over a 50 minute TT, including one of the longest uninterrupted sections of road on the entire event, both at Worlds @ at the Olympics. No offense, but your WMD analogy is moronic, and showing a picture of Colin Powell doesn't change that fact...

Wiggins suggested he was aiming to lower cadence as a strategy to increase power (presumably because he endorsed the belief that increasing power at a high cadence was too difficult and the only way he could thereby increase power was via greater gross efficiency). It is entirely moot, by the way, 1) if his power in fact hasn't increased recently, as appears to be the case, or 2) he was simply wrong and could develop more power at his standard cadence. His comments appeared in a newspaper OP-ed, so it isn't exactly equivalent to a rigorous, validated claim in any case.

You didn't read the article, or if you did you didn't understand it. While I like making fun of Wiggins lack of eloquence, his intent is actually quite clear. He's NOT claiming a decrease in cadence will increase his power. He actually said, clearly, the EXACT OPPOSITE; that increasing his power to the levels needed to compete with Martin isn't really possible. While he butchers the words a little, his intent is actually pretty clear. He's suggesting that rolling resistance will decrease and mechanical efficiency will increase (MECHANICAL, NOT BIOCHEMICAL) by using a larger gear. Guess what? In theory I think he's right, particularly on courses with rough pavement. But the evidence I've seen, plenty of which is in the public domain, suggests that these changes are very small. And, we're talking about a very small magnitude in both instances, as is clearly documented (regardless of what people want to believe). To effect any real change in Crr or mechanical efficiency, the cadence and gear ratios would have to be significantly different, and even then we're talking about a very small change.

Lastly, regarding Wiggins' power numbers, the claim is very clear as well: his sustainable raw power is basically unchanged, +/- 2% or so. In order to believe that, you have to believe that his event CdA was in the range of .20-.21. Given the technical nature of the course, Wiggins' size, and the delta in tunnel/established CdA vs. the event from another similar-sized rider, I find that to be incredibly unlikely. No Krebs, I don't have any "proof", but that's my informed opinion. The only way I think this is possible is if he was basically drafting off of the motorbike for a significant portion of the race (so he was motorbike doping), or he significantly increased his power over what is reported. I realize he had home court advantage and all, but there's a limit to just how much draft they'll allow. And he was hardly the only guy with significant camera time. So, I think the most likely explanation is that he significantly increased his power.

 

[Ripper]

You are completely wrong, and it's pretty obvious you didn't bother looking at any of the videos. There's about 6-8 minutes of Wiggins footage over a 50 minute TT, including one of the longest uninterrupted sections of road on the entire event, both at Worlds @ at the Olympics. No offense, but your WMD analogy is moronic, and showing a picture of Colin Powell doesn't change that fact...




You didn't read the article, or if you did you didn't understand it. While I like making fun of Wiggins lack of eloquence, his intent is actually quite clear. He's NOT claiming a decrease in cadence will increase his power. He actually said, clearly, the EXACT OPPOSITE; that increasing his power to the levels needed to compete with Martin isn't really possible. While he butchers the words a little, his intent is actually pretty clear. He's suggesting that rolling resistance will decrease and mechanical efficiency will increase (MECHANICAL, NOT BIOCHEMICAL) by using a larger gear. Guess what? In theory I think he's right, particularly on courses with rough pavement. But the evidence I've seen, plenty of which is in the public domain, suggests that these changes are very small. And, we're talking about a very small magnitude in both instances, as is clearly documented (regardless of what people want to believe). To effect any real change in Crr or mechanical efficiency, the cadence and gear ratios would have to be significantly different, and even then we're talking about a very small change.

Lastly, regarding Wiggins' power numbers, the claim is very clear as well: his sustainable raw power is basically unchanged, +/- 2% or so. In order to believe that, you have to believe that his event CdA was in the range of .20-.21. Given the technical nature of the course, Wiggins' size, and the delta in tunnel/established CdA vs. the event from another similar-sized rider, I find that to be incredibly unlikely. No Krebs, I don't have any "proof", but that's my informed opinion. The only way I think this is possible is if he was basically drafting off of the motorbike for a significant portion of the race (so he was motorbike doping), or he significantly increased his power over what is reported. I realize he had home court advantage and all, but there's a limit to just how much draft they'll allow. And he was hardly the only guy with significant camera time. So, I think the most likely explanation is that he significantly increased his power.

The only other thing worth noting about Wiggo are the O-rings he rides with. Depending on how they are set up, they may (or may not) be more efficient at low cadences. Not unlike Q-Rings (albeit it for very different reasons).

 

[Ripper]

Just go away and troll somewhere else. I've posted more factual evidence to support my opinions in this forum in the past month than you have in years.

You sir are sounding quite grouchy. Bad day at the office?

 

[Turner29]

In reference to Wiggins' second place finish to Tony Martin in the 2011 World TT Championship, he would have needed to increase his power output by about 7%.

While chain efficiency is dependent upon force, at forces produced by Wiggins a drop in RPMS from 110 to 90 will make little difference. Regarding rolling resistance, since his speed and weight do not change, unless tires or tire pressure is changed rolling resistance is not going to be materially affected and I cannot believe his coaches suddenly came to the conclusion his tires were inefficient.

Regarding the O-rings, when did he start using them. Again, since these comments were in reference to the 2011 TT Championship, was he using them then?

 

[Turner29]

Also regarding the O-rings, keep in mind that there is no force multiplication (leverage) from bicycle gears. However, leverage and force multiplication does come from the chainring and crank arm -- the ratio of the crank arm length to the chainring radius.

Interestingly, going from a round 53 to a round 56 will reduce mechanical leverage and will require more force from the rider. It might be possible that orienting the O-ring's small radius perpendicular to the crank arm may provide increased leverage.

Need ot look at these things again...

 

[acoggan]

Lastly, regarding Wiggins' power numbers, the claim is very clear as well: his sustainable raw power is basically unchanged, +/- 2% or so. In order to believe that, you have to believe that his event CdA was in the range of .20-.21. Given the technical nature of the course, Wiggins' size, and the delta in tunnel/established CdA vs. the event from another similar-sized rider, I find that to be incredibly unlikely.

Apparently you haven't had much opportunity to analyze powermeter files from cyclists competing at that level.

 

[acoggan]

Except acoggan had to introduce significant guesswork to reduce Brad's CdA to ~0.20 - 0.21 to give him the speed at a "normal" power output to win the Olympic TT in the fashion he did.

It's not guesswork that his effective CdA might be only 0.20-0.21 m^2. And that is really the point: much like estimates of power based on ascent rates, there is enough "slop" in power estimates (or CdA estimates, if power is known) from TTs that you can't rely on them to draw any definitive/worthwhile conclusions.

Without that CdA improvement, his power increasing is the only other explanation (lowered cadence or not).

Let's just say that I have good reason to believe that his power hasn't increased.

It is also incredible to me that the powerplot is self-consistent vs the weight of Wiggins, which falls from 82kg to 69kg. Dumbfounding.

As I have said before, I think his actual mass is less certain than his absolute power. Assuming, however, that he was indeed able to reduce his body mass by that much w/o compromising his power output, riders such as Cancellara or Phinney should take note...

 

[sittingbison]

...As I have said before, I think his actual mass is less certain than his absolute power. Assuming, however, that he was indeed able to reduce his body mass by that much w/o compromising his power output, riders such as Cancellara or Phinney should take note...

This is the single biggest issue with Wiggo, the drastic drop in weight without an apparent loss in power (debatable if he gained power but not going there )

He was an elite multiple Olympic and World Champ at 82kg, he had ZERO fat to spare. ALL the weight is lean muscle mass. Cancellara and Martin, and every other rider in history (who are ALL trying to keep their weight down), have not managed this conundrum

 

[131313]

Apparently you haven't had much opportunity to analyze powermeter files from cyclists competing at that level.

I have, from people whom I trust to provide both accurate and reliable data. However, since I can't convince them to make that data public, that's about all I can say on it, unfortunately. FWIW, I'm willing to believe the data provided to you may show those number, but I'm distrustful...of the data, not your analysis of it.

I will say I've seen files from both last year's worlds and this year's Oly TT, and in part that's led to my conclusion that the drag in that neighborhood is unlikely.

 

[131313]

This is the single biggest issue with Wiggo, the drastic drop in weight without an apparent loss in power (debatable if he gained power but not going there )

He was an elite multiple Olympic and World Champ at 82kg, he had ZERO fat to spare. ALL the weight is lean muscle mass. Cancellara and Martin, and every other rider in history (who are ALL trying to keep their weight down), have not managed this conundrum

Personally, I'd give Wiggins this one. I can't really see any physiological reason why a person would necessarily lose power for durations over 30-45 seconds or so just by losing weight, including muscle mass, as long as it's done in a way that didn't compromise your overall health.