Are Pros Getting Too Powerful?
The fastest pro cyclists are putting out historic levels of power, exceeding the infamous doping decade.
When Vingegaard attacked on the recent San Giacomo climb, his estimated power was 7.04 W/kg for 11:38 minutes. Last year, Vingegaard managed 7.46 W/kg for 11:17 minutes on the Izua climb. The only performance to match or exceed that was Pantani in 1995, 7.62 W/kg, for 8:59 minutes. Why? Is it the better diet? It must be the "diet". |
Even without doping, athletes tend to get bigger/stronger/faster over time. Diet, training, equipment, all contribute.
|
Like everything, the "marginal gains" are getting better and more challenging to detect, and the results are recorded more accurately.
|
Too powerful for what?
|
Originally Posted by terrymorse
(Post 23182309)
Last year, Vingegaard managed 7.46 W/kg for 11:17 minutes on the Izua climb. The only performance to match or exceed that was Pantani in 1995, 7.62 W/kg, for 8:59 minutes. |
Also more money tempting raw talent away from other major sports that would normally be far more lucrative. For example Remco chose cycling over football (soccer).
Recent interviews with Mark Cavendish also point to huge changes in training methods and nutrition during his career. |
Originally Posted by icemilkcoffee
(Post 23182334)
They didn't have power meters back then. How did they get Pantani's power output?
|
Originally Posted by icemilkcoffee
(Post 23182334)
They didn't have power meters back then. How did they get Pantani's power output?
|
Are basketball players getting too tall? Are linebackers getting too much mass and power?
|
Originally Posted by Eric F
(Post 23182341)
If you know the weight of the rider and bike, and the slope of the climb, w/kg can be calculated.
|
Thread moved form General to Pro Cycling for the Fans.
|
Training, altitude, nutrition, equipment, marginal gains...
We've heard this before... from... Lance Armstrong. I will say this with the same certainty I said it about Lance (and everyone else riding against him) - they are doped it the "max". And I got skeptical eyes when I said that stuff back then. By "max" I'm saying what they can get away with. They are doped right up to that point, and taking whatever new substance isn't being tested for. We went from a period of 15+/- years where no one cracked the Huez top 100 time on the pro tour - to having 5-6 riders pop the top 20 on one tour, and they were riding in the GC pack - not on breakaways or during a TT. Lance - a super doped up, older more seasoned rider, with more tours and training under his belt did 6.6wkg for his TT up Huez. A clean, younger, less seasoned Pogs has turned 6.3 for 36 min. Pantani - coke, EPO, roids and whatever else - 7.6wkg. A clean Vingo - 7.6wkg.... RIGGGGHHHHHHTTTT. Better food... sure. |
Originally Posted by icemilkcoffee
(Post 23182334)
They didn't have power meters back then. How did they get Pantani's power output?
|
Originally Posted by PeteHski
(Post 23182335)
Also more money tempting raw talent away from other major sports that would normally be far more lucrative. For example Remco chose cycling over football (soccer).
Recent interviews with Mark Cavendish also point to huge changes in training methods and nutrition during his career. I'd be surprised in a European footballer would jump to cycling, seems if you can make an 'A' level squad in Europe the money would be much better. Not specifically for the money, but the same thing occurs with youngsters in local track & field/athletics here in the USA as local HS football coaches go to spring track meets and recruit the fastest sprinters for their HS football teams. |
Originally Posted by Iride01
(Post 23182344)
Are basketball players getting too tall? Are linebackers getting too much mass and power?
B'Ball players aren't getting taller, they are simply turning from Larry Bird bodies to Lebron James. Wide receivers (Terrell Owens) with the same body composition (even leaner) as Arnold. T.O. - 6'3 - 225-230 with 3% body fat. Arnold - 6'2 - 235+/- with 5-7% body fat. The "skinny" fast guys vs Mr super doped up Olympia. Athletes are doped. It's not just food. |
We have 7 billion people on this planet. The vast majority have no access or knowledge of bike racing as something they could actually do. That means most of the outliers on the bell curve of cycling ability aren't racing. We are just beginning to see pro riders from Africa. Biniam Girmay is a very good pro rider. Not a mountain goat so not an example here but a very good and versatile finisher.'
And yes, training and diet have stepped up big time. Now imagine if Pantani or Merckx had access to today's training. But it isn't a really fair comparison because there is another difference and that one puts a brighter light on those earlier racers. Targeting races. Seasons now are built around peaking for certain races and riding the earlier races that will best prep them for the biggies. 50 years ago, everybody rode a whole lotta races every year. Now they race far fewer. Eddy Merckx won nearly a race a week for six years, racing on average twice a week. Completely unheard of now. And with that many races rode hard, he couldn't possibly target the big goals and hit super high peaks. My belief is that eventually we are going to see a huge wave of African riders. Driven by several factors. 1) It will become known in Africa that this is an approach to a better life, a dream like the pro sports in this country were to Blacks. Biniam Girmat has a a dream of a life for a 12 year boy. Think baseball, football and basketball. 2) Africa is going to become seen as the place where if you build the racing infrastructure, you will be able to reap talented riders to sent to Europe. The right entrepreneur type could drive this hard and do very well. If bike racing booms in this country and becomes a big pro sport, someone will go to Central and South America to reap similar talent. In a hundred years, maybe super climbers from the Australian Outback. China, India. Think that bell curve and how many thousands of outliers have been completely missed by bike racing. There are a lot of body types poorly represented in the white world. I'm guessing some of these could fit very well into the racing scene. The running world is dominated by sprinters and marathoners from Africa. There are peoples around the globe where the average body type looks rather Pantani-ish. What if the bell curve fringes of those populations raced the Alps? We could have our eyes opened! |
Originally Posted by Jughed
(Post 23182359)
We went from a period of 15+/- years where no one cracked the Huez top 100 time on the pro tour - to having 5-6 riders pop the top 20 on one tour, and they were riding in the GC pack - not on breakaways or during a TT.
|
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
(Post 23182407)
Several good climbers in a group can set a faster pace than one climbing alone, so it's not surprising several riders could post top times in one stage.
|
Originally Posted by terrymorse
(Post 23182426)
If that group is doing that climb as part of a stage, and they are matching the best TT times on that climb, it is surprising.
|
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
(Post 23182449)
Why surprising?
It's no surprise that the fastest times up AdH were set during TTs. |
Originally Posted by terrymorse
(Post 23182466)
Because a TT is a full gas maximum effort from start to finish, and the rider doesn't have to do it at the end of a long stage.
It's no surprise that the fastest times up AdH were set during TTs. |
Originally Posted by PeteHski
(Post 23182335)
Also more money tempting raw talent away from other major sports that would normally be far more lucrative. For example Remco chose cycling over football (soccer).
|
Originally Posted by terrymorse
(Post 23182361)
Physics and arithmetic give you estimated power. It's the same way they do it now. Pros aren't making their recorded power numbers public.
|
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
(Post 23182502)
I agree that they should. But as of 2017, TTs have only produced the 2nd, 9th, 12th, and 13th fastest times up the Alpe d'Huez, and no other times in the top 35 (ish).
But yes, the non-TT times are remarkable, also. Drafting at the speeds the pros climb must be significant. Then again, Pantani led or soloed most of the climb when he set the lowest time. Armstrong did the same solo effort in 2001, the year of "the look". |
Originally Posted by icemilkcoffee
(Post 23182531)
True, but that is an estimate. His exact aerodynamics coefficient is not known. Nor is the wind direction, or even things like tire rolling coefficient- I don't think anyone measured that back then.
|
It's depressing that endless iterations of the same argument consistently gain far more attention on this subforum than any actual discussion of race results. Except maybe during the TdF.
I wish you guys would give it a rest, but it's your picnic, you get to choose your mains and your sides. |
Originally Posted by MinnMan
(Post 23182851)
It's depressing that endless iterations of the same argument consistently gain far more attention on this subforum than any actual discussion of race results. Except maybe during the TdF.
I wish you guys would give it a rest, but it's your picnic, you get to choose your mains and your sides. |
Originally Posted by MinnMan
(Post 23182851)
It's depressing that endless iterations of the same argument consistently gain far more attention on this subforum than any actual discussion of race results. Except maybe during the TdF.
I wish you guys would give it a rest, but it's your picnic, you get to choose your mains and your sides. Didn't this forum used to have a warning about PEDs? Heck, I think there used to be a Drugs forum here at BF for a while, and all that talk got moved over there. Which would make this Pro Cycling forum even more of a ghost town, but in a good way. Whether it is doping or legit performance science, it is annoying when the sporting aspects take a back seat to speculation and opinion, no matter how well (rarely) or un- informed. I would love to see there be a physiology and performance discussion place which could house all the science and felonies. And a pony for Christmas, too. IDK that BF is the venue for it. It certainly isn't for any legit racing discussion. But it's a comfortable spot to sit on the porch with a few old e-friends and chat about the weather. In between throwing rocks at the whipper-snappers with an axe to grind on Strava or Lance or, dag nabbit, just get off my lawn. |
"Are the pros getting too powerful?"
One way to bring them down to earth would be to simply make them ride Eddy Merckx-like schedules. Race twice a week, all year. CLassics, Monuments. Two Tours. 6-days. Cyclocross. Won't ever happen. Any rider who chooses such a path would be committing to a lost year. CPA, the teams and and UCI would never stand for it. Merckx rode 1800 races. Over a 12 year stretch, the number of classics, grand tours he rode was staggering and were only maybe a third of his year's diet. With that many races, peaks are near impossible to manage. Altitude training simply does not happen. That three weeks in the Azores - nope. Muscle re-charging 8 weeks off in late fall - nah. What riders do now vs a few years ago is apples and oranges. I suspect a real part of this was drugs. The EPO days lent themselves to sequestering at altitude or Atlantic islands to drug and train far from the drug controls. But the reality that targeted training instead of weekly racing works has stayed. And is not going to go away. |
Originally Posted by MinnMan
(Post 23182851)
It's depressing that endless iterations of the same argument consistently gain far more attention on this subforum than any actual discussion of race results. Except maybe during the TdF.
I wish you guys would give it a rest, but it's your picnic, you get to choose your mains and your sides. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:30 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.