ruben wrote:
You are the one dragging Mollema in this argument Isso. Now you have lost the discussion immediately. If you can't keep it off-personal, than why discuss at all?
Like I said, when a stage is much harder and longer, the riders begin the last climb way more fatigued and you cannot compare VAM, Watts or time... It is futile, end of.
Did you even read Issos post? Please do so and edit your post. Thank you
Yes I read his post, and all he does is suddenly start about Mollema and add a random insult like he usually does
ruben wrote:
You are the one dragging Mollema in this argument Isso. Now you have lost the discussion immediately. If you can't keep it off-personal, than why discuss at all?
Like I said, when a stage is much harder and longer, the riders begin the last climb way more fatigued and you cannot compare VAM, Watts or time... It is futile, end of.
Did you even read Issos post?
Clearly not. Meh, the usual
TerpSpeed wrote:
issoisso wrote:
ruben wrote:
Isso, you cannot disregard the fact that both the climbs in front of the Zoncolan and the length of the stage was much harder than in 2007. A comparison is therefore futile
I know you're pissed off at the fact that me and a few other guys have been ragging on you on another forum for basically not posting anything that's not about Mollema being awesome, but...
If you're going to contradict me, please argue, instead of just saying you disagree.
I argued that VAM comparisons between stages finishing in the same climbs in previous seasons show the difference can be 40-50 m/h at most. If you disagree, by all means show me an example that disproves this, or I'm just going to start ignoring you.
I'm going to post this because I'd really like to get the numbers (and optimally deeper than just Simoni and Basso) for comparison.
But you say that differences are 40-50 m/h, which I assume means 40-50 meters of VAM per extra hour ridden prior to the ascent?
And, going entirely off the information posted by someone on the last page, this stage was ~220km, while the last one was ~140km (approx. two hours shorter)?
So, we can expect 80-100 VAM to be added to Basso for a proper comparison?
Making him, you know, precisely equal to Simoni '07?
Not disparaging your results, I am just a numbers nerd who wants to see them close-up for the sake of discussion.
Close, but not exactly
I'm saying that when comparing VAMs on the same finishing climb year vs. year, the biggest differences I've seen were in the 40-50 m/h. This is for the final climb only. Not for the entire stage. Just as the Basso and Simoni figures were only for the final climb, not the entire stage.
Therefore, In an extreme case, we could make Basso's figure a 1813 or 1823 or similar.
Or to put it another way.....Basso was 1m40s slower than Simoni.
Edited by issoisso on 23-05-2010 22:23
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
I'm saying that when comparing VAMs on the same finishing climb year vs. year, the biggest differences I've seen were in the 40-50 m/h. This is for the final climb only. Not for the entire stage. Just as the Basso and Simoni figures were only for the final climb, not the entire stage.
Therefore, In an extreme case, we could make Basso's figure a 1813 or 1823 or similar.
Or to put it another way.....Basso was 1m40s slower than Simoni.
Of course VAM is for the final climb, yes. So if the 40-50 m/h is for the final climb only, what does that mean, 40-50 meters difference VAM per hour difference on the final climb? That doesn't make any sense, and doesn't account for the difficulty of the stage beforehand at all.
So assuming that it does in fact refer to the amount of time spent on the stage beforehand, you added 40-50 total to Basso's number, which would reflect a 1hr difference in time ridden. Obviously for 80k difference in distance, this is not enough (unless the peloton were in cars before I tuned in today )
But even if you add 80-100 to Basso's VAM, making him equal to or even slightly better than Simoni, your much better argument comes with the riders after. Quite simply, '07 Zoncolan was much more tightly packed than '10 Zoncolan, and it isn't even close. Thus, the strength of the peloton as a whole is weaker, possibly being correlated with less doping.
TerpSpeed wrote:
Of course VAM is for the final climb, yes. So if the 40-50 m/h is for the final climb only, what does that mean, 40-50 meters difference VAM per hour difference on the final climb? That doesn't make any sense, and doesn't account for the difficulty of the stage beforehand at all.
Again: We're looking ONLY at the final climb and expecting a difference of, at the most, 40-50 because the riders arrived at the base of the Zoncolan more tired this time. The 40-50 "bonus" is an attempt to compensate for that, based on past data.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
TerpSpeed wrote:
Of course VAM is for the final climb, yes. So if the 40-50 m/h is for the final climb only, what does that mean, 40-50 meters difference VAM per hour difference on the final climb? That doesn't make any sense, and doesn't account for the difficulty of the stage beforehand at all.
Again: We're looking ONLY at the final climb and expecting a difference of, at the most, 40-50 because the riders arrived at the base of the Zoncolan more tired this time. The 40-50 "bonus" is an attempt to compensate for that, based on past data.
Precisely, I'm not arguing that. But if it truly is 40-50 m/h, that is meters per hour, and there's a two hour difference between the lengths of the stages, meaning a multiplicative factor of 2 to get to 80-100m
mb2612 wrote:
Do you have any evidence of the 40-50 VAM difference?
As I said before, I went through previous years, comparing stages that end in the same climb in different years and the biggest differences I've seen were in the 40-50 range.
The Vuelta stages were especially useful for this, with the repeated finishes at Abantos, Navacerrada, etc.
TerpSpeed wrote:
issoisso wrote:
TerpSpeed wrote:
Of course VAM is for the final climb, yes. So if the 40-50 m/h is for the final climb only, what does that mean, 40-50 meters difference VAM per hour difference on the final climb? That doesn't make any sense, and doesn't account for the difficulty of the stage beforehand at all.
Again: We're looking ONLY at the final climb and expecting a difference of, at the most, 40-50 because the riders arrived at the base of the Zoncolan more tired this time. The 40-50 "bonus" is an attempt to compensate for that, based on past data.
Precisely, I'm not arguing that. But if it truly is 40-50 m/h, that is meters per hour, and there's a two hour difference between the lengths of the stages, meaning a multiplicative factor of 2 to get to 80-100m
I really don't know how else to explain it to you other than we're not measuring the effect tiredness per hour on the performance on the final climb. We're measuring an absolute.
Edited by issoisso on 23-05-2010 22:52
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
I really don't know how else to explain it to you other than we're not measuring the effect tiredness per hour on the performance on the final climb. We're measuring an absolute.
Well then just drop the "per hour" designation you gave it at first, and there's no problems, it serves wonderfully as a rough guide
Although I guess I should note that for exact certainty, it should be evaluated per hour or per kilometer, as obviously the difference between 220k and 140k is bigger than the difference between 220k and 200k.
But since you're just doing more than any of the rest of us are in compiling this information, I have no complaint whatsoever about whatever metric you give us, as long as it's properly defined Edited by TerpSpeed on 23-05-2010 22:57
TerpSpeed wrote:
Well then just drop the "per hour" designation you gave it at first, and there's no problems, it serves wonderfully as a rough guide
VAM is by definition per hour. If I drop the "per hour" from the "tiredness bonus" (let's call it that), then not only will it stop making sense, the VAM+TB will be 1773m/h + 40 m.
You can't add units that measure different things. I can't add an absolute to a rate, which is what you're in effect suggesting
TerpSpeed wrote:
Although I guess I should note that for exact certainty, it should be evaluated per hour or per kilometer, as obviously the difference between 220k and 140k is bigger than the difference between 220k and 200k.
That would make sense if I had said "the difference equates to 40m/h". I didn't. I said the biggest differences I have ever found are 40-50m/h, and therefore, the most we can reasonably consider is 40-50m/h
TerpSpeed wrote:
But since you're just doing more than any of the rest of us are in compiling this information, I have no complaint whatsoever about whatever metric you give us, as long as it's properly defined
Now I hate you
Wyman wrote:
If you wanted it in terms of watts i did a rough calculation...
Simoni 07 was 434
Cunego 07...426
Basso 10...415
Cunego 10... 396
Again these are just rough calculations
Awesome Wyman. Thanks
Are those equalized for weight? if so, for what weight? And did you add a bit more for wind resistance like Vayer does? (I ask because I want to know if I can compare that to other performances of previous years)
Edited by issoisso on 23-05-2010 23:06
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Yeah i used the old 75kg rider bike combination, i think that's what cyclismag use
78, actually. 70 for the rider + 8 for the bike.
Wyman wrote:
No i didn't add the extra wind sorry, i just wanted to get a ball park figure
Thanks, it's very helpful
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Ok, so I decided to check the Alpe d'Huez VAM's to see how much the length of a stage changes VAM, I have used the wikipedia times, so please don't argue them, I assume they are as good as any other, also as Isso said, they are not comparable to today so don't bother.
Rider
Year
Distance
Time
VAM
Pantani
1997
203.5
00:37:35
1740
Armstrong
2004
15.5
00:37:36
1739
Pantani
1994
224.5
00:38:00
1721
Armstrong
2001
209
00:38:01
1720
Pantani
1995
162.5
00:38:04
1718
Ullrich
1997
203.5
00:38:23
1704
Landis
2006
187
00:38:34
1696
Kloden
2006
187
00:38:35
1695
Ullrich
2004
15.5
00:38:37
1694
Virenque
1997
203.5
00:39:02
1675
Mayo
2003
219
00:39:06
1673
Sastre
2008
210.5
00:39:31
1655
Bugno
1991
125
00:39:44
1646
Schleck
2006
187
00:40:46
1604
Fignon
1989
165
00:41:50
1563
Herrera
1986
182.5
00:41:50
1563
Coppi
1952
266
00:45:22
1442
basically it doesn't seem to make much difference, of corse I don't have info on how hard each stage was, or how quickly they rode, which obviously does change things, but even then the gaps are fairly small.
Also you can see why Armstrong felt that he could have beaten Sastre in 2008.
[url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182]Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
VAM is by definition per hour. If I drop the "per hour" from the "tiredness bonus" (let's call it that), then not only will it stop making sense, the VAM+TB will be 1773m/h + 40 m.
You can't add units that measure different things. I can't add an absolute to a rate, which is what you're in effect suggesting
That would make sense if I had said "the difference equates to 40m/h". I didn't. I said the biggest differences I have ever found are 40-50m/h, and therefore, the most we can reasonably consider is 40-50m/h
Now I hate you
Ah, true. So I'll rephrase what I'm saying.
The effect on VAM by prior distance traveled should be measured in (m/h1)/h2, where h1 is hours climbing on the final slope and h2 is hours traveled before reaching the slope.
To wit, VAM adjustment should be " +/- meters per hour climbed, per hour ridden beforehand." Thus, when you multiply the hours traveled before reaching the slope times (m/h1)/h2, you're left with m/h1, the desired metric.
With respect to m/h1, you're arguing for an absolute conversion: add up to a max of 40-50 m/h1 if the stage is more difficult than before. You say that's the biggest difference you've ever seen, which is perfectly reasonable if your data set contains at least a few stages with a difference of 80km (and possibly different prior altimetry) between separate editions, which is what this was. That's a pretty big difference, but you may have some sample points there, I really have no idea.
But that still doesn't change:
1) my opinion that modifications to VAM must be measured in (m/h1)/h2 for the most accurate representation (for the reasons stated before).
2) our shared opinion that '10 Giro is perhaps less doped than '07 Giro
3) my respect for you for bringing us these numbers
I will try to bring an end to this futile discussion (and yes, I know I won't have sucess, but anyways). It is clear that if you do more kilometers in a stage before a climb, your VAM for that climb won't be equally good; you don't need to be a scientist to guess that. However, the point Isso is trying to make is that the performance loss is not that high. Of course, you could argue that Isso should consider the number of kilometers in an equation kind of -k VAM(in meters/hour) for each hour (or kilometer) of the stage. Even more, you could argue that the performance decrease isn't linear with the kilometers beforehand, but exponential (or any other polynomial function, anyways). And you can say that you must consider the weather conditions, the wind, the number of stages the riders have raced before, etc. You can be as picky as you want. BUT the point is: the performance decrease is NOT that high and that should be enough here (and anyone who doesn't agree shouldn't be blaming Isso for not doing a proper equation, but do an equation themselves).
Disclaimer: The above post reflects just the personal opinion of the author and not a fact. But if you read it, you must accept it as the ultimate truth.
You know what the funny thing about EPO is ? It seems to take a couple of mountains climbed in one stage before being fully effective.
aka : a normal cyclist (you, me, any clean pro) will have his performance decrease after every hill or mountain, the more endurance you have, the lesser the decrease.
With EPO, you (ok, maybe not you and me, but a top EPO'ed pro cyclist), your wattage will be higher on the third or fourth climb of the day than on the first one or on a stage with only one final climb.
So yes, EPO totally fucked up the performances in cycling. Also, the number of hours ridden prior to the considered climb for VAM hardly make sense with EPO'ed riders.
This also more or less explains why you get roughly the same performances (by leaders) in the last mountain of hard mountain stages than in flat stages with one final mountain, when those same stages tend to whack clean riders...
mb2612 wrote:
Do you have any evidence of the 40-50 VAM difference?
As I said before, I went through previous years, comparing stages that end in the same climb in different years and the biggest differences I've seen were in the 40-50 range.
The Vuelta stages were especially useful for this, with the repeated finishes at Abantos, Navacerrada, etc.
I suppose 07 and 10 is basically the same, but you don't seem to include the fact that the riders are better equipped in their choice of bikes, weight of it and so on. This is quite clearly a fact atleast from 2003 and 2010, and obviously also beforehand.
This should give the newer riders a clear benefit of going faster, and as they aren't the conclusion must be less doping. It could also be a weaker peloton, weaker leaders or bad shape referring to riders peaking wrongly.
If we take into consideration that Basso, Scarponi and Vinokourov aren't at their top form due to not being on doping anymore that makes sence, but the likes of Garzelli, Simoni and Cunego are due to age and illness not on their top level anymore, and as such we have to look past the top riders and down to the lesser qualified riders for a good result. Cadel Evans is difficult to assume anything by. Obviously he's here to win, but I don't think that this is his max level. He seems to be stronger at the Tour normally. And this year he obviously peaked to early to win Fleche.
Arroyo has been picked for top level due to a strange group taking almost 10 minutes, the same goes for Porte, whom we can't calculate anything from. Nibali goes into the race as a backup, no one knows if he is bagging his very top level atm, or if he is behind in that aspect, and we all know that Carlos Sastre is becoming better and better.
So in fact there are simply no riders worth determining for the sake of statistics. We need riders at equal level of performance (Preferably the same rider), similar equipment and similar stage content. The fact that you have been collecting data is a waste of your own time imo. You need to make some logistic formula that takes diversity into consideration, and frankly that cannot be done. Atleast not from a private computer, looking through cyclingnews' database.
)
