the DpW/kg analysis says:

not really

with the performance from

Nibali and Horner

still splitting bars on the cold wet stage

…

starting with the eW/kg

in standardized W/kg terms (for a Froome sized rider)

Nibali and Horner put up

5.9 W/kg (standardized)

with a spread of

5.8 – 5.9 W/kg (full draft – no draft condition)

Valverde

5.6 W/kg (5.6 – 5.7)

Rodriguez

5.8 W/kg (5.7 – 5.8)

and

Pozzovivo

5.6 W/kg (5.6 – 5.7)

given the rain and the extra weight in wet clothes

a second simulation adding 1 kg

basically adds 0.1 W/kg to the estimates FWIW

…

in more specific physiology terms

split bars indicates that the performance was

faster than what would be expected

of a clean rider with a VO2max of 90 ml/min/kg @ 23% efficiency

but

slower

than the same rider doped with the equivalent of 700 ml of blood

up to a VO2 max of 95 ml/kg/min @ 23% efficiency

…

using Horner again as our guinea pig

another way to look at the physiology of the performance

is to calculate the VO2max necessary pull of the performance

rerunning the W/kg estimate

specific to Horner’s height 1.8 meters

and published weight 63.5 kg

the simulator gives rider size specific estimates of

5.9 w/kg for the half draft condition

(5.8 – 6.0 for full – no draft)

the total power can then be broken down into

a critical power component

and

a reserve component

(critical power for simplicity can be thought of as the aerobic threshold and the reserve as the anaerobic contribution)

in Horner’s case

critical power contributes 5.7 w/kg

with the reserve contributing the remaining 0.3 w/kg

(note that the extra 0.1 w/kg with rounding)

once the critical power is isolated

the VO2 required to produce the wattage can be calculated

at 70 ml/min/kg

and assuming that critical power is 85% of VO2max

(note that Vaughters thinks 85% is low and provided me with lab data showing at least one rider hold 86% at lactate threshold)

the 70 ml/min/kg at altitude

works out to a sea level

VO2max of 91 ml/min/kg at an efficiency of 23%

…

as a recap

Horner’s performances so far

would have required sea level VO2 max of

Stage 8: 92

Stage 10: 97

Stage 14: 91

assuming 23 % efficiency and CP at @ 85% of VO2max

to perform at the level observed

if that level is regularly beyond the plausible limits of human physiology

then doping has to be considered a possibility

for perspective

running through the same exercise

on Vayer’s data set for Lemond

put the vast majority of his performances

below 90 ml/min/kg VO2 max 23% efficiency

or well within the limits of his known physiology.

* * *

quick disclosure things have gotten a bit obsessive lately

one of docs goals is to create an assumptionless model

like Scott Richards pVAM

but that can bridge to the W/kg estimates

and physiology based DpW/kg

(in a perfect world can’t have it all right?)

the ideal would be

to use the structure of w/kg estimates expressed in directly measurable terms

performance = (a) VAM + (b) V^3 + (a)(c) V

combined with the critical power model

performance = (d) 1/vClimb + (e) altitude

to get

(a) VAM + (b) V^3 + (a)(c) V = (d) 1/vClimb + (e) altitude

problem is that’s a whole lotta coeffiicients

(although some help might be on the way)

in the meantime

another way of looking at things

is that the relative contributions of

(a) VAM + (b) V^3 + (a)(c) V

to the total power

is gradient dependent

gradient = (a) VAM + (b) V^3 + (a)(c) V

so normalizing any of those for gradient

would not give total power

but tell us how total power is changing by change in component per gradient

turns out the relationship between VAM and Gradient

is not straight forward

(its not easy to manipulate one to straighten the curve)

on the other hand

the relationship between

V and gradient

actually

V = 1/gradient^1/2

is linear

so a simple transformation gives the new performance variable

VGRAD

which does a helluva a job looking like

W/kg

(note that the fudge factor reduces the variability in the data but that is fixed later)

with something that looks this promising

it makes sense to use the CP model structure

VGRAD = 1/vClimb + Altidude

run the OLS

and

viola (pronounced vee oh lah)

pVGRAD

an assumption less prediction tool

that should satisfy most of the critics of assumptions

as well as

having the “right” Critical Power model shape

ramping for the short climbs allowing analysis of the Vuelta climbs

and having the Critical Power model structure

(note the green is the CP component and the difference between the green and the blue is the reserve component)

for future integration with the Blood Dope Simulator

comparing it with the DpW/kg (historical model)

the one thing that jumps out is the magnitude of the residuals

about half of the DpW/kg

(due to the initial transformation)

to bring them equal just divide the pVGRAD output by 0.55

after having checked for biases

plotting DpW/kg and pVGRAD residuals against

Time, VAM, V, Altitdude, vCiimb, Distance etc

its clear that their is small variations between the two

but nothing skewing either data set

so over the course of several observations

they will both regress to the same relative mean

* * *

so basically way simpler

with all input directly measurable

* * *

veloclinic is the reincarnation of one of our favorite Twitter friends, @captaintbag1, whose tumblr blog posts were a kind of blank verse, Tecate-soaked haiku of truthiness that cut through the slick bullshit and to the very core of what is gloriously fucked up about the sport of cycling. Although the Cap may be gone (sort of), his Doctor tbag/Captain Hyde alter ego lives on, and we’re glad to share his pithy analysis here. 

Lest you think these are the idiot ramblings of a madman, we’d like you to know that the doc is a legitimate professional in the science of sports medicine, and a savant when it comes to doping analysis. You have been warned.

Nowadays Doc is much in demand as a legitimate authority-type commentator on the science of cycling performances, and his work has been featured in VeloNews, Outside online, and prominent sports medicine publications and symposia. His tumblr, in its current incarnation, may not be safe for cycling fans.

veloclinic is the reincarnation of one of our favorite Twitter friends, @captaintbag1, whose tumblr blog posts were a kind of blank verse, Tecate-soaked haiku of truthiness that cut through the slick bullshit and to the very core of what is gloriously fucked up about the sport of cycling. Although the Cap may be gone (sort of), his Doctor tbag/Captain Hyde alter ego lives on, and we’re glad to share his pithy analysis here. 

Lest you think these are the idiot ramblings of a madman, we’d like you to know that the doc is a legitimate professional in the science of sports medicine, and a savant when it comes to doping analysis. You have been warned.

Nowadays Doc is much in demand as a legitimate authority-type commentator on the science of cycling performances, and his work has been featured in VeloNews, Outside online, and prominent sports medicine publications and symposia. His tumblr, in its current incarnation, may not be safe for cycling fans.

Lest you think these are the idiot ramblings of a madman, we’d like you to know that the doc is a legitimate professional in the science of sports medicine, and a savant when it comes to doping analysis. You have been warned.

Follow @veloclinic on Twitter

 * * * * *

lets jus get straight to it:

Froome just put two DpVAM bars solidly up

on AX3 going

4.5% faster than the 2008-2013 GT baseline

and

1.9% faster than the 2002-2007 dopers

(based on the Scott Richards regressions)

time wise

our 2008-2013 model predicted a time of

24:16

our 2002-2007 model predicted a time of

23:41

Froome went

23:14

(3rd fastest of all time)

this would have put have put him

elbow to elbow with

2001 Armstrong 23:07

and

AHEAD uv

2003 Jan Ulrich 23:18

2005 Ivan Basso 23:20

before the headwind in the final flat stretch

vetooo

(the guy @vaughters uses for power estimates)

“@ammattipyoraily: #TDF, Stage 8. Ax-3-Domaines (first 7.85 km). Chris Froome [“67 kg”]: 21:41. I think that ‘CPL [6.51 W/kg]’ is the most accurate formula.”

puts Froomes power well into the range only documented in dopers

for comparison

@vaughters canaries in the dope mine

Talansky and Martin

“@ammattipyoraily: @Vaughters #TDF, Stage 8. Ax-3-Domaines (8.90 km, 7.46 %, 664 m). Martin, Talansky: 25 min 48 sec. More likely 5.7 – 5.8 W/kg.”

put up respectable numbers

and get

utterly shelled

apparently when brailsford said:

“At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past.”

they didn’t think he meant

this year

and when Froome put his threshold at

440-460 watts depending on form

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/54494562669/expert-analysis-froome#_=_

and everyone

(doc included)

thought

bullshit …

well aparently he wasn’t far off

…

now it’s important to tap the breaks

just a touch

and remeber this was just one climb

preceeded by a modest effort

Quintana did animate things

on the Pailheres

@veloclinic: “@Scienceofsport: @veloclinic I got approx 15:30 for final 5km after Quintana attacked. Not sure of the Vclimb over that section”

“@veloclinic: @Scienceofsport that just got me out of bed and turning on the laptop!”

“@veloclinic: @Scienceofsport @veloclinic residual -1.79 % Dresidual -5.4% so actualy quite fast for the lead up climb”

but

as predicted by the DpVAM

“@veloclinic: @veloclinic @scienceofsport Quintana will crack based on that”

cracked on AX3

as you can’t go @ pVAM

2 climbs in a row

still a solid tactic

giving 3rd on the stage Valverde

a free SKY-tow to the line

at least until Richie Porte

gave it some stick

launching Froome for

the SKY 1-2

and dragging himself across

24:05

+0.8% on this pVAM

-1.7% on the DpVAM

or the ONLY other guy to go positive

on the pVAM

this

with

Team SKY 2012 TDF champ wiggins

not

even

at

the

race

so looking ahead

there is still a whole lot uv climbing ahead

but

even on a bad day

the super Froome that road today

(who finaly went to a wind tunnel for the first time this year)

will need to do nothing more

than defend

to paris

Preview DpVAM TDF here 

n

scroll way over

to

the tables are a quick reference to see

-10% through +10% residuals for each climb

via the Scott Richard’s method

+ faster than predicted, – slower than predicted

in increments uv 2.5%

(note that there are 2 tabs 1 using Vetooo’s data and 1 using Vayer’s as they differ slightly)

remember the residual is how a performance compares to

the 2008-2013 pVAM baseline

which is essentially the average VAM (vertical meters per hour)

adjusted for gradient, altitude, and vertical meters climbed

the Dresidual is how a performance compares to

the 2002-2007 “Doper” baseline

watts/kg are calculated using the Ferrari equation

n the color coding

is the DpVAM index

green (2 bars down) = humanly possible

yellow (split bars) = suspicious

red (2 bars up) = doped

based on the premise that performances slower than the pVAM

ie slower than the 2008-2013 baseline

are arguably possible without doping

while performances faster than the DpVAM

are only possible with doping

if the overal pattern accros a grand tour is considered

see

vs

as an illustration

note that I can’t garauntee that hesjedal is clean

but he is used as an example

because he is the only Grand Tour winner

with a published biopassport

from his grand tour win

that lacks

significant evidence of doping

as such he’s the only GT winner

worth pointing to as plausibly clean

stage 7

the Noyer the climb before the final bump uv a climb

cut things down to a select yellow jersey group

with just Sanchez and Fuglsang going away with a kick over the top

vClimb 521 meters of climbing at 1644 meters of altitude

average gradient of 8.3%

good for a pVAM 1677 predicted meters per hour of vertical assent

vs

an aVAM of 1667 actual meters per hour for the yellow jersey

n
stage 8

finishing climb Risoul

vClimb 762 m at 1844 m altitude 7% gradient

good for a

pVAM 1569

with riders trickling in starting at

aVAM 1563

looking at the residuals

although the stage 7 Noyer wasn’t a finishing climb

it was nearly ridden like one

a contador driven select yellow jersey group

came over at -0.58 %

while Sanches and Fugslang went a touch faster than predicted

at 0.49 % to steal a few second lead

Vetoo’s CPL simulation put Contador at 5.96 w/kg for the 20 min effort

corroborating the pVAM

on the proper stage 8 finishing climb

unfortunately we had Froome chained by Porte

n

Contador boat anchored by Rogers

still

riding well within himself Froome goes -0.4%

a touch slower than predicted

with a Vetoo CPL calculated 5.79 w/kg for the 30 min effort

solid

but

opening the door

for

a recovered Talansky nearly bite em in the ass on the line

overal

as per Sky new world order protocol

Froome demonstrated GT winning form on Stage 5

realy only matched by Contador

and showed that he still had kick

a week in on Stage 8

,

after his TT no show

Contador pulled a still here on Stage 5

going 2% positive

before drifting back into training mode dragging Rogers around for kicks

the question

then

with

domestique Porte ridding GT lower podium pace

at 0.97 -0.6 and -0.8

what the hell good is

Rogers to Contador

going

1.58 -0.58 -5.32

when only his 1.58 trumps Porte

by appearance

because

Porte had pulled the damn climb and sat up at the end

?

of the other contenders

can you really call them that

1 week in a touch uv rain and we get

Moreno -1.8%

Fuglsang to -1.2%

Navarro -2.14%

Valverde -1.8

Sanchez -2.63

etc

or a whole lot uv negative

,

true they may not be on the year round peak swimming coach plan

but only Contador

minus the inconsistency

is possibly in the ballpark of challenging Froome

with

Talansky

the odds on favorite

fer

the yearly Garmarella TDF story

the big GC loser

Van Den Broeck

with his (stage 5) -21% and (stage 8) -16%

2012 TDF 4th place rider Jurgen Van Den Broeck

gets left off the charts all together

allergies probably or was there a crash ? who knows

prognositicataion:

pVAM says 2013 dont need Brad fer uh 2012 repeat

fast

fast

both the pVAM residuals n Vetoo’s CPL show

riders put up sum big numbers

in the first TDF tune up climb

first the climb

stg 5 Valmorel

vClimb 886 meters at 6.96% percent grade

topping out at 1369 m

good for a

pVAM uv 1599 m/hr

while the winning ride came in faster

aVAM 1634 m/h

from the contenders

Froome puts in a blazing 2.2% faster than predicted

followed closely by Contador 2.1 %

Valverde Rogers Moreno Taaramae

going 1.7 – 1.6 % faster than predicted

even Porte job done still comes in 1% faster than predicted

and the “cracked” Dennis grinding the big ring

painfully

to a still very respectable -1%

while the other TDF hopefuls

Talansky -9%
Rolland -11%
Rodriguez -12.5%
Van Den Broeck -22%

have sum work cut out

cross checking against the power estimates

Vetoo’s work on the CPL

(with the caveat uv drafting till 1.3km to go)

Froome put a shot across all bows

at

6.18 w/kg

(for over 30 min ?

, uh yeah)

(more w/kg to come as Vetoo flogs his machine)

via veetoo

via the cycling power lab simulator

uh bit less bat shit crazy than ferrari

for CPL vs SRM r = .9 according to @scienceofsport

ie pretty damn good

lets hit the numbers

first up

these are a series of watts/kg from the major Giro Climbs

based on the 6 watt/kg rule

we can easily go

clean, doper, clean, clean, clean, doper, doper, clean

but

adding in uh touch more information

like plotting watts/kg versus time

and realizing that all the data is just one rider

suggests

the 6 watts/kg

is uh bit watts onna boar

without the understanding that threshold power

is not uh one off number

but a curve

that changes based on the length uv effort

n

the altitude

n just fer kicks

lets puttin uh touch uv hypothetical brad

uh guy

who cant punch quite as hard as nibali

but kin hang on longer

to illustrate why Brad might have been so dominant

in a TDF with a team that could ride the front and effectively stretch the climbs

cracking Nibali before uh final Ks kick

vs

uh Giro with shorter climbs being effectively further shortened

by coming in slow

n

waiting to punch halfway up

were Nibali could truly have anaerobically put in time

on

an

aerobically superior

Brad

its time to have at the giro one last bit

giro stage 20

Tre Cime di Lavaredo

as the giro’s been throwin at us

up bit uv uh bumpy approach raisin the question

are they hittin the climb before the climb

but fer consistency we go with @ammattipyorally

n lookit the last 3.65 km uh grade uv 12.3%

449 vert meters topping out at 2304 m

good fer uh pVAM uv 1794 m/h

with Nibali finishing at 15:17 its a shorts steep is hell climb

which is on the borderline uv what the pVAM equation should be used fer

given that

Nibali comes in at -1.75% slower than pVAM or

very respectable under the circumstances

Uran -3.75%

Scarponi n Evans sloggin it in at

-9% n -10.5%

n

Santambrogi hi vis detonating at

-16.5%

lookin at the overall picture

if the residuals truly reflect the form of the rider

on the given climb

then this Giro based on the average performance uv the contenders

started slow

about 1-2% slower than expected

got slower

to 6% slower than expected

and finished off

slower still

8% down from expected on stage 20

of course the weather plays a factor

in keeping the numbers modest

but scarponi n evans

displayed uh very human tapering uv performance

santam shattered

with only Nibali n Uran

finding sum unexpected watts

on the final climb

maybe not

but given the state uv this giro

we’d better analyze this sumbitch anyways

full well aknowledging that we may be pushing

Scott Richards’ pVAM equation well beyond its intended use

first up the climb

ramps of over 6% but an average gradient of just 4.94%

vertical climb uh not bad 1018 m

topping out at a modest altitude of 1205 m

good fer uh pVAM uv 1456

results wise

only Nibali keeps the residual under -6% we saw on the Galibier

at -5.7% (5.7% slower than predicted)

Scarponi n Uran limmiting damage at -8.5 n -8.7%

while Evans n Santambrogio go uh very shouldn’t be in contention -10.9%

now on first fuggin pass the reaction might be

eff this equation thing

times couldn’t uh been that slow

but considering the overal trend

aside from a few glimmers of decent riding this Giro’s gone from

slow

to

Cat 6 fatty in full Disco Kit

which considering the weather

n the impossibility uv maintain caloric neutrality

inna regular GT

makes absolute sense that these fuggers

with the exception of Scarponi

(note how he started slow n is stayed slow but risen by relative comparison)

have all run the tank dry

with

Evan’s n Santambrogio

(Santambrogio going for day glow lightning to day glow traffic cone)

(Evans going Evans to full Evans)

moreso

than Nibali n Uran

prognositication:

whatever climbs might get left in

aint gunna be pretty.