Outliers and Tony Martin
Comments
-
-
Thank you for your replies - all very interesting.
Hutch on Twitter also observed this; suggested the power difference between Martin and Wiggins was 10w, which is a pretty big margin at this level.
I do get it, but it's one of those things that no matter how rationally you explain, just seems illogical when you think about it too much. At an event featuring (some of) the very best riders in the world, how can #1 beat #2 by so much.
Perhaps the answer to the question, therefore, is really in the statement: it's unusual to see lots of similiar ability riders in the same event each at the same level of form.0 -
Thanks for the insight.Rick Chasey wrote:You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Comparing a TT with tennis? Clutching at straws IMHO.
58t vs 56t chainring is irrelevant, Cancellara would use 58t if it worked for him. Gain from an aero bottle is difficult to quantify, depends on placement and also how much time you spend drinking (out of aero position). Not that you need much fluid in an hour. Phinney was 5 secs off Martin's 58:58 in 2012 but +2:08 yesterday. So has Phinney gone backwards or has Martin found even more speed (not necessarily more watts)? I don't believe the 'dropped bottle' explanation. You don't get 7-10% dehydrated that quickly, his split times were consistent and didn't drop off rapidly.
The margin back to 2nd and 3rd was small, about 1.2%. An individual's performances vary by more than that, even at the highest level. Riders may target this event with varying degrees of preparation and with a very different season behind them. Was the ToB ideal for Brad? Did Cancellara's participation in the Vuelta hurt his chances? How did each of the medallists' condition and prep compare to the Olympic time trial? The course probably suited Martin a little better than Wiggins or Cancellara. So many variables, we just don't know.
Looking at the field in general, participants vary hugely in their dedication to this discipline. Most are road racers who don't necessarily spend enough time on/have the same enthusiasm for the TT bike, as Nicolas Roche has admitted in the past. They're not going to compare well against the specialists.
When racing flat-out on your own for an hour your mind f*cks with you something chronic. Everyone deals with that differently, it could be another factor to consider.Aspire not to have more, but to be more.0 -
Simon E wrote:Comparing a TT with tennis? Clutching at straws IMHO.
58t vs 56t chainring is irrelevant, Cancellara would use 58t if it worked for him. Gain from an aero bottle is difficult to quantify, depends on placement and also how much time you spend drinking (out of aero position). Not that you need much fluid in an hour. Phinney was 5 secs off Martin's 58:58 in 2012 but +2:08 yesterday. So has Phinney gone backwards or has Martin found even more speed (not necessarily more watts)? I don't believe the 'dropped bottle' explanation. You don't get 7-10% dehydrated that quickly, his split times were consistent and didn't drop off rapidly.
The margin back to 2nd and 3rd was small, about 1.2%. An individual's performances vary by more than that, even at the highest level. Riders may target this event with varying degrees of preparation and with a very different season behind them. Was the ToB ideal for Brad? Did Cancellara's participation in the Vuelta hurt his chances? How did each of the medallists' condition and prep compare to the Olympic time trial? The course probably suited Martin a little better than Wiggins or Cancellara. So many variables, we just don't know.
Looking at the field in general, participants vary hugely in their dedication to this discipline. Most are road racers who don't necessarily spend enough time on/have the same enthusiasm for the TT bike, as Nicolas Roche has admitted in the past. They're not going to compare well against the specialists.
When racing flat-out on your own for an hour your mind f*cks with you something chronic. Everyone deals with that differently, it could be another factor to consider.
He didn't say 7-10% dehydrated. A small amount (1-2%) of dehydration will have a significant impact on power output/performance.0 -
feltkuota wrote:Simon E wrote:Comparing a TT with tennis? Clutching at straws IMHO.
58t vs 56t chainring is irrelevant, Cancellara would use 58t if it worked for him. Gain from an aero bottle is difficult to quantify, depends on placement and also how much time you spend drinking (out of aero position). Not that you need much fluid in an hour. Phinney was 5 secs off Martin's 58:58 in 2012 but +2:08 yesterday. So has Phinney gone backwards or has Martin found even more speed (not necessarily more watts)? I don't believe the 'dropped bottle' explanation. You don't get 7-10% dehydrated that quickly, his split times were consistent and didn't drop off rapidly.
The margin back to 2nd and 3rd was small, about 1.2%. An individual's performances vary by more than that, even at the highest level. Riders may target this event with varying degrees of preparation and with a very different season behind them. Was the ToB ideal for Brad? Did Cancellara's participation in the Vuelta hurt his chances? How did each of the medallists' condition and prep compare to the Olympic time trial? The course probably suited Martin a little better than Wiggins or Cancellara. So many variables, we just don't know.
Looking at the field in general, participants vary hugely in their dedication to this discipline. Most are road racers who don't necessarily spend enough time on/have the same enthusiasm for the TT bike, as Nicolas Roche has admitted in the past. They're not going to compare well against the specialists.
When racing flat-out on your own for an hour your mind f*cks with you something chronic. Everyone deals with that differently, it could be another factor to consider.
He didn't say 7-10% dehydrated. A small amount (1-2%) of dehydration will have a significant impact on power output/performance.
I think I must be 11%.0 -
Here's another explanation for the gap on this occasion....
Michael Hutchinson @Doctor_Hutch 4m
A well placed source suggests that Wiggo's front wheel was in back-to-front in the TT. Looks a lot like it to me.
<then a link to this picture>
http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/uci-ro ... tos/280642
I wonder what that cost him in watts... and his mechanic in dead arms?0 -
nic_77 wrote:Here's another explanation for the gap on this occasion....
Michael Hutchinson @Doctor_Hutch 4m
A well placed source suggests that Wiggo's front wheel was in back-to-front in the TT. Looks a lot like it to me.
<then a link to this picture>
http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/uci-ro ... tos/280642
I wonder what that cost him in watts... and his mechanic in dead arms?
When Chris Hoy had his final attempt to get the kilo world record at altitude before focusing on other events after it was dropped from the Olympics he had his front wheel on backwards too. Missed out on the record by something like 0.05 second0 -
What exactly are we looking at in the picture to determine it was backwards?0
-
Apparently it's:
"Michael Hutchinson @Doctor_Hutch 2h
@Revellator By jove, he's got it...! yes, aerofoil section spokes."
As far as I can tell, this means that the spokes aren't symmetrical - so they're more aerodynamic when facing in the right direction.0 -
5 seconds is big(ish) over a 5km TT, but we're talking 57k here............less than a second a km is not a lot really...............maybe the difference of where/how you hold your head.........ie aerodynamics............0
-
Going back to the original outliers theme of thread - we've already discussed how, at the extreme end of the bell curve, results are often not closely grouped together. Certainly the more extreme you get the more disparity you will find.
Anyway, this contradicts the current fad of 'trial by powermeter'. The advocates of that expect that there is a celling to human capabilities and that there should be a convergence of the top performers to a theoretical peak performance (eg 6.2 w/kg). Yet statistics consistently show us that is a false assumption.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
No idea. But there's few who know more about this sort of thing than Dr. Hutch. (I guessing his 'well placed source' may be Wiggins himself)dougzz wrote:What exactly are we looking at in the picture to determine it was backwards?
well compare it with Kiryienka's presumably at least similar Team Sky supplied bike and wheels.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/uci-road-world-championships-2013/elite-men-time-trial/photos/280683
it looks like the spoke is supposed to have a flatter edge on one side, with a more scimitar style curve where it meets the rim on its other.
but Wiggos certainly looks to be setup in reverse to Kiriyienkas, so one of thems at least wrong
and by the other assortment of spoke setups, most seem to favour the way Kiriyienkas spokes were facing not Wiggos. 0 -
Surely a spoke is facing backwards as often as it is forwards?
Or maybe it has something to do with the interaction of the fork legs too.I'm left handed, if that matters.0 -
A point on a rolling wheel describes a shape called, would you believe, a cycloid.k-dog wrote:Surely a spoke is facing backwards as often as it is forwards?
This should make it clear that spokes only ever go 'forwards', whichever way they're facing when you look at a stationary wheel.Is the gorilla tired yet?0 -
Badly explained but hopefully you'll get what I'm trying to say. No idea how this plays out with the aerodynamics, but isn't the individual spoke in effect decelerating and accelerating relative to the forward motion of the bike, depending on whether it's in the top to bottom half, or the bottom to top half, I know it's always traveling forward within the circle, but relative to the outside the forward motion of the bike means sometime it's facing backwards relative to the forward travel.ChrisAOnABike wrote:
A point on a rolling wheel describes a shape called, would you believe, a cycloid.k-dog wrote:Surely a spoke is facing backwards as often as it is forwards?
This should make it clear that spokes only ever go 'forwards', whichever way they're facing when you look at a stationary wheel.0 -
dougzz wrote:
Badly explained but hopefully you'll get what I'm trying to say. No idea how this plays out with the aerodynamics, but isn't the individual spoke in effect decelerating and accelerating relative to the forward motion of the bike, depending on whether it's in the top to bottom half, or the bottom to top half, I know it's always traveling forward within the circle, but relative to the outside the forward motion of the bike means sometime it's facing backwards relative to the forward travel.ChrisAOnABike wrote:
A point on a rolling wheel describes a shape called, would you believe, a cycloid.k-dog wrote:Surely a spoke is facing backwards as often as it is forwards?
This should make it clear that spokes only ever go 'forwards', whichever way they're facing when you look at a stationary wheel.
The leading edge of the spoke is always the same edge though, whichever way you look at it.0 -
Exactly. Which way it's facing is irrelevant. The leading edge is always moving in the same direction relative to the air it's going through.ALIHISGREAT wrote:dougzz wrote:
...but relative to the outside the forward motion of the bike means sometime it's facing backwards relative to the forward travel.ChrisAOnABike wrote:
A point on a rolling wheel describes a shape called, would you believe, a cycloid.k-dog wrote:Surely a spoke is facing backwards as often as it is forwards?
This should make it clear that spokes only ever go 'forwards', whichever way they're facing when you look at a stationary wheel.
The leading edge of the spoke is always the same edge though, whichever way you look at it.Is the gorilla tired yet?0 -
Er - the gap is exactly what statistics predicts, that's what a bell curve means.
The numbers show the % of population under the curve at each standard deviation. Basically as you get further from the average, the population gets sparser and sparser until towards the extremes the population is very sparse indeed. A very sparse population means that the population is therefore very spaced out. The same would be true at the other very slow extreme. It doesn't matter what the population size is, it is always true.
You assumption in saying that they should be very close together is based on the assumption that there is a linear distribution of population, there is not.0 -
Back to the original question.
Er - the gap is exactly what statistics predicts, that's what a bell curve means.
The numbers show the % of population under the curve at each standard deviation. Basically as you get further from the average, the population gets sparser and sparser until towards the extremes the population is very sparse indeed. A very sparse population means that the population is therefore very spaced out. The same would be true at the other very slow extreme. It doesn't matter what the population size is, it is always true.
You assumption in saying that they should be very close together is based on the assumption that there is a linear distribution of population, there is not.0 -
^I'm not sure your interpretation of that is correct. There are less people at each end but surely they are also closer together? It's not linear but that doesn't matter.I'm left handed, if that matters.0
-
Sorry for duplicate post - think I pressed back button - as you can tell more of a lurker than a contributor :-)0
-
The vertical lines on the curve are spaced equally apart. So assume the standard deviation was 2 seconds in this case (standard deviation is a measure of the average difference from the average if that makes sense), and that 100 people did the event. Statistics predicts that 68 people were within 4 seconds of the average time - 34 quicker and 34 slower. At the extremes 2.5 of people were within between 4 and 6 seconds quicker. So these people will have a much greater average time difference between them than those in the middle of the curve.0
-
ChrisAOnABike wrote:
Exactly. Which way it's facing is irrelevant. The leading edge is always moving in the same direction relative to the air it's going through.ALIHISGREAT wrote:dougzz wrote:
...but relative to the outside the forward motion of the bike means sometime it's facing backwards relative to the forward travel.ChrisAOnABike wrote:
A point on a rolling wheel describes a shape called, would you believe, a cycloid.k-dog wrote:Surely a spoke is facing backwards as often as it is forwards?
This should make it clear that spokes only ever go 'forwards', whichever way they're facing when you look at a stationary wheel.
The leading edge of the spoke is always the same edge though, whichever way you look at it.
Not if the spoke is a symmetric aerofoil: if you put the wheel in the wrong way round, the leading edge of the spoke will actually be the trailing edge of the aerofoil...0 -
The "curved" part of the carbon fork is supposed to be fron facing when you place the wheel in forks and the "pointed" part facing back. All to do with aerodynamics and turbulence apparently
I have similar wheel for the track. It may cost a couple of seconds over the TT distance but not 46 seconds, similar savings to helmets. 0 -
Well yes. The reason this came up was because people were talking about the drawbacks of putting the wheel in the wrong way round. If the aerofoil isn't the same shape relative to the airflow in both directions, it needs to go in the right way round!OCDuPalais wrote:ChrisAOnABike wrote:Which way it's facing is irrelevant. The leading edge is always moving in the same direction relative to the air it's going through.
Not if the spoke is a symmetric aerofoil: if you put the wheel in the wrong way round, the leading edge of the spoke will actually be the trailing edge of the aerofoil...
However, if you're using the term symmetric in the conventional sense (ie meaning not cambered), then I don't understand what you mean. It would make no sense to use a cambered aerofoil since it would generate lift at zero incidence, which is the last thing you want it to do.
And if you mean symmetric in the sense of "the same whichever way you spin the wheel", then I still don't get it - if it's symmetrical in that sense, then why would it make a difference which way the wheel goes in?
:?:Is the gorilla tired yet?0 -
If a spoke/wheel has been modelled in a particular orientation then it makes sense to fit it correctly. That some aero wheels have a forward direction indicates there is a reason for it - it could simply be interaction with the fork blades for example as they pass through only in one direction - the spokes/blades may have been modelled with that in mind.ChrisAOnABike wrote:
Exactly. Which way it's facing is irrelevant. The leading edge is always moving in the same direction relative to the air it's going through.ALIHISGREAT wrote:dougzz wrote:
...but relative to the outside the forward motion of the bike means sometime it's facing backwards relative to the forward travel.ChrisAOnABike wrote:
A point on a rolling wheel describes a shape called, would you believe, a cycloid.k-dog wrote:Surely a spoke is facing backwards as often as it is forwards?
This should make it clear that spokes only ever go 'forwards', whichever way they're facing when you look at a stationary wheel.
The leading edge of the spoke is always the same edge though, whichever way you look at it.
Wiggo would not have caught Martin with the wheel on the right way but it may have made his win over Canc a slither more comfortable.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0
