As a nerd nerd first and bike nerd second, this was right up my street:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kt7d3
first main feature re: tour and evidence of 'cleanliness'.
Tour Nerdery
Moderator: Moderators
Interestingly enough this is in stark contrast with an article I read today in Le Monde (a well respected French newspaper).
http://mobile.lemonde.fr/sport/article/ ... _3242.html
The author is Antoine Vayer, old coach of the infamous Festina team (1995-1998), and starts with the comparison that Voeckler, who won the 16th stage, was 2 kph quicker (35kph) than Pantani over that same stage in 1998. The very next day Voeckler went on to push an average of 430 watts up the Col de Menté for about 28 minutes.
Also on the 16th stage, Froome and Wiggins pushed a 470 watts up the col de Peyragudes for a full 7 minutes (with an average of 430 watts over the total climb). If Froome hadn't waited for Wiggins he would have come close to 500 watts, so the author.
The article goes on to describe that 410 watts average over the final climbs of the mountain stages is considered the threshold to indicate doping. Although last year no riders came close, this year the first 4 contenders (Wiggins, Froome, Nibali and Van den Broecke) broke this 'barrier', 415 watts for the first 3, 410 watts for the fourth.
Interesting how the same data can be interpreted so differently..
http://mobile.lemonde.fr/sport/article/ ... _3242.html
The author is Antoine Vayer, old coach of the infamous Festina team (1995-1998), and starts with the comparison that Voeckler, who won the 16th stage, was 2 kph quicker (35kph) than Pantani over that same stage in 1998. The very next day Voeckler went on to push an average of 430 watts up the Col de Menté for about 28 minutes.
Also on the 16th stage, Froome and Wiggins pushed a 470 watts up the col de Peyragudes for a full 7 minutes (with an average of 430 watts over the total climb). If Froome hadn't waited for Wiggins he would have come close to 500 watts, so the author.
The article goes on to describe that 410 watts average over the final climbs of the mountain stages is considered the threshold to indicate doping. Although last year no riders came close, this year the first 4 contenders (Wiggins, Froome, Nibali and Van den Broecke) broke this 'barrier', 415 watts for the first 3, 410 watts for the fourth.
Interesting how the same data can be interpreted so differently..
Hmmm.. ..okay I've cracked, and have to give voice to my inner nerd...
As a long-time power nerd, I think Vayer misses a point regarding the way the race played out. The media comments about it being "dull" were because Sky, and especially Froome and Wiggins, controlled the pace and effectively timetrialled their way up the climbs. Wiggins barely got out of the saddle - they were incredibly efficient in their use of effort, which meant they could push the boundaries of "possible, clean" power-production.
Any power-meter user will tell you that in race conditions it's Normalised Power, not average, which tells you how hard you've been working. NP is an algorithm which adjusts the average to take into account the effect of variability - the fact that simply coping with changes in pace stresses the system and "costs" effort. A mountain climb where a rider is constantly responding to attacks and varying his/her pace will cost effort and while the average may be up at that 400-410W "threshold of dodginess" the NP will be considerably higher and dodgier. But keep the pace steady (but high) and you can really wring out every last Watt of aerobic capacity - while at the same time making it very hard for anyone to attack.
Of course, that doesn't explain Tommy V's antics...
For anyone wanting even more nerdery, Tony Williams took a look at this issue following the infamous Floyd Landis romp through the mountains back in 2006 - looking both at power and at VAM (average climbing speed) and it makes interesting reading, albeit leaving unanswered questions about whether numbers ever answer the doping question. Piece is here - http://www.flammerouge.je/content/3_fac ... /climb.htm
As a long-time power nerd, I think Vayer misses a point regarding the way the race played out. The media comments about it being "dull" were because Sky, and especially Froome and Wiggins, controlled the pace and effectively timetrialled their way up the climbs. Wiggins barely got out of the saddle - they were incredibly efficient in their use of effort, which meant they could push the boundaries of "possible, clean" power-production.
Any power-meter user will tell you that in race conditions it's Normalised Power, not average, which tells you how hard you've been working. NP is an algorithm which adjusts the average to take into account the effect of variability - the fact that simply coping with changes in pace stresses the system and "costs" effort. A mountain climb where a rider is constantly responding to attacks and varying his/her pace will cost effort and while the average may be up at that 400-410W "threshold of dodginess" the NP will be considerably higher and dodgier. But keep the pace steady (but high) and you can really wring out every last Watt of aerobic capacity - while at the same time making it very hard for anyone to attack.
Of course, that doesn't explain Tommy V's antics...
For anyone wanting even more nerdery, Tony Williams took a look at this issue following the infamous Floyd Landis romp through the mountains back in 2006 - looking both at power and at VAM (average climbing speed) and it makes interesting reading, albeit leaving unanswered questions about whether numbers ever answer the doping question. Piece is here - http://www.flammerouge.je/content/3_fac ... /climb.htm
I've only be interested in cycling for 3 years, and I'm really interested in this - does that make me an official nerd too? I agree that the way Sky controlled the race made it less of spectacle but I think the fact that they / Wiggins won was also a victory for science. I think they calculated the power output they needed to win the climbs, as Phil suggests. They just maintained that power and didn't react and waste energy. Froome was constantly looking at his computer, no doubt checking his power output was at thereshold. When Wiggins patted Nibali on the shoulder at the top of that climb I think he was partly saying "I like the flare of what you tried to do there, but we out smarted you with our Maths."
I don't think we can say there's a set a set power output at which there must be something fishy going on. Gradually we'll see power outputs going up, it's the nature of sport. Just like we will see world records broken in the Olympics, sports people are always progressing as a result of various advances in training, physiological knowledge, nutrition, etc.
Right, I accept it.... I'm a nerd ...and I like science ...there you go I admit it
I don't think we can say there's a set a set power output at which there must be something fishy going on. Gradually we'll see power outputs going up, it's the nature of sport. Just like we will see world records broken in the Olympics, sports people are always progressing as a result of various advances in training, physiological knowledge, nutrition, etc.
Right, I accept it.... I'm a nerd ...and I like science ...there you go I admit it