Track riders' engines.

BikingBernie

The difference in ability between the best men and the best women has been discussed on here a couple of times, mainly in relation to the road. As I have pointed out before, every indication is that the very best women in the world have a sustained power output about the same as a decent second cat UK male, at around 300 watts or so, with a top-flight, light-weight female like Emma Pooley having an edge over the typical second cat on a long climb, but losing out on the flat and, especially, when it comes to short term power output, as is needed in a sprint or an attack.

Anyhow, the following article gives added weight to the view that the 'elite' women are on a par with domestic second cat males when it comes to power outputs and also highlights the huge gulf in maximum power outputs between the elite men and women, which is probably one reason why the women's side of the sport fails to catch the imagination as does elite male racing. 'Big fish in small ponds' and all that.

The images confirm that a world-class female rider can be expected to have a sustained power output of just 300-340 watts, even in a short event like the pursuit. As might be expected the differences are even more pronounced in a power events such as the sprint, with Victoria Pendleton apparently putting out about 730 watts when flat out, compared to well over 2000 watts for the male sprinters.

Whilst going fast isn't simply about how much power you can put out, with things like aerodynamics and mechanical efficiency obviously also playing an important role, it also needs to be remembered that the power needed rising as a function of the square of the speed, so that going 10% faster needs a lot more than 10% more power.

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/arti ... nes-33634/

Of course, the sexual politics surrounding the claim that women's racing should be treated as being the equal of elite male racing are another issue, but these figures pretty much speak for themselves.

iainf72

So you're basically saying theseguys are visionaries

BikingBernie

iainf72 wrote:

So you're basically saying theseguys are visionaries

Mmm, the old 'Straw man' response...

I am fully supportive of women competing in sport, and it is appalling the way women have so few rights in countries such as Saudi Arabia. However, we do need to keep a sense of perspective when evaluating just how much women's cycling can lay claim to be a genuinely elite-level sport.

We often see demands to the effect that women's cycling should be given the same rewards, TV coverage and so forth as the elite men get. It has even been argued that organisers should be forced to put on an 'elite' women's even every time they put on a male event, even to the extent of providing the same prize list for both. Given the level of performance and the fact that the number of 'elite' female competitors are out-numbered by their male counterparts by at least ten to one, with a corresponding lower level of competition, then it seems perfectly legitimate to ask on what grounds such demands are made.

It often appears that the main argument boils down to the claim that female competitors 'deserve' to be treated in a preferential way (as compared to that others racing at the same absolute level could expect to receive, such as juniors or veterans) simply because they are female!

Those figures I referred to also support my argument that, from an absolute performance point of view, elite female cyclists are on a par with a decent second category male. In turn I would argue that an awareness of this is one important reason why people do not get enthused about women's cycling in the way they do about elite male racing, especially given that part of the attraction of elite sport is seeing others do things you yourself could never do, so generating the all-important 'wow' factor.

Of course, such issues are supposed to remain the 'elephant in the room' that no one ever speaks about, with anyone who does being dismissed as a sexist 'caveman'.

ddraver

BikingBernie wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

So you're basically saying theseguys are visionaries

Mmm, the old 'Straw man' response...

Mmmm, trouble is that when you present a Straw man argument, you tend to get a Straw man response...

phreak

Are you suggesting that the women could be the equal of the men if only they tried a bit harder?

BikingBernie

phreak wrote:

Are you suggesting that the women could be the equal of the men if only they tried a bit harder?

No, rather, in order to be a truly 'elite' sport worthy of comparison to the male side of the game, women's cycling needs to raise its game quite markedly, especially in terms of increasing the number of genuinely 'elite' competitors. Otherwise women's 'elite' level cycling will always be a case of 'Big fish in a small pond'.

In some other sports the women's side of the game is truly comparable to that of the men, such as competition climbing. However, cycling is a long way off this and pretending otherwise does the women's side of the sport no favours in the long term. After all, if you want better performance from someone, is the best way to achieve this to promise them higher rewards when they meet your target, or to give them top rewards for a mediocre performance in the hope this will encourage them to do better?

phreak

Surely elite only has to be the best in the sport for that gender? Not really sure what the big deal is.

andrewjoseph

BB, you seem to be forgetting these are 'elite women', that is, amongst women, they are the elite. How does comparing them to elite men come into the argument?

Are you saying that because they don't put out the same power as men, they can't be considered elite? Are you saying that elite women shouldn't consider themselves any better than second cat men?

look at it this way: in women's races, they are women racing other women, and in men's races, they are racing other men.

do you see what's happening there? they are separate events. Same skills, same risks, same effort and dedication needed to succeed, different gender.

next you'll be comparing juniors and elite men and saying the youngsters are not trying hard enough.

BikingBernie

phreak wrote:

Surely elite only has to be the best in the sport for that gender? Not really sure what the big deal is.

Fair enough, but given the level of the women's side of the sport, the limited number of 'elite' competitors and the fact that most decent second category male riders would be right up there if they were allowed to ride in an elite women's RR, does the women's side of the sport really deserve equal airtime, prize money and so forth, as some argue?

rick_chasey

Mate. You really need to use this material on your dates.




Film it too. Y'know, so we can see how successful it is.

BikingBernie

andrewjoseph wrote:

BB, you seem to be forgetting these are 'elite women', that is, amongst women, they are the elite. How does comparing them to elite men come into the argument?
... they are separate events. Same skills, same risks, same effort and dedication needed to succeed, different gender.

Given the generally low level of the competition and the limited number of competitors, I would argue that it is actually much easier to get to the top in women's racing than in the male side of the sport. Similarly I am sure that the remaining 10% of male competitors would find it easier to succeed if 90% of all those currently competing decided to pack it all in.

andrewjoseph wrote:

next you'll be comparing juniors and elite men and saying the youngsters are not trying hard enough.

To repeat, I never said anything about female competitors not 'trying hard enough'. I am sure that many competitors whatever their level try as hard as they can.

BikingBernie

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mate. You really need to use this material on your dates.

Film it too. Y'know, so we can see how successful it is.

I respect women far too much to try to get in their undies by patronising them and pretending that female cyclists like Nicole Cooke are somehow directly comparable to the likes of Boonen.

In my experience most women wouldn't respect someone who played such a charade either.

RichN95.

BikingBernie wrote:

does the women's side of the sport really deserve equal airtime, prize money and so forth, as some argue?

Nobody's arguing that though. They just suggest that they should get a little more support than they currently do.

andrewjoseph

I know, we cut chunks of muscle from the elite men, give them extra 'fat' in strategic places and ensure there is more oestrogen and less testosterone coursing through their veins. That should level the playing field! ;-)

finchy

BikingBernie wrote:

phreak wrote:

Surely elite only has to be the best in the sport for that gender? Not really sure what the big deal is.

Fair enough, but given the level of the women's side of the sport, the limited number of 'elite' competitors and the fact that most decent second category male riders would be right up there if they were allowed to ride in an elite women's RR, does the women's side of the sport really deserve equal airtime, prize money and so forth, as some argue?

Maybe more women would get involved with better prize money and airtime.

It is true that there is less competition for women, but at the same time there are fewer prizes for them to aim for.

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

does the women's side of the sport really deserve equal airtime, prize money and so forth, as some argue?

Nobody's arguing that though. They just suggest that they should get a little more support than they currently do.

Women racers say the time has come for the UCI to treat them the same as their male counterparts when it comes to earning a living.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/09/ ... tee_193399

Bronzini: my jersey is worth as much as Cavendish's

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bronzin ... cavendishs

Pendleton calls for Olympic equity

Victoria Pendleton has told 2012 Olympic Games chiefs it will be an embarrassment if women are not allowed to compete in the same number of races as male cyclists.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2008/10/ ... uity_84739

And people on here and elsewhere certainly have argued that anyone running a male pro team should be forced to run a female team as well, that those running elite male races should be forced to run a female only elite race at the same time and so on. (A policy which was enforced in relation to an annual pro event that used to be run in Toronto that was ridden by many of the top riders of the time, such as Kelly and Fignon. This made the event uneconomic so the organiser stopped running it).

In any case, given the level of the competition are 'elite' female cyclists really that under-served as things stand? For example, in the Olympics many classic competitions such as the Kilo have been scrapped in order to make way for more women's events, as Pendleton demanded, a move that I would say has decimated the male side of the sport in order to provide events that cater for a much smaller competitive base.

tailwindhome

.......

BikingBernie

johnfinch wrote:

Maybe more women would get involved with better prize money and airtime.

And where should that money come from, other than by channelling it away from the male side of the sport? (Much as the way Triathlons often have an equal prize list for the minority of female competitors, funded by large number of male competitors who take part?)

Also, much the same could be said of encouraging sport across all categories. Perhaps 3rd category racing would become a boom sport if large prize list were made available. Then again, aren't most people supposed to want to take part in sport for reasons other than the chance to win some money?

johnfinch wrote:

It is true that there is less competition for women, but at the same time there are fewer prizes for them to aim for.

In my experience there are often ample prizes on offer, given the number of competitors. I can certainly remember riding road races when there were perhaps only a couple, or even only one female participant, and all they had to do to win a prize was to to ride around the circuit until the race proper finished!

mididoctors

BikingBernie wrote:

phreak wrote:

Surely elite only has to be the best in the sport for that gender? Not really sure what the big deal is.

Fair enough, but given the level of the women's side of the sport, the limited number of 'elite' competitors and the fact that most decent second category male riders would be right up there if they were allowed to ride in an elite women's RR, does the women's side of the sport really deserve equal airtime, prize money and so forth, as some argue?

It doesn't get as much coverage or money...or even debate

which is ironic given as you posting this thread is one of the rare womens cycling threads... even on a pro cycling forum! ... so as far as exposure goes your case is a bit meh.... your looking to rectify [if thats what you are about???] a situation which doesn't exist.

on a aside to the mods a sticky womens racing thread would be helpful even if its just to keep track of form for PTP....

rick_chasey

mididoctors wrote:

on a aside to the mods a sticky womens racing thread would be helpful even if its just to keep track of form for PTP....

Start a good one and I'll do my best to make it a sticky.

I know nothing of women's racing so I'm not the right person to start one!

finchy

BikingBernie wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Maybe more women would get involved with better prize money and airtime.

And where should that money come from, other than by channelling it away from the male side of the sport? (Much as the way Triathlons often have an equal prize list for the minority of female competitors, funded by large number of male competitors who take part?)

Also, much the same could be said of encouraging sport across all categories. Perhaps 3rd category racing would become a boom sport if large prize list were made available. Then again, aren't most people supposed to want to take part in sport for reasons other than the chance to win some money?

Well, if they had more airtime then they could get more money from TV rights, assuming that people watch it. What about a criterium series for women? I'm sure they could keep up decent speed for an hour around a fast circuit, and let's face it, most of us only watch classics for the final hour.

BikingBernie wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

It is true that there is less competition for women, but at the same time there are fewer prizes for them to aim for.

In my experience there are often ample prizes on offer, given the number of competitors. I can certainly remember riding road races when there were perhaps only a couple, or even only one female participant, and all they had to do to win a prize was to to ride around the circuit until the race proper finished!

I'm talking about the very top level of competition here.

BikingBernie

johnfinch wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Maybe more women would get involved with better prize money and airtime.

And where should that money come from, other than by channelling it away from the male side of the sport? (Much as the way Triathlons often have an equal prize list for the minority of female competitors, funded by large number of male competitors who take part?)

Well, if they had more airtime then they could get more money from TV rights, assuming that people watch it.

'Assuming'. This is the real issue: the commercial value of women's cycling. I am sure that if the marketeers thought that more people did want to watch more women's cycling, so there was money to be made from it, it would be promoted far more than it is.

Perhaps more savvy marketing would help. As they say, 'sex sells' and Victoria Pendleton has certainly not been slow to exploit that angle in order to raise her profile and market value. I am not saying that this is desirable or the right thing to do, and I am sure that many female cyclists are uncomfortable with the way Pendleton has exploited her sexuality, seeing it at undermining the sort of 'on our own terms' equality they want to see, but that is the way the world is.

johnfinch wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

It is true that there is less competition for women, but at the same time there are fewer prizes for them to aim for.

In my experience there are often ample prizes on offer, given the number of competitors. I can certainly remember riding road races when there were perhaps only a couple, or even only one female participant, and all they had to do to win a prize was to to ride around the circuit until the race proper finished!

I'm talking about the very top level of competition here.

But even if we are only talking about the top level, the money has to come from somewhere, and that is likely to be from the more commercially valuable male side of the sport. Something comparable happened when people such as Victoria Pendleton called for equity with men in terms of the number of Olympic events. Although this is hardly Pendleton's fault, bringing about such equity has led to the scrapping of many classic Olympic events in order to make space for more women's events.

Anyhow, whatever the politics, I only started this thread because the power meter readings from the world championships confirmed the previous estimates I had made regarding the relatively modest power outputs of elite female cyclists!

Tom Butcher

I agree with you to an extent Bernie - the level of competition in women's cycling is lower than the men's (relative to potential) simply because there are far fewer competitors. If it were to take off in popularity I think in 10-20 years we'd see those power figures for the top women much higher than they are now whereas I doubt there is the same scope for increasing the power figures the men put out. The history of sport suggests that competition is important in driving competitors on to reach their potential.

As for equality between men's and women's road racing. I think in an ideal world it'd be good - I don't subscribe to the view that the lower speeds make women's racing necessarily less impressive or exciting for spectators. Of course I don't expect it to happen in any of our lifetimes but I'd like the UCI to keep trying to move in things in that direction so long as it isn't at the expense of the men's side of the sport. So no I wouldn't want to see race organisers scrap races because of unrealistic demands to put on a women's event - but I would like to see them try and promote the women's side of the sport as well as the men's. There's only so much you can do though - it needs women to get into the sport in greater numbers - be interesting to discuss why they don't given running and triathlon have plenty of women taking part - is it lack of opportunity, the culture of cycling or what ?

mididoctors

Rick Chasey wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

on a aside to the mods a sticky womens racing thread would be helpful even if its just to keep track of form for PTP....

Start a good one and I'll do my best to make it a sticky.

I know nothing of women's racing so I'm not the right person to start one!

so few of us are....

Murr X

Back on topic,

I think it is nice to see snapshots of the power produced by the trackies, although the comments accompanying the images are written by somebody with little experience of SRM's and little knowledge of the power that top track sprinters produce.

http://www.srm.de/images/stories/srm_in ... %20200.gif

The link above is what is typical of a top male track sprinters power profile over a typical timed 200 meter qualifying run including winding it up to speed. It is apparently a rider who won a World Cup event which I can believe, though it is not stated who it is nor is the athlete's body weight known.

Now bearing in mind that this is world class sprinter you can see that it is not long before fatigue kicks in and the rider can no longer sustan a high power output which has soon dropped to less than 1000 watts (though still traveling at 73Kph). During the Keirin which is a slightly longer event the power figures will generally have dropped even further (though not always as the Keirin is not all out from start to finish unlike a flying 200m).

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gallery/a ... 634?img=10 - This photo shows elite rider Chris Hoy producing an indicated 891W at that particular moment in what is apparently a Keirin heat - and probably near the end at that. It is not however 1891W which the comment with the photo guesses.

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gallery/a ... es-33634/8 - This time Chris Hoy's SRM display indicates 146 which is 1.46 kilowatt and not the 2146W which the comment presupposes. This photograph was probably earlier on in a sprint event before significant fatigue sets in. Chris Hoy is well known to have great fatigue resistance in sprints which is his real strength having come from a kilometer background.

Important to note is that seeing a snapshot of a riders power is not particularly useful (unlike seeing the SRM files over a stated duration) especially without knowing how long they have been sprinting for, as seen in my first link above the power varies greatly due to fatigue within a short space of time, dropping from a peak of 1900W to less than 750W during a maximal effort within less than 15 seconds.


Murr X

Mods, feel free to move this to the Track forum if more appropriate as this thread has been going off topic.

BikingBernie

Good post Murr X,

I had thought that the power differential between the male and female sprinters was rather high, and the SRM site shows that the peak figures recorded relate to the acceleration phase in a sprint, which makes a lot of sense. From the SRM site we can see that a top-flight female competitor can raise over 1100 watts in the starting effort of something like a 500m TT, whilst a male sprinter can raise almost 1900 watts when cranking it up for a flying 200m. Pity there aren't more files on the site that would allow more direct comparisons.

The site does confirm that a female pursuit rider can be expected to have a sustained/average power output of somewhere between 308 and 341 watts for a sub 4 minute effort, which is about 100 watts less, for example, than Chris Boardman managed to sustain over his hour rides. I wonder what the figures would be for a male pursuiter, who after all cover another full kilometer in only an additional 30 seconds.

The figures for the men's points race look particularly impressive, with a peak of over 2000 watts, a best 20 second average of over 1100 watts, a 4 minute average of 558 watts and an overall average of 443 watts for the 20 minute race, despite the fast-slow-fast nature of the event.

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

So you're basically saying theseguys are visionaries

Mmm, the old 'Straw man' response...


Those figures I referred to also support my argument that, from an absolute performance point of view, elite female cyclists are on a par with a decent second category male. In turn I would argue that an awareness of this is one important reason why people do not get enthused about women's cycling in the way they do about elite male racing, especially given that part of the attraction of elite sport is seeing others do things you yourself could never do, so generating the all-important 'wow' factor.

Of course, such issues are supposed to remain the 'elephant in the room' that no one ever speaks about, with anyone who does being dismissed as a sexist 'caveman'.

Why do you say "people do not get enthused" about women's racing? It is almost certain women will see the speed and time of elite women cyclists, which they can compare to their own times, and feel impressed by it. Woman likely feel like men do when men see how much faster elite pro males can go than they can. You could say some men don't get enthused by women's racing but not "people don't get enthused by women's racing".

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

Why do you say "people do not get enthused" about women's racing? It is almost certain women will see the speed and time of elite women cyclists, which they can compare to their own times, and feel impressed by it. Woman likely feel like men do when men see how much faster elite pro males can go than they can. You could say some men don't get enthused by women's racing but not "people don't get enthused by women's racing".

Yes, a perfectly valid point. So perhaps what women's bike racing really needs are more women who ride bikes and / or want to follow women's bike racing. That said, I would bet that most 'people' who follow bike racing are male.

I do still have a bit of difficulty seeing women's RR as being a truly 'elite' sport though, with possibly a few exceptions. OK, so they are the best women around, but in my mind to be a genuinely elite sport the general level of competition need to be at a significantly higher level than that of everyday males for whom riding a bike is a hobby. In some sports, such as competition climbing, the top women climb at a level way above the typical male 'punter'. The same is probably true for many other sports from long-distance running to tennis. Unfortunately it is not yet true of cycling.

No_Ta_Doctor

I actually think it's far more simple.

Cycling is about suffering. It's gladiatorial. When we watch an alpine stage with two riders battling it out and we see one grimacing we give our collective thumbs down: attack him, dispatch him now.

Yes, there's plenty of tactics and not every race features epic heroic feats of endurance, but it's those feats that are at the heart of cycling.

I think that's actually quite hard to market if it's women doing it, however good they are.

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Why do you say "people do not get enthused" about women's racing? It is almost certain women will see the speed and time of elite women cyclists, which they can compare to their own times, and feel impressed by it. Woman likely feel like men do when men see how much faster elite pro males can go than they can. You could say some men don't get enthused by women's racing but not "people don't get enthused by women's racing".

Yes, a perfectly valid point. So perhaps what women's bike racing really needs are more women who ride bikes and / or want to follow women's bike racing. That said, I would bet that most 'people' who follow bike racing are male.

I do still have a bit of difficulty seeing women's RR as being a truly 'elite' sport though, with possibly a few exceptions. OK, so they are the best women around, but in my mind to be a genuinely elite sport the general level of competition need to be at a significantly higher level than that of everyday males for whom riding a bike is a hobby. In some sports, such as competition climbing, the top women climb at a level way above the typical male 'punter'. The same is probably true for many other sports from long-distance running to tennis. Unfortunately it is not yet true of cycling.

yes, you have a bit of difficulty seeing women's RR as being a truly elite sport because you are a man and are not enthused by it the way women are

No_Ta_Doctor

Dave_1 wrote:

yes, you have a bit of difficulty seeing women's RR as being a truly elite sport because you are a man and are not enthused by it the way women are

Isn't that a problem?

Men's racing is followed by fans of both sexes. If women's racing is only ever going to appeal to women then it's cut half the market out (more if we actually count up how many of either sex watch cycling).