Outstanding performances through Enhanced Powerbar Options?

The most amazing thing about that is the numbers put up by the little Pantani. His blood must have had the viscosity of yogurt in the mid and late 90s.

The second obvious thing is that going from a time of unrestricted EPO use past the beginning of hematocrit testing and into the time of direct EPO testing, the power numbers did not decrease. Everyone is as doped up as they were in 1996.

wow, der kaiser was pushing out 474 watts in the 1997 tour. dang

Guess I better go and do a bit more training.................

Bro Deal said:

The most amazing thing about that is the numbers put up by the little Pantani. His blood must have had the viscosity of yogurt in the mid and late 90s.

Considering his weight was ~55kg he was putting out 8.36 watts/kg - that will get you up a mountain in a hurry.

cynic said:

Considering his weight was ~55kg he was putting out 8.36 watts/kg - that will get you up a mountain in a hurry.

I'd love to know how they calculated those numbers. With the numbers they cite, Pantani not only should've crushed everyone in the mountains but in the TT's as well. Something's amiss in those calculations.

fscyclist said:

I'd love to know how they calculated those numbers. With the numbers they cite, Pantani not only should've crushed everyone in the mountains but in the TT's as well. Something's amiss in those calculations.

Those numbers are [censored].

The published data of FLoyd Landis and Armstrong and others (whether you think they dope or not) are clear.
6.7-7.0 watts per kg are the magic tour winning numbers.

If Pantani put out 450 watts he would have been good at ITTs and not losing minutes. It also means he would have put out ridiculous times int he mountains, I mean even MORE ridiculous than he already did.

How much did Marco weigh? 57 kg from what I have found.
450 watts?
hmmmm....
7.9-8.0 watts per kg?
Unheard of, absolutely unheard of.

If you take Lance's numbers on Alpe d'Huez as 450 watts for his weight, Pantani probably only needed to put out 380 watts to match that, and since he was only 20-30 seconds faster than Lance, the watts he put out for the "record" was around 390-395 watts.

Do the math folks.

The above numbers are [censored].

bobke said:

Those numbers are [censored].

The published data of FLoyd Landis and Armstrong and others (whether you think they dope or not) are clear.
6.7-7.0 watts per kg are the magic tour winning numbers.

If Pantani put out 450 watts he would have been good at ITTs and not losing minutes. It also means he would have put out ridiculous times int he mountains, I mean even MORE ridiculous than he already did.

How much did Marco weigh? 57 kg from what I have found.
450 watts?
hmmmm....
7.9-8.0 watts per kg?
Unheard of, absolutely unheard of.

If you take Lance's numbers on Alpe d'Huez as 450 watts for his weight, Pantani probably only needed to put out 380 watts to match that, and since he was only 20-30 seconds faster than Lance, the watts he put out for the "record" was around 390-395 watts.

Do the math folks.

The above numbers are [censored].

my frenid the equipment have change dramatilcy too

so think you should skip the math and use your brain instead

Yes, thre "equipment" has changed a lot.

Do you know the laws of physics, dumass?
They havent changed since Newton discovered them.
A certain mass at a certain speed up a certain gradient equals a certain force and power over time.
Lance and Pantani raced together, their equipment was the same d$$$$bag.

Do the math.
The numbers above are [censored].
Did you finish high school???

bobke said:

Those numbers are [censored].

Do the math folks.

The above numbers are [censored].

[font=Times New Roman]I believe I have the answer in terms of how the numbers were calculated.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]In an article on the 2006 Giro they once again get into power estimates and they give the following explanation:[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]We do not calculate the real power developed by the cyclists. The weight of the cyclists is not always known with precision the day of measurement. They can be dehydrated in the course of stage and lose a few kilograms. The number of water bottles carried is variable. For all these reasons, we prefer to calculate the power of a “cyclist standard” of 70 kg with equipment of 8 kg. This value of 78kg is used to make our comparisons.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]What they are doing then is looking at the time a cyclist is taking to ascend a given mountain and calculating the power output required (assuming a combined rider and equipment weight of 78 kg) to produce that result.[/font]

Source:
(French) cyclismag.comarticle.phpOpen ↗

(Poor English translation)
google.comtranslateOpen ↗

[font=Times New Roman]Here are the top Alpe d'Huez finishes:[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]1 36' 50" Marco Pantani 1995 Italy [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]2 36' 55" Marco Pantani 1997 Italy [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]3 37' 15" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]4 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 United States [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]5 37' 40" Jan Ullrich 1997 Germany [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]6 38' 05" Lance Armstrong 2001 United States [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]7 38' 10" Miguel Induráin 1995 Spain [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]8 38' 10" Alex Zülle 1995 Switzerland [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]9 38' 15" Bjarne Riis 1995 Denmark [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]10 38' 20" Richard Virenque 1997 France [/font]

cynic said:

[font=Times New Roman]I believe I have the answer in terms of how the numbers were calculated.[/font]...

Yes that makes much more sense... That would put Pantani's true output much lower, and Big Mig's much higher, the two extreme (heavy/light) riders listed.

hombredesubaru said:

Do you know the laws of physics, dumass?
...Did you finish high school???

What's a dumass? Is it pronounced du mass? It's Spanish, right?

Look, if you're going to insult people, at least do it in a language we can all understand. On this board that's English, dumbass.

hombredesubaru said:

Yes, thre "equipment" has changed a lot.

Do you know the laws of physics, dumass?
They havent changed since Newton discovered them.
A certain mass at a certain speed up a certain gradient equals a certain force and power over time.
Lance and Pantani raced together, their equipment was the same d$$$$bag.

Do the math.
The numbers above are [censored].
Did you finish high school???

if you have a bike that weight 10 kg ofcourse you need to do more watts to stay whit a guy with 7 kg bike

no we don´t have high scholl in swe

hombredesubaru said:

Yes, thre "equipment" has changed a lot.

Do you know the laws of physics, dumass?
They havent changed since Newton discovered them.

Although not particularly relevant to cycling, the "laws of physics," as they are understood today, are completely different than Newton's formulations. Ever heard of Einstein, "dumass"?

tcklyde said:

Although not particularly relevant to cycling, the "laws of physics," as they are understood today, are completely different than Newton's formulations. Ever heard of Einstein, "dumass"?

Putting aside that you want to taunt wbt and not necessarily opine accurately about a factual matter, one must point out that quantum mechanics and the like are needed when analyzing particle physics, the speed of light, and that sort of thing. Newtonian physics is still fine for analyzing stuff that is bigger and slower, like cyclists.

In other words, don't sink to his level.

cynic said:

[font=Times New Roman]Here are the top Alpe d'Huez finishes:[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]1 36' 50" Marco Pantani 1995 Italy [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]2 36' 55" Marco Pantani 1997 Italy [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]3 37' 15" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]4 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 United States [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]5 37' 40" Jan Ullrich 1997 Germany [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]6 38' 05" Lance Armstrong 2001 United States [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]7 38' 10" Miguel Induráin 1995 Spain [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]8 38' 10" Alex Zülle 1995 Switzerland [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]9 38' 15" Bjarne Riis 1995 Denmark [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]10 38' 20" Richard Virenque 1997 France [/font]

So the watts values are [censored] as I suspected...
However, the above rankings are worth noting. Top 10 finishes up L'Alpe all came after 1994 with 8/10 ocurring btwn 1994 and 1997. Now that's interesting...

fscyclist said:

So the watts values are [censored] as I suspected...
However, the above rankings are worth noting. Top 10 finishes up L'Alpe all came after 1994 with 8/10 ocurring btwn 1994 and 1997. Now that's interesting...

Make that 9 out of 10 - 2004 was a TT where they started at the bottom, without riding most of a stage first.

fscyclist said:

So the watts values are [censored] as I suspected...

[font=Times New Roman]The numbers are [censored] insofar as the direct link between a particular cyclist and watts.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]The author should have clearly stated that for the purpose of the article all the cyclists hypothetically weighed the same (70kg) and rode 8kg bikes.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]This does not make the study [censored]. [/font][font=Times New Roman]You can plug in the actual weight of the cyclists and if broken down into watts/kg it remains clear that there is a significant difference in pre to post EPO.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Just as a point of interest:[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]The "average" rider in 2005 was 1.79 metres (5' 10.5"😉 tall, weighed 71 kgs (156.5 lbs, 11 stone 2 lbs), and had a resting heart rate of 50 beats per minute.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Source: Wikipedia[/font]
[font=Times New Roman](Perhaps that is why the model of 70kg was used in the original comparison)[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Below is a revised table, with changes made to reflect actual weight rather than the 70 + 8kg model that was presented in the original table.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]I realized quickly that the typical racing weight of a given cyclist is not necessarily easy to find.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]The numbers that I used (and subject to argument) are as follows:[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Lemond 67kg[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Indurain 80kg[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Pantani 55kg[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Ullrich 74kg[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Armstrong 72kg[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Riis 68kg[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Herrera 57kg[/font]
[font=Times New Roman](BTW if anyone has seen weight values for Hinault, Fignon and Delgado, let me know.)[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Bike weight 8kg[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]I will use Lemond as an example to show what I did.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Original: Superbagnères 1986, Lemond 380W[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]67+8=75[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]75/78=0.96[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]0.96x380=365[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Revised: Superbagnères 1986, Lemond 365W[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]365/67=5.4watts/kg[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]The Eighties:[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Avoriaz 1985, Herrera 311W 5.4 watts/kg[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Avoriaz 1985, Hinault 375 W, 5.4 watts/kg[font=Verdana] [/font](not revised – unable to find actual weight)*[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Superbagnères 1986, Lemond 365W, 5.4 watts/kg[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Alpe d' Huez 1987, Herrera 328 W, 5.7 watts/kg [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Alpe d' Huez 1989 Fignon, Delgado 390 W 5.6 watts/kg[font=Verdana] [/font](not revised – unable to find actual weight)*[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]*In my opinion, I think that Hinault, Fignon and Delgado probably all weighed in at around 67-72 kg and therefore the wattage calculation based on the 70kg assumption would be quite close.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]The Nineties:[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Luz-Ardiden 1990, Indurain 440W, 5.5 watts/kg[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Luz-Ardiden 1990, Lemond 374W, 5.6 watts/kg[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Saint Lary 1993, Indurain 486W, 6.1 watts/kg[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Valley Thorens 1994, Pantani 354W, 6.4 watts/kg[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Alpe d' Huez 1995, Pantani 373W, 6.8 watts/kg[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Plagne 1995, Indurain 506W, 6.3 watts/kg[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Hautacam 1996, Bjarne Riis 480W 6.9 watts/kg[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Arcalis 1997, Ullrich 498W, 6.7 watts/kg[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Les Deux Alpes 1998, Pantani 365W, 6.9 watts/kg [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]The 2000's:[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Hautacam 2000, Armstrong 462W, 6.4 watts/kg[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Alpe d' Huez 2001, Armstrong 455W, 6.3 watts/kg[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Luz-Ardiden 2003, Armstrong 455W, 6.3 watts/kg[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Courchevel 2005, Valverde, Armstrong 462W, 6.4 watts/kg [/font]

Indurain Pantani Armstrong...........druggies

Lemond........clean

lemondrulz said:

Indurain Pantani Armstrong...........druggies

Lemond........clean

Boy, I don't know about that. You definitely can't group Indurain and Armstrong with Pantani. You could group Indurain and Lemond since neither tested positive. Armstrong, until a WADA test sticks and the UCI recognizes it, then he's clean too, although more suspect that the two aforementioned. Pantani is in a class by himself.

However, Lemond is not above suspicion. EPO? Probably not. Steroids and testosterone? Well, it was running rampant when he was racing. He speaks out against doping, but I think in his mind that's only EPO and blood packing.