Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[acoggan]

434 watts (and 6.1 w/kg) for 40 minutes plus (ARC: 49:13) in 2009 according to JV.

456 watts for 55 minutes @ the 2011 Worlds according to the man himself.

5 percent more power from age 29-31.

But that's comparing apples and oranges, no? That is, the 1st data are from stage 18 of the TdF (that included enough of a hill that average power would be a bit of an underestimate of what a rider sustain during an isopower effort), whereas the latter figure is from a stand-alone TT.

Or to put it another way (note that the blue points span the years 2004-2011):

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

But that's comparing apples and oranges, no? That is, the 1st data are from stage 18 of the TdF (that included enough of a hill that average power would be a bit of an underestimate of what a rider sustain during an isopower effort), whereas the latter figure is from a stand-alone TT.

Nope.

The last TT in the Tour Wiggo averaged 434 watts, consistent with his previous tests of 40+ minutes

Note the bolded part.

 

[acoggan]

Note the bolded part.

1. No need to shout.

2. Vaughter's claim that Wiggins' power is "consistent" with other data is either:

A) factually incorrect, or

B) is allowing for a +/- 5% margin-of-error (either due to fatigue, or simply due to normal day-to-day variability).

 

[the big ring]

Are there many other studies or recorded incidents of world class track cyclists dropping ~16% competition body weight but effectively maintaining total power?

 

[wannab]

Did he really lose 3 kg since leaving Garmin?

Yes he was disgustingly fat at Garmin

 

[acoggan]

Are there many other studies or recorded incidents of world class track cyclists dropping ~16% competition body weight but effectively maintaining total power?

Not that I am aware.

OTOH, I do know of at least one world-class female cyclist who was able to maintain her absolute power while carefully dieting to a very low (i.e., well into single digit) percentage of body fat. She lost ~8% of her body mass.

In any case, your question presupposes that Wiggins really went all the way from 82 to 69 kg. As I've said before, I think we actually know more about his absolute power than about his exact mass (same for Froome).

 

[the big ring]

Yes he was disgustingly fat at Garmin

This photo is not evidence of rider size - it's only evidence of lens distortion using wide-angle lenses. Please try again.

 

[the big ring]

Not that I am aware.

OTOH, I do know of at least one world-class female cyclist who was able to maintain her absolute power while carefully dieting to a very low (i.e., well into single digit) percentage of body fat. She lost ~8% of her body mass.

In any case, your question presupposes that Wiggins really went all the way from 82 to 69 kg. As I've said before, I think we actually know more about his absolute power than about his exact mass (same for Froome).

So he wasn't 82kg? Or didn't go down to 69kg? The team Sky website list an incorrect weight for their riders? (Mostly rhetorical).

Why did the Tour stop doing health checks for riders.

What about studies where changing (lowering) your cadence improved power output for aerobic endurance (50+ minute) events?

 

[BroDeal]

This photo is not evidence of rider size - it's only evidence of lens distortion using wide-angle lenses. Please try again.

Whenever someone wants to prove how much weight Wiggins lost, they use this picture as evidence. Now when people want to prove that he could have lost more weight, they say this picture cannot be used.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

1. No need to shout.

2. Vaughter's claim that Wiggins' power is "consistent" with other data is either:

A) factually incorrect,

B) is allowing for a +/- 5% margin-of-error (either due to fatigue, or simply due to normal day-to-day variability).

I'm sure you know better than the DS of Garmin what Wiggins was capable of at Garmin, but for those who might disagree, here's what JV said.

CVV can produce about 5.9 watts per kg in peak form for 40+ minute climbs, Wiggo is a bit more at 6.1 w/kg for this length of effort.

The last TT in the Tour Wiggo averaged 434 watts, consistent with his previous tests of 40+ minutes and just about 6.1 w/kg.

Jonathan Vaughters @Vaughters
@Scienceofsport @ednl @nyvelocity over 6.2 for 45mins is highly improbable, however. And I have never witnessed that data, personally.

 

[acoggan]

So he wasn't 82kg? Or didn't go down to 69kg?

Yes, no, maybe, I don't know.

What about studies where changing (lowering) your cadence improved power output for aerobic endurance (50+ minute) events?

Well, there's this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16572372

Abstract

Our purpose was to examine the effects of altering cadence on 5-mile (8.045 km) time-trial (TT) performance in well-trained amateur male cyclists. Twelve cyclists (mean [SD] age: 24 [4] y; body mass: 70.9 [5.9] kg; and V·O2max: 4.56 [0.52] L · min-1) rode three 5-mile TT. The first was at their freely chosen or preferred cadence (PC); the other two, high cadence (HC; PC + 10.8 %) and low cadence (LC; PC - 9.2 %), were randomly assigned and completed in a counterbalanced crossover design. Subjects rode their own bicycles, fitted with a power meter, and attached to a windload simulator. Practice sessions were completed 2 d prior to each TT. Cadences for PC, LC, and HC were 92 (2), 83 (6), 101 (6) rpm, respectively; they were also significantly different from each other (p < 0.05). LC was 2.5 % faster than HC and more economical than HC and PC (66 [3], 69 [2], 71 [4 W · L-1O2 · min-1, respectively) (p ≤ 0.05). LC heart rate and ventilatory efficiency (V·E/V·O2-ratio) were lower than PC counterparts, while LC and HC minute ventilation (V·E) were less than PC V·E (p < 0.05). LC may be the optimal cadence for 5 mile TT in well-trained amateur male cyclists because LC was the most economical, was faster than HC, resulted in the greatest proportion of fastest times (58 % vs. 25 % and 17 % for PC and HC, respectively), and elicited less cardiorespiratory strain than PC.

As well as another study concluding that 80 rpm is better than 100 rpm, but which I can't locate right now. Really, though, I think that such studies are red herrings, at least/especially since they aren't conducted using professional cyclists.

 

[acoggan]

I'm sure you know better than the DS of Garmin what Wiggins was capable of

I'm just (publicly) going by the data that have been presented at various times by various people. That they are inconsistent with Vaughter's statements is really his problem with which to deal, not mine.

 

[mastersracer]

I'm just (publicly) going by the data that have been presented at various times by various people. That they are inconsistent with Vaughter's statements is really his problem with which to deal, not mine.

JV does mention his data comes from a powertap - not sure if the numbers were corrected to take into account drivetrain losses vs. other data from SRM.

 

[Franklin]

JV does mention his data comes from a powertap - not sure if the numbers were corrected to take into account drivetrain losses vs. other data from SRM.

There is no substantial inaccuracy in Powertap versus SRM. Both have been proven to be bang on (as is Quark and even the cheapo Power2max is fine).

 

[acoggan]

There is no substantial inaccuracy in Powertap versus SRM. Both have been proven to be bang on (as is Quark and even the cheapo Power2max is fine).

You have low standards.

 

[acoggan]

JV does mention his data comes from a powertap - not sure if the numbers were corrected to take into account drivetrain losses vs. other data from SRM.

If not, that could account for ~half of the apparent discrepancy. Throw in another couple percent for overestimation due to Osymmetric rings and/or underperforming due to fatigue in the 18th stage of a Grand Tour, and the data might be in agreement after all.

Of course, the other possibility is that Vaughter's should have shown Wiggins the plot I put together and told him it was time to HTFU!

 

[Franklin]

You have low standards.

I understand the advantages of SRM and I certainly understand the hack job the P2M method is with it's low sample rate.

That said, the datafiles have been compared many times and all these systems are consistant. Unless you know more than the testers and mechanics I have seen no reason to think Powertap introduces wildly fluctuating errors.

You are the first suggesting it.

 

[mastersracer]

I understand the advantages of SRM and I certainly understand the hack job the P2M method is with it's low sample rate.

That said, the datafiles have been compared many times and all these systems are consistant. Unless you know more than the testers and mechanics I have seen no reason to think Powertap introduces wildly fluctuating errors.

You are the first suggesting it.

yes, but do you know how to validate the calibration slope of any of them?

 

[BroDeal]

So can we get an answer on how much of an improvement Wiggins could have gained by reducing his cadence by a few RPM?

 

[acoggan]

I understand the advantages of SRM and I certainly understand the hack job the P2M method is with it's low sample rate.

That said, the datafiles have been compared many times and all these systems are consistant. Unless you know more than the testers and mechanics I have seen no reason to think Powertap introduces wildly fluctuating errors.

You are the first suggesting it.

1. I am one of the testers, silly.

2. The P2M suffers from excessive drift.

3. Quarq PMs also tend to drift more than is ideal, although clearly not as badly as the P2M.

4. I used to say that the PT was the PM that I'd trust the most "straight out of the box", but in the last ~5 y there have been quite a few that were broken but still gave halfway believable numbers, so I'd no longer make that statement.

5. SRMs generally work or don't work, but you can't really trust the factory to calibrate them correctly.

In any case, the point is that you must always wonder about the accuracy of any power data (regardless of the PM used), and can't make the blanket statement that the data they provide is completely interchangeable.

 

[acoggan]

So can we get an answer on how much of an improvement Wiggins could have gained by reducing his cadence by a few RPM?

Apparently not.

EDIT: More seriously, can anybody scare up a TT file or two for Wiggins prior to this year? (I know that his 2010 Giro d'Italia performance is out there, but can't find it right now.) That might allow us to at least answer whether his cadence has, in fact, gone done.

 

[Franklin]

yes, but do you know how to validate the calibration slope of any of them?

Ok, as explained by Andrew and accepted

 

[Franklin]

1. I am one of the testers, silly.

Ugh, clearly a short google would have popped up your comparison between SRM and Quarq

2. The P2M suffers from excessive drift.

3. Quarq PMs also tend to drift more than is ideal, although clearly not as badly as the P2M.

Good to know, really the first I read about it. You have found out yourself about the P2M (I just found your research on the Quarq)? (yes, I trust you on this^^)

4. I used to say that the PT was the PM that I'd trust the most "straight out of the box", but in the last ~5 y there have been quite a few that were broken but still gave halfway believable numbers, so I'd no longer make that statement.

Good info!

5. SRMs generally work or don't work, but you can't really trust the factory to calibrate them correctly.

In any case, the point is that you must always wonder about the accuracy of any power data (regardless of the PM used), and can't make the blanket statement that the data they provide is completely interchangeable.

Clearly I was a bit to doe-eyed when doing research into powermeasuring

*Wonders about his PT al of a sudden*

 

[Franklin]

Apparently not.

EDIT: More seriously, can anybody scare up a TT file or two for Wiggins prior to this year? (I know that his 2010 Giro d'Italia performance is out there, but can't find it right now.) That might allow us to at least answer whether his cadence has, in fact, gone done.

Ferrari noticed it in his first post about the TdF, so I think we can chalk this up as a true story.

 

[acoggan]

Ferrari noticed it in his first post about the TdF, so I think we can chalk this up as a true story.

Ferrari has low standards.