Sucks for Contador. Any possible overall hope is definitely gone unless Quintana and Froome both suffer serious mishaps. Question also looms large of whether he will be okay in the near term future, or does he have more significant injuries than what he is letting on.
2016 Tour de France - Page 5
Forum Index > Sports |
L_Master
United States7946 Posts
Sucks for Contador. Any possible overall hope is definitely gone unless Quintana and Froome both suffer serious mishaps. Question also looms large of whether he will be okay in the near term future, or does he have more significant injuries than what he is letting on. | ||
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
1) He was ranked number 1 here - http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/03/news/road/power-rankings-classics-sprinters_396558 2) His 2016 results also looked good, Tour of Oman, 1st two stages, 1st Eschborn-Frankfurt City Loop, one stage in Tour of Cali, 3 stages in Tour of Qatar, 1 stage in Three Days of De Panne, and 2nd 4th and 6th in in 3 big classics. 3) He was also 10 points, and I weighed their this years achievements, and his looked relatively on par to me at first glance with Greipel, not as good as Kittel obviously, but 6 points cheaper.... And Cavendish hasn't done anything this year. So yeah, I should've looked into that a bit deeper I guess. I mean right now it's not like he's destroying my team, he still has 182 points compared to say Greipel's 312 and Kittel's 500 (since he's cheaper)... Also the 6th best sprinter if you don't include Van Avermaet since he got 50 points for today. Contador will likely be the end of me, and hoping Boasson Hagen does work after his Dauphine performance, I thought he was a really value pick. | ||
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On July 07 2016 05:18 L_Master wrote: Very interesting the peleton gave that kind of a gap to Avermaet. He's not going to win, but he can hold that for a long time. Good racing though, he rode strong especially for medium length climbs of decent steepness. Hats off for the victory. Sucks for Contador. Any possible overall hope is definitely gone unless Quintana and Froome both suffer serious mishaps. Question also looms large of whether he will be okay in the near term future, or does he have more significant injuries than what he is letting on. Yeah, I guess that's kind of what happens when the team that has the yellow jersey has no interest whatsoever to keep it, and they have a man in the breakaway, and their main man is injured and slow pace benefits him. Really depends on how eager Van Avermaet is to keep the jersey, if he pushes like that one year when Voeckler got the jersey are kept it for a long time, then I think he'd likely lose it on Stage 9, but if he realizes that the effort is doomed and he's better off conserving energy, he can easily lose 5-15 minutes on stage 7. | ||
raNazUra
United States9 Posts
On July 07 2016 05:15 L_Master wrote: Yea, I was absolutely going with Sagan this year. He's guaranteed for low-mid 1k pts range no matter what, and then with the way he has been riding all season his form is easily the best I've ever seen it. I just couldn't see not picking him, even with a higher cost. I'd probably have considered him seriously even at 30 pts. Ten Dam is probably a useless pick. Riding more for himself on Lotto is one thing, but being here to work for Barguil and/or Doumalin he is just on domestique duties, and while a good rider he isn't a super domestique guy like a Geraint Thomas that might finish okay because he is strong enough to ride the front up climbs and still finish forward. Doumalin we will have to see. His stated goal is the Olympics ITT. If he is rounding into form for that he could easily go well at these TT's. Doubtful he will do much besides that however, but I could see him being good for 300-700 pts. Nibali, I forget what his cost was, but he is here to work for Aru + is coming off the Giro and we already know that any rider coming off the Giro isn't going to be worth much. Possibly will go stage hunting and have some good finishes, but I don't see him finishing top 10 or getting 1000+ pts. Unless something happens to both Froome and Quintana, Contador is not going to be a factor to win. Still very possibly he could get stage wins and finish on the podium. That's probably good for somewhere 1-1.5k pts. This assuming his injuries aren't actually significantly more serious than he is letting on to, in which case it might be a bad situation. I have no idea why you picked Kristoff to be honest. Where did you expect him to succeed? He's obviously no match for Kittel/Griepel (and this surprisingly resurgent Cav) on the flat sprints, but has no where near the strength of a guy like Sagan. Of all your picks that's the one I don't understand. I hear people talking down my team =P But really, I didn't even know Nibali had won the Giro when I picked him, and yeah, I realize he's probably going to be the lowest value:point cost rider in maybe the whole race in light of that. Oh well. And Ten Dam was inches away from being Van Avermaet, but I thought I might be biased toward BMC riders since I've actually been watching them in the US, and so just randomly picked someone else. I'll be happy with my early days in yellow. | ||
Gjhc
Portugal161 Posts
On July 07 2016 05:29 FiWiFaKi wrote: I don't follow sprinters that much, and don't judge my reasons too hard but: 1) He was ranked number 1 here - http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/03/news/road/power-rankings-classics-sprinters_396558 2) His 2016 results also looked good, Tour of Oman, 1st two stages, 1st Eschborn-Frankfurt City Loop, one stage in Tour of Cali, 3 stages in Tour of Qatar, 1 stage in Three Days of De Panne, and 2nd 4th and 6th in in 3 big classics. 3) He was also 10 points, and I weighed their this years achievements, and his looked relatively on par to me at first glance with Greipel, not as good as Kittel obviously, but 6 points cheaper.... And Cavendish hasn't done anything this year. So yeah, I should've looked into that a bit deeper I guess. I mean right now it's not like he's destroying my team, he still has 182 points compared to say Greipel's 312 and Kittel's 500 (since he's cheaper)... Also the 6th best sprinter if you don't include Van Avermaet since he got 50 points for today. Contador will likely be the end of me, and hoping Boasson Hagen does work after his Dauphine performance, I thought he was a really value pick. That rank is from March, sure Kristoff won some at the start of the season and last season he got Flanders and a lot of wins, but in the last few months he has been really lacking, he got some wins but overall he hasn't impressed. If he was on top of his game he would have a chance while not being expensive, but since you said you don't follow sprinters that much it's a more than understandable 'mistake' I feel for that Contador pick, but I still believe he's going to recover and make a strong second half, possibly getting 1 or 2 stages and placing top5. Podium will be hard because I expect him to lose a little more time this weekend but the guy is though and has shown he can bounce back from setbacks. Boassen Hagen probably go into some breaks on medium-mountain stages where Cavendish has no chance, him and Cummings have what it takes to contest at least a stage win so you can still get some value from him as well. | ||
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On July 07 2016 06:10 Gjhc wrote: That rank is from March, sure Kristoff won some at the start of the season and last season he got Flanders and a lot of wins, but in the last few months he has been really lacking, he got some wins but overall he hasn't impressed. If he was on top of his game he would have a chance while not being expensive, but since you said you don't follow sprinters that much it's a more than understandable 'mistake' I feel for that Contador pick, but I still believe he's going to recover and make a strong second half, possibly getting 1 or 2 stages and placing top5. Podium will be hard because I expect him to lose a little more time this weekend but the guy is though and has shown he can bounce back from setbacks. Boassen Hagen probably go into some breaks on medium-mountain stages where Cavendish has no chance, him and Cummings have what it takes to contest at least a stage win so you can still get some value from him as well. I knew it was from March, I just didn't think that'd he would fall that far in four months, well opps. What surprised me is that like nobody picked Aru. I think he's incredibly strong, and for 16 points a very good deal. I think he would have easily been my 3rd GC guy, but I just couldn't find a GC guy that I'd like for 12 points. I told myself Contador and Quintana are going to be there, thinking that both of them would get top 4 (the TT in the Dauphine from Contador was very impressive), and I had 28 points left to get one all rounder and one climber. In the end I went with Pinot and Dan Martin, which I think were decent choices. I was just set on getting more GC guys rather than sprinters. It was also tough for me to decide whether I want to spend more points on the unclassified riders (I would have gone with Cummings, De Gendt, and Gallopin back then, which seem like solid choices thus far), but it's fairly hit or miss if they choose to do stuff, so in the end I decided to spend those 8 points elsewhere. And I'm glad you're hopeful about Contador, but when you're getting dropped from a group that still has some 20+ people in it, you still need some massive recovery. If you're getting dropped when there's 20-25 riders in the peloton, you're going to lose 2-3 minutes on the mountain stages. And getting like 5-8 placings where you finish 10th or something, you really don't get that many points. Oh well, we'll see. | ||
Skynx
Turkey7150 Posts
| ||
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On July 07 2016 07:16 Skynx wrote: Man 5'10 is a huge gap. Any chance BMC carry him all the way? It'll never happen. If Sky or Movistar were worried, they could ride at full pace on Stage 8, 15, 18, 19, or 20, and take out 10 minutes out of him on any of those days. Though realistically, the pace will be pretty average on the mountain stages, and so if Avermaet gives it all, he will be able to keep up until the last 20-40km, and then lose 2-4 minutes on each of the upcoming mountain stages. People like Sagan and Avermaet are nowhere close to the level of GC guys in terms of climbing ability. | ||
L_Master
United States7946 Posts
On July 07 2016 07:16 Skynx wrote: Man 5'10 is a huge gap. Any chance BMC carry him all the way? No. I'm afraid there is zero chance of that. If he had 30 minutes...there would be the slimmest of chance. 60 minutes might be a realistic 50/50 chance. Avermaet is a strong rider, there is no doubt about that, but his specialty is not alpine climbing. He is a fantastic reduced peleton sprinter, and great at short climbs. High alpine climbs are a different beast though. One of the biggest problems is that he is a larger rider at like 72kg or something, which punishes him extra for making accelerations. So when the climbers start doing attack, tempo, attack, tempo it costs Avermaet a ton to follow those attacks. Much more so than the good climbers (takes more power to accelerate a heavier mass). This means eventually on one of the attacks he blows up and can't follow, and starts losing massive time as the other main GC guys work together. Equally an issue, is that he just doesn't have the sustained watts to handle multiple hard climbs, especially when they get steep. If everything was 5%, Avermaet might be able to hold on for a while. But for bigger, punchier climbers long + steep is a death combo. It's just too much weight to drag up the steep climbs and drafting gets more or less to nothing above 10% gradients. If Sky/Movistar start setting the pace at 6-6.5 w/kg starting early in mountain days it's going to mean Avermaet is digging way, way, into the red on every climb. He might survive one like that, but then he'd crack massively on the second or third climb, and with the whole team of Sky/Movistar still in tact he could easily lose 5-15+ minutes in a single day. Additionally, I doubt Avermaet has done any serious altitude training like the main GC guys, which means that he will suffer extra on the big, high mountains. On July 07 2016 07:32 FiWiFaKi wrote: It'll never happen. If Sky or Movistar were worried, they could ride at full pace on Stage 8, 15, 18, 19, or 20, and take out 10 minutes out of him on any of those days. Though realistically, the pace will be pretty average on the mountain stages, and so if Avermaet gives it all, he will be able to keep up until the last 20-40km, and then lose 2-4 minutes on each of the upcoming mountain stages. People like Sagan and Avermaet are nowhere close to the level of GC guys in terms of climbing ability. I won't really argue, but Sagan is pretty unique. He showed a glimmer of that at ToC last year, doing 30 minutes of 6 w/kg, and only losing about one minute on Alaphillipe. Now, Alaphillipe is a clear notch below guys like Valverde/Rodriguez, who are definitely not as good as Quintana/Froome. But Sagan is doing that at 75kg. Honestly he was going good today, but I think when the going started to get really hard and the gap was still huge he knew yellow was lost and said "fuck this, I'm just going to take it easy and conserve for tomorrow since the gap to Avermaet is so big". I really believe if Avermaet had been just 1' ahead going over that climb where Sagan was dropped you'd have seen Sagan make it all the way to the line with those guys. Sagan can't contend with the GC guys, obviously. But Sagan in my opinion is leagues ahead of Avermaet in climbing ability. It would be reeeaallllyyy interesting to see what Sagan could do if he dropped 5-10kgs and switched his focus. | ||
L_Master
United States7946 Posts
On July 07 2016 06:43 FiWiFaKi wrote: And I'm glad you're hopeful about Contador, but when you're getting dropped from a group that still has some 20+ people in it, you still need some massive recovery. If you're getting dropped when there's 20-25 riders in the peloton, you're going to lose 2-3 minutes on the mountain stages. And getting like 5-8 placings where you finish 10th or something, you really don't get that many points. Oh well, we'll see. What you wrote is true...but the thing is Contador clearly has the fitness. He isn't coming in tired, and was going well. He's just dealing with crashes that have caused some problems, namely that he can't hold the bike the way he wants (shoulder pain), and his left leg is giving him trouble. Can't get the power out. Concern is legitimate, because if Contador actually has a bad injury it could be brutal. But if it's something minor, he'll be looking great again in the next few days, and still easily able to fight for top 3 and get some wins, which I assume is all you ever had him pegged for. What surprised me is that like nobody picked Aru. I think he's incredibly strong, and for 16 points a very good deal. I think he would have easily been my 3rd GC guy, but I just couldn't find a GC guy that I'd like for 12 points. I'm not so bullish on Aru. Maybe I'll be proven wrong though. He seems to me more like a slightly stronger and slightly punchier Majka. He climbs well and can win stages, but isn't a good enough guy over the long term to be a serious overall contender. Outside chance at a podium spot, but that's about it. He is 26 though, so he has plenty of time to blossom into a complete package GC monster. | ||
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
We will see about Aru, but I think you underestimate him. The people who put money on the betting sites currently put him as the third favorite in the race with 12/1 odds (next is TJV at 25/1), behind Froome and Quintana naturally... Contador is now down to 33/1 (I think he was 9/2 or so at the start of the race). Four top 5 Grand Tour finishes in 2014 and 2015 isn't convincing enough for you? S: I'd gladly bet my sig for a few months, with myself taking the side that Aru takes top 4, if you're interested. As for Sagan, yeah, hard to know for sure. Reflecting back, I agree that I'm not giving him enough credit, and there's a good chance he would be able to stay with the pack yesterday (he even said in his interview there was nothing to fight for once Avermaet had the large lead). It's just he starts going backwards on most hills in the tour (rightfully so, there's nothing for him at the finish line), with the exception of cat 2 or lower summit finishes. I would love to know what GC position Sagan could get with his current body weight if he rode for the yellow jersey, top 30-40? It's hard to speculate, because the only time I see Sagan climbing is when a climb is in the breakaway, and he's fed up that people aren't working, so he drops everyone in the break on a cat 1 climb. And I dunno, I'd rather Sagan stay someone who can win sprinting jerseys and win many classics, but that's just me. | ||
Skynx
Turkey7150 Posts
I thought he was like a semi-TT more so than sprinter. I also expected he make that escape 2 days earlier instead of Sutvyen :p | ||
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
I just had an innocent dinner (yeah, kind of late, opps)... Two scrambled eggs with diced onion, two pieces of toasted bread with fresh garlic, little 85g can of tuna (in water, not oil), and just a little shredded cheese sprinkled on top, and protein shake to drink. Take your guess how many calories that'd be - and now, arithmetic: Two pieces rye bread: 300Cal Two eggs (medium): 140Cal Canola Oil (10mL~): 80Cal Cheese (25g): 100Cal Protein Powder (40g): 150Cal 1/4 onion + garlic: 20Cal Tuna (85g): 90Cal Total: 880Cal Man, that's insane to me. I wanted to eat some little extra "snack", since I biked 25km today plus a gym workout, but I'm still trying to eat at somewhere between 2000-2400Cal as I'd like to lose weight at roughly 0.5-1lb a week. Well, I'll be more cautious now... In the TL Fitness thread they'll tell me to eat 140 grams of protein a day, and then with a reasonably lean dinner I go over my calorie threshold to achieve it. In other news, I decided to use Strava for the first time today, and damn, it was a nice confidence boost. There's this casual 8% average hill of 23m elevation change that everyone goes on in a circuit around a lake I like to do, and out of 13754 attempts I got 768th. I was so casual too, biked up it in 1 minute exactly, at an average speed of 17.8km/h... I didn't even get out my seat, I want to go back again and try my best, I think I could do it in 45-48 seconds. (though the top guy did it in 28 seconds with a power output of 768W). Well, I don't want to become a Stravasshole but it's a nice feature. My issue is that there's roughly a million segments in my city, so none of them hold any value... I would much prefer like, some rating or popularity format, so the popular and good stuff shows up, and so I can actually use it to learn about new paths or something. Anyway, apologies for not TdF talk, hopefully it's not insanely off topic and not bothering people. But for some obligatory TdF talk: I really enjoy having those views inside the teams, are a focus on one rider, it makes it much more enjoyable for me if I can put a character to a face. I liked this one, as I really didn't know much about Pierre Rolland in the past: GCN also came up with a couple good ones, getting to go into a couple team trucks and showing the kind of gear and preparation they did with regards to bike parts, food, and other supplies. I haven't watched many in the past, so it was nice for me to see. | ||
Gjhc
Portugal161 Posts
On July 07 2016 18:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: In other news, I decided to use Strava for the first time today, and damn, it was a nice confidence boost. There's this casual 8% average hill of 23m elevation change that everyone goes on in a circuit around a lake I like to do, and out of 13754 attempts I got 768th. I was so casual too, biked up it in 1 minute exactly, at an average speed of 17.8km/h... I didn't even get out my seat, I want to go back again and try my best, I think I could do it in 45-48 seconds. (though the top guy did it in 28 seconds with a power output of 768W). Well, I don't want to become a Stravasshole but it's a nice feature. My issue is that there's roughly a million segments in my city, so none of them hold any value... I would much prefer like, some rating or popularity format, so the popular and good stuff shows up, and so I can actually use it to learn about new paths or something. I was kinda anti-strava until a few months ago when I started using it, and gotta say it definitely is a great tool to track your training or even just to have a sort of diary of your workouts/rides. It also has an encouraging effect by showing your progression, PRs and of course comparing to other people's times. However, most segments' best times are done by people riding in bunches/tailwind or even behind vehicles. 28 seconds at 768W are monster numbers and probably just an estimate strava does based on the (inflated) speed. The only segments that matter for the overall leaderboard are bigger climbs or segments with some Kms of length. Since the strava conversation came up, there are severall riders that put their rides / races there. https://www.strava.com/activities/632225859 That's a ride from one of the movistar guys from yesterday, you can find the other riders doing the TDF who upload their rides there just below the ride's name. | ||
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
That was a nice sprint by Cavs <3 | ||
Skynx
Turkey7150 Posts
| ||
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On July 07 2016 23:02 Gjhc wrote: I was kinda anti-strava until a few months ago when I started using it, and gotta say it definitely is a great tool to track your training or even just to have a sort of diary of your workouts/rides. It also has an encouraging effect by showing your progression, PRs and of course comparing to other people's times. However, most segments' best times are done by people riding in bunches/tailwind or even behind vehicles. 28 seconds at 768W are monster numbers and probably just an estimate strava does based on the (inflated) speed. The only segments that matter for the overall leaderboard are bigger climbs or segments with some Kms of length. Since the strava conversation came up, there are severall riders that put their rides / races there. https://www.strava.com/activities/632225859 That's a ride from one of the movistar guys from yesterday, you can find the other riders doing the TDF who upload their rides there just below the ride's name. I think a 28 second effort at 768W is feasible (considering it's the quickest person out of a million plus population). I believe the top sprinters put out an average of 1000W for 12-15 seconds (and usually peaking at 1300-1400 in instantaneous power), and the lead out guys do 700-750W for 30 seconds. According to some charts I found online, for the best world class riders 73kg rider, being completely fresh and putting a max effort for one whole minute would be 839W, but anyway. Impressive nonetheless! Wow, I didn't think so many would use Strava, especially seeing some people post their rides with heart rates and power meters, thought it'd be more closely guarded info, that is a neat feature! I'm still hesitant about using Strava (I sure want those monthly badges lol), but I also like being casual about it... When it comes to cycling, I don't know exactly how much I'd like concrete numbers for all my rides. I like being able to go hard and then say to myself that I did good and went quickly, etc... And usually I enjoy riding at a brisk pace, and then exploding for a couple kilometers and so on. Eh, well I suppose I'll use it for a while as record keeping, and see how if I like how it affects my mentality. edit: Anyway, tomorrow is the day, the boys will be separated from the men. 800 meter climb up col d'Aspin followed by a descent and only 1.5km~ of flat/slight uphill the the end afterwards. I expect several attacks with around 12km to go. | ||
L_Master
United States7946 Posts
Props to the rider that finished third for a wildcard team, beat some serious names. Tomorrow we begin the prelude to the real fun! I doubt anyone should lose much time unless they are way off their game, should be telling for Contador though. On July 07 2016 17:16 FiWiFaKi wrote: Referring to Contador, my logic is that if he Crashed in Stage 1 and Stage 2, and then 3 days pass and he is still being dropped and losing time on a stage easier than what's to come in 2 and 3 days, then by doing some interpolation, I don't see him be in proper shape to not lose a minute plus on each of Stage 7-9. I can see where you are coming from, but injuries are a little different in my book. They can bother you for a few days and then vanish overnight. I don't necessarily mean the injury completely heals, but the pain that's preventing you from riding/running normal goes away and you can perform at full strength even if it's still a little sore. With injury it's really easy to be 80% fitness, 80% fitness, 80% fitness, 80% fitness, 100% fitness. On July 07 2016 17:16 FiWiFaKi wrote: We will see about Aru, but I think you underestimate him. The people who put money on the betting sites currently put him as the third favorite in the race with 12/1 odds (next is TJV at 25/1), behind Froome and Quintana naturally... Contador is now down to 33/1 (I think he was 9/2 or so at the start of the race). Four top 5 Grand Tour finishes in 2014 and 2015 isn't convincing enough for you? S: I'd gladly bet my sig for a few months, with myself taking the side that Aru takes top 4, if you're interested. I might be. We will see. His finishes don't impress me a ton, well at least 2014 definitely doesn't. In the giro he faced a bunch of tier 3 GC guys + Nairo (DNF from Purito). He lost to Uran, and everybody else he beat isn't anyone special. 2014 Vuelta he lost to Froome/Contador/Valverde/Rodriguez...all guys he needs to beat here. Everybody else was like 5+ mins back of him...so basically he lost to everybody worth mentioning when it comes to GC. Now the good news is 2015 was much strong. His Giro performance was respectable, arguably very good in the final week, but he struggled when it mattered most and was soundly trounced by Contador. His 2015 Vuelta is a little harder to analyze as he did beat a bunch of major names including Froome/Quintana...but those guys were all wasted from doing the Tour. So he beat two second tier GC guys in terms of Purito and Majka. Basically, it's not that Aru is by any means weak, it's just I haven't seen him display the consistency and strong performances to give me an indication that he can hang with guys like Froome/Quintana/Contador, or really even Porte/TJVG/Pinot. I'm bullish on Aru down the line, but not for 2016. | ||
L_Master
United States7946 Posts
On July 07 2016 18:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: Man, I really need to start counting calories more carefully. I just had an innocent dinner (yeah, kind of late, opps)... Two scrambled eggs with diced onion, two pieces of toasted bread with fresh garlic, little 85g can of tuna (in water, not oil), and just a little shredded cheese sprinkled on top, and protein shake to drink. Take your guess how many calories that'd be - and now, arithmetic: Two pieces rye bread: 300Cal Two eggs (medium): 140Cal Canola Oil (10mL~): 80Cal Cheese (25g): 100Cal Protein Powder (40g): 150Cal 1/4 onion + garlic: 20Cal Tuna (85g): 90Cal Total: 880Cal Man, that's insane to me. I wanted to eat some little extra "snack", since I biked 25km today plus a gym workout, but I'm still trying to eat at somewhere between 2000-2400Cal as I'd like to lose weight at roughly 0.5-1lb a week. Well, I'll be more cautious now... In the TL Fitness thread they'll tell me to eat 140 grams of protein a day, and then with a reasonably lean dinner I go over my calorie threshold to achieve it. That's probably a fairly good target. You shouldn't have to go way over your TDEE to get in that much protein. 140g of protein is 560 calories. That still leaves at least 1500+ kcal for everything else. I'm surprised you thought that mean would be so low in calories. But then again I've been using a food scale and counting calories for years so I have a pretty good idea of the calorie counts of most foods. What's really shocking is once you use a scale how hopelessly far off you are when using measurements. If you really took your time and were super precise about all your measurements for that dinner, you actually ate somewhere between 700-1000 kcal. Any measurements besides a scale just aren't accurate at all. On July 07 2016 18:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: In other news, I decided to use Strava for the first time today, and damn, it was a nice confidence boost. There's this casual 8% average hill of 23m elevation change that everyone goes on in a circuit around a lake I like to do, and out of 13754 attempts I got 768th. I was so casual too, biked up it in 1 minute exactly, at an average speed of 17.8km/h... I didn't even get out my seat, I want to go back again and try my best, I think I could do it in 45-48 seconds. (though the top guy did it in 28 seconds with a power output of 768W). Well, I don't want to become a Stravasshole but it's a nice feature. My issue is that there's roughly a million segments in my city, so none of them hold any value... I would much prefer like, some rating or popularity format, so the popular and good stuff shows up, and so I can actually use it to learn about new paths or something. If you want to compare, don't look at attempts. Look at how many people have done that segment and see where you rank. I.e. check where you are on the segment leaderboard. My guess is that there will be somewhere between low 1k and low 2k people, which would put you in the top half to third, which is in line with what I would expect from a casual effort up a short climb. If you are displayed as 768/13754 then all I can say is DAMN, that's a populated segment. The most ridden climb in Colorado that I know of, Lookout Mtn, only has 11,174 different people on the leaderboard (89,253 attempts, so on average each person has ridden it almost 9x). A word about power on strava leaderboards: If there isn't a lightning bolt by the wattage, then ignore it. It's just strava estimated watts which are completely worthless. + Show Spoiler + My issue is that there's roughly a million segments in my city, so none of them hold any value... I would much prefer like, some rating or popularity format, so the popular and good stuff shows up, and so I can actually use it to learn about new paths or something. Yea, there are lots of stupid segments. Mostly they can just be ignored. It's rather obvious most of the times which segments are meaningful and sensible. And then of course you may find a few of your own that are meaningful to you personally. Strava actually has some good heatmap stuff you can look at it see which routes/roads are most commonly ridden on. 28 seconds at 768W are monster numbers and probably just an estimate strava does based on the (inflated) speed. The only segments that matter for the overall leaderboard are bigger climbs or segments with some Kms of length. I think a 28 second effort at 768W is feasible (considering it's the quickest person out of a million plus population). I believe the top sprinters put out an average of 1000W for 12-15 seconds (and usually peaking at 1300-1400 in instantaneous power), and the lead out guys do 700-750W for 30 seconds. According to some charts I found online, for the best world class riders 73kg rider, being completely fresh and putting a max effort for one whole minute would be 839W, but anyway. Impressive nonetheless! Well it's really easy to see if it's real watts or not. Look for the lightning bolt. 768w for 25-30s isn't what I would call monster numbers (unless that came at the end of a race). I'm a smaller guy at 5'8" (173cm) and not a sprinter of any sort, and have done 734w for 30s. Reasonable number of guys can do close to 1,000w for that time period, and I'm sure there are guys in the tour capable of doing well in the quad digit range for 30s out in training. If you mean race numbers yea that is probably about right. But in training you're looking at 1800w-2200w for a peak instantaneous power for a guy like Kittel. I've heard Cav quoted around 1600w. 10s would probably be 1500-2000 watt range depending on the sprinter. When it comes to cycling, I don't know exactly how much I'd like concrete numbers for all my rides. I like being able to go hard and then say to myself that I did good and went quickly, etc... And usually I enjoy riding at a brisk pace, and then exploding for a couple kilometers and so on. Eh, well I suppose I'll use it for a while as record keeping, and see how if I like how it affects my mentality. This to me is the beauty about strava. You use it however you wish. Don't want to get into numbers and comparisons? Just upload your ride and don't worry about it. Or if you're a data junky dive right in! | ||
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On July 08 2016 06:14 L_Master wrote: That's probably a fairly good target. You shouldn't have to go way over your TDEE to get in that much protein. 140g of protein is 560 calories. That still leaves at least 1500+ kcal for everything else. I'm surprised you thought that mean would be so low in calories. But then again I've been using a food scale and counting calories for years so I have a pretty good idea of the calorie counts of most foods. What's really shocking is once you use a scale how hopelessly far off you are when using measurements. If you really took your time and were super precise about all your measurements for that dinner, you actually ate somewhere between 700-1000 kcal. Any measurements besides a scale just aren't accurate at all. If you want to compare, don't look at attempts. Look at how many people have done that segment and see where you rank. I.e. check where you are on the segment leaderboard. My guess is that there will be somewhere between low 1k and low 2k people, which would put you in the top half to third, which is in line with what I would expect from a casual effort up a short climb. If you are displayed as 768/13754 then all I can say is DAMN, that's a populated segment. The most ridden climb in Colorado that I know of, Lookout Mtn, only has 11,174 different people on the leaderboard (89,253 attempts, so on average each person has ridden it almost 9x). A word about power on strava leaderboards: If there isn't a lightning bolt by the wattage, then ignore it. It's just strava estimated watts which are completely worthless. + Show Spoiler + My issue is that there's roughly a million segments in my city, so none of them hold any value... I would much prefer like, some rating or popularity format, so the popular and good stuff shows up, and so I can actually use it to learn about new paths or something. Yea, there are lots of stupid segments. Mostly they can just be ignored. It's rather obvious most of the times which segments are meaningful and sensible. And then of course you may find a few of your own that are meaningful to you personally. Strava actually has some good heatmap stuff you can look at it see which routes/roads are most commonly ridden on. Well it's really easy to see if it's real watts or not. Look for the lightning bolt. 768w for 25-30s isn't what I would call monster numbers (unless that came at the end of a race). I'm a smaller guy at 5'8" (173cm) and not a sprinter of any sort, and have done 734w for 30s. Reasonable number of guys can do close to 1,000w for that time period, and I'm sure there are guys in the tour capable of doing well in the quad digit range for 30s out in training. If you mean race numbers yea that is probably about right. But in training you're looking at 1800w-2200w for a peak instantaneous power for a guy like Kittel. I've heard Cav quoted around 1600w. 10s would probably be 1500-2000 watt range depending on the sprinter. This to me is the beauty about strava. You use it however you wish. Don't want to get into numbers and comparisons? Just upload your ride and don't worry about it. Or if you're a data junky dive right in! My strategy for constant weight is when not doing strength training to just weigh myself. As long as I'm eating relatively clean, I can just decrease or increase how much I'm eating as a response to seeing the numbers on the scale change. And then I'll have a multivitamin or two of those vitamin gummies a day. I'm not really sure what nutrient I should be counting if I'm keeping track of my fat, eating lean meat, and eating a couple vitamins... And how it'd change my eating habits. It's just currently I'm trying to put on muscle while losing body fat (I think I'm currently at 19-20%, though I still look okay imo since I'm a bit more built than most people). I'd like to get down to somewhere between 13-15% by the end of the year. My skin is kind of stupid though, and it doesn't deal with stretching very well, and so I don't want to gain excessive weight when bulking (for skin and cycling purposes), but at the same time I'd still like to increase strength incrementally. And yeah, for my meal I just used what was on the boxes, for the weight of eggs and whatnot. I cook a lot (I know my last meal doesn't look like it), and measure volumes and masses quite frequently, so I'd like to think I was reasonably accurate. You are so much more diligent with all of this stuff Eric, but if it's what you enjoy, then keep doing it. Oh, you're right, on Strava I ended up looking on the total attempts, in reality there's 2,800 who did the climb, so much less impressive now haha. Ah well, I'll go back today and crush that time (by the way, on topic on Strava and the heart rate stuff... Do you use that feature, and if so, do you have a sensor you recommend for it? And maybe a good cadence sensor too?) You're right that there's a lot I can ignore, but when I'm fairly zoomed out, some completely random segments pop up, but if they had some rating attached to them I'd like it a lot more, as the popular or fun segments would pop up. You know, like top 50 rated segments in the city, and that way I could find new routes. Now it's just a segment on every 5th street, or 10 different segments for the same loop just starting at different locations, etc. Oh yeah, I used the heatmap on Strava, that was a really neat feature to find new paths for sure, especially when trying to go to the mountain from here and finding the safest roads and whatnot. You're the expert on this stuff, so I wont argue with you, though yesterday when looking at this, I read that Cavendish article, and also looked at some power vs time curves for sprints, and the peak power isn't a good representation at all. Initially it's very high during that acceleration, but it quickly drops off. Cavendish peaks at 1580W in training, but supposedly where he excels at is pedaling quickly, so he can keep a relatively high power output during much of the stroke. So yeah, you peak high, but it's such an instantaneous power that it holds little value imo,since it drops so quickly down to 700-900 by the end of the sprint (plus being tired from the stage), that average power in a sprint in the TdF is 1020 (for those finishing in the top 5), according to this website here: http://sportsscientists.com/2014/07/profile-sprint-take-win-sprint-stage/ Anyway, I appreciate the information as always! ^^ edit: Also, a pet peeve of mine, people like to talk about W/kg on non-climbs. Like that article I posted, it is such a silly metric... Saying 6W/kg wins yellow, 8W/kg wins last minute breakaways, and 18W/kg wins sprints... Like really, how much higher is the Cd*A of someone like Sagan or Avermaet compared to Froome or Contador, or really, how large of an impact does that extra rolling resistance due to 10kg make. I believe when I did the calculations, for my size and riding position, if I'm putting out 300W, 80.5% of resistance is due to the air at no gradient. Now they are in more streamlined positions and going ever faster, so air resistance probably accounts for close to 90% for them, and rolling resistance is closer to like... 5% maybe. The only place where weight plays a factor on a flat is rolling resistance and that. Plus, it's still a bad comparison since you're only accounting for the weight of the rider, and everyone has to have a bike that weighs the same. If one rider weighs 130 and another weighs 160, in reality he's not 23.08% heavier, but 20.69%, since all bikes weigh 15lbs at TdF (not to mention all the other gear that weighs the same for both like water bottles). To me it's a lot more natural to express numbers in pure watts. Whether someone weighs 200lbs or 150lbs, they still have similar lungs, a similar heart, etc. Especially expressing things like maximum effort in W/kg... This number changes so much depending on the weight of the rider, while watts don't change with the weight of the rider (or far less anyway). Seems like the scientists of cycling are trying to normalize power, and in the process they make it say less than it originally said. | ||
| ||