Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,057 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
In 2011 <del>Paris Nice</del> Worlds, Bradley Wiggins claims to have averaged 456w for 55 minutes. According to most sources, including the Team Sky website, his race weight is 69kg.

His power to weight ratio then for an hour in 2011 was at least 456w / 69kg = 6.6w/kg. It could in fact be higher. It's not uncommon for riders to inflate their weight, and maybe that wasn't his best hour performance.

In 2012 while talking about his 456w effort he mentioned his cadence was too high and "I should have been getting more return for my effort. We’ve dropped the cadence and I am trying to power my way along a bit more, get more distance per pedal stroke. It’s been working well this year and it has helped my strength generally."

In a nut shell, he's saying his power increased since the 456w effort. I don't believe Wiggins ever stated his power for stage 19 TT in the 2012 TdF or the 2012 Olympic TT, but most estimates I've seen calculate his power to have been around 470-475w, which would also line up with his claim that his power has improved... and the fact he basically won everything in 2012. He certainly got faster last year.

When he rode at 6.6 w/kg for an hour in 2011, he lost to Tony Martin by 1min 20 sec. In the 2012 Olympic TT, he beat Martin by 26 seconds. Martin did break his hand a few weeks prior but also stated, "“It is still torture, but possible. When I'm on the start ramp, I will surely have other things in my head than my hand. The injury won't really hold me back... [Wiggins is] so super humanly strong in the Tour de France. I think that he will also triumph in London.”

So any takers on what his actual power to weight ratio was in 2012? If we go by the estimates of 470-475, then it is 6.81-6.88 w/kg. Near the very end of the 2012 TdF, how likely is it that he actually still weighed 69kg? If he had just dropped 1kg after almost three weeks of racing, his power ratio would have been 6.91-7.0w/kg.

Isn't this supposed to be physically impossible?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,085 Posts
A small, but potentially detail in the previous debate was that the asymetrical chainrings he use may not play well with his SRM. This wasn't to say he was clean or dirty by any means. His power numbers might be somewhat elevated due to the nature of his rings and power meter readings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
I just finished reading David Millars book and he talks about BW. He's not a huge fan because of the Garmin split an left it up to the reader to figure out the rest.

Wiggins talking about his weight.

"I should be pretty ready to go. Weight is a massive thing for me. Because I'm not a natural climber. I'm 82 kg in the off season. 70 kg in the Tour. It takes me a long time to get to that, it's a lot of hard work, I'm 75 now."

AFP: Wiggins targets Giro over Tour de France defence
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,057 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I can't find anything conclusive about the SRM power discrepancy, other than it most likely exists. If it's a 5% difference, then his 6.6w/kg 2011 figure figure becomes 6.29w/kg. If it's a 10% difference (pretty extreme), then it's 6.01w/kg. But having an actual FTP of 6.01-6.29w/kg is still insane, and Wiggins most certainly improved upon this even more in 2012. And again, this is assuming there's a 5-10% power discrepancy. Adjusting the 470-475w estimates for his 2012 efforts with the 5% and 10% potential discrepancies gives a range of 6.20-6.55w/kg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,057 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Wiggins talking about his weight.

"I should be pretty ready to go. Weight is a massive thing for me. Because I'm not a natural climber. I'm 82 kg in the off season. 70 kg in the Tour. It takes me a long time to get to that, it's a lot of hard work, I'm 75 now."
Interesting that he chose to say 70kg instead of 69kg. As a side note, a little hard to believe he's actually 82kg in the offseason. That's almost a 30lb difference from 69kg... I've never seen a pic of Wiggins looking 180lb. Maybe he hides weight very gracefully.
 

·
Matnlely Dregaend
Joined
·
4,985 Posts
A small, but potentially detail in the previous debate was that the asymetrical chainrings he use may not play well with his SRM. This wasn't to say he was clean or dirty by any means. His power numbers might be somewhat elevated due to the nature of his rings and power meter readings.
Or an alternative explanation would be that the chain rings don't make a bit of difference (as shown again and again in scientific studies) and they are being used as the typical sophistic smokescreen (so replete in cycling doping coverups) in order to create a specious "reasonable doubt" for these impossible results. But yeah, your idea sounds way more plausible...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,409 Posts
Or an alternative explanation would be that the chain rings don't make a bit of difference (as shown again and again in scientific studies) and they are being used as the typical sophistic smokescreen (so replete in cycling doping coverups) in order to create a specious "reasonable doubt" for these impossible results. But yeah, your idea sounds way more plausible...
I think you misunderstand Spade. Its not the the chainrings help wiggins put out more power (or that his cadence is better or he has the best wheels or whatever smoke screen Sky uses). The SRM won't accurately work with Osym chainrings, its not calibrated correctly. So when Wiggins writes in his memoir that he did 450 or 470 watts or whatever thats a precise, repeatable number that he hits but has not bearing in reality. It could just as easily be 390 watts or 510 watts.

Now there is the possibility that SRM has teamed up with Osym or Quarq (unlikely) to specially calibrate SRMs to work with asymmetric chainrings but you think such an endeavor would be offered to consumers to offset some cost or at least publicized.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,409 Posts
I think you misunderstand Spade. Its not the the chainrings help wiggins put out more power (or that his cadence is better or he has the best wheels or whatever smoke screen Sky uses). The SRM won't accurately work with Osym chainrings, its not calibrated correctly. So when Wiggins writes in his memoir that he did 450 or 470 watts or whatever thats a precise, repeatable number that he hits but has not bearing in reality. It could just as easily be 390 watts or 510 watts.

Now there is the possibility that SRM has teamed up with Osym or Quarq (unlikely) to specially calibrate SRMs to work with asymmetric chainrings but you think such an endeavor would be offered to consumers to offset some cost or at least publicized.
It would be interesting to see some analysis from stages 11 or 17 or whatever to see what sort of W/Kg Froome and Wiggins were doing.

BTW, when we keep attacking Wiggins for unrealistic power numbers, why aren't we attacking Froome? He was turning the screws at every possible chance, road in the wind a lot more and still just about dropped Wiggo to catch Valverde at the end of stage 17.
 

·
Slightly Opinionated
Joined
·
10,231 Posts
It would be interesting to see some analysis from stages 11 or 17 or whatever to see what sort of W/Kg Froome and Wiggins were doing.

BTW, when we keep attacking Wiggins for unrealistic power numbers, why aren't we attacking Froome? He was turning the screws at every possible chance, road in the wind a lot more and still just about dropped Wiggo to catch Valverde at the end of stage 17.
I think we all know about Froome:

Goes from getting dropped on a 2k climb in the Giro in 2009 to 9th overall in Haut Var (best result of the year) in 2010, to 2nd overall in the Vuelta 2011 and 2nd overall in the Tour in 2012.

Prior to joining Sky his best finish is 84th in the Tour and 36th in the Giro (withdrew in 2010.) Doesn't jive.

If the power numbers on Wiggins are correct, there's virtually no chance of it being natural.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,061 Posts
I think you misunderstand Spade. Its not the the chainrings help wiggins put out more power (or that his cadence is better or he has the best wheels or whatever smoke screen Sky uses). The SRM won't accurately work with Osym chainrings, its not calibrated correctly. So when Wiggins writes in his memoir that he did 450 or 470 watts or whatever thats a precise, repeatable number that he hits but has not bearing in reality. It could just as easily be 390 watts or 510 watts.

Now there is the possibility that SRM has teamed up with Osym or Quarq (unlikely) to specially calibrate SRMs to work with asymmetric chainrings but you think such an endeavor would be offered to consumers to offset some cost or at least publicized.
I fail to see why the average power measured would be different for different shaped chain rings. sure the distribution of power might be different through a pedalstroke but that should not matter unless the time sampling is low. and then it's not worth much for any shaped chain rings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,409 Posts
I fail to see why the average power measured would be different for different shaped chain rings. sure the distribution of power might be different through a pedalstroke but that should not matter unless the time sampling is low. and then it's not worth much for any shaped chain rings.
The time sampling is low. A SRM (and quarq) measure once per revolution, when the reed switch is activated by the magnet glued to your frame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,374 Posts
I fail to see why the average power measured would be different for different shaped chain rings.
The you should look over at the Wattage group. The effect has been well documented and explained. Rather than post a poor summary, I'll just refer you there.

So to summarize this discussion, we have unreliable power data coupled to unreliable weight, and based on that we're making conclusions based on power to weight ratio? That makes a lot of sense.
 

·
Matnlely Dregaend
Joined
·
4,985 Posts
The chainrings affect the power meter.... yet another in a long line of lies from the dopers.

from:

Osymetric – Gimmick or Legit? | Cycling Tips

"I asked an SRM engineer about the possibility of this and he tells me that it would be impossible for the osymetric chainrings to affect the readings of an SRM powermeter"

and

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/YAF_Gateway/forumhost.aspx?g=posts&t=24233

"We have had an increasing number of customers use Q-rings with their SRM Power Meter. There is no difference in wattage accuracy between using a regular chain ring or an elliptical chain ring. The important thing is that the SRM power meter is calibrated with a regular round chain ring to determine the slope of the power meter, which is exclusive to that power meter. Once this is determined, any type of chain ring can be used and wattage accuracy is maintained. Think of it in these terms, the elliptical chain ring only adds more leverage, which in turn can allow for more torque per pedal revolution. This is no more different than changing the crank arm length, which has no effect on the accuracy of the power meter. Torque is torque; and if you can spin the same cadence with the Q-rings, then in theory you will produce more power. We have found from reports of our customers using the q-rings that their cadence tends to drop about 5-10 rpm at a given power output over using regular round chain rings."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,374 Posts
The chainrings affect the power meter.... yet another in a long line of lies from the dopers.
Andy Coggan, Tom Anhalt, Steve Palladino, Alex Simmons etc? These are the guys who are testing and taking data showing this effect. Let's not forget SRM are the same ones who said they never send free units to athletes (until someone published an invoice to the wattage list showing they did) and there was no systemic problem with their units (until they admitted a bad lot due to improper curing of epoxy following publication on the wattage list of data showing this to be true).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,409 Posts
So to summarize this discussion, we have unreliable power data coupled to unreliable weight, and based on that we're making conclusions based on power to weight ratio? That makes a lot of sense.
Exactly. Wouldn't it make more sense to look at his time up on some of the climbs and back out power to weight or at the very least VAM?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Can anyone explain to me why I should believe that FTP of 6.9 w/kg (or whatever number you choose to cite) represents an absolute upper threshold on the human limits of 'non-doped' (which is itself a scientifically meaningless term) performance? Preferably an explanation in terms of theoretical physiology?

I understand that there is a statistical argument to be made - but I would suggest that that argument is meaningless when you're looking at professional cyclists, who are all outliers on the spectrum of human performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,374 Posts
Can anyone explain to me why I should believe that FTP of 6.9 w/kg (or whatever number you choose to cite) represents an absolute upper threshold on the human limits of 'non-doped' (which is itself a scientifically meaningless term) performance?
Because we know what the highest VO2max recorded over a large population is, we can estimate the upper bound on that. Then we have data on the highest FTP as a percentage of VO2max also over a large population. We also have efficiency/economy data that lets us convert that VO2 into power. So by using the highest recorded values and assuming they all are present in a single individual it is possible to estimate a maximum W/kg at FTP. Whether that number is 6.9 or not I don't know.
 
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top