BikeMax

Some more info from Allen Lim on Landis' performance.. Water, Plain and Simple by Dr. Allen Lim Regarding Floyd's Stage 17 performance. The day is often referred to as an 'inhuman' ride and the 'miracle' of that performance has been wrongly inferred to be a result of testosterone. A closer look at the data, however, shows that Floyd's performance that day was well within his physical and mental capacity. In fact, the most important contributors to Floyd's comeback was the tactics that developed during the ride -- the hesitation by the peleton to chase and Floyd's intelligent use of water. With respect to the data, Floyd averaged 281 watts for the entire 5 hour and 23 minute ride. In training before the Tour and even before the Tour of Georgia, Floyd would regularly perform 6-hour rides at 300-310 watt averages. As a point of reference, the overall average for the mountain days in the 2006 Tour de France was 269 watts +/- 16 watts, while the average in the 2005 Tour de France for the mountains was 274 watts +/- 20 watts. So Floyd's performance on Stage 17 this year was within the range that we would expect for the mountains in the Tour and below what he is capable of doing while training. An important note is that the pattern of power output that Floyd exhibited on S17 was extremely similar to what he does in training. It was a much steadier power profile as he was riding alone. This is in contrast to the more variable power profile seen when riding in the pack. For a given power output, it is much easier on the body to ride at a steady pace than an undulating one. Thus, Floyd had the advantage of having a smoother ride for much of the day. On the 5 climbs that day, we have direct measures of Floyd's power output and estimates of what Floyd would have had to producd if he were back in the pack. Though the times I have are not exact, and I will have to do a more careful video review to make sure things are accurate, from the previous climbing days Floyd was averaging between 370 to 400 watts while climbing with the main field. We knew going into the day that if he was in the 390 to 400 watt range, he would likely be putting time on the field. At 380 he would probably be even with the field. In fact, 380 watts was the pace the field was holding on Toussuire when he got dropped on S16. At 370 watts we knew he would be losing time. From what I could see on video, this fact held true during the race. So for the five climbs that day, the time and power outputs were as follows: Col des Saises: 36 min 55 sec at 395 watts (gains time on field) Col des Aravis: 16 min 49 sec at 371 watts (loses time on field) Col de la Colombiere: 27 min 45 sec at 392 watts (gains time on field) Cote de Chatillon: 11 min 7 sec at 374 watts (loses time on field) Col de Joux Plane: 37 min 34 sec at 372 watts (loses time on field) What is very interesting about the data from the climbs is that it shows that Floyd gained much of his time on the field not on the climbs but on the descents. He's well known as the most talented descender in the pro peleton, and he definitely put on a clinic on S17. Beyond all of the power data the real reason for his victory, in my opinion, are the following two facts: First, the pack just didn't take Floyd's attack seriously and waited far too long to chase. If they had chased on the second climb they would have caught him. All of the teams were just looking at each other. They just thought he would fry out there by himself. They didn't believe he could do it, but Floyd believed he could do it. More importantly, he had the numbers that said he could do it and just watched the power meter all day. He knew what pace he had to hold on the climbs; he could watch his power drop as he changed body positions, and he knew from his training and previous races the limit of what he could hold for the entire ride. Rather than worry about the field, Floyd just paced himself. And they didn't chase. Because of the direct and immediate feedback from the power meter, Floyd came to an immediate and extraordinarily important realization during his ride -- that every time he poured ice cold water on his body, his power output went up. We had discussed staying hydrated and cool that morning. In fact, when I weighed him that morning, he was still underweight, and I gave him a stern warning about staying hydrated, suggesting that it was more than just bonking that hurt his performance the day before but dehydration. From our previous discussions and Floyd's own experience, the relationship between performance and heat dissipation is one that we both take extremely seriously. In fact, on most of the hot days at last year's and this year's Tour, Floyd would always have to switch shoes every other day or have his shoes dried because they would be soaked from all the water he poured on himself. We know that whether you drink the fluid or pour it on you, the bottom line is that there has to be sweat or water evaporating off your body to maintain performance. The fact of the matter is for these athletes, heat dissipation is one of the most important factors determining performance. Either blood is used to cool them or used to deliver oxygen. The cooler the body, the more blood is available for producing power. With this in mind, Floyd went through a staggering 70 water bottles that day. He drank approximately 15 carbohydrate/electrolyte bottles and poured the rest -- ice cold water -- over his head and body. In the pack, from our previous day bottle counts, we know that the average rider can only get 10 to 15 bottles. Thus, by the time the pack started chasing, most riders were already severely dehydrated and under severe heat stress. The road temperature reached 100 degrees F that day and from talking to riders like Dave Zabriskie and Christian VandeVelde who were chasing hard in the last part of the stage, the day's heat was a huge impediment to their ability to catch Floyd. For Floyd, all of that direct access to bottles from the team's follow vehicle kept him in a virtual microclimate of 70 degrees F. This is such an extraordinary advantage that it's hard to conceive of any drug that could give him such a boost. It was water, plain and simple, not testosterone that was responsible for his incredible ride. It had such a huge impact on his ride that later that night in the hotel, Floyd asked me not to mention it in my daily reports, as he wanted to keep the significance of that advantage as his own. So these are some of my thoughts. Allen http://j.b5z.net/i/t/w/rnddot.gif

Well thats not too shabby - I was at 4w/kg up Red hill but got dropped so there are certainly some SV riders at 5w/kg at the moment. Just got to keep working at it - if you can get to 4.1 + then you will be ok

You must have some sort of "Lance Antennae" - how did you find that reference to "Lance" and "Can't" This could be a fun game.. post something about Lance, and not winning, in some arbitrary thread and see how long it takes Jason to find it and respond

Widget - here are some more numbers (you asked for it) DONT LET JASON SEE LA Can?t ?Do It? Why an Hour Record Attempt Might Not Happen 6/26/05 - Words and images by Kraig Willett Despite the re-assurances of his current coach, and the empirical extrapolations of academia, I don?t think that LA can surpass the hour record held by Chris Boardman. Not that it matters, though, since LA is hanging up his wheels in a few weeks? What I?m about to present may seem like pretty tenuous evidence in support of a pretty bold claim (one that?s sure to draw the ire of a few people); however, relax folks, it?s just bike racin? ? and I?m just an abaqus-movin?-slide-rulin?-pencil-pushin?-not-much-smarter-than-a-box-of-rocks-dork! Ya know, I?ll never understand how professionally run teams allow little nuggets of information to be released to the public. Take, for example, the photos posted on LA?s coach?s website a few months back: http://www.trainright.com/page.asp?page_id=content&page_content=gallery&cat=cycling&sub=TDF&gal=Wind%20Tunnel That photo gallery linked above is one or two images short, though. You see, I sent an email to their web admin just after that page was put up ? here is the original email: === Original Message----- From: Kraig Willett [mailto:kdubenterprise@adelphia.net] Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:54 PM To: 'webmaster@trainright.com' Subject: lance/ekimov tunnel pics Just a quick heads up ? the information you provided here: http://www.trainright.com/page.asp?page_id=content&page_content=gallery&cat=cycling&sub=TDF&gal=Wind%20Tunnel has been extremely helpful ? you might consider removing these images, though, as LANCE?s competition/media speculators could do the same thing I have done with the information? best regards, Kraig Willett k-dub enterprises\ home of www.biketechreview.com and www.competeclean.org Shortly after that email, one or two images were removed from the page? But at least one of those images was not removed from the server (don?t blame me if the link below doesn?t work after this article is published!): http://www.trainright.com/photogallery/images/Windtunnelday047.jpg The image linked to above is but one piece of evidence in support of why Ekimov seems to be so competitive in world class TT?s; it shows that he possesses exceptional aerodynamic qualities ? in my opinion, that guy is gifted. There are some other beauties in that gallery of LA in his aero position which confirm, for me anyways, that LA has no shortages in the power production department? LA has always looked like a piece of plywood to me, but - hey man, whatever works! Dude has won more Tours than anyone else ? that says something, eh? Now, I?ve tested quite a few elite athletes (and many weekend warriors) in the same wind tunnel as LA & co. ( www.lswt.com,http://www.multisports.com/windtunnel_camp.shtml ), so those monitors in the background on trainright.com are pretty familiar to me ? they provide a bit of insight into LA?s aerodynamic drag, and subsequently, just how fast he could theoretically go during an hour record attempt. The number of interest is a four digit one (drag in grams) in the upper left corner of the monitor in the background of this image: http://www.trainright.com/photogallery/images/Windtunnelday006.jpg I figure LA?s drag in grams in his TT position is something like 2952 grams at ~30 mph. That?s well in excess of 6lbs (at 30 mph), the supposed gold standard according to some aero guru?s. Wanting confirmation of this guess (yeah, that image is a bit fuzzy, eh?), I conducted an unscientific poll on the BTR forum: http://biketechreview.com/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=120 The takeaway from this poll was that the second digit in my original guess is debatable. However, I am confident that the second number in my guess of 2952 is not a: ?7?, ?2?, ?8?, ?0?, or a ?5?. That leaves us with the possibility of it being a 1,3,4,6 or a 9. The only number for the second digit that makes sense to me (after investigation of the linked Ekimov image above, and analyses of flat TT?s and hillclimb TT?s ) is the number 9. So, in my opinion, LA creates approximately 2950 grams of drag at ~30 mph. For those more comfortable with CdA (drag coefficient times frontal area) values (since overall drag is a function of air density and relative wind speed), LA has a rather unspectacular CdA of ~0.266 m^2. In comparison, I would estimate Ekimov (who is approximately the same mass/size of LA) to have a CdA of ~0.232 m^2. Whoa, that?s an approximate 13% difference! No wonder Eki is competitive with LA in flat TT?s, but not the mountains! OK, so I?m pretty confident that LA can produce lots of power to overcome his less than stellar TT aerodynamics when it counts (that?s why he wins, or is competitive in Tour TT?s, right?), but just exactly how much power can ?the one? produce? It?s best to estimate the supply side of the equation of motion (i.e, power generation) during a hill-climb TT ? in this way, the unknown/variable effects of aerodynamics are minimized. I took a look at last year?s Alpe d?huez TT to ballpark what LA can do for an hour long effort. I modeled the course, took local atmospherics (which affect air density), and optimal pacing into consideration (which can also affect total elapsed time) and came up with the following estimates in terms of Watts per kilogram (W/kg) for the top 20 of this stage during the 2004 Tour: <?:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> My estimates show that LA put out around 6.38 W/kg for this 40 minute effort. This is pretty spectacular relative to his competition, and also compared to his effort just a few weeks prior during the Dauphine Libere during the Ventoux stage: If we were to adjust his Alpe d?Huez time (where he timed his fitness just right) to an approximate hour long effort, I?d estimate that he would be capable of producing around 6.18 W/kg. Assuming an Alpe d?Huez mass of 73kg that means that I?d estimate Lance would be capable of putting out approximately 452 watts for an hour at a mean elevation of 1250 meters. All else being equal, this hand-waving-back-of-the-envelope-calcu-malation says that LA has a Watts per CdA ratio of ~ 452/0.266=1710 W/m^2. For reference, this is a full 15%+ less than a similar technologically equipped Miguel Indurain during his record hour in 1994 (Padilla et al, 2000). If these numbers are accurate, this means that in his current TT position at optimal fitness, LA would have had his lunch handed to him in a TT vs Indurain during his prime. So, how about the ?real man?s hour? record currently held by Chris Boardman? In order to gain insight on this record, we have to know what Boardman?s/Merckx?s Watts per CdA ratio was (W/Cda). According to the same Padilla paper mentioned above, it has been estimated that Merckx had a W/CdA ratio of 1450 W/m^2. That?s pretty good. How does LA stack up? Well, we have two pieces of information about LA?s non-aero bar TT position CdA. The first is this image: http://www.trainright.com/photogallery/images/Windtunnelday007.jpg (again, don?t blame me if that link doesn?t work) which is of LA on the hoods of his TT bike (i.e, aero wheels, helmet, frame, etc?) -> the drag is 3708 grams at 30 mph. This approximate 25% increase from his TT position is consistent with my experience measuring Cd and frontal areas of cyclists (don?t take my word for it, though, try it yourself!). The other piece of information is that of the AMD info-mercial that was aired on OLN during the criterium dauphine libere a couple weeks ago. In that spot, there is a shot of LA on his hour record bike (which might be UCI hour record illegal) ? the drag on the screen shows 3416 grams at 30 mph. Well, this just isn?t consistent with neither my experience, nor the digital image overlays I created to compare the LA TT drops position to the AMD info-mercial position). Knowing that the ?truth? is somewhere between what has been communicated to the public in a marketing fashion, and what some skeptic like me has to say ? we can safely estimate that LA probably has drag closer to 3708 g (or a CdA of 0.334) than 3416 g. Let?s call it 3660 grams, or an even 0.33 CdA. So, this would make LA?s W/CdA ratio in his prime fitness to be around 452/0.33 = 1370 W/m^2, which puts LA about 5% short of Merckx/Boardman?s values of ~ 1450 W/m^2. If LA were to attempt the record at an elevation of 1250 meters, where the air density is lower, LA would still probably come up over 1000 meters short. I?m convinced LA couldn?t have broken the hour unless he drastically changed his riding position in order to improve his aerodynamics.

How about this in stage 19 final TT for a duration of 68 mins; For his Tour winning performance, I estimate his average power output at 394 Watts, about 3.5% better than he did in the final time trial last year, but not as strong as the 410 Watts that he unleashed on the first time trial. It was plenty. So even in a very very fatigued state he managed just under 400w for over an hour and not on a climb - so harder to get the power down. BikeMax2006-09-19 03:16:17

I didn't read it BikeMax' date=' just read the bits about how great Lance is/was... but then again I already knew that [/quote'] I knew you wouldn't

More..(don;t read this Jason ) explains Antoine Vayer: "The VO2 max of the American, otherwise known as the blood's oxygen consumption. As always, our foundation is the known physical characteristics of the rider- 1.77m, 71 kg in weight, bicycle weight of 8 kg, air resistance, the route's profile etc. That day, Lance Armstrong was given a time of 1 hour 8 minute and 36 seconds. In order to achieve that time, he would have needed a V02 max of 89-90. I have worked with the physical parameters given by half of the members of the Festina team in their great era, that of EPO to be precise. EPO, more than any other oxygen transporter in the blood, reduced the importance of other physiological characteristics that would have been important to a rider. And Lance Armstrong did even better than that, for during the eighth stage, he had to maintain an average power output of 450 watts. If we consider an index of endurance corresponding to that of the best athletes in the world, these 450 watts, which he maintained for one hour, corresponds to a VO2 max of 89, the standard being a sprinter who is at 100% of his maximum over a distance of 100m. In the discipline of track and field, if he had been a quarter miler, he would have been able to run 125 quarters at practically the same level as he ran the first. To be always at your maximum, without suffering, is unthinkable. His performances are unreal."

Developing these ideas further, Antoine Vayer has provided some concrete examples, Knowing the physiological facts of Lance Armstrong (1.77m, 71 kg, (his weight during the Tour de France,) combined with the results recorded by the SRM, it is possible to measure the power output of the rider. "Take the climb of Alpe D'Huez, a climb of 13.8 KM at an average inclination of 8.11%. Take into account the parameters already indicated with the race conditions that sort them selves out into four categories: 1. The solitary victories from attacks which began at the foot of the climb (Armstrong in 2001, Marco Pantani in 1994, Lucho Herrera in 1987.) 2. The solitary attacks which began toward the summit. 3. The victories which emanated from groups which escaped before they arrived at the Alpe D'Huez. 4. Those that were acquired as the result of a sprint from a little group. This example took place in the years before EPO, or in the first years of EPO. According to him, the "extraordinary" are the riders who developed wattage in excess of 450 watts, with attacks at the bottom of the mountain. That would be the case with Marco Pantani, who realized a record time of 37 minutes 15 seconds after having toiled through an Alpine stage. Even without a bold attack in its first switch backs, Alpe D'Huez requires, in a climb of 41 minutes 20 seconds @ 20 km/hour, a development of 400 watts fpr a rider of 70 kg. David Moncoutie on a good day could get there. The record to beat is 36 minutes 50 seconds, established by Marco Pantani in 1995, at an average of 22.48 km/hr, having developed an average of 461 watts after having crossed the Madeleine and Croix de Fer passes. Lance Armstrong lays claim to the fifth best time (the three best were achieved by Pantani, the fourth by Ullrich) in 2001 in 38 minutes 5 seconds, at 21.74 kh/hr. for an averagee of 442 watts, after having crossed the Madeleine and Glandon passes."

[quote name= Bikemax' date=' the question probably is, is 7w/kg the magic number that is not attainable without enhancement? Basso's numbers remember were average numbers for the entire ascent, most of which he spent behind teammates before launching attacks that no one could follow.[/quote] My gut feel is that those numbers are very unlikely to be attainable without "help" I have seen figures of ~5-5.2 w/kg from very good amateurs and these guys are flying.. Top TT riders like Michael Hutchence in the UK can sustain ~5.7w/kg Only supposition though..

His secret is out! I had wondered how he had raised his cycling - I thought he got strong from riding in the wind of Worcester. It definitely works... He worked very hard.. It was actually one of our coaches called Karen Van Tubbergh who coached him (mostly in her own time) and did a great job but she said he was great to work with as he was so focused and never missed a session

Sorry but I have to correct you here.... Firstly: Take a good look at those pics. Think about it.....there's no way the driver is walking away from an accident that rips one of the most advanced cars on the planet to carbon shreds. There's NOTHING left of the passenger compartment. Also' date=' I doubt the police would feel the need to cover parts of the car with that green sheet you see....that's probably what's left of the driver. And secondly: These pics were originally posted on www.wreckedexotics.com a couple months ago. The acident report said that the driver was killed on impact. Eyewitnesses reported seeing the car travel at high speed shortly before the accident as well as the day before. [/quote'] Sorry, you are correct. I actually have another set of photographs showing a simialr accident - but in the USA, and the son was apparently only bruised etc - but I notice this is in Italy. Not sure how to post the other ones.

Thats bloody good - so you should have been on my list of "elite"riders we have seen good results from

One of the best british cyclists of the past decade

Well whatever your motives, perhaos you need to look at the way you phrase your posts.. The majority of our clients (by choice) are middle of the pack riders who are short on time but want to improve performance - this is the biggest market in coaching and is also a very satisfying one as we see great results - look at any fun ride and that is where our clients are. Having said that we have coached and still coach some very good athletes such as Robby Rodrigues (SA Champ 04 vets), Robby Setton (SA Champ 06 vets) Frank Soll (Epic masters 10th and Transalp masters 11th) Terry Burrell (SA Champ masters TT and 8th worlds TT) Mike Bevan (2ns SA champs 4km pursuit) Johan Reyneke (world deaf champion MTB) There are a fair few more but I hope that suffices. I am 100% comfortable that the advice we give and the principles our coaching follow are at the cutting edge of where the science of training is right now. I personally ensure that we are always at the forefront and using the very latest developments to see if we can improve the performance of all athletes that we help (such as performance manager - see other thread) Cheers

I saw "we will rock you" the other week - what a great show and what a great reminder of the great music Queen produced - fantastic show.

I am a little bit puzzled by your approach. I am a passionate but not hugely capable cyclist / athlete who cycles and races for fun. I do OK but not great. Does this have any relevance to the advice I might give or my knowledge of cycle science / coaching.. I don't think so. I have a good understanding of the science and also the effort and passion needed to make a go of it. I have and continue to train some very successful and some not so successful cyclists but they all give it their best and we help them to be the best they can be.