Power meters in pro racing

redvision

Above The Cows wrote:

redvision wrote:

FFS I never said the pm sets it I said the coaches set the power the rider needs to stick to.

You do realise that cyclists are human beings not machines and that this idea that the coaches set the power the rider needs to stick to requires the rider to actually be able to do that and that it is not as easy as you make out, there are biophysical and external factors at play. They're not racing on a turbo with a computer program.

Indeed but then how do you account for Tom Dumoulin saying that he didn't need to worry about what anyone did on the first big mountain (i can't remember which stage it was) as his coaches had worked out the exact wattage he needed to produce to get up the climb and exactly how many minutes it would take.

If that isn't controlled racing I don't know what is.

above_the_cows

Honestly I don't know what cycling fans want. Excitement, but not this kind of excitement, attacks but not those kind of attacks, data but not this data, panache but not panache. My cats are more consistent.

And I don't understand the notion that riding within yourself is some new, crazy aarsed idea. Don't most of us with any sense do that, who goes mental for the first 10k of their ride knowing they have another 90k to go? It's like the twunt who blew passed me at the bottom of Alpe d'Huez thinking he was a 14 stone Marco Pantani. I wasn't surprised to find him chundering at the 18th hairpin with only another 17 to go...

kingstongraham

redvision wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

redvision wrote:

FFS I never said the pm sets it I said the coaches set the power the rider needs to stick to.

You do realise that cyclists are human beings not machines and that this idea that the coaches set the power the rider needs to stick to requires the rider to actually be able to do that and that it is not as easy as you make out, there are biophysical and external factors at play. They're not racing on a turbo with a computer program.

Indeed but then how do you account for Tom Dumoulin saying that he didn't need to worry about what anyone did on the first big mountain (i can't remember which stage it was) as his coaches had worked out the exact wattage he needed to produce to get up the climb and exactly how many minutes it would take.

If that isn't controlled racing I don't know what is.

Whether those numbers are right is very much dependent on what the race was like up to that mountain.

bobmcstuff

RichN95 wrote:

How easy is it to ride to a steady wattage anyway? I've never used a power meter but I imagine that trying to keep at say 300W is quite difficult and would require concentration best used elsewhere.

Not that hard really*, it would just be very difficult to manage any surges if you were riding in a group.

Normally you'd have 3-5 second smoothing on (as the raw data is very spiky). If you were targeting 300 it is fine to be a few watts higher or lower, so it would be pretty doable to stay in a 5-10 watt range. It gets harder on uneven climbs though.

As mentioned above you learn what 300 watts feel like pretty quick anyway (vomity suffering for me). But this is where it gets interesting, when you're knackered it can feel a lot harder to get the same watts and I imagine this effect can only be magnified after 3 weeks.



*for a pro, personally I could do it for maybe 3-5 minutes before I had a really bad time.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

Indeed but then how do you account for Tom Dumoulin saying that he didn't need to worry about what anyone did on the first big mountain (i can't remember which stage it was) as his coaches had worked out the exact wattage he needed to produce to get up the climb and exactly how many minutes it would take.

If that isn't controlled racing I don't know what is.

He also correctly predicted the exact place Froome would attack. It did him sod all use though.

It's not power meters you are objecting to, what you are really objecting to is common sense.

above_the_cows

KingstonGraham wrote:

redvision wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

redvision wrote:

FFS I never said the pm sets it I said the coaches set the power the rider needs to stick to.

You do realise that cyclists are human beings not machines and that this idea that the coaches set the power the rider needs to stick to requires the rider to actually be able to do that and that it is not as easy as you make out, there are biophysical and external factors at play. They're not racing on a turbo with a computer program.

Indeed but then how do you account for Tom Dumoulin saying that he didn't need to worry about what anyone did on the first big mountain (i can't remember which stage it was) as his coaches had worked out the exact wattage he needed to produce to get up the climb and exactly how many minutes it would take.

If that isn't controlled racing I don't know what is.

Whether those numbers are right is very much dependent on what the race was like up to that mountain.

It's also Tom answering a question about what he needs to do to climb a mountain in a particular time, he could also know he could climb a mountain in a particular time if he goes at a particular speed. It is hardly revelatory or some new-fangled piece of sorcery.

What Tom's power to climb time up Etna doesn't do is tell him anything about what other people will do, Tom might get up Etna in X amount of time, but what about other people?

It doesn't tell you that Chavez is up the road after being in a break and Yates is going to attack and bridge over to him, that Chavez and Yates are going to come in 1-2 on the stage and that Tom is going to lose time to Yates.

slowbike

I don't think lack of PM would make much difference - it may help some riders in pacing themselves when everyone around them is going bananas (forwards or backwards) - but most of that can be done on feel anyway.

TD didn't benefit from the PM when froome went off did he? Or the following day when he was trying to break away from Froome to get some time back.... similarly, Froome may have used the PM to pace his solo attack - but he didn't do that closing down the attacks from TD the following day.

I think race radios play a huge part in controlling the race - perhaps they should consider restricting radios to just between the riders with team cars just being able to receive or do away with them altogether... - then it'll be harder for the team cars to call the shots and update the riders on what's going on. If just the riders had radios then there would be more impetus for each team to get a rider in any break - just so they can keep tabs on what's going on - puts more pressure on the riders and we all know how hard it is to think when you're putting everything into your legs ...

shirley_basso

But then they would be less likely to let a breakaway get away, which damages the opportunity for smaller teams.

larkim

Are small team breakaways a new feature since radios were introduced?

shirley_basso

I guess if everyone on the road knows who's ahead they are more relaxed. Means less concentrating (and maybe getting it wrong) if you're personally having to note who goes away. Plus without radios, UK teams would be reliant on UK TV - Eurosport, and therefore Kirby, which would be disastrous for identifying anything.

larkim

I'd go for more restrictions on radios before I restricted gadgets on the bike to give direct rider feedback. After all, those same gadgets are available for every recreational or local competitive rider, so it would be odd for riders to come through their riding experience and then have to drop it for the elite races.

slowbike

I think I'd prefer a selective use of radios - not a complete ban.

if the team cars couldn't transmit to the riders then you wouldn't have the DSs spelling out game plans on the go - unless they earmarked a rider to sit with the team car and relay the info forward. So there wouldn't be feeds from who is in the break, how fast they're going or how well they're working togther - unless you had a man in the break to feed it back (and you were in range). You could still have the team cars being able to hear their riders - so the riders can request items or ask for directions (then send a man back - or I'm sure they'd have other ways of passing info out - I can think of a few now)

Would it stop the smaller teams getting away? It would make the peleton more nervous sure, they'd have to watch who went off - nothing to stop them relaying that back to the team car and getting updates from the team car via a messenger.

You want more exciting racing? Is it exciting watching a breakaway go up the road -knowing the GC teams aren't interested and will just pace themselves with their immediate rivals - or knowing the sprint teams will time it to catch them in the last few KMs (most of the time)

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

Indeed but then how do you account for Tom Dumoulin saying that he didn't need to worry about what anyone did on the first big mountain (i can't remember which stage it was) as his coaches had worked out the exact wattage he needed to produce to get up the climb and exactly how many minutes it would take.

If that isn't controlled racing I don't know what is.

He also correctly predicted the exact place Froome would attack. It did him sod all use though.

It's not power meters you are objecting to, what you are really objecting to is common sense.

No, not at all. I'm not objecting to power meters, i use one and know how beneficial they are. What i am saying is i think racing would be more interesting, more enjoyable and more natural if power meters were not in the pro races.
If riders attacked on feel rather than data then there would always be the increased excitement of will he stay away until the finish or will he blow a gasket. Plus it then puts the same question to the chasers - do they chase for fear he could have the legs to win, or do they sit back and hope he blows up before the finish.

At the moment power meters mean that if anyone does jump off the front the chasers can just look down at their pm data and hold a tempo close to their ftp, knowing that the man off the front won't be able to maintain it and they will gradually pull him back. Sky have mastered this tactic. They ride to power and at such an output no-one stands much of a chance of attacking and staying away.

cygnet

Didn't USPS ring up Ferrari to ask whether so-and-so could maintain their attack and then just ride at a tempo to bring them back? It's not a power meter tactic.

pblakeney

I am a self confessed luddite and other than producing boring racing I don't see the point.
Just how did Yates feel as he blew up just for a device to be saying, come on you should be producing ***watts get your finger out.

rick_chasey

Slowbike wrote:

I think I'd prefer a selective use of radios - not a complete ban.

if the team cars couldn't transmit to the riders then you wouldn't have the DSs spelling out game plans on the go - unless they earmarked a rider to sit with the team car and relay the info forward. So there wouldn't be feeds from who is in the break, how fast they're going or how well they're working togther - unless you had a man in the break to feed it back (and you were in range). You could still have the team cars being able to hear their riders - so the riders can request items or ask for directions (then send a man back - or I'm sure they'd have other ways of passing info out - I can think of a few now)

Would it stop the smaller teams getting away? It would make the peloton more nervous sure, they'd have to watch who went off - nothing to stop them relaying that back to the team car and getting updates from the team car via a messenger.

You want more exciting racing? Is it exciting watching a breakaway go up the road -knowing the GC teams aren't interested and will just pace themselves with their immediate rivals - or knowing the sprint teams will time it to catch them in the last few KMs (most of the time)

I don't think DS' give massive game plans over radio.

When we saw bans for radios all racing under WT level, it didn't change much apart from specific instances, and they relate to rider information.

For example, your rider is in the leading group in the final 20km of a one dayer, along with one other rider, who is a faster finisher.

behind you have another rider in a group of 2, but he is faster than all of them on paper, but is actually swinging and missing turns because he's so pooped.

With a radio, the DS could tell the lead rider whether to wait or to push on because his teammate is pooped.

Without a radio, the rider will have to make a tactical decision himself with less than perfect information.

Now, it's a question whether that makes for better or worse racing.

I tend to find the "fog of war" rewards more attacking riding, but that's just my take.

There are also instances with mechanicals etc that fewer teammates will be aware of lead rider misshaps and that, arguably is a real drawback of having no radios.

redvision

PBlakeney wrote:

I am a self confessed luddite and other than producing boring racing I don't see the point.
Just how did Yates feel as he blew up just for a device to be saying, come on you should be producing ***watts get your finger out.

But why did Yates blow up? Because he pushed too hard the first two weeks.
On his win on stage 15 he said his legs had felt good so he decided to attack. He wasn't concerned about his power data, he just wanted to attack and gain time for the TT. Froome maintained his discipline, following the power figure his coaches had set. The following days, Yates falls apart but Froome continues as per his power output plan and takes the overall.

The attack by Yates was unexpected and so exciting, but i fear he will be far more disciplined in the future and will ride specifically to power like Froome does to avoid a repeat of his final week in the Giro. Which is a real shame and just makes my point really.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

If riders attacked on feel rather than data then there would always be the increased excitement of will he stay away until the finish or will he blow a gasket. Plus it then puts the same question to the chasers - do they chase for fear he could have the legs to win, or do they sit back and hope he blows up before the finish.

At the moment power meters mean that if anyone does jump off the front the chasers can just look down at their pm data and hold a tempo close to their ftp, knowing that the man off the front won't be able to maintain it and they will gradually pull him back. Sky have mastered this tactic. They ride to power and at such an output no-one stands much of a chance of attacking and staying away.

Humans aren't machines. They don't operate the same every day. A power meter won't tell a rider how good their form is and it won't tell them how good their rivals' form is.

pblakeney

redvision wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I am a self confessed luddite and other than producing boring racing I don't see the point.
Just how did Yates feel as he blew up just for a device to be saying, come on you should be producing ***watts get your finger out.

But why did Yates blow up? Because he pushed too hard the first two weeks.
On his win on stage 15 he said his legs had felt good so he decided to attack. He wasn't concerned about his power data, he just wanted to attack and gain time for the TT. Froome maintained his discipline, following the power figure his coaches had set. The following days, Yates falls apart but Froome continues as per his power output plan and takes the overall.

The attack by Yates was unexpected and so exciting, but i fear he will be far more disciplined in the future and will ride specifically to power like Froome does to avoid a repeat of his final week in the Giro. Which is a real shame and just makes my point really.

Also reiterates my first point.

DeVlaeminck

I can't see Yates not trying to gain time in case he fatigues. His attacking wasn't fruitless it was mostly well timed and productive. If Yates isn't aggressive he'll be a nobody - he doesn't have the TT to be conservative.

larkim

redvision wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I am a self confessed luddite and other than producing boring racing I don't see the point.
Just how did Yates feel as he blew up just for a device to be saying, come on you should be producing ***watts get your finger out.

Froome maintained his discipline, following the power figure his coaches had set. The following days, Yates falls apart but Froome continues as per his power output plan and takes the overall.

You're at it again - you know this, how?

ShutupJens

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I can't see Yates not trying to gain time in case he fatigues. His attacking wasn't fruitless it was mostly well timed and productive. If Yates isn't aggressive he'll be a nobody - he doesn't have the TT to be conservative.

Precisely, he was no different to Froome in that he had a plan for the race. His problem was perhaps that the plan was wrong, or maybe just that he didn't have the legs to pick up seconds here and there while the minutes are gained in the last three stages.

Radios and PMs don't control the racing. If a rider is in a situation where he has to ask on the radio what to do, chances are they are already too late to respond. A man driving a car, trying to follow on the radios and watching a tiny television is not controlling 8 riders in real time like its pro cycling manager, it just doesn't work like that

r0bh

redvision wrote:

The attack by Yates was unexpected and so exciting

And in your opinion Froome's attack was expected and unexciting? Just because he may have used power numbers to aid its success?

redvision

larkim wrote:

redvision wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I am a self confessed luddite and other than producing boring racing I don't see the point.
Just how did Yates feel as he blew up just for a device to be saying, come on you should be producing ***watts get your finger out.

Froome maintained his discipline, following the power figure his coaches had set. The following days, Yates falls apart but Froome continues as per his power output plan and takes the overall.

You're at it again - you know this, how?

Because DB and Froome himself saying they had the data and Froome would ride to the set program to make sure he peaked on week 3.

Also, after his big attack from 80km out DB said on tv that he wasn't surprised because it was all planned and Froome was riding to the plan, so they knew his legs would be fine until the finish line - which i am interpreting to mean he was riding to preplanned power targets.

rick_chasey

redvision wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I am a self confessed luddite and other than producing boring racing I don't see the point.
Just how did Yates feel as he blew up just for a device to be saying, come on you should be producing ***watts get your finger out.

But why did Yates blow up? Because he pushed too hard the first two weeks.

You don't really know that.

He might have blown up anyway.

Should he have raced the race differently? I'm not really sure.

At the time he needed time into Dumolin into the TT, and, having held onto pink, holding onto Dumolin's wheel wasn't looking particularly difficult.

Dumolin was worried he couldn't match yates in the second rest day; he wasn't really worried about Sky per se, other than the 'nothing to lose' tactical threat.

Coming out of the TT we all thought Yates had it in the bag and he had enough in the legs to defend in the final week.

No-one (and really no-one) predicted a 40 minute collapse.

bobmcstuff

redvision wrote:

larkim wrote:

redvision wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I am a self confessed luddite and other than producing boring racing I don't see the point.
Just how did Yates feel as he blew up just for a device to be saying, come on you should be producing ***watts get your finger out.

Froome maintained his discipline, following the power figure his coaches had set. The following days, Yates falls apart but Froome continues as per his power output plan and takes the overall.

You're at it again - you know this, how?

Because DB and Froome himself saying they had the data and Froome would ride to the set program to make sure he peaked on week 3.

Also, after his big attack from 80km out DB said on tv that he wasn't surprised because it was all planned and Froome was riding to the plan, so they knew his legs would be fine until the finish line.

I don't believe for a second that Froome's time losses in the first week or so were part of a plan. He may have planned to strike the decisive blow in week 3 but I would bet any money that he was not planning to have to come from that far back.

DB also said that it's one thing to make a plan and another to execute on it.

redvision

Rick Chasey wrote:

redvision wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I am a self confessed luddite and other than producing boring racing I don't see the point.
Just how did Yates feel as he blew up just for a device to be saying, come on you should be producing ***watts get your finger out.

But why did Yates blow up? Because he pushed too hard the first two weeks.

You don't really know that.

He might have blown up anyway.

Should he have raced the race differently? I'm not really sure.

At the time he needed time into Dumolin into the TT, and, having held onto pink, holding onto Dumolin's wheel wasn't looking particularly difficult.

Dumolin was worried he couldn't match yates in the second rest day; he wasn't really worried about Sky per se, other than the 'nothing to lose' tactical threat.

Coming out of the TT we all thought Yates had it in the bag and he had enough in the legs to defend in the final week.

No-one (and really no-one) predicted a 40 minute collapse.

True. That said, TD is a good example of my argument as he never responds to big attacks because he cant. What he does do, and does very well, is ride to power knowing that by doing so he will reel in the attacker - which makes for boring riding (IMO)

above_the_cows

redvision wrote:

larkim wrote:

redvision wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I am a self confessed luddite and other than producing boring racing I don't see the point.
Just how did Yates feel as he blew up just for a device to be saying, come on you should be producing ***watts get your finger out.

Froome maintained his discipline, following the power figure his coaches had set. The following days, Yates falls apart but Froome continues as per his power output plan and takes the overall.

You're at it again - you know this, how?

Because DB and Froome himself saying they had the data and Froome would ride to the set program to make sure he peaked on week 3.

Also, after his big attack from 80km out DB said on tv that he wasn't surprised because it was all planned and Froome was riding to the plan, so they knew his legs would be fine until the finish line - which i am interpreting to mean he was riding to preplanned power targets.

That's as maybe but Froome's numbers and no amount of planning with those numbers can account for Dumoulin loosing the race on the descent of the Finestre because he just happened to have Chicken-Poop Pinot, Old Lady Reichenbach and two warring Young Riders as anchors.

redvision

Above The Cows wrote:

redvision wrote:

larkim wrote:

redvision wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I am a self confessed luddite and other than producing boring racing I don't see the point.
Just how did Yates feel as he blew up just for a device to be saying, come on you should be producing ***watts get your finger out.

Froome maintained his discipline, following the power figure his coaches had set. The following days, Yates falls apart but Froome continues as per his power output plan and takes the overall.

You're at it again - you know this, how?

Because DB and Froome himself saying they had the data and Froome would ride to the set program to make sure he peaked on week 3.

Also, after his big attack from 80km out DB said on tv that he wasn't surprised because it was all planned and Froome was riding to the plan, so they knew his legs would be fine until the finish line - which i am interpreting to mean he was riding to preplanned power targets.

That's as maybe but Froome's numbers and no amount of planning with those numbers can account for Dumoulin loosing the race on the descent of the Finestre because he just happened to have Chicken-Poop Pinot, Old Lady Reichenbach and two warring Young Riders as anchors.

No, i agree, but TD had the same ride to power tactic as Froome. He always does. Hence why in the Giro he didnt recce every climb, instead trusting his coaches to figure out what power output he needed to hit.

takethehighroad

I don't see Tom's way of riding as a bad way necessarily, just a different one. If it creates a race like the Giro this year then I'm all for it!

Granted it's not the most exciting, but it makes for an interesting dynamic as in previous years, once a rider was dropped he was dropped. Now, it's not so clear cut.

And as has been mentioned numerous times, it's one thing planning what power you wanted to ride at, it's an entirely different thing to actually ride at that power.