# Somewhat strange opinion piece from Antoine Vayer



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

I read this piece lately on "Le monde" analyzing this year's tour power outputs.
At first I thought it to be interesting however after closer inspection I find his thoughts disjointed and he's making quite afew loose connections. 
Here's the original Nibali, dernier «*surhumain*» avec ses 417 watts

And here's my loose translation:


For «Le monde» Festina’s former coach, Antoine Vayer, analyze’s athletes’ performances in the mountains.

Finally, the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics: I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. On the podium at the Champs-Elysées, that afternoon on July 24 2005, Lance Armstrong publicly calls out his detractors, after his 7th TdF triumph. Eight years later, in a restaurant not far from the Arc de triomphe, the American, now stripped of his yellow jerseyss, admits that those words were directed at us (the journalists). From his first success in 1999 we explain in this article that his performances, some attaining more than 430 watts on average in many key climbs of the tour are described as «miraculous». Between 410 and 430 watts we classify them as «suspicious», while others describe them as «proof of doping». Below 410 watts we are in the realm of «humanly possible». 
None of this (less than 410 watts average) means that a racer is clean : Armstrong won, in 1999, by producing 406 watts, and his compatriot Floyd Landis, in 2006, with only 395 watts before being declared positive for testosterone. But this allows, for this year at least, for racers like Jean-Christophe Péraud, 37 years old, to finally finish the Tour on the podium while producing only 407 watts on average. Just like (Thibaut) Pinot, 24 years old. This 2014 Tour is a mixed bag of racers who seemingly do not cheat and others that could have but didn’t. Athletes like Frank Schleck or Rui Costa, used to pushing the limits at 420 watts on the slopes, but have fallen this year to 380 watts. On the decline. One exception, Vincenzo Nibali.

Some key obervations

During the «port de Balès» climb (11.8 km long at 7.8% average slope) a stage driven by Alejandro Valverde’s teammates, Pinot with a 417 watt output in 32min52sec, beat Alberto Contador’s record, caught for Clenbuterol, by more than a minute. Troubling but the following day during the Pla d’Adet climb (10.3 km at 8.2%) fatigue was settling in for everyone except Vincenzo Nibali with his 411 watts performance and with seemingly no pain in his face. He left the stage win to Rafal Majka, his second. 
The 5th key climb, Hautacam was preceded by the col du Tourmalet. The peloton crossed the finish line after 42 minutes and 40 seconds, quite far from the mutant’s, Bjarne Riis, record of 5 min. 30 sec. Quite reassuring since fatigue was settling in except for one. The Shark of Messina himself, Vincenzo Nibali, who won his 4th stage on an incredible 37 minutes and 25 seconds performance or 428 watts. Still quite far from Riis’ incredible output of 479 watts in 1996, but still 5 seconds faster than former teammate Leonardo Piepoli, that won at Hautacam on 2008 on an identical stage, only to be excluded later for EPO use. That same year, Nibali was 3 minutes 40 sec. behind Piepoli in Hautacam. 

Vincent Lavenu (AG2R manager) and Marc Madiot (FDJ manager) have understood the necessity to surround themselves with riders like Péraud, Bardet and Pinot and not like Nibali. Not sure that Alexandre Vinokourov, he himself showing 429 watts performances like in the 2003 tour one he finished in 3rd place, shares those same convictions. He is today Nibali’s mentor. With 417 watts average he is stronger than C. Froome, who crushed his opponents during the 2013 tour with his 412 watts average.
Nibali’s closest competitor (2nd place finisher JC Peraud) was at more than 7 minutes behind. A gap so great that we have to go all the way to 2002, one of Armstrong’s triumphs, to see something similar. 

Reasons to still be skeptical.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Good read. 

How much more would it have been to break that into watts per kilogram?


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Tour 14: Nibali VS Peraud VS Pinot VS Valverde. W/kg en cada ascensión (DrF)

<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TDF?src=hash">#TDF</a> <a href="http://t.co/1g3zYQVxbd">pic.twitter.com/1g3zYQVxbd</a></p>— InfoCiclismo (@Info__Ciclismo) <a href="https://twitter.com/Info__Ciclismo/statuses/494219332051017728">July 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Good read.
> 
> How much more would it have been to break that into watts per kilogram?


While we can calculate watts/kg from every rider's official page, is it accurate? For example Nibali's Wikipedia entry has him at 65 kg. However did he weigh that much once the race hit the Alps or the Pyrenees?

One last question, are watts/kg measured using the rider's weight only or the rider's weight plus the weight of his bike?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

love4himies said:


> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Tour 14: Nibali VS Peraud VS Pinot VS Valverde. W/kg en cada ascensión (DrF)
> 
> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TDF?src=hash">#TDF</a> <a href="http://t.co/1g3zYQVxbd">pic.twitter.com/1g3zYQVxbd</a></p>— InfoCiclismo (@Info__Ciclismo) <a href="https://twitter.com/Info__Ciclismo/statuses/494219332051017728">July 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


and then how much does that tell people without a) grade b) length and c) weather? 
Well except Nibali was faster than the other.....


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Local Hero said:


> Good read.
> 
> How much more would it have been to break that into watts per kilogram?


It essentially is W/kg. Vayer takes the performance of each rider then translates that to the power a rider of standard weight (and drag) would have had to produce to do the climb in the same time. 

Science of Sport has a much better and nuanced discussion of the same thing. The physiology at the front of the Tour - The Science of Sport


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Vayer's kinda an ass. Not using w/kg (or VAM, preferably), not giving an explanation as to _why_ 410 and 430 are significant and not giving any historical context (I believe both wiggo and froome produced higher w/kg than nibali did this year). Vayer seems to be just interested in saying they're all dopers and yelling about it.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

love4himies said:


> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Tour 14: Nibali VS Peraud VS Pinot VS Valverde. W/kg en cada ascensión (DrF)
> 
> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TDF?src=hash">#TDF</a> <a href="http://t.co/1g3zYQVxbd">pic.twitter.com/1g3zYQVxbd</a></p>— InfoCiclismo (@Info__Ciclismo) <a href="https://twitter.com/Info__Ciclismo/statuses/494219332051017728">July 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Cool, thanks. 



asgelle said:


> It essentially is W/kg.


But it's not w/kg, so I ask how much more it would take to make it into w/kg. 

If we're looking for the clearest possible picture let's use some clear metrics!

And thanks for the article. I am reading it now, tabbing between it and some other documents that I am paid to read. It looks like the author there breaks things down into w/kg and compares to Froome. Nice. 



kbiker3111 said:


> Vayer's kinda an ass. Not using w/kg (or VAM, preferably), not giving an explanation as to _why_ 410 and 430 are significant and not giving any historical context (I believe both wiggo and froome produced higher w/kg than nibali did this year). Vayer seems to be just interested in saying they're all dopers and yelling about it.


Interesting. 

How many 400+ watt performances (without positive tests) will we need to see before 400+ watts is the new norm? 

And I think this would be a little easier if it were all w/kg.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

There are some folks doing excellent work in this area.....but Vayer is not one of them. He is nuts, makes little sense, and tosses out unsupported claims 24/7


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Local Hero said:


> Cool, thanks.
> 
> But it's not w/kg, so I ask how much more it would take to make it into w/kg.
> 
> ...


Why? Because for such a ratio to be meaningful you *have* to have accurate weight measurement...and the only way to get that is to weigh the man the day he does that climb (or preferably at the base of the climb). And no Jean-Public is ever going to get that data.

+/- a few KG in guessing weight inaccuracy is enough to make your work suspect.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Marc said:


> Why? Because for such a ratio to be meaningful you *have* to have accurate weight measurement...and the only way to get that is to weigh the man the day he does that climb (or preferably at the base of the climb). And no Jean-Public is ever going to get that data.
> 
> +/- a few KG in guessing weight inaccuracy is enough to make your work suspect.


Yes but on what basis is Vayer estimating 417 watts? Did Nibali publish his data?

He can just use VAM.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Look at the Hautacam list and look at the dates when the times were set:

Subiendo como una moto: New Hautacam Top 100: Nibali, close to the first quarter

Literally every single faster time was during the doping era. That's pretty suspicious. I figure another 200 tests or so and he may come up positive...


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> Look at the Hautacam list and look at the dates when the times were set:
> 
> Subiendo como una moto: New Hautacam Top 100: Nibali, close to the first quarter
> 
> Literally every single faster time was during the doping era. That's pretty suspicious. I figure another 200 tests or so and he may come up positive...


How can every faster time be in the doping era when Indurian is third?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

DrSmile said:


> Look at the Hautacam list and look at the dates when the times were set: ...


2014 Tour de France: Performance analysis ready - The Science of Sport
"So what we need to avoid is what I last year termed “Performance pixellation”, where you look so closely at a single performance, that one ‘pixel’, and then decide what the picture is. Taking a single climb, or even a single rider, and making sweeping judgments on the plausibility of performances goes BEYOND what this method and concept will allow. I realize that some do that – I ask that you direct your questions to them. I will do my very best to remain objective, conservative and ‘big picture driven’ over the next three weeks."


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm weary of the argument that a rider is suspect if they ride the fastest _non-doped_ time, eg "Everyone who rode the climb faster was doped up..." 

Someone will ride the fastest clean time (and it might even be faster than a known doper's time) so being fast is not enough to draw too many conclusions, especially if there are a number of faster times. I'm sure this is not lost the author of the sports science article but it seems to get bandied about.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

I think he (and others) use VAM and convert it to W/kg. On climbs that steep essentially all power goes to fight gravity (drag and rolling resistance are negligible) so if you know time and vertical elevation, you can convert it to equivalent W/kg.

As to significance of 410W or 430W or whatever - go read "Not Normal?".

Some people like to nitpick about whether the way W/kg numbers are calculated is flawed - after looking into it in some detail it appears the margins of error are not that large, and someone with decent math skills and statistical background can get a very detailed picture of getting W/kg on a climb without actual power data from rider (or their weight).

Others often question the basic premise of soft cutoff - 400W or whatever, which obviously depends on the length of the climb etc. One can then use pVAM vs. DpVAM to figure out where the specific performance is, relative to "doping" years in TdF, for example. Just because nobody can point to a sharp cutoff that separates "clean" vs. "doping" doesn't mean these comparisons are not meaningful or invalid.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

55x11 said:


> I think he (and others) use VAM and convert it to W/kg. On climbs that steep essentially all power goes to fight gravity (drag and rolling resistance are negligible) so if you know time and vertical elevation, you can convert it to equivalent W/kg.


Not exactly. 5 W/kg is the New Normal (get over it!) ? veloclinic In this example 10% of power goes to overcome drag. That might not seem like much but it's the difference between 5.9 W/kg and 6.5 W/kg. The difference in implication between those two numbers is huge.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

asgelle said:


> Not exactly. 5 W/kg is the New Normal (get over it!) ? veloclinic In this example 10% of power goes to overcome drag. That might not seem like much but it's the difference between 5.9 W/kg and 6.5 W/kg. The difference in implication between those two numbers is huge.


Interesting. 10% is used to overcome drag. 

Doping and speculation aside, I would be really interested in seeing an experiment with two equal size riders that measures the power difference with one drafting the other. I've heard that drafting can save 40% of overall power on the flats. What about climbs? Is there a formula out there that can graph this with a variety of speeds and slopes?


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I guess if you're climbing up a mountain at 18mph. So yeah, if you're doped to the gills and going that fast drafting may be significantly beneficial...

I'm marking this thread for when he gets popped.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Local Hero said:


> ... I would be really interested in seeing an experiment with two equal size riders that measures the power difference with one drafting the other. I've heard that drafting can save 40% of overall power on the flats. What about climbs? Is there a formula out there that can graph this with a variety of speeds and slopes?


All you had to do was ask. Racing cyclist power requirements in th... [Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

The model for bicycle performance accounting for power input and all resistive forces is well validated. It was first presented here 
http://www.recumbents.com/WISIL/MartinDocs/Validation of a mathematical model for road cycling.pdf but the model at analyticcycling.com applies the same equations. All drafting does is lower the CdA by some fraction depending on the sizes, separation, and positions of the riders. You can use the model at analyticcycling.com to see the effect of lowering drag on power/speed as a function of slope.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

DrSmile said:


> I guess if you're climbing up a mountain at 18mph. So yeah, if you're doped to the gills and going that fast drafting may be significantly beneficial...
> 
> I'm marking this thread for when he gets popped.


Are you seriously saying that you believe 5 W/kg is indicative of doping? Or do just reflexively equate pro cycling with doping (in which case you're dealing with a faith-based, rather than evidence based world view and there's no point discussing it)?


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

asgelle said:


> Are you seriously saying that you believe 5 W/kg is indicative of doping? Or do just reflexively equate pro cycling with doping (in which case you're dealing with a faith-based, rather than evidence based world view and there's no point discussing it)?


I haven't seen the existence of God proven 12 times in a row with the last 5 years being questionable because of the statute of limitations. It's a pretty poor analogy.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

DrSmile said:


> I haven't seen the existence of God proven 12 times in a row with the last 5 years being questionable because of the statute of limitations. It's a pretty poor analogy.


Do you think that whooshing noise is the sound of the point going over your head?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> Good read.
> 
> How much more would it have been to break that into watts per kilogram?


I wouldn't ask Vayer, as he seems to get these basic numbers wrong.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> Interesting. 10% is used to overcome drag.
> 
> Doping and speculation aside, I would be really interested in seeing an experiment with two equal size riders that measures the power difference with one drafting the other. I've heard that drafting can save 40% of overall power on the flats. What about climbs? Is there a formula out there that can graph this with a variety of speeds and slopes?


Yes, there is, but to summarise an example for you of pro level race speeds up an 8% slope you can expect a 20-30% reduction in drag when drafting closely. 

In terms of climbing power, that equates to a 1.8% - 2.6% reduction in power to sustain same climbing speed (i.e. around 10W). 

10W is a big enough difference to go from hanging for the duration to blowing up early.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Yes, but did you actually read the link you posted?
10% to overcome the drag is more or less always there. It changes a bit when there is tailwind or headwind, but it's always there, and because most mountain climbs have switchbacks the tailwind/headwind alternates a lot.

So you are not looking at difference between having no drag at all and having drag all of a sudden. 
By taking into account the wind, you are looking at something like 9% vs 11% drag changes, not 0% to 10%. It's always there but sometimes a bit more and sometimes a bit less.

In order for mistake from veloclinic calculation to be really 10%, 5.9 vs. 6.5 W/kg you need a hurricane. I believe the W/kg calculations from steep climbs are very close to actual numbers - probably within a 1% or two, possibly better than you would get from dividing power meter measurement (+- 2% accuracy) by the weight (another 1% or so in accuracy).


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

55x11 said:


> Yes, but did you actually read the link you posted?
> 10% to overcome the drag is more or less always there. It changes a bit when there is tailwind or headwind, but it's always there, and because most mountain climbs have switchbacks the tailwind/headwind alternates a lot.
> 
> So you are not looking at difference between having no drag at all and having drag all of a sudden.
> ...


Even very modest differences in air movement on a climb has a large impact on the power required. No hurricane required. Indeed very light wind is all that's required.

You have more faith in the precision than I. Or these guys who tested it:

http://twitdoc.com/upload/hansvdw/docu-cyc-power-output-error.pdf



> Aerodynamic drag (affected by wind velocity and orientation, frontal area, drafting and speed) is the most confounding factor. The mean estimated values are close to the PO values measured by powermeters, *but the random error is between ±6% and ±10%*.
> 
> Moreover, at the POs (>400 W) produced by professional riders, this error is likely to be higher. This observation calls into question the validity of releasing individual values without the reporting of the range of random errors.


----------



## Surestick Malone (Jan 11, 2003)

Shouldn't using VAM cut out the uncertainty in the rider's weight?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Surestick Malone said:


> Shouldn't using VAM cut out the uncertainty in the rider's weight?


To some extent but not entirely since the physics has to include mass of total system not just the bike rider.


----------

