It's bobbins data. Tailwinds up climbs, atmospheric pressure, temperature, whether you were sat on a wheel (aero will make a difference at the speed these guys go) won't get counted in a calculated figure but could be seen with real PM data. There's also the question of normalised vs. average power which will account for attacks on a longer climb.
You really can't base anything on any of it.
How can TT power be calculated retrospectively? We've no idea of each riders' drag figures.
Rolling resistance, drivetrain resistance (IIRC Rominger used bigger chainrings and sprockets in order to reduce this), going-round-the-bends-effect on a track etc. etc. There's too many variables!
We have actually. Greg Lemond and Bernard Hinault did a lot of wind tunnel testing. The equipment has been retrospectively tested in wind tunnels. I've got some old Roval wheels like Renault-Gitane used and they gave similar results to the Shamals Berzin attributed his Liège-Bastogne-Liège win too. The wheels weren't faster but the doping was.
I think we'd both agree that it wasn't the Shamals that won Berzin L-B-L 😀
If you've used a PM on a TT bike you'll know that a minor shift in position will affect both power output and drag - Just because we might have Lemond's wind tunnel data doesn't mean that you can extrapolate that to Tiger Tony or (especially) Indurain. The head-on frontal pictures that they did the pixel counts on are literally a snapshot, not showing any variability round corners, position shifts, getting tired or even pedal stroke (Indurain being on 180s of course).
Proper, calibrated PM data is the only way to do all this properly and even then it's difficult to argue that it means a great deal.
Still seeing this word "calculated" I assume you're calculating the athletes weight also....
If you were looking for a small difference then I'd agree LS. When there's a 10-15% increase in speed up climbs then you don't need to worry too much about tiny differences in rolling resistance. Bike weights are known.
Le Cycle has tested some of the classic bikes from Merckx, Hinault (his profiled TT bike)and even Anquetil. They rolled exceptionally well (all the bearing seals had been removed from the Hinault bike - marginal gains eh!), were plenty stiff (Anquetils's bike excepted) and rode very well. The only major advance is the weight reduction which can be taken into account when calculating power outputs.
[url= http://sportech.online.fr/sptc_idx.php?pge=spfr_esy.html ]Have fun calculating your power[/url], monkeyfudger.
Come on, we all know that the bike itself makes up a very small component of the drag - it's the rider and that variability that matters.
If Pantani could do ~460W for ~40mins up Alpe D'huez then he'd still be well north of 400 for an hour. Compare his size to Boardman. Why didn't he go for the hour record with an optimized wind tunnel position and put it on the shelf forever?
Absolute power is more important in a TT though (or hour record) which is why Pantani was rubbish at them.
That's the point I'm making. Pantani didn't do 460W up the Alpe, it's a rubbish calculation that's come up with that. Otherwise he's only 50W below Indurain's hour record power and you can bet his power:drag would have been massively better (Indurain's position was dreadful by then, nowhere near as good as 91/92) he'd have obliterated that mark at least.
Superman his position and give him the same ouptut as Boardman (which is effectively the figure we're being given) and he'd be off the scale. Which I think perfectly demonstrates why these figures are misleading.
Pantani often got into the top ten on time trial stages despite riding out of the saddle whenever a slight rise gave him the excuse. Virenque finished second to Ulrich in a TDF time trial. They were no slouches but in power to wind resistance terms Indurain, Ulrich and Armstrong were better. So was Boardman.
Edit: Boardman produced within a few Watts of Pantanis Alpe power but had a much more aero position. Pantani would have had no chance of beating his hour record.
Surely Boardman must have been doping then - don't you agree, Edu? I mean 462W!
It's maybe worth noting that the likes of Virenque and Pantani were only usually towards the top of the TTs towards the end of a grand tour - eg just when the doping really helps you in relation to those that didn't or did less ( not to mention that a lot of the people not riding for GC didn't kill themselves in the later TTs either ).
That was why Boardman always struggled - he was well up there in 1 week tours but couldn't deal with the length of a full three weeks given the unlevel playing field.
When there's a 10-15% increase in speed up climbs
Again for you to ignore again - please dont let the facts alter you view and just keep repeating this claim without any evidence- there is not that is why the fastest climbs up Alped'huez are all from the doping era and in 2011 they were 3 minutes slower though of course that was because they were holding it back in case ti was obvious 😕
These two have actual data taken from power readings and are well belwo what you claim they produce
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/tour-de-france/power-analysis-sorensen-tears-up-week-three-of-the-tour_231551
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784
they were riding at about 6.5 watts per kg compared doping and now at about 6 these days
You keep claiming things that are demonstrably untrue.
Boardman produced within a few Watts of Pantanis Alpe power but had a much more aero position. Pantani would have had no chance of beating his hour record.
Hence why -
[b]Superman his position[/b] and give him the same ouptut as Boardman
Face it, we'll never know the actual power outputs, all we have that's concrete are the times. Which themselves are variable due to attacks/sitting in/tailwinds/tactics. There is no one defining figure above which you can say 'he's a doper'.
There is no one defining figure above which you can say 'he's a doper'.
Unless you're Edukator in which case it's black and white, apparently.
Blimey, I only asked how that amazing race between Pantani and LA compared in time to currents speeds and five pages later! 😯
Can it really be possible that Brailsford is overseeing this enormous cheating process right through the British and sky teams? Surely its just not possible....too many people would need to know and not a whisper has come out of either camp!
I've said that power outputs up to 400W up final Col climbs for 70kg riders are not suspicious, Aracer. You can perhpas add a few Watts to that for a one-hour effort so Obree's records and Boardman's first record fall into to the believable zone.
As for the second record, I don't know. If Boardman had ever been caught at the 442W that's claimed for his hour record up a final col I'd cry foul. He didn't.
As for Boradman's final record, ompare Wiggins and Martin with this:
[img] http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSClw55oyHXQSVZkuIrQfFn6_SiWBNyOH337XT5ctAQVLJhJlxSs2moiegJ [/img]
I don't know how much power was needed to reach 56kmh in that position, less than anyone else I've ever seen on a bike.
I don't know how much power was needed to reach 56kmh in that position
Try my link. I think I might have also posted it on this thread...
Boardman was 70kg, Martin is 75kg. Yet 481W is apparently firmly in the highly suspicious zone for him.
Have you ever heard a whisper come out of British ********, Rockape? Well you won't hear one from me because I didn't record the phone call and I don't want to get arrested on entering the UK. Et pourtant.
I like my freedom so I keep my mouth shut and link/quote stuff others braver than me are prepared to put their name to.
I've said that power outputs up to 400W up final Col climbs for 70kg riders are not suspicious
So ~450 for Indurain up a final col (your figures) shouldn't be either seeing as he was at least 80kgs. Now in the light of all that's happened, I'm not sure as to Indurain's life on bread and water. So either the figures are wrong and he was a doper, or he was clean and used to blitz all the other dopers despite being (in your words) the wrong shape. Which one is it?
boardman holds [ held technically] two hour records* not just the superman one
Do you do this mis interpretration deliberatedly - perhaps he had miles more watts for th eothers or only just beat it in this position to not raise suspicion and he eased off ?
[img] 
[/img]
This was a rational way for the UCI to handle the diverging goals of the record setters. It has been calculated (bikecult.com) that Eddy Merckx required a sustained effort of 485 watts while Francesco Moser's effort on a modern time-trial bike with disc wheels that took him over a kilometer further needed only(!) 446 watts
http://bikeraceinfo.com/records/wrldhour.html
Obvioulsy Mercyx was off his head on PEDS then as this level is impossible etc . interstingly it is more tham Marting and Wiggins so do we add him to the list of cheats or revaluate your wattage claims? I think I can guess
* hour record and best human effort
Those posting power figures for Wiggo compare for yourselves and make your own judgements.
Make your own judgement as I suggested, LS. You seem to be missing the point of that list, nobody made more than 400W up final climbs before 1990 whatever their size or weight.
Yes I think the 481W for Martin is suspicious, Aracer. Boardman had a significantly lower power:weight ratio using your own figures so less suspicious. There's something I can see with my own eyes about Boardman's performance, an aero advantage I can't quantify that makes it impossible to compare his performance with any other rider before or after except Obree. I don't know.
I see the point clearly - my argument (and my judgement) is that the figures can't be relied on. In my opinion if you're going to start accusing people according to data, then that data has to be watertight. It isn't, for the reasons I've been over above.
We know there were dopers, we know there still are now. That's it.
nobody made more than 400W up final climbs before 1990 whatever their size or weight.
That was almost quarter of a century ago...
You sound just like Armstrong's defence lawyer, LS. However, on this:
We know there were dopers, we know there still are now. That's it.
I agree.
You sound just like Armstrong's defence lawyer, LS
I've never been so insulted 😀
and the figures NOW show they are not now so what is your point?nobody made more than 400W up final climbs before 1990 whatever their size or weight.
Boardman had a significantly lower power:weight ratio using your own figures so less suspicious.
no it is higher as he weighs less by 5 kg - aracer perhaps you best say that as he seems to be unable to respond to my comments - I guess we could add cannot count to cannot read 😉
Boardman power/weight = 6.6 watts /kg
Martin = 6.41
Well i dont expect this will stop you either from continuing your claim 🙄
It might be worth noting at this point that you need to be very careful with weight figures. We all know that this was one of the things that Armstrong used to lie about to make him look more credible.
Ooops, is that the time?! Bye for now. Good game, a doping thread and the tone didn't rise beyond "asshat".
Edit; though I'm surprised Junkyard can see the computer screen he spends so much time rolling his eyes.
By TJ rules, Edukator, you lose! 🙂
[img] 
[/img]
Ooops, is that the time?! Bye for now
Is that the French defence (does anybody have a more accurate location for Edu?)
I agree with JY's figures - Martin's "highly suspicious" ride is at a lower power/weight than Boardman's hour.
There's something I can see with my own eyes about Boardman's performance, an aero advantage I can't quantify that makes it impossible to compare his performance with any other rider before or after except Obree.
Yet we have a power figure for Boardman's ride, let me see now, was it 462W? The aero advantage is irrelevant as we're not arguing about how fast he went. Or are you just waffling now your figures have been proved to be flawed?
French by residence defence, I think 😉
By nationality too.
Ah, I thought it was just your wife... my mistake 🙂
(fellow French national, well, dualy at least)
By nationality too.
ahh... all is now explained. 🙂
Loads of data [url= http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html ]here[/url] for anyone's that's interested...
Hmm, that data only looks at specific performances as far as I can tell, rather than the sustained tour-long performance we were talking about earlier.
It'd be interesting to look at frequency of serious attacks on climbs from each rider, or their success rate perhaps.
seems like the [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/22426361 ]decision [/url]has been made. I wonder whether Brad has been demoted partly because of his rather abrasive relationship with the media in last years race ?
Or maybe just because it's unlikely someone can peak for the Giro and then peak for the Tour these days. Not impossible but if you have two genuine GC candidates, makes sense to use them.
Bit mean of the Beeb, to photoshop both hairdos in that photo.
I wonder whether Brad has been demoted partly because of his rather abrasive relationship with the media in last years race.
I would be astonished if that was the case.
[i]I wonder whether Brad has been demoted partly because of his rather abrasive relationship with the media in last years race.[/i]
I would be astonished if that was the case.
Me too, he's managed to get knighted, sports personality of the year, etc. etc. The odd getting drunk or off-script moment doesn't really detract much from his image. (If he'd failed to win, of course, it would be a different matter...)
I thought he was loved even more by the French media than the British, no?
