# Bradley Wiggins: FTP and Pwr-to-Weight Ratio



## Cableguy

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?


----------



## spade2you

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.


----------



## bocksta

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


----------



## Cableguy

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.


----------



## Cableguy

bocksta said:


> 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.


----------



## The Tedinator

Not normal.


----------



## DrSmile

spade2you said:


> 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...


----------



## kbiker3111

DrSmile said:


> 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.


----------



## kbiker3111

kbiker3111 said:


> 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.


----------



## robdamanii

kbiker3111 said:


> 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.


----------



## den bakker

kbiker3111 said:


> 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.


----------



## kbiker3111

den bakker said:


> 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.


----------



## asgelle

den bakker said:


> 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.


----------



## DrSmile

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."


----------



## den bakker

kbiker3111 said:


> 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.


sample or report?


----------



## asgelle

DrSmile said:


> 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).


----------



## kbiker3111

den bakker said:


> sample or report?


It both samples and reports power at 1 rpm. I dont know what it does wit torque.


----------



## kbiker3111

asgelle said:


> 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?


----------



## clonechemist

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.


----------



## asgelle

clonechemist said:


> 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.


----------



## Cableguy

asgelle said:


> 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.


Well, I think it's fair to say his weight was 69-70kg while racing in 2012 and 2011. All the articles I've found about Wiggen's weight those years reference either 70kg or 69kg. Team Sky's website lists his race weight at 69kg. Very recently he also said he was 70kg for the 2012 Tour. 

Can anyone comment on the approximate power discrepancy between an SRM and an asyemmtrical chainring? For now I'll just assume 10% is the worst case scenario.

So worst case scenario, in 2011 during Paris Nice he weighed 70kg and did (456w/1.1) = 415w for 55 minutes. That's an FTP with a power ratio of 415w/70kg = 5.93w/kg. 

Can anyone who is familiar with the calculations break down the VO2 max scenarios needed for 5.93w/kg? 

I found the following from this article, which would suggest a 5.93w/kg would require a VO2max of about 85 ml/kg/min. But I think it's important to note the 5.93 number is likely significantly understimating Wiggin's w/kg in 2012 because: 


He undoubtably got faster in 2012 and improved, 
I seriously doubt Team Sky would allow him to train on a PM that is 10% off, 
I'm not convinced he was 70kg instead of 69kg, especially after racing for several weeks (could have even been less than 69kg)



> What is the physiology of riding at 6W/kg? If a cyclist has an efficiency of 24%, then the VO2 at 6W/kg is about 71 ml/kg/min. If this represents 85% of a maximum, then a VO2max of 83 ml/kg/min is estimated. If the efficiency is 23% (measured by Coyle for Armstrong in 1999), incidentally, then the VO2 is 74ml/kg/min and the estimated max would be 87 ml/kg/min. Neither jumps out as not-seen-before-physiology. But, if you go up to 6.2W or 6.3W/kg, then it starts to become, well, questionable.


----------



## Bluenote

To look at the question from a big picture - I think it is hard to take general physiological assumptions and apply them too specifically to any one person. 

One person might benefit a lot from dropping 5 pounds. Another person might really struggle to 'loose fat, maintain muscle.' 

Asymmetrical chain rings might hypothetically increase power by extending the time major muscle groups are engaged axially (or close to it) - but the lactic acid still needs to be removed, the body cooled, etc... 

It would be great if some kind of passport rule of thumb could be developed to detect doping (power >xx = doping). 

But for now I'm sticking with the rule of thumb - if it's too good to be true, it likely is.


----------



## roddjbrown

Cableguy said:


> 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.


Whilst I doubt it's that big a difference he was looking much bigger in Oman last week than he did last year


----------



## Local Hero

How hard is it to run a powertap *and* qaurq with asymmetric rings and compare it to a powertap *and* a quarq with round rings

? 

Or if you want to show your true love for cycling, compare quarq data from asymmetric rings to round rings and calibrate them against a lemond trainer. 





Wiggo and many pro riders have useless little t-rex arms. As more riders begin to lose upper body mass while maintaining leg strength, how strong is the 6.9 number?

To put it another way, imagine a double-amputee cyclist with lightweight prosthetic arms and hands. His lower body, V02max and cardio are identical to a 6.8w/kg cyclist, but he is 5kg lighter with his plastic arms putting him over 7.0w/kg


----------



## spade2you

Or you could compare it to a Computrainer. I did that last year with my Quarq.


----------



## rydbyk

Even if these wattage numbers are fairly accurate, that is insane power. It's like ramming a hybrid-like efficient V8 engine into a little Honda CRX....with high octane fuel of course..haha


----------



## kbiker3111

Sorta like this?

Georgia Tech


----------



## Local Hero

Little cars with big engines are more exciting than Wiggo's t-rex arms.


----------



## foto

I absolutely refuse to believe that the guy that won all the races last year was putting out more power than every one else.


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> Little cars with big engines are more exciting than Wiggo's t-rex arms.


----------



## foto

kbiker3111 said:


> Sorta like this?
> 
> Georgia Tech


The Zero Fucks Given RX7 Is Better Than Any Car You'll Ever Own


----------



## Local Hero

If Wiggin's power to weight was above the magic level, why did he have to tell Froome to wait for him? What was Pierre Rolland's watt/kg ratio that day?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Cableguy said:


> In 2011 Paris Nice, Bradley Wiggins claims to have averaged 456w for 55 minutes.


Do you have a link for this claim? 

I do not think he claimed this was from Paris Nice but from the 2011 Worlds TT. I have not seen anything that points to him being able to sustain 456W on an hour long climb.


----------



## aclinjury

Local Hero said:


> If Wiggin's power to weight was above the magic level, why did he have to tell Froome to wait for him? What was Pierre Rolland's watt/kg ratio that day?


Froome was dropping Wiggo on stage 17.

But then you have Conti, Valverde, Rodriguez clearly dropping Froome in the Vuelta (granted, Froome was probably beat up a little from the Tour, but still). It does make one wonder what are the W/Kg for those guys were (and we know the Spanish are juicing!).


----------



## Cableguy

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you have a link for this claim?
> 
> I do not think he claimed this was from Paris Nice but from the 2011 Worlds TT. I have not seen anything that points to him being able to sustain 456W on an hour long climb.


For some reason I thought it was during a TT in Paris Nice, but you're right it was a TT in Worlds. Link


Wiggins said,



> Without boring you too much with the technicalities I averaged 456 watts for 55 minutes at the Worlds last year against Tony and still finished 1min 20sec behind.


----------



## kbiker3111

Just to make the counterpoint, lets look at his other public power numbers. Anything you read in the papers is probably a smoke screen but its at least fun to play with the numbers. 

In his first foray into road racing, Wiggins released some of his pursuit numbers, namely that he could do 570 or 580 watts at Athens. Does this pass the smell test? Well maybe. A domestic-level pursuiter of Wiggins size could probably do 500 watts for 4+ minutes and while Wiggins wasn't the best ever, he was probably the top rider of his decade (3x IP WC, 2x IP OC, record holder). Can a top pursuiter win clean? Who knows with Olympians, but Brad Mcgee is by and large considered clean and he was nearly as fast as Wiggins, so I would say it is possible to compete as a clean world class pursuit racer. Someone could back out the VO2 max for someone of his size based on those power numbers pretty easily.

Now what can we tell about FTP from pursuit power? I'm not super familiar with the correlation between 4 and 5 minute power (as 5 minute power is a standard duration) but it should be within 5%. So lets say his 4:15 power (time at Athens) is 575 and his 5 minute power is 546 (this assumes a relatively high anaerobic component of power). Most elite racers focus on FTP enough and maximize their potential enough that their 1 hour power is at least 90% of their 5 minute power. We're assuming Wiggins has a relatively high AWC, so lets hedge a little and say in top form, before any weight loss, Wiggins can hold 480 watts for an hour. Does that mean that after losing the fabled 7+ kilos of body weight Sir Wiggo would be able to sustain 456 watts for 55 minutes? I don't know, but it seems within the realm of possibility.

And what about that body weight? Any published body weight and height values are probably even more of a smoke screen than the power numbers, but he's listed at 69kg (152 lbs) and 1.9 meters (just under 6'3"). Is that a healthy weight? Would he be giving up massive watts to sustain that weight? The old school wisdom is that an in shape climber should have 2 pounds for each inch of height, which would mean someone of wiggo's height should weigh just about 150 pounds. A simple BMI calculation indicates wiggo has a BMI of 19.1, which is just on the borderline of underweight. I would believe 70 kg as a healthy weight for someone of Wiggin's height but 69 starts to seem sickly. Still 450 watts and 70kg is 6.43 W/kg, which is much higher than the published numbers for Nibali.

Make no mistake, I'm not saying Wiggins is clean. He quite easily could have been doping since the beginning of his track career. Furthermore, the margin of victory in a GT is so sharp even a tiny bit of dope could make the .5% difference over 3 weeks necessary for a commanding win. But using the numbers available to us, his performances don't seem too out of this world. A lot of hand waving was involved in drilling through those numbers but I padded the margins pretty well so the likelyhood of him reaching such sustained levels are pretty likely. Yeah, your average 40 year old crit racer can't dream of going that fast but your beer-league softball player can't hit a Pedro Martinez fastball either.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Cableguy said:


> For some reason I thought it was during a TT in Paris Nice, but you're right it was a TT in Worlds. Link
> 
> 
> Wiggins said,


I think Wiggins is blowing some smoke, something that he is known to do. 

The Worlds was not a great race for him so it would be surprising if he had such a high output. A better data point to look at would be to look at one of his better races, the Col de Eze TT at PN. 

If you look at some of the SRM readings over the last 2 years it is hard to believe that Wiggins is anywhere close to 456 watts for 55 minutes

Danny Pate finished 2 minutes back, weighs 3-4 kilos more, and avearaged 423 over 21 minutes. This is also a climbing TT which, due to bike positioning, results in higher output
Team Sky | Pro Cycling | Paris - Nice | Latest News | Danny Pate Paris-Nice analysis


----------



## spade2you

Among other things, it would seem that the smoke he blew attracted a little attention.


----------



## Local Hero

*Smoking 10 or more cigarettes per day is associated with an average hemoglobin increase of 3.5% *

Cigarette smoking has been shown to increase serum hemoglobin, increase total lung capacity and stimulate weight loss, factors that all contribute to enhanced performance in endurance sports.

Cigarette smoking: an underused tool in high-performance endurance training










I'd just about die laughing if a biological passport showed blood manipulation. And the athlete did nothing but smoke cigarettes.


----------



## atpjunkie

26 lb drop to race weight from 180 to 154

brutal


----------



## woodys737

atpjunkie said:


> 26 lb drop to race weight from 180 to 154
> 
> brutal


Coupled with rising power! Crazy brutal.


----------



## SauronHimself

Local Hero said:


> *Smoking 10 or more cigarettes per day is associated with an average hemoglobin increase of 3.5% *
> 
> Cigarette smoking has been shown to increase serum hemoglobin, increase total lung capacity and stimulate weight loss, factors that all contribute to enhanced performance in endurance sports.
> 
> Cigarette smoking: an underused tool in high-performance endurance training
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd just about die laughing if a biological passport showed blood manipulation. And the athlete did nothing but smoke cigarettes.


I wonder if it would make more sense to smoke one or two cigars per day and avoid the chemicals found in cigarettes.


----------



## Local Hero

I just reread the article I posted. While I know that much of the content is accurate, the tone is so over the top that I question whether it is serious.


----------



## Local Hero

Past cheaters masked their doping with saline IVs, microdosed EPO, a big glass of water before bed, diuretics, chemicals in the urine stream, and Lord knows what else. Now there's a call for Sky and others to release power data, the smoking gun. I'm all for transparency, but let's be serious here. 


*What stops cheaters from calibrating a power meter to show 3-5% less output?*


----------



## Local Hero

AND...What stops a cheater from lying about his weight? 

What do we do if two similarly sized domestiques finish together, only one averages 220watts and the other averages 260watts for the six hour stage?


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> Past cheaters masked their doping with saline IVs, microdosed EPO, a big glass of water before bed, diuretics, chemicals in the urine stream, and Lord knows what else. Now there's a call for Sky and others to release power data, the smoking gun. I'm all for transparency, but let's be serious here.
> 
> 
> *What stops cheaters from calibrating a power meter to show 3-5% less output?*


Very valid point.


----------



## Cableguy

Local Hero said:


> AND...What stops a cheater from lying about his weight?
> 
> What do we do if two similarly sized domestiques finish together, only one averages 220watts and the other averages 260watts for the six hour stage?


You would only look at the better of the values, but as you pointed out if cheaters are savy enough to get around the current doping tests I'm sure they'd figure out how to cheat or manipulate their power data too.


----------



## The Tedinator

I doubt that Sir Bradley is smoking tobacco in that pic.


----------



## spade2you

The Tedinator said:


> I doubt that Sir Bradley is smoking tobacco in that pic.


Man, it's a good thing the US didn't knight Lance or something like that.


----------



## terzo rene

This French piece mentions in passing that Wiggins was 5.9 watts/kg in the Tour. Google Translate

I assume the author did a more detailed analysis of the Tour numbers elsewhere but I haven't looked. What I found interesting in the above piece was that while numbers have dropped about 10% from the peaks in the 90's, they still aren't as low as the 80's (though Eric Caritoux was hardly a champion).


----------



## Local Hero

thanks, that was an interesting read


----------



## thehook

terzo rene said:


> This French piece mentions in passing that Wiggins was 5.9 watts/kg in the Tour. Google Translate
> 
> I assume the author did a more detailed analysis of the Tour numbers elsewhere but I haven't looked. What I found interesting in the above piece was that while numbers have dropped about 10% from the peaks in the 90's, they still aren't as low as the 80's (though Eric Caritoux was hardly a champion).


Wow! Thanks for that. It was a great read.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

terzo rene said:


> (though Eric Caritoux was hardly a champion).


He did win the Vuelta, clean according to Voet

Regarding Wiggins/Sky power number. In David Walsh's Sky piece Kerrison says Porte average 416 watts on the first half of Col de Eze and 384 on the second half. His time was essentially the same as Wiggins time last year as the course was 100m longer this year

It appears Wiggins is pulling some legs on his watts


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears Wiggins is pulling some legs on his watts


That and/or his power numbers are a little skewed from his chainrings/SRM. Regardless, I think they might be getting a little unwanted attention from that.


----------



## 88 rex

spade2you said:


> That and/or his power numbers are a little skewed from his chainrings/SRM. Regardless, I think they might be getting a little unwanted attention from that.


Has this difference in rings been verified? I recall reading in a forum somewhere where a guy had both round rings and rotor rings and noticed no difference in power readings.


----------



## dcb

Local Hero said:


> I just reread the article I posted. While I know that much of the content is accurate, the tone is so over the top that I question whether it is serious.


It's serious in its intent to show how research can be misused to support a false claim.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> That and/or his power numbers are a little skewed from his chainrings/SRM. Regardless, I think they might be getting a little unwanted attention from that.


His average for the 20 minute TT would be about 420. Averaging 456 for 55 minutes is a huge difference, especially as he was having an off day as he lost over a minute to Tony Martin. 

Do you have a link that supports the chain rings theory?


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you have a link that supports the chain rings theory?


Just what I've heard a few times. I don't use asymmetrical chain rings (yet?) and use Quarq instead of SRM. I'd probably do a lot more research if I were using SRM and thinking about making the switch.


----------



## The Tedinator

This is from the following web page:Osymetric – Gimmick or Legit? | Cycling Tips


I’ve heard that some sports scientists say that the shape of the chainrings fools the power meter readings into make the measurements appear higher than they really are. Update: 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.


----------



## nhluhr

The Tedinator said:


> This is from the following web page:Osymetric – Gimmick or Legit? | Cycling Tips
> 
> 
> I’ve heard that some sports scientists say that the shape of the chainrings fools the power meter readings into make the measurements appear higher than they really are. Update: 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.


The article mentions lack of explosiveness or high end kick. Maybe that's why wiggins never really bothers to cover breaks. He just grinds them down with a high pace.

Still, it's hard to believe their claims of wattage gains when they don't say how they are measuring.... at the crank which has mixed reports of causing calibration changes or at the wheel which should filter out such changes?


----------



## nhluhr

Also found this interesting:


> Training
> 
> Jean-Louis says that it’s effective to go back to training on regular circular chainrings a week before competition and then put the Osymetric back on the day before competition. He calls this the “turbo boost”. I’ve asked around about this and this is what Bradley Wiggins does. However, most of the pros don’t do this because of practical reasons and not wanting to fiddle with the front shifting (most pros only have one training bike, but Wiggo would be well looked after).


I am guessing this helps combat the adaptation that would occur and eventually nullify any beneficial changes.


----------



## DrSmile

> Jean-Louis says that it’s effective to go back to training on regular circular chainrings a week before competition and then put the Osymetric back on the day before competition. He calls this the “turbo boost”. I’ve asked around about this and this is what Bradley Wiggins does. However, most of the pros don’t do this because of practical reasons and not wanting to fiddle with the front shifting (most pros only have one training bike, but Wiggo would be well looked after).


It's a little too convenient don't you think that this is the exact effect you'd get if you received a blood transfusion that evening? In light of recent revelations I find this explanation incredibly sophistic.


----------



## Cableguy

DrSmile said:


> It's a little too convenient don't you think that this is the exact effect you'd get if you received a blood transfusion that evening? In light of recent revelations I find this explanation incredibly sophistic.


You want to know what Wiggins is on? He's on his bike. Six hours a day. Busting his ass. That's what he's on.


----------



## nhluhr

DrSmile said:


> It's a little too convenient don't you think that this is the exact effect you'd get if you received a blood transfusion that evening? In light of recent revelations I find this explanation incredibly sophistic.


Well sure, and this is I suppose off topic for this particular sub-forum, but as a tech sidebar, a lot of the criticism for non-round rings has always been that the rider will eventually adapt and nullify any immediate changes. I would think training on round rings and then using some kind of physiologically idealized ring shape might prove better than always riding the idealized ring shape.


----------



## spade2you

The Tedinator said:


> This is from the following web page:Osymetric – Gimmick or Legit? | Cycling Tips
> 
> 
> I’ve heard that some sports scientists say that the shape of the chainrings fools the power meter readings into make the measurements appear higher than they really are. Update: 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.


When I spoke with Quarq, he said he hard heard that about the Osym rings with SRM, but hadn't tried them on a Quarq yet. Rotors seemed to work nicely. There were some 54 and 55t 11 speed rings that didn't quite work with Quarq that I was considering at the time.


----------



## thighmaster

I'm just bummed he and his team will ruin the Giro this year. Ho hum hear comes the SKY train all the way up the mountain. Can't hang on? Well just wait until Wiggans takes his pull--sounds familiar doesn't it. Thankfully the Giro has pitches that make it tougher.


----------



## Atty

thighmaster said:


> I'm just bummed he and his team will ruin the Giro this year. Ho hum hear comes the SKY train all the way up the mountain. Can't hang on? Well just wait until Wiggans takes his pull--sounds familiar doesn't it. Thankfully the Giro has pitches that make it tougher.


I know it's terrible....what gives these teams the right to ruin the Giro by riding to their strengths.
Maybe we could take this attitude with other sports....if only Barcelona would adopt a policy of not passing to Lionel Messi because its just not fair that he scores so many goals!!


----------



## thighmaster

Classic, their strenghts, doping and hiding doping. I get your point, but you have to give value to the days when a group of climbers would have some revenge and the one on one battles in the mountains. Now it's team TT time, you like it your way, I'll like it mine.


----------



## Local Hero

thighmaster said:


> I'm just bummed he and his team will ruin the Giro this year. Ho hum hear comes the SKY train all the way up the mountain. Can't hang on? Well just wait until Wiggans takes his pull--sounds familiar doesn't it. Thankfully the Giro has pitches that make it tougher.


Don't be so sad. Here, this will cheer you up: Babe Ruth vs Lance Armstrong


----------



## foto

thighmaster said:


> Classic, their strenghts, doping and hiding doping. I get your point, but you have to give value to the days when a group of climbers would have some revenge and the one on one battles in the mountains. Now it's team TT time, you like it your way, I'll like it mine.


You missed last year's Vuelta?


----------



## ph0enix

Cableguy said:


> 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.


Does he lose muscle mass in the off season? If so, then the extra 30lbs may not be as visible as it would seem.


----------

