Wattage from Paris-Nice
Comments
-
iainf72 wrote:
Interesting when compared with monster wattages put out by Ullrich in TDf 97 475w for his mountain stage win0 -
About the upper limit of what Hinault could produce.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0
-
Timoid. wrote:About the upper limit of what Hinault could produce.
http://www.cyclismag.com/photos/evoluti ... 180734.jpg
Les ann?es 80 : Avoriaz 1985, Herrera, Hinault 375 w
Superbagn?res 1986, Lemond 380 w
Alpe d'Huez 1987, Herrera 395 w, 1989 Fignon, Delgado 390 w
Les ann?es 90 : Luz-Ardiden 1990, Indurain, Lemond 390 w
Saint Lary 1993, Indurain, Jaskula, Rominger 430 w
Val Thorens 1994, Pantani 437 w
Alpe d'Huez 1995, Pantani 460 w
La Plagne 1995, Indurain 448 w
Arcalis 1997,Ullrich 474 w
Les Deux Alpes 1998, Pantani 450 w
Les ann?es 2000 : Hautacam 2000, Armstrong 449 w
Alpe d'Huez 2001, Armstrong 442 w
Luz-Ardiden 2003, Armstrong 442 w
Courchevel 2005, Valverde, Armstrong 449 w0 -
I wouldn't read a whole amount into the figures from Cyclismag. As they've noted themselves at the bottom of the article, they are not actual power measurements but inferred from the weight of the rider+bike, elevation gained and time. The normal calc for this adds a fudge-factor of 10 - 20%. The article also assumes that the combined weight of rider + bike is the same (78kg) for all riders quoted.
The climbs referencd are all under 7% which is the lower limit for this method - below 7%, speeds are higher and the aerodynamic element starts becoming much more significant.
Its a handy method for rough comparisons but to use it as a basis of saying someone has a higher wattage than Bernard Hinault (or even Sebastien Hinault) is meaningless.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
These power figures are fairly meaningless without knowing the weight of the rider, the wind speed and direction, the length of the ride (distance and time), the gradient and lots of other variables.
Eg, Pantani (a very light rider) going at the same speed up a mountain as Ullrich (a much heavier rider) in a time trial (ie no draughting). Pantani's power output could be much lower than Ullrich's and they could still have got to the summit in the same time, all other variables being equal. It's fairly simple, you need more energy to carry a watermelon up a hill in the same time as it takes to carry a kiwi fruit up the same hill.
If you are just after impressive looking high numbers, you are better off looking at what sprinters put out in the last 100 metres of a flat stage - well over 1,500 W in many cases.
Power is a very important measure but meaningless on its own.0 -
LangerDan wrote:I wouldn't read a whole amount into the figures from Cyclismag. As they've noted themselves at the bottom of the article, they are not actual power measurements but inferred from the weight of the rider+bike, elevation gained and time. The normal calc for this adds a fudge-factor of 10 - 20%. The article also assumes that the combined weight of rider + bike is the same (78kg) for all riders quoted.
The climbs referencd are all under 7% which is the lower limit for this method - below 7%, speeds are higher and the aerodynamic element starts becoming much more significant.
Its a handy method for rough comparisons but to use it as a basis of saying someone has a higher wattage than Bernard Hinault (or even Sebastien Hinault) is meaningless.
weight of bike and rider must be very easy to acess from UCi and team sites. The ask the riders to explain0 -
Dave_1 wrote:LangerDan wrote:I wouldn't read a whole amount into the figures from Cyclismag. As they've noted themselves at the bottom of the article, they are not actual power measurements but inferred from the weight of the rider+bike, elevation gained and time. The normal calc for this adds a fudge-factor of 10 - 20%. The article also assumes that the combined weight of rider + bike is the same (78kg) for all riders quoted.
The climbs referencd are all under 7% which is the lower limit for this method - below 7%, speeds are higher and the aerodynamic element starts becoming much more significant.
Its a handy method for rough comparisons but to use it as a basis of saying someone has a higher wattage than Bernard Hinault (or even Sebastien Hinault) is meaningless.
weight of bike and rider must be very easy to acess from UCi and team sites. The ask the riders to explain
All that will do is remove just one of the variables.
For instance, according to the SKil-Shimano website, Clement Lhotellerie is 64kg. Give him 8kg for a bike and gear,add this into the equation for Mont Serin and add a margin (10% accodring to Joe Friel, ~20% on Cyclismag) and you are looking at 363W. He's now "lost" 22 W.
If you want to use this as a basis for properly monitoring riders, you have to fit all bikes with callibrated powermeters and broadcast the data as SRM do at the Tour and Worlds.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
From an interview with Greg Lemond:
http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
My wattage, relative to VO2 Max…a VO2 Max of 92 or 93 in a fully recovered way…I think I was capable of producing 450 to 460 watts. The truth is, even at the Tour de France, my Tour de France climb times up l’Alpe d’Huez yielded a wattage of around 380 and 390. That was the historic norm for Hinault and myself. You’ve got times going back many, many years. But what was learned recently, in the last 5 years, was that when you start the Tour de France, you start with a normal hematocrit of, say, 45 percent. By the time you finish, it’s probably down 10 or 15 percent. Which means my VO2 Max dropped 10 or 15 percent. So that’s why I was never producing the same wattage. And then there a lot of other factors that help performance if you’ve recovered. My last time trial in ’89, I averaged about 420, 430 watts, which would match or be slightly down from what my real VO2 Max was.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
LangerDan wrote:Dave_1 wrote:LangerDan wrote:I wouldn't read a whole amount into the figures from Cyclismag. As they've noted themselves at the bottom of the article, they are not actual power measurements but inferred from the weight of the rider+bike, elevation gained and time. The normal calc for this adds a fudge-factor of 10 - 20%. The article also assumes that the combined weight of rider + bike is the same (78kg) for all riders quoted.
The climbs referencd are all under 7% which is the lower limit for this method - below 7%, speeds are higher and the aerodynamic element starts becoming much more significant.
Its a handy method for rough comparisons but to use it as a basis of saying someone has a higher wattage than Bernard Hinault (or even Sebastien Hinault) is meaningless.
weight of bike and rider must be very easy to acess from UCi and team sites. The ask the riders to explain
All that will do is remove just one of the variables.
For instance, according to the SKil-Shimano website, Clement Lhotellerie is 64kg. Give him 8kg for a bike and gear,add this into the equation for Mont Serin and add a margin (10% accodring to Joe Friel, ~20% on Cyclismag) and you are looking at 363W. He's now "lost" 22 W.
If you want to use this as a basis for properly monitoring riders, you have to fit all bikes with callibrated powermeters and broadcast the data as SRM do at the Tour and Worlds.
I think that data should be taken every stage start with powermeter broadcasting what they are doing, and with historicals on the screen for other eras and that way we can see what we are looking at. The 363w would be no more than 407w the other way...still way off the alien like power of Ullrich 97?0 -
LangerDan wrote:I wouldn't read a whole amount into the figures from Cyclismag. As they've noted themselves at the bottom of the article, they are not actual power measurements but inferred from the weight of the rider+bike, elevation gained and time. The normal calc for this adds a fudge-factor of 10 - 20%. The article also assumes that the combined weight of rider + bike is the same (78kg) for all riders quoted.
The climbs referencd are all under 7% which is the lower limit for this method - below 7%, speeds are higher and the aerodynamic element starts becoming much more significant.
Its a handy method for rough comparisons but to use it as a basis of saying someone has a higher wattage than Bernard Hinault (or even Sebastien Hinault) is meaningless.
Gesink is 76kg, man and bike, Evans 77kg.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Timoid. wrote:LangerDan wrote:I wouldn't read a whole amount into the figures from Cyclismag. As they've noted themselves at the bottom of the article, they are not actual power measurements but inferred from the weight of the rider+bike, elevation gained and time. The normal calc for this adds a fudge-factor of 10 - 20%. The article also assumes that the combined weight of rider + bike is the same (78kg) for all riders quoted.
The climbs referencd are all under 7% which is the lower limit for this method - below 7%, speeds are higher and the aerodynamic element starts becoming much more significant.
Its a handy method for rough comparisons but to use it as a basis of saying someone has a higher wattage than Bernard Hinault (or even Sebastien Hinault) is meaningless.
Gesink is 76kg, man and bike, Evans 77kg.
So they are 50 to 75 watts off the power of the same GC contender guys of 1994-1997. The performances look well dodgy when presenetd like that...rider getting much slower?0
