Vuelta

[merlin]

Vayer wrote for Le Mond at the time and is an accepted authority on the human physiology of cycling in France and the rest of Europe. He is a university professor of sports science.

Scott Richards has also been able to back up his VAM model using physiological data acquired through extensive laboratory testing.

If you honestly want to call accepted experts out for being ignorant or "pseudoscientists", and at the same time accept Brailsford's evasive interviews and failure to present any scientific data instead, then who am I to argue.

There's none so blind as they say.

 

[SteveG]

Wasn't Vayer a onetime coach to the discredited Festina team. So another holier than thou pseudoscientist and a trusted expert?

I've just read that article and it's pretty poor. It doesn't have any hard data, other than the actual time on the climb, and concedes that although tries to hide it behind a lot of meaningless formulas (meaningless because he doesn't have any actual numbers) intended to fool the gullible. He even states the following in that article:

"At this point, it's important to stop and acknowledge some limitations. This analysis is based on just one climb. It is the shortest of the critical climbs in this year's Tour de France and it came in the race’s first week, meaning riders were comparatively well-rested for the effort. The historical times only include two years of "new generation" data, and the DpVAM and Cycling Power Lab models have not yet been truly validated. Each method is derived from climbing times. Factors besides performance that affect time could have skewed the analysis".

It's worth noting that the article is quite old and restricts itself to a single, relatively short, climb for which there was no meaningful data available anyway.

The only really meaningful comment in the article is "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past." and that's something we know to be true from other sports, such as athletics, where doping used to be widespread but now (after some time to catch-up) clean results are exceeding doped ones (although there are of course still some presumed doped results in women's athletics that look like they'll take a while before they're beaten by clean athletes).

 

[merlin]

It's hilarious that you get asked to provide the science, you do just that, and fanboys then dispute the science and the scientists involved.

Are you all forgetting the Parliamentary enquiry into British Cycling and Team Sky and the fairly damning report from UK AD?

The reason that the calculations have to be made using (not meaningless to those who understand them) formulae is that Team Sky have repeatedly refused to supply the relevant data to interested bodies. Funny that. Still the calculations are fairly easy for most to understand - hey a lot of it you can do on Strava...

Just as none of the Sky staff can remember what was in the package delivered to Wiggins at the Dauphine and the team doctor's laptop was stolen and hadn't been backed up at all on Dropbox as was required.

Hmmm. You guys are so much like Lance fans were back in the days of USPS and Discovery. The data is there - you just don't want to look.

 

[SteveG]

It's hilarious that you get asked to provide the science, you do just that, and fanboys then dispute the science and the scientists involved.

The article you're relying on itself says it doesn't have any hard science. Have you actually read it end to end? We know you've got history for making a lot of assumptions without properly researching a subject...

 

[merlin]

I was in France at the time so saw the coverage without the Sky veil in place Steve.

As I say, the science is as proven as possible without the SRM data file which Brailsford continues to refuse to hand over. In the absence of that, and with the suspicions raised by UK Anti Doping, it's only understandable that there will be something hanging over the achievements.

As for your point about "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past", that is a quote from Dave Brailsford...the day before Froome went out and did exactly that. Funny no ?

And you would have to ask just why no other riders have managed to get close to that level of performance if you assert that it's just down to advances. AFAIK, human beings' maximal oxygen consumption capabilites have not changed a great deal in the past fifty years. As I say, from my years of training I can be fairly sure that I understand the science behind this more than you Steve. That's an assumption. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[twotone]

They are all at it, wiggins, froome and the runner sir whatever his name is wiggins' father was a drug dealer in the peloton ad the apple clearly didn't fall far from the tree there.

All speculation on my part but a blind man can see what's going on in sport.

 

[SteveG]

As I say, the science is as proven as possible without the SRM data file

i.e. not at all.

 

[merlin]

You need to do some research into the science of sport and modelling software Steve.

Then come back and we'll have an interesting conversation.

Just to give you an idea on the accuracy of all this, Dr Allen Lim created a far more basic method for calculating power output. Dr. Lim's formula to estimate the power necessary to climb a hill is:

bike + rider weight (kg) x 9.8 x elevation gain (meters) / time (seconds) = power (watts). Add 10% for rolling and air resistance.

If we take the first example I have of climbing Alpe d"Huez in 49 mins and 49 seconds.

77kg x 9.8 x1023 / 2989 = 258.

Add 10% for rolling and air resistance and we get 284 watts for the climb.

The GC data taken from an SRM power meter reads 284 watts.

It's spot on to the watt.

 

[SteveG]

You need to do some research into the science of sport and modelling software Steve.

Then come back and we'll have an interesting conversation.

I'm a software engineer with a science background, with degree level education in both. Most importantly for this discussion is that I understand the key principle of "garbage in, garbage out"...

 

[merlin]

Steve, you need to do some research honestly.

I've included some figures for you and we crossed posts.

To suggest there is no science behind this is the equivalent of saying the Earth is flat and of being a climate change denier.

 

[SteveG]

You need to do some research into the science of sport and modelling software Steve.

Then come back and we'll have an interesting conversation.

Just to give you an idea on the accuracy of all this, Dr Allen Lim created a far more basic method for calculating power output. Dr. Lim's formula to estimate the power necessary to climb a hill is:

bike + rider weight (kg) x 9.8 x elevation gain (meters) / time (seconds) = power (watts). Add 10% for rolling and air resistance.

If we take the first example I have of climbing Alpe d"Huez in 49 mins and 49 seconds.

77kg x 9.8 x1023 / 2989 = 258.

Add 10% for rolling and air resistance and we get 284 watts for the climb.

The GC data taken from an SRM power meter reads 284 watts.

It's spot on to the watt.

Possibly useful if averaged across a lot of data sets but compromised to the extent of being useless when you're looking at just one.

I use a power meter myself and have noted big differences between actual and calculated numbers when looking at individual segments with factors like weather conditions and whether you're drafting or not having a big impact - never mind not having access to actual rider and equipment weights.

 

[merlin]

I use a power meter myself and have noted big differences between actual and calculated numbers when looking at individual segments with factors like weather conditions and whether you're drafting or not having a big impact - never mind not having access to actual rider and equipment weights.

HC climbs or UK roads? Speeds involved?

 

[SteveG]

Steve, you need to do some research honestly.

I've included some figures for you and we crossed posts.

To suggest there is no science behind this is the equivalent of saying the Earth is flat and of being a climate change denier.

There is no science in that example you posted because, as they themselves admit, they have no useful data i.e. garbage in gives garbage out. Relying on that as your main "proof" of guilt is quite typical and of course eliminates your POV as having any validity. It's possible you don't yourself have the necessary background to understand why that study is useless, and are therefore exactly in its target market i.e. the Daily Mail/Guardian readership...

 

[SteveG]

HC climbs or UK roads? Speeds involved?

That you think either is of relevance again underscores your lack of understanding of the science or lack thereof.

 

[merlin]

Absolute rubbish Steve sorry. The faster that you travel through air the more aerodynamics play a part - I would have thought you might understand that if you are from a scientific background.

Negligible difference on an HC climb but a huge difference on British roads hence the question.

Drafting and wind plays and even greater part of course. Ever look at your data?

Allow me to put some more figures out there for others to consider whether your assertions are correct.

Climbing the Alpe at the speed Froome does assuming a headwind of say 5kph ( remember the Alpe climb snakes up the mountain so any wind usually cancels itself out although IME it comes from the side), the difference in wattage between drafting and not drafting would equate to less than 1.5%. At speed on a rolling road in the UK, the differences are an order of magnitude greater - often over 50% - hence my asking the question.

Why do you have to insist on calling sound logical science flawed to the point of looking utterly stupid? That much of a fanboy? Pride doesn't come into it. Simply go away and do some calculations please. I'm trying to be polite as this is a cycling thread but to be accused of pseudoscience by people seemingly unable to offer up even basic calculations or exhibit any form of understanding with regards to the science of cycling is taking the biscuit.

 

[NeilR]

Possibly useful if averaged across a lot of data sets but compromised to the extent of being useless when you're looking at just one.

I use a power meter myself and have noted big differences between actual and calculated numbers when looking at individual segments with factors like weather conditions and whether you're drafting or not having a big impact - never mind not having access to actual rider and equipment weights.

There is a huge difference between riding on rolling UK type terrain and a 10km long ascent with constant gradient of about 9%.

On a big climb, other factors like wind etc. become far less significant and Merlin's calculations become quite accurate.

Right, I'm off out to for a spin. Wish I could put out 450w on my local climbs, I'll be lucky to reach half of that value!

 

[SteveG]

Right, I'm off out to for a spin. Wish I could put out 450w on my local climbs, I'll be lucky to reach half of that value!

I quite often put out 450W+ on my local climbs - just sadly not for very long!

I averaged 554W (using a power meter) on one of my (very few) KOM's. Want to hazard a guess at how long that was for?

 

[SteveG]

On a big climb, other factors like wind etc. become far less significant and Merlin's calculations become quite accurate.

Headwinds and/or tailwinds are always relevant - especially given the minimal margins we're talking about.

As I said earlier I'm not necessarily disputing such calculations over a reasonable size data set (especially if they have access to actual data such as weights etc.) however the author picking that one climb as evidence across all the climbs even for just that tour points to it most likely being a statistical anomaly - picked because it reinforced his preconceptions. Relying on just that for any scientific study would have been laughed away - it's only useful in reinforcing the POV of others who share those preconceptions.

 

[merlin]

I quite often put out 450W+ on my local climbs - just sadly not for very long!

I averaged 554W (using a power meter) on one of my (very few) KOM's. Want to hazard a guess at how long that was for?

What's your weight Steve? I'll give it a go based on power curves. What's your critical power?

With regards to data sets, it's rare that riders in grand tours ride solo at maximal effort for extended periods other than in TT's where aero plays a significant part. If one exceeds the accepted bounds of human physiology once when asked to do so, questions will be asked.

If the team then refuses to cooperate in settling those questions one has to ask why? If the team then refuse to cooperate with UK Anti Doping and are described as "obstructive" again one has to wonder just what "marginal gain" Brailsford expects to get from such obstruction?

 

[SteveG]

What's your weight Steve?

Too much (about 90kg).

What's your critical power?

No enough (my FTP is about 280 according to Zwift and Strava).

If one exceeds the accepted bounds of human physiology once when asked to do so, questions will be asked.

Questions will be asked - about the "scientific" study given it's a one-off and admits to not being based on any actual data other than the time on the climb itself.