tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1564958057737541664.post4918585323913695142..comments2024-02-14T17:11:22.168-08:00Comments on On Bicycles, and.... what else is there?: Voeckler on Plateau de Beille: 2004 and 2011djconnelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01484858820878605035noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1564958057737541664.post-86727128636853592102011-07-27T06:19:20.739-07:002011-07-27T06:19:20.739-07:00I agree ±5% are reasonable error bars on VAM estim...I agree ±5% are reasonable error bars on VAM estimation. That's consistent with the <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o-SLB3xjZwQ/TiqEMDC5CHI/AAAAAAAACEc/qgyVjFPULD4/s1600/Power+to+weight+ratios+Alp+d%2527Huez.jpg" rel="nofollow">Sports Science chart</a> for assumed 2.5 m/s wind speed (which is fast due to ground shear @ 1 meter).<br /><br />On the weakness of TSS models... TSS tries to do too much with too little, I agree.djconnelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01484858820878605035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1564958057737541664.post-21178850819332221572011-07-26T14:27:04.414-07:002011-07-26T14:27:04.414-07:00Well, remember that I expressly asked Gary in 2002...Well, remember that I expressly asked Gary in 2002 and 2003 to talk about the conditions and he didn't volunteer that the winds were different. This is consistent with what I've noticed from my own VE testing -- human perception of wind is way way less sensitive than the effects discernible from looking at the actual power files. That you don't remember it being especially windy while climbing in Europe is not inconsistent with that.<br /><br />Two more things: first, the difference between Sanchez's VAM and the Armstrong and Pantani VAMs is about 7.5%. If we could see a 6% difference in VAM for Gary for the same watts and watts/kg, I think that speaks to the precision of the VAM measure for this particular purpose. <br /><br />Second, I showed several years ago on rbr that Armstrong's estimated watts/kg on the final climb at the end of a long multi-col stage was the same as the estimated watts/kg for the next day's short climbing ITT with no preceding cols. I think the number of preceding cols can be a red herring -- it depends on the effort spent climbing those preceding cols. (This is vaguely related to why I think the current models of TSS inadequately capture fatigue and recovery, and why I think queuing or renewal models may be more appropriate).Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08336037087994407943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1564958057737541664.post-17241436488194738782011-07-26T11:59:16.464-07:002011-07-26T11:59:16.464-07:00Thanks on the spelling correction!
Agreed: wind r...Thanks on the spelling correction!<br /><br />Agreed: wind resistance is a large issue. Yet the pattern remains that hills are clearly being climbed slower now than they were the years up to 2009. San Bruno is particularly prone to winds: they have a huge influence there. There's a nice chart <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o-SLB3xjZwQ/TiqEMDC5CHI/AAAAAAAACEc/qgyVjFPULD4/s1600/Power+to+weight+ratios+Alp+d%2527Huez.jpg" rel="nofollow">here</a> from the Sports Science Blog. On many hills, however, the mountains diminish the ground-level wind speed, and wild variations in VAM are not observed. I don't recall ever encountering strong winds when climbing in Europe, although my experience is limited.<br /><br />Samuel Sanchez was fastest up L'Alpe d'Huez this year on what was historically a very short stage, yet his VAM was in the 1580 range, well below the 1700+ numbers we saw in the Pantani-Armstrong era.djconnelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01484858820878605035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1564958057737541664.post-77790702029001855692011-07-26T11:29:46.752-07:002011-07-26T11:29:46.752-07:00BTW, it's Plateau de Beille, not Belle.BTW, it's Plateau de Beille, not Belle.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08336037087994407943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1564958057737541664.post-64827709048601984672011-07-26T11:28:44.179-07:002011-07-26T11:28:44.179-07:00Gary Gellin on San Bruno Mountain: 2002 and 2003. ...<a href="http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/sbhc/sbhc.html" rel="nofollow">Gary Gellin on San Bruno Mountain: 2002 and 2003</a>. <br /><br />In particular, recall that his time in 2003 was 6% lower than in 2002 so his 2003 VAM was 6% higher -- but since we actually have his SRM files we know power and watts/kg were almost exactly the same. I'm pretty sure you and I discussed this back in 2003. The implications for using small differences in VAM or estimated watts/kg to determine "peloton cleanliness" should be clear.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08336037087994407943noreply@blogger.com