OK. mi avete convinto. Il prossimo anno mi alleno bene bene bene e provo a farla sotto i 30'
35 ? Anderlini al giro delle dolomiti ha fatto 38,50 e aveva già 50 anni suonati , secondo me se un pro scalatore la fa veramente a tutta forse non scende sotto i 30 ma si avvicina molto
Io, prudente al volante per natura, penso che 30' li faccio in macchina!OK. mi avete convinto. Il prossimo anno mi alleno bene bene bene e provo a farla sotto i 30'
Secondo voi fare solo il Bellavista in 10 minuti e' fattibile ?
L' ultima volta quando ho fatto con Paolo la Mendola ci abbiamo messo 12 minuti e 10 secondi
Per fare 10 minuti si dovrebbe salire con una media di ca. 23 km/h....
http://app.strava.com/segments/714432
Zelger giro 2007 9 minuti 14 secondi .....Secondo voi fare solo il Bellavista in 10 minuti e' fattibile ?
L' ultima volta quando ho fatto con Paolo la Mendola ci abbiamo messo 12 minuti e 10 secondi
Per fare 10 minuti si dovrebbe salire con una media di ca. 23 km/h....
[url]http://app.strava.com/segments/714432[/URL]
Zelger giro 2007 9 minuti 14 secondi .....
talpa non vai un cazzo
Questa salita puo' essere analoga? [URL="http://www.salite.ch/nevacerrada1.asp?Mappa=http://www.viamichelin.fr/viamichelin/ita/dyn/controller/Cartes-plans?mapId=-t2ikjyag5481md&dx=485&dy=330&empriseW=970&empriseH=661"][URL]http://www.salite.ch/nevacerrada1.asp?Mappa=http://www.viamichelin.fr/viamichelin/ita/dyn/controller/Cartes-plans?mapId=-t2ikjyag5481md&dx=485&dy=330&empriseW=970&empriseH=661[/URL][/URL]
Eccoti alcune vam dalla Vuelta 2004 (stesso anno in cui il Giro è passato sulla Mendola):
1. 2055 m/h Santiago Perez
2. 1990 m/h Roberto Heras
3. 1984 m/h Francisco Mancebo
Power output on major climbs - the Tour champions over the years
Below is a graph showing the estimated power output* for the eventual Tour winner on the final climb of the Tours between 1989 and 2001. In other words, in 1989, Greg Lemond would go on to win the Tour, and what has been done here is to estimate his power output on the final climb of each mountain stage and then average them for that year. Same for Lemond in 1990, then Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, Pantani and Armstrong.
Note that for all years, the power output has been "normalized" by expressing it relative to body weight. This is important, because Indurain, for example, was much larger than Pantani. Pantani at a power output of 350W was thus the equivalent of Indurain riding at around 500W. So, to compare them, one either has to express power output per kilogram, or express it for a standard weight. I've taken the approach of expressing it relative to body weight. I'll post more on the effect of body weight on performance in the mountains once we get closer to Mont Ventoux.
Also, just as an addendum to the post in response to a comment by Will below, I must make the point that all the ABSOLUTE power outputs were calculated using the rider mass PLUS the mass of the equipment (bike and gear, assumed at 9kg for calculations), and then expressed relative to rider weight (see footnote).
It makes for some interesting reading - Greg Lemond averaged 5.7 W/kg on the final climbs during both his Tour wins. Then Indurain started off with an average power output of 5.3 W/kg, followed by 4.91 W/kg, and then it began to climb, so much so that when Indurain won his fifth Tour in 1995, his average power output on the final climbs of the mountain stages was an incredible 6.35 W/kg. (Just to labour the point - if you want to work out the ABSOLUTE power output for each rider, just multiply the power I've shown by the rider's mass. For Indurain, multiply by 80kg and you get a value of 508W)
That high power output was maintained for the next four years, Riis averaged 6.47 W/kg, Ullrich 6.33 W/kg, and then Marco Pantani set the 'record' when he averaged 6.63 W/kg during the 1998 Tour.
In 1999, which was the year after the big Festina scandal, the power output decreased to 5.88 W/kg, and then it began a progressive climb in 2000 and 2001, so that it was back up to 6.3 W/kg in 2001. That, unfortunately, is where the data I have end - see the footnote below.
However, we do know that Lance Armstrong's power output on Alp d'Huez in 2004 was calculated as 495W - this was presented as a scientific paper at the ACSM congress in Nashville in 2005, and I noticed the power output. It equates to 6.97 W/kg (as shown in the graph). It must be noted that this was the time-trial stage and so the climb was performed without other climbs and a day of racing before, and so should be slightly higher. However, what's really interesting to note is that even with this apparent "freshness", Armstrong still only rode 25 seconds faster in the 2004 climb than in 2001, when he won atop the Alp as well (after a long stage). The effect of the fatigue exists, but it's not as profound as I think one first imagines...
Whether the power output was as high as this on other climbs between 2002 and 2007, I'm not sure - if you look at a list of the best times ever recorded on these climbs, you'll find that many were set in this era from 2002 to 2007. Pantani still holds most of the records, but the generation 2002 to 2007 are in amongst the best times, faster than Riis and Ullrich, and so I suspect that the power outputs during this period as comparable to those achieved in the period 1994 to 1998, and 2000 to 2001. Therefore, the power output from 2002 to 2005 at least will be in the same range - 6.3 W/kg or higher. If you have the climbing times, do let me know.
To unpack the graph above in a bit more detail, the table below shows the power output estimated for Lance Armstrong during his three Tour wins in this recording period (1999 to 2001):
What does it take to ride the Tour?
There are a number of ways to interpret these numbers. First of all, it puts into perspective the enormous power output required to be competitive in the pro-peloton in the mountains. Take any of the above riders, and you'll find that you have to be able to sustain a power output well above 6W/kg. Greg Lemond, and Miguel Indurain's first few Tours were won with power outputs lower than this, but ever since, anything less than 6W/kg is not high enough.
In fact, since the mid-90s, 6.2 W/kg seems to be the minimum requirement, apart from the "aberration" of 1999 when the Tour was on full alert after the fiasco of 1998 and Festina-gate. Physiologically speaking, riding at 6.2 W/kg for up to 40 minutes is quite extra-ordinary. Elite athletes are usually able to sustain power outputs between 80% and 90% of maximum for a prolonged time. If a rider is able to sustain a power output of 6.3 W/kg for 30 minutes, then you can infer their peak power output will be somewhere between 7 and 7.5 W/kg, incredibly high.
If you are a cyclist who monitors your own power output, then, work out what 6.3 W/kg means for you (say, 520 W), and next time you are riding on a slope of about 7 to 9%, try to hold that power output for as long as possible. It is an eye-opener, that is for sure.
The doping implication
I'm sure most of you reading this have already made the junction and are asking what is physiologically possible? That is, Greg Lemond was down at 5.7 W/kg, then within 5 years, the power output has climbed by 10%, and then continued to climb, so that Marco Pantani is 15% higher than Lemond. That level of progress is not typical of mere physiology, so it does point to something, and that "something" of course, is doping. Or is it? Perhaps we should be expecting sustainable power outputs of 6.3 W/kg?
I do have to point out the following though - remember that these power outputs are estimated based on time. Therefore, technological changes such as a reduction in the weight of the equipment, stiffer bikes (as pointed out by a commenter), and better components will make a difference to estimated power output, even though the caliber of riders haven't changed at all. Part of the changes you see in that graph can therefore be attributed to changes in technology.
The question is how much does technology explain? That depends what you want to believe, unfortunately! If you want to believe that cycling is clean, or rather, was clean right up to and after the Armstrong era, then you'll say that technology accounts for a 10% improvement. That would mean that the power outputs of 2001 are "expected". Put differently, this argument says that Lemond on the same equipment would also be producing 6.3 W/kg.
Others would say that technology contributes little to this growth. I don't know the answer, but I do think that the impact of technology has been overstated and that the greatest reason for the change you see in that graph is doping. Yes, bikes are lighter, stiffer and therefore times should improve. But, at the same time, we know that Riis, Ullrich and Pantani have all been implicated (or straight out confessed), and so their performances are likely drug aided. Therefore, the fact that Riis, Ullrich and Pantani achieved such high power outputs relative to Lemond is an indication that either:
a) The drugs don't work and technology really is responsible for all of the increase
b) The drugs do help and the technology is not that big a factor after all.
Of course, this itself assumes the these riders were doping, but I think it's pretty reasonable to say that, in hindsight. So my interpretation of the above graph is that in the 1990s, the Tour moved into a new era, where doping characterized performance, and that era peaked in the mid-90s.
The doping 'fingerprint' on performance
I read an article this week, for example, that reports that when the test for EPO was developed, samples from the 1998 and 1999 Tour were used to 'test the test', and 80% of them were found to be positive! The poor researchers thought something was wrong with their assay, because so many samples were being found to contain EPO. There is little doubt that until that test was finally perfected for 2000, EPO abuse was rife in the peloton. The graph above spans that period nicely.
Post 2000, all indications are that the peloton went "back to basics" and blood doping, which is arguably less effective, if only because of practical difficulties around doing it. One would expect the sudden "removal" of EPO to cause a drop in pace in the peloton, of course, while riders used what they could until the teams had figured out how to bypass the systems once again.
The interesting year is 1999 - that was the first year after the Festina scandal, and the Tour was on high alert. I remember police raids of team hotels, and a general crackdown. Not from the UCI or Cycling authorities, mind you, but from the police. So I think the lower speeds of that year were a function of greater policing, quite literally! Then, after that, the speeds just go back up again, as shown in the graph.
Cyclists may have occasionally been forced to regroup and think of how to use drugs without being caught, but they rarely stop because of the risk...Here, I think of Bernard Kohl, who has just recently highlighted just how ineffective testing is (including the passports), by his admission that for years, he used everything - Growth hormone, insulin, EPO, testosterone and blood doping, without being caught.
Now, the really interesting thing - if the mid-90s were characterized by doping and those performances are "assisted", then one cannot help but notice that the late 90s and early 2000s have produced similar performances, taking into account the short-term drop in 1999. Since that, it's been a steady climb upward, and it would be very helpful to see what the performances of 2002 - 2005 are like, so if you have them, let me know.
There are then only two ways to explain the performances from 1999 to 2001 (and beyond, since they will remain similar, or be even better). One is that must believe that one rider is genuinely better than the effect of doping. Or, alternatively, you are left with the conclusion that his performances are an extension of what went before...
Unfortunately, no amount of evidence will prove which it is. Based on this evidence ALONE, I must confess that I would not deliver a verdict either way. You may be the judge...
Looking ahead
All of this is interesting, and hopefully food for thought. It doesn't exactly help us answer the question of "Is the 2009 Tour 'clean'?". That too, I'm afraid, is unanswerable as far as performance-analysis goes.
However, it does lead into the next post, which is a more subjective view of the performances in the last two years in the Tour, and what is my opinion on the state of the peloton. But that is for tomorrow!
Ross
* Note: The method used for all the above estimations comes from a publication from Polar France, performed by two French scientists: Antoine Vayer and Frederic Portoleau. It was published in 2002, and called "Pouvez-vous gagner le Tour?", and it was kindly given to me by David Walsh (yes, that one). The method used was to calculate power output given the riding time, the mass of the rider PLUS equipment, and then all the factors that are typically used (rolling resistance, frontal surface area, air density, gravity, and speed). I've expressed that calculated power relative to body weight.
You'll find a number of different methods to estimate power, but all produce relatively similar values - there is some error though, which explains slight differences between these and other similar estimates. The important thing is consistency in the method, at least in as far as comparing years goes. Unfortunately, the book was published in 2002 (by PolarFrance.fr), and so I don't have the same method to work out the power output from 2002 to 2008. That would be very revealing, I believe. An analysis presented at the ACSM conference in 2005 estimated Armstrong's power output on Alpe d'Huez at 495W.
Rivaluta le categorie! Secondo la tua classificazione io sarei un ,,ottimo cicloamatore''
Appena sceso tempo 1 h 12 m !!!
Questa salita puo' essere analoga? http://www.salite.ch/nevacerrada1.asp?Mappa=http://www.viamichelin.fr/viamichelin/ita/dyn/controller/Cartes-plans?mapId=-t2ikjyag5481md&dx=485&dy=330&empriseW=970&empriseH=661
Eccoti alcune vam dalla Vuelta 2004 (stesso anno in cui il Giro è passato sulla Mendola):
1. 2055 m/h Santiago Perez
2. 1990 m/h Roberto Heras
3. 1984 m/h Francisco Mancebo
Ai tempi ed alle prestazioni che riguardano la mendola, aggiungerei il romanticismo che caratterizza questa salita: quante volte l'ho fatta ad inizio inverno nel primo pomeriggio, magari solo i primi 10 km fino alle cd roccette, in completa solitudine, senza auto e nemmeno ciclisti, scendendo poi ben coperto e lentamente godendomi il vento fresco che spazzava l'asfalto dalle foglie cadute da poco (non che scendessi con la faccia sull'asfalto, ok!?), e tutto ciò in un panorama di colori autunnali che ti trasmettono anche un leggero senso di malinconia!
ed in queste discese, rapito da questa clima introspettivo, mi dicevo che era il posto ed il momento giusto per chi soffriva di forte depressione per farla finita una volta per tutte, tanto che spiavo nel bosco denudato dalle foglie per vedere che qualcuno non si fosse impiccato!
insomma, la mendola è poesia, poesia pura!
migliori VAM di sempre (salite/tratti >10Km)
1. 1839 m/h Bjarne Riis, Hautacam, Tour 1996
2. 1826 m/h Jan Ullrich, Arcalis, Tour 1997
3. 1804 m/h Marco Pantani, Mont Ventoux, Tour 1994
4. 1798 m/h Luc Leblanc, Hautacam, Tour 1994
5. 1797 m/h Miguel Indurain, Hautacam, Tour 1994
6. 1797 m/h Richard Virenque, Hautacam, Tour 1996
7. 1797 m/h Laurent Dufaux, Hautacam, Tour 1996
8. 1795 m/h Alexander Vinokourov, Col de Peyresourde, Tour 2003
9. 1795 m/h Iban Mayo, Col de Peyresourde, Tour 2003
10. 1792 m/h Marco Pantani, Alpe d'Huez, Tour 1995
2/10 negli anni 2000
migliori VAM di sempre (salite/tratti >5Km)
1. 2055 m/h Santaigo Perez, Puerto de Navacerrada, Vuelta 2004
2. 1990 m/h Roberto Heras, Puerto de Navacerrada, Vuelta 2004
3. 1984 m/h Francisco Mancebo, Puerto de Navacerrada, Vuelta 2004
4. 1883 m/h Roberto Heras, Sierra de la Pandera, Vuelta 2002
5. 1882 m/h Gilberto Simoni, Alpe di Pampeago, Giro 2003 (6,0 km)
6. 1857 m/h Gilberto Simoni, Sierra de la Pandera, Vuelta 2002
7. 1857 m/h Osccar Sevilla, Sierra de la Pandera, Vuelta 2002
8. 1847 m/h Alberto Contador, Angliru, Vuelta 2008 (6,5 km)
9. 1838 m/h Gilberto Simoni, Monte Zoncolan, Giro 2007
10. 1838 m/h Leonardo Piepoli, Monte Zoncolan, Giro 2007
Hehehehe No Comment!
impossibile, i migliori pro non la fanno sotto i 30. secondo me un contador al top non ci mette tanto meno di 34. ci metterà sui 35, il che vuol dire più di 1700 di VAM, e su un 6,5% medi è qualcosa di raro anche nei pro.
Infatti ho scritto "pare", non ne ho la certezza. Ma avevo sentito che anni fa, durante una tappa del Giro d'Italia con arrivo a Sarnonico, quindi Mendola fatta "a tutta" perché decisiva, il primo ci avesse messo 29' e rotti. Io mi trovavo al quart'ultimo tornante, nel mezzo del quale si era "sistemato" un gruppo di tifosi veneti con tanto di TV portatile. Qualcuno di loro ha preso il tempo dal Maxi Mode Center fino alla cima e ha comunicato questo tempone.
so solo che quando sono passati i primi andavano veramente fortissimo, ma tanto tanto!
Secondo me su una salita cosi pedalabile (per loro) Contador non mette neppure fuori la testa e fa lavorare i gregari.
Se vanno a tutta penso possano tenere i 30 km/h fino a dopo le roccette e rallentare un po' solo nei tornanti finali, per cui 30 minuti no ma 32' secondo me si.
in arte Talpa (non si puà sentire sto nome, ma come ti è venuto)
anche se peserai 50kg vestito e bagnato,
far qualche anno, puoi pensare anche a vincerlo un giro delle Dolomiti,
fai paura Claudio, complimenti!!!
Grazie, pero' non sono mica chissa' che bravo in bici: In salita me la cavo sopratutto perche' peso poco (cmq persone come Andy Man mi staccano lo stesso senza troppi problemi) e in discesa e pianura sono un pollo :-)
Ero anch'io sul tracciato, ma avevo visto la gara registrata e ricordo che il passaggio al Maximode non s'era visto o comunque il tempo esatto in tv non ero riuscito a prenderlo.
Sinceramente non so se sia possibile per un Pro scendere sotto i 30' (Il buon Quinziato no di certo).
io in mtb ero ridicolo,
52kg hehehehe, 4 ossa e mezzo bicchiere di sangue
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?