"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
Smoothie wrote:
For good sake i get so annoyed with the Cycling.Tv Commentator sometimes, he doesnt know much. For instance he calls Karsten Kroon, Karsten Crown
Commentators pronouncing foreign names is always good fun. I remember years ago a Danish Eurosport commentator pronounced Jaksche almost like Sjaske.
Don't call me Jens Fuck! It always sounds like that when you Danish people say my name. Jens Voigt
Got the first wattages numbers for Paris-Nice, the rest will be following tonight.
Gesink and Evans averaged 425W on the Ventoux (equivalent powers, always, not their real power which is not interesting anyway).
Remember that's there's some sort of threshold that can be applied to an average on the mountains finish of Grand Tours, and that this threshold starts at 410 W. That's what a perfect human being peaking at his best could reach without dope.
425 W on one finish of a one week race would almost have some credibility, wouldn't it be that early in the season...
The watts figures for other riders and other climbs will be provided tonight on cyclismag.com.
I roughly calculated the wattages for some riders on that stage, knowing Evans and Gesink did 425 W and 40'40. It's not very accurate, as it's only considering the slope, but here it is :
2. those wattages are estimates. pretty much every rider and coach I've seen questioned on the subject has said that the estimates are way, way off.
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
It's equivalent wattages, it means the real value can be 360 W for one and 450 W for another one, if their weights are differents and they both climbed as fast. With that system, both would get the same value given their times are the same.
410 is not arbitrary. Phisiology and science have gone far enough to tell that a 70 kg man has 6 liters of blood, about 40 kg of muscles, can store 300 grams of glycogen at best, and thus, with such datas cannot produce more than 410 W (all numbers are random except for the 410 W) using his best form.
Also, statistically : the more above that limit you go, the more likely you are to be caught one day.
@ brun : 425 W depends from the context. It's not really the climbing time that would make it acceptable, 40 minutes is long enough. It's more the fact that it took place after only 5 days of racing, which leaves fatigue aside. Also the fact that it was an all flat stage before the final climb.
That's why we cannot say "above 410 W means doped with 100 % of certitudes" here, that would be utter bullshit.
Still, it gives an indication. And I'm finding the values quite high for a race that is taking place that early in the season and riders who would be clean.
Edited by Aquarius on 19-03-2008 10:31
Aquarius wrote:
It's equivalent wattages, it means the real value can be 360 W for one and 450 W for another one, if their weights are differents and they both climbed as fast. With that system, both would get the same value given their times are the same.
If that was aimed at me, I know that and I don't see what that has to do with my post
Aquarius wrote:
410 is not arbitrary. Phisiology and science have gone far enough to tell that a 70 kg man has 6 liters of blood, about 40 kg of muscles, can store 300 grams of glycogen at best, and thus, with such datas cannot produce more than 410 W (all numbers are random except for the 410 W) using his best form.
I won't believe for a second that maximum performance can be quantified, especially because there is no limit to the characteristics one can have. And the "best form" bit just further muddies the lens. There's no way you can quantify form.
If limits could be calculated, there would be no discussions of "in history who was the best?". We'd just know the right answer and that would be the end of it.
Aquarius wrote:
Also, statistically : the more above that limit you go, the more likely you are to be caught one day.
That's like saying "water is wet". It's true, but no one was contesting it, nor does it serve to help prove any of the points made in this thread
Aquarius wrote:
That's why we cannot say "above 410 W means doped with 100 % of certitudes" here, that would be utter bullshit.
Still, it gives an indication. And I'm finding the values quite high for a race that is taking place that early in the season and riders who would be clean.
Who would those be?
Edited by issoisso on 19-03-2008 13:11
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
Aquarius wrote:It's equivalent wattages, it means the real value can be 360 W for one and 450 W for another one, if their weights are differents and they both climbed as fast. With that system, both would get the same value given their times are the same.
If that was aimed at me, I know that and I don't see what that has to do with my post
That was rather claimed generally-speaking than aimed at you. I often hear "410 W is bullshit as all riders don't weigh the same, it's a lot for a 55 kg rider and nothing for a 95 kg one, how do you dare giving a number ?". I know you didn't do it, but this is more than a mere dialog between you and me.
issoisso wrote:
Aquarius wrote:410 is not arbitrary. Phisiology and science have gone far enough to tell that a 70 kg man has 6 liters of blood, about 40 kg of muscles, can store 300 grams of glycogen at best, and thus, with such datas cannot produce more than 410 W (all numbers are random except for the 410 W) using his best form.
I won't believe for a second that maximum performance can be quantified, especially because there is no limit to the characteristics one can have. And the "best form" bit just further muddies the lens. There's no way you can quantify form.
If limits could be calculated, there would be no discussions of "in history who was the best?". We'd just know the right answer and that would be the end of it.
You're wrong here. Limits can be calculated, and yes, who was the best can be claimed. Riis was the best, in Hautacam 1996, on one mountain. Congratulations (?) to the Danes !
Also form can be quantified. If you know a bit about aeroby and anaeroby thresholds, your form is peaking when your anaeroby threshold has reached something like 95% of your max heartbeat frequency, that your endurance is almost infinite (endurance : I mean ability to maintain your maximum level of performance mountain after mountain, day after day).
A human body works very scientifically, there's very little mysticism here. Just like burning one liter of fuel releases 10 kWh, a 70 kg man cannot stock and use more than a certain amount of energy (unless he is a cheater).
Though cycling is not only about who is the strongest guy, the strongest doesn't always win, that's what makes it interesting. A bit like Formula One, having the fastest car is not always sufficient to win a GP.
issoisso wrote:
Aquarius wrote:Also, statistically : the more above that limit you go, the more likely you are to be caught one day.
That's like saying "water is wet". It's true, but no one was contesting it, nor does it serve to help prove any of the points made in this thread
Well, if 410 (400-420, whatever) would have absolutely no value, then going above wouldn't mean increasing the likelyhood to be doped (and caught).
issoisso wrote:
Aquarius wrote:
That's why we cannot say "above 410 W means doped with 100 % of certitudes" here, that would be utter bullshit.
Still, it gives an indication. And I'm finding the values quite high for a race that is taking place that early in the season and riders who would be clean.
Who would those be?
You're not naive enough to say "100 % of them are doped", are you ?
Aquarius wrote:
You're wrong here. Limits can be calculated, and yes, who was the best can be claimed. Riis was the best, in Hautacam 1996, on one mountain. Congratulations (?) to the Danes !
Those are, again, estimations.
Aquarius wrote:
Also form can be quantified. If you know a bit about aeroby and anaeroby thresholds, your form is peaking when your anaeroby threshold has reached something like 95% of your max heartbeat frequency, that your endurance is almost infinite (endurance : I mean ability to maintain your maximum level of performance mountain after mountain, day after day).
A human body works very scientifically, there's very little mysticism here. Just like burning one liter of fuel releases 10 kWh, a 70 kg man cannot stock and use more than a certain amount of energy (unless he is a cheater).
There's also a lot more to it. There are too many parameters, and many of them are still unknown or barely studied, which means that, again, things are never what they seem. Not to mention the gigantic effect that mentality has on it (think Isidro Nozal)
You may not know Rui Faria, but he is one of the most widely recognized physical coaches in the world, basically considered a young genious in the field. (He's one of the reasons Mourinho's players seem to run around like headless chickens all game without being tired).
A few weeks ago I read an article on the newspaper with him where he talked about Robben's struggles last season. One of the things that stuck with me was him saying how theoretically Robben was in top form last year and could play to his best (mental issues aside), but things just didn't "click". And later on in the season, His physical parameters were much better than what a few months earlier they though would be his peak form.
Aquarius wrote:Well, if 410 (400-420, whatever) would have absolutely no value, then going above wouldn't mean increasing the likelyhood to be doped (and caught).
Exactly. The likelyhood wouldn't increase because of that. But that doesn't mean that that is the factor that affects that likelyhood.
If you're not following what I'm trying to say, here's an analogy:
If you robbed a bank, you'll have a lot of money with you. But just because you have a lot of money with you doesn't prove you robbed a bank.
So, even if the tests were designed to cause those who didn't cheat, there's still no guarantee those who cheated wouldn't still have a higher likelyhood of testing positive.
issoisso wrote:You're not naive enough to say "100 % of them are doped", are you ?
I think you know perfectly what I'm getting at: I'm not about to claim a guy who rode for Mapei and Telekom and is a former MTBer is clean. I won't claim he's not without proof, either
Edited by issoisso on 19-03-2008 13:41
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
It's just estimations, yes, but if the calculation is always done the same way, comparisons can be done, and that way Riis is the strongest ever on one mountain during a Grand Tour.
Also, even if it's estimations, there are way more parameters considered by Portoleau & Grappe (the guys making those calculations) than what we use to make basic estimations, the whole formula is like 3 lines long when hand-written (I know it's not a proof of accuracy, but still).
About Arjen Robben's example : with top form I mean what can physically be achieved. Of course mental comes into consideration and allows you to use a certain percentage of it. A percentage that can never exceed 100% though.
As for the bank analogy : there are way more rich people who never robbed banks than riders who averaged significantly more than 410 W on all the mountain finish of a Grand Tour without being caught.
Evans has never exceeded that threshold a lot. His averages are usually about 410-420. That's annoying with him, he looks too strong to have a full credibility, especially given his past, but not too strong to be sure of what he is on.
A 410 W threshold cannot be applied on those numbers I gave for the Ventoux stage, that's certain. Still it's interesting to compare those values with that threshold.
I'd for sure like to see the exact calculations for the power averages for the Ventoux stage. Because, unless Gesink and Evans are the same people, they would not have the same average wattage. Simple mathmatics tells you that. Different weights require different sized powers to move them to get to the same point in time. So for example, Gesink, who i imagine is the lighter of the two, would require a slightly lower wattage to get to the top than Evans.
Also another little question: Do you believe Armstrong doped? If you do, then by your own argument you are wrong. I'm a sports scientist, and have a report by Coyle who did a long term study of Armstrong from his early days until his 6th Tour win. Armstrongs anaerobic threshold (ie how hard you can climb a mountain) was only 406watts. It just the fact he lost weight, and fat before the tour that made him an incredible 8% more efficient. I also have the data here to prove that if you doubt it...
Wattage on the road is all relative as well. Imagine if there was no wind and you got to the top in a certain time that gave a power output of 400w average. Now imagine a tail wind that got you there 2mins faster, im sure the wattage by the calculations i haven't seen yet, would rise considerably. Also imagine a head wind. The point im getting at is unless the data is gathered from the bikes, by the power metres on them, i don;t see how the calculations can be right...
I'd have to agree with Aquarius on this. But I see what you are both saying - I think Aquarius is saying that it is the limit no matter what your mental state is - you just simply can't go past it - your body just doesn't have the capabilities to go faster or harder (well, actually it does, but that's a completely different story).
But yes, mentality is very important to all sports. My sport, running, is about 20% physical, and the rest mental
Well, what I mean with 410W is 410W with mental at 100%. Once you're on the road you might not be able to reach those 410 W (once again those are not real watts) again, especially if your mental is not ready for that.
Cyclismag published their full article about Paris-Nice wattages : https://www.cyclis...p?sid=4036 It's entitled "reasons (tips) to hope".
I won't translate the whole thing, just the conclusion :
Gesink and Evans performance at Mont Serein is huge (425W) without coming close to Contador's exploit last year in le Col d'Eze (500W during 16'40" ).
The athletical performance is lower than what we could regularly measure in such stages during the past few years Grand Tours.
The 21 years old Dutchie showed a surprising climbing potential, given his age, walking just in Andy Shleck's footsteps (Giro 2007) or Thomas Dekker (Romandie 2007).
Though, there are some interesting indications that give us reasons to hope, such as wattages lowering in the end of mountains such as la Croix de Chaubouret and le Ventoux. Some logic can be found here. There are no more sharp attacks during long climbs.
Moreover, Rebellin didn't win Paris-Nice only thanks to his physical condition. He is not clumsy during windy plain stages. He's not one of the very best climbers but managed to lose just a little time up the Mont Serein. His experience of the route, his tactical ability and his downhilling skills allowed him to get the final victory in the General Classification.
The last years have been marked by huge powers developed in Grand Tours mountains and by sudden variations of physical potentials in the middle of the season.
Lance Armstong, himself, except for some ITT, hardly ever developed abnormal wattages before July.
To get a more accurate idea of threshold powers developed in mountains and of a possible renewal, we'll have to be patient till the Giro d'Italia. Ardennes hills will also show us the maximal aerobical powers (5 to 6 minutes efforts) of the best riders in 2008.
Edited by Aquarius on 20-03-2008 08:08
Aquarius wrote:
Cyclismag published their full article about Paris-Nice wattages : https://www.cyclis...p?sid=4036 It's entitled "reasons (tips) to hope".
I won't translate the whole thing, just the conclusion :
Gesink and Evans performance at Mont Serein is huge (425W) without coming close to Contador's exploit last year in le Col d'Eze (500W during 16'40" ).
Yeah its "huge" based on a 78kg cyclist + equipment.
Even the difference of 2kg weight, which someone said in a previous post, can make a big difference over that time period of the watts they put out (ie lowering the overall average), and the difference in equipment carried also helps. All im saying is that whilst its great using data like this to speculate whether someone is clean or not, i do not believe you can make a complete judgement on someone if they go over this "limit".
Dude, 410 W applies to a 70 kg rider. 410 W makes no sense for a 75 kg rider or for a 55 kg one.
It would be better although it doesn't ring a bell, to talk of Watts/kg. 410/70=5,9.
If Evans who weighs about 68 kg produces more than (68x6,9 = 400) 400 W he is "suspicious", if Cunego produces (58x5,9) more than 345 W he is suspicious.
70+8 kg is used as the values are more convenient.
Now if you don't know the riders weights (and you can't know it as it variates throughout the climb ), you cannot use the real wattages for comparison purposes, whereas if you consider their weight is the same and what really matters is how fast they climb, you can use those equivalent datas.
Once again the powers I give (or cyclismag gives) are not real powers.
Edited by Aquarius on 20-03-2008 09:10
Ok, im with you now, but i still feel it can fluctuate more than you give credit for. Unless you are saying that at 100% motivation and fitness thats all they can do. But i really believe that the mental side of the sport makes up for over 75% of the effort. I guess we'll never know the actual limits of cyclists if we just brand those who go over the set limit so to speak, as dopers.
) attacked, took the others with him, and the isolated Gesink lost a bundle of time.
