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.
I'm jealous of you guys who can use the scale over a short/mid term for weight loss/gain! For me, especially when losing I retain water like crazy. I can be running up some deficit that should be good for 1 kg/wk, and I'll literally stay the same consistent weight on the scale for 2, sometimes even 3 weeks...then BOOM. Over the course of a day/night I'll suddenly be several kilo's lighter on the scale, and it will stay that way.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: 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.
Trying to add muscle while losing weight is a pain. Usually something close to maintaining is the best to hope for. A guy with good amount of muscle will start to look pretty good in that 13-15% range. Won't be getting the shredded six pack, but most the flab will be gone and you'll start to notice muscle tone in many of the major groups.
I'm pissed at myself. I had a great winter, working down all the way a little south of 65kg and around 12% BF, but between getting sick 5 times in three months back late spring, and lack of attention I popped right back up to 68-69 kg and probably 14-15%. Got some work to do if I want to get down to that 60-62 kg range and 6-8% BF I'd like to try out just once. Mostly for me it's the struggle against binging and/or just wanting sugar stuff. I'll get on some good runs, run a nice deficit for a week, and then suddenly decide it's time to eat a box of oreo cookies and a massive stuff crust pizza: Insta 5000+ kcal day.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: 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.
I have no doubt you're measuring as accurately as you can. The problem is that those measurements on the sides of things just don't have good precision, and sometimes the way they state things on boxes just isn't very good. Biggest example for me was white rice. It would say 1/2 cup = 160 kcal. So I'd measure out my 1 cup and think I was getting 320kcal of rice. Got a food scale, weighed up that rice from one cup and...low and behold! That one cup I was measuring out (even going as low below the line as I could) was 125g, or just shy of three servings (44g in that 160kcal serving). So each time I made rice I was eating at least 100-150 kcal more than I thought. It's not so much user error as it is inaccuracy inherent what constitutes the different measurements.
As for being diligent. Sorta. More just I like knowing, and it doesn't take any extra time so why not? I'd say it's faster to dump out rice to 90g on the scale than it is to try and eyeball 1 cup. If I didn't even try to measure at all I doubt it would even save me 1 minute on the prep of a large meal. So from my own perspective there is zero downside, with the upside of "knowledge is power" even if I don't really care that much if my meal comes out to 1500 or 1400 kcal.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: 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?)
I haven't used HR much, even though I got the strap. Sometimes I think it would be cool to know, but I generally just get lazy and don't wear the strap. Cadence sensor depends on what you want it for. If you just want it for cadence you can look at as you ride most anything works. If you want cadence you can upload to strava, then you'll need a Garmin head-unit and an ANT+ compatible speed/cadence sensor. No way to get cadence data into a strava mobile file.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: 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.
Yea, I agree that would be nice. You do however get to learn your area pretty quickly in terms of what are good segments/roads and which segments are stupid and nobody gives a shit about. Personally I rarely worry about segments too much, beyond liking to defend "home turf", like segments within 10k of my house. I can't remember the last time I've really chased a segment beyond that.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: 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/
That's basically correct as I see it. Those training numbers are probably what you need to have a chance to 'play the game' so to speak. In other words if you can't go lay down at least 1500w, and quite possibly closer to 2000w for 5s or so out training you flat out don't have the power to play on the world stage. Of course, winning a stage is about a hell of a lot more than laying down some watts, so just because you can do 1800w for 10s doesn't mean you're going to win.
Honestly, I'm surprised there is such a drop and that the power is so low. That has to be a result of the last 10km fun. I can ride hard for 4-5 hours and still pop 95% of my sprint watts. However, at the end of a fast finish of a hard race I might only get 70% of my sprint watts. You should be able to hold maximal power for at least 6-8s, and even then the drop off for 12-14s shouldn't be that huge. My guess is fatigue plays a significant role, particularly the work required in the last 10km of the race. All those jumps from corners, sprinting for positioning, and the general insane pace probably take a toll, such that you're already quite wasted when sprinting for a stage victory.
Peak power/5 second power still matters though, if for no reason that it determines what you're sprint will be. A burning lactic Marcel Kittel is still going to unleash 1000w+ for 15s, whereas I would struggle to do that having rested for a week. That the initial jump is often made from behind someones wheel, less exposed to the wind, so if you're jump is good you can get a really good slingshot before you move out on your own. Second, peak power heavily influences where you drop to. A guy that peaks a 1100w might drop to 800w after 12s. A guy peaking at 1400w is definitely NOT going to drop to 800w.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote:
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.
First off, for yellow it's perfectly fine. The mountains decide yellow and w/kg is by far the #1 component there (though not as much as some people believe, especially on mid gradients). 6 w/kg from a 67kg Froome is faster up a 6% grade than the 6 w/kg from a 56kg Nairo Quintana.
Now, when it comes to the other things, yes and no. There is a pretty good deal of truth to Watts/CdA for the flat, w/kg for the hills. And when you get to dialed in TT bikes everyones CdA is indeed pretty good. That said, weight generally does correlate with physical size. A 5'6 guy like Quintana takes up quite a bit less overall front area than does a Fabian Cancellara. Not enough that Cancellara's 450w is going to lose to Nairo's 370w, but enough that the 80w difference isn't resulting in 10 minute time differences.
When it comes to sprints there is still some relevance to w/kg. Uphill sprints it's clear why w/kg plays a role. However, w/kg matters in sprints also because of acceleration. A 50kg mass being accelerated at 1200w will shoot forward just as fast as a 90kg mass with 2,160w. Then there is the correlation between size and CdA. Think Caleb Ewan. Okay, his position is freakishly aerodynamic, but his whole body is MUCH smaller than that of Kittel, even all bent over the bike trying to reduce that he is still a lot smaller. And it shows, Ewan is over 600w lower reported power than Kittel based on training numbers, and yet is still a pretty damn competitive sprinter.
One thing that's worth being clear about though is that it isn't w/kg inherently that matters, but w/kg often correlates with CdA.
When it comes to breakaway moves it's really variable. Breakaways can be on almost any terrain. Here again, w/kg as it's relevancy because that initial acceleration is important. A winning move always starts with a sprint, not a 600w surge. The sprint serves to jump you off the wheels of the others and not allow them to sit on you. Try to cruise by at 600w and everyone else will just follow your wheel doing 350w chilling. Acceleration is heavily a w/kg function, so having that jump is really important. I don't care if you're 200kg and putting out 2000w, that isn't going to get you separation in a race winning jump. 10 w/kg isn't a big enough acceleration to get others off your wheel and ensure they have to work just as hard to catch back on. The other reason it's somewhat useful is that it depends on the type of break. In other words a mountain stage break probably consists of smaller climbers, so for that break 8 w/kg is going to be pretty similar for all of those guys. Same thing with a flat stage break. If you have a 60kg guy in that break, chances are he isn't feeling too much energy left to go for the win, compared with a big 75kg classics tank. In that flat break it's the bigger riders that are likely to be more dangerous, so even though w/kg might not tell us everything, it inherently lends itself to 'apples to apples' comparisons when speaking of breakaways.
I agree that expressing sprints in w/kg feels a little silly. Unless it's more as a gauge of potential. My realistic idea race weight is 60kg, so it's not realistic for me to even dream of doing much over 420w for 5'. Or over 700w for a minute. You could argue that with some serious weight training I could maybe put on 5-10kg of leg mass and see higher numbers over 5s and 1', but I feel pretty confident that 3' and beyond benefits very little from explosive weight training or extra mass.
Where I do disagree is the "similar lungs, similar heart part". Bigger guys put out more watts precisely because they have larger hearts and greater muscle mass. No 5'4" guy is ever going to have a 400w FTP. Nairo is a good example, as he is 55kg. There is no way on earth he is putting out 400w at FTP. Absolute best case would be 370w FTP, which is probably generous.
Man, F my life. Pinot losing over 3 minutes today, gg fantasy, might as well make my goal to not finish last. Contador holding on is at least something,
Too bad I missed it live, seems like a lot of silly stuff was going on with the Flamme Rouge falling on the peloton and whatnot. I'll watch more once some longer segments start to get posted. We're down to the last 20 riders who haven't lost more than 20 seconds in GC, I expect that will be cut by about 40-50% by the end of tomorrow.
Thanks FIWIFaKi, you were the first one wishing me happy birthday since actually my birthday is only tomorrow ^^
Tomorrow will definitely make bigger gaps, the Tourmalet alone will tire everyone especially if sky or movistar set a moderately high pace from the start of the climb, and those two first category climbs aren't easy at all either, and despite not being a summit finish there's really not much ground after the last climb to recover and since it's downhill I expect the gaps to remain pretty much the same as they were on the top.
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.
I'm jealous of you guys who can use the scale over a short/mid term for weight loss/gain! For me, especially when losing I retain water like crazy. I can be running up some deficit that should be good for 1 kg/wk, and I'll literally stay the same consistent weight on the scale for 2, sometimes even 3 weeks...then BOOM. Over the course of a day/night I'll suddenly be several kilo's lighter on the scale, and it will stay that way.
Hmm, that is a bit odd to me. You probably need more precision in your weight than me, but I haven't found that to be the case for me if I weigh myself when I wake up after going to the the bathroom. Maybe there's noise variation due to water/food/etc of like 1-1.5lbs at maximum.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: 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.
Trying to add muscle while losing weight is a pain. Usually something close to maintaining is the best to hope for. A guy with good amount of muscle will start to look pretty good in that 13-15% range. Won't be getting the shredded six pack, but most the flab will be gone and you'll start to notice muscle tone in many of the major groups.
I'm pissed at myself. I had a great winter, working down all the way a little south of 65kg and around 12% BF, but between getting sick 5 times in three months back late spring, and lack of attention I popped right back up to 68-69 kg and probably 14-15%. Got some work to do if I want to get down to that 60-62 kg range and 6-8% BF I'd like to try out just once. Mostly for me it's the struggle against binging and/or just wanting sugar stuff. I'll get on some good runs, run a nice deficit for a week, and then suddenly decide it's time to eat a box of oreo cookies and a massive stuff crust pizza: Insta 5000+ kcal day.
Oof, 6-8% is so hard when you want to live as a normal person haha. I think I was around there as a teenager when I had a legit six pack, but never again.Yeah, once you start going south of 12% things just get hard, it's hard to keep muscle on, you have to be very cautious of your diet, etc. 13-15% is kind of my goal, and the only reason I'd go less than that 13% is if I had some competition or I had people I really wanted to impress during a vacation to the caribbean. Like you said too though, sickness or lack of attention just destroys all progress, so usually people are better off taking some moderate approach and being able to be consistent with it (at least that's what I found for myself)
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: 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.
I have no doubt you're measuring as accurately as you can. The problem is that those measurements on the sides of things just don't have good precision, and sometimes the way they state things on boxes just isn't very good. Biggest example for me was white rice. It would say 1/2 cup = 160 kcal. So I'd measure out my 1 cup and think I was getting 320kcal of rice. Got a food scale, weighed up that rice from one cup and...low and behold! That one cup I was measuring out (even going as low below the line as I could) was 125g, or just shy of three servings (44g in that 160kcal serving). So each time I made rice I was eating at least 100-150 kcal more than I thought. It's not so much user error as it is inaccuracy inherent what constitutes the different measurements.
As for being diligent. Sorta. More just I like knowing, and it doesn't take any extra time so why not? I'd say it's faster to dump out rice to 90g on the scale than it is to try and eyeball 1 cup. If I didn't even try to measure at all I doubt it would even save me 1 minute on the prep of a large meal. So from my own perspective there is zero downside, with the upside of "knowledge is power" even if I don't really care that much if my meal comes out to 1500 or 1400 kcal.
Fair enough. For something like rice it's not a big deal, though I still think it's better to do it once, and then you can correlate the mass to a volume just because it's quicker. However if you're going to be weighing butter, bread, raw meat, shredded potato, or meat with bones or something it gets more tedious and create more dishes for you too. Essentially at the point where I'm in my fitness it's just be a burden and an extra thing to think about instead of the easier following guidelines and rules of thumb. Anyway, who knows, I might be what you're doing in a few months time haha.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: 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?)
I haven't used HR much, even though I got the strap. Sometimes I think it would be cool to know, but I generally just get lazy and don't wear the strap. Cadence sensor depends on what you want it for. If you just want it for cadence you can look at as you ride most anything works. If you want cadence you can upload to strava, then you'll need a Garmin head-unit and an ANT+ compatible speed/cadence sensor. No way to get cadence data into a strava mobile file.
Yeah, cycling computers are something I'm fairly unfamiliar with, though I don't understand why anyone would buy one of those Garmin things. Doesn't my Samsung S5 have the ability to do everything that one of those does? I'd like some phone application that combines the phone GPS, maps, and elevation features... While also feeding in information from a Cadence sensor (which should also be able to measure speed if I specify wheel size I'd think), and that way I'd get more accurate and responsible speed data than GPS. As well it should be available to feed in heart rate and power data from other sensors.
So Strava is nice, but supposedly it doesn't support the feature to display real time speed from a sensor or real time cadence from a sensor? That to me is a pretty big shortfall if that's the case, and odd to me that it isn't supported, and I fail to see where the difficulty in implementing that would be.
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.
First off, for yellow it's perfectly fine. The mountains decide yellow and w/kg is by far the #1 component there (though not as much as some people believe, especially on mid gradients). 6 w/kg from a 67kg Froome is faster up a 6% grade than the 6 w/kg from a 56kg Nairo Quintana.
Now, when it comes to the other things, yes and no. There is a pretty good deal of truth to Watts/CdA for the flat, w/kg for the hills. And when you get to dialed in TT bikes everyones CdA is indeed pretty good. That said, weight generally does correlate with physical size. A 5'6 guy like Quintana takes up quite a bit less overall front area than does a Fabian Cancellara. Not enough that Cancellara's 450w is going to lose to Nairo's 370w, but enough that the 80w difference isn't resulting in 10 minute time differences.
When it comes to sprints there is still some relevance to w/kg. Uphill sprints it's clear why w/kg plays a role. However, w/kg matters in sprints also because of acceleration. A 50kg mass being accelerated at 1200w will shoot forward just as fast as a 90kg mass with 2,160w. Then there is the correlation between size and CdA. Think Caleb Ewan. Okay, his position is freakishly aerodynamic, but his whole body is MUCH smaller than that of Kittel, even all bent over the bike trying to reduce that he is still a lot smaller. And it shows, Ewan is over 600w lower reported power than Kittel based on training numbers, and yet is still a pretty damn competitive sprinter.
One thing that's worth being clear about though is that it isn't w/kg inherently that matters, but w/kg often correlates with CdA.
When it comes to breakaway moves it's really variable. Breakaways can be on almost any terrain. Here again, w/kg as it's relevancy because that initial acceleration is important. A winning move always starts with a sprint, not a 600w surge. The sprint serves to jump you off the wheels of the others and not allow them to sit on you. Try to cruise by at 600w and everyone else will just follow your wheel doing 350w chilling. Acceleration is heavily a w/kg function, so having that jump is really important. I don't care if you're 200kg and putting out 2000w, that isn't going to get you separation in a race winning jump. 10 w/kg isn't a big enough acceleration to get others off your wheel and ensure they have to work just as hard to catch back on. The other reason it's somewhat useful is that it depends on the type of break. In other words a mountain stage break probably consists of smaller climbers, so for that break 8 w/kg is going to be pretty similar for all of those guys. Same thing with a flat stage break. If you have a 60kg guy in that break, chances are he isn't feeling too much energy left to go for the win, compared with a big 75kg classics tank. In that flat break it's the bigger riders that are likely to be more dangerous, so even though w/kg might not tell us everything, it inherently lends itself to 'apples to apples' comparisons when speaking of breakaways.
I agree that expressing sprints in w/kg feels a little silly. Unless it's more as a gauge of potential. My realistic idea race weight is 60kg, so it's not realistic for me to even dream of doing much over 420w for 5'. Or over 700w for a minute. You could argue that with some serious weight training I could maybe put on 5-10kg of leg mass and see higher numbers over 5s and 1', but I feel pretty confident that 3' and beyond benefits very little from explosive weight training or extra mass.
Where I do disagree is the "similar lungs, similar heart part". Bigger guys put out more watts precisely because they have larger hearts and greater muscle mass. No 5'4" guy is ever going to have a 400w FTP. Nairo is a good example, as he is 55kg. There is no way on earth he is putting out 400w at FTP. Absolute best case would be 370w FTP, which is probably generous.
You bring up the case of Quintana, so sure, that's a bit of an exception, but look at like every GC rider vs sprinters, they are the same height. Froome 6'1", Contador 5'9", Aru 6'0", Pinot 5'11", TJVG 6'1', Porte 5'8. And compare that to ITT and Sprinters: Sagan 6', Cancellara 6'1, Tony Martin 6'1", Greipel 6'0", Cavendish 5'9", Kittel 6'2", Coquard 5'7".
So really, I think the size of the body parts of riders are relatively similar (and hence my reasoning for the average rider whatever his specialization has a similar heart and lungs), and thus expressing power in watts is far more logical to me, than expressing it in W/Kg, and somehow comparing it to how much someone weighs. It's the same thing of when you express the power of like any machine, like a car, motorcycle, aircraft... You always express it in units of power, or units of force in the case of engine thrust. Yes, power to weight ratio is a thing, and it's discussed, but it's a secondary thing. It's like if I gave you the power to weight ratio of a car's engine without even including its whole body.
As for the acceleration stuff you mentioned, I don't think it plays that big of a role. Lets say a rider 1 plus bike weigh 80kgs and rider 2 it's 90kg. And lets assume they are accelerating from 40km/h to 55km/h, and perform the acceleration in 3 seconds. Assuming constant acceleration, that's 1.39m/s^2. And now P = F*delta_v = m*a*delta_v = 10kg*1.39*15/3.6. So to perform this acceleration, it requires 57.9W of additional power for the heavier rider, though I made the assumption that power transmission is the same for both riders, rolling resistance is the same for both riders, and CdA is the same for both riders... Actually I made too many assumptions here. The point I was trying to get at is the acceleration is a small part of the power needed in a race, and so a person's inertia isn't all that important. Secondly, what I also wanted to show is that the Cd*A of a rider doesn't change much with weight, as weight is proportional to volume, which is L^3, while surface area is L^2. So if rider 1 has a mass of 80, his area is equal to 18.566, while rider 2 with a mass of 90, has an area of 20.08 (relative terms). So his CdA would be 8.15% higher, instead of 12.5% higher. Not only that, muscle in denser at 1060kg/m^3 vs 960kg/m^3 for the rest of your body. Additionally, the bicycle aerodynamics are the same for riders of different muscle sizes, plus additional fluid dynamics effects, that I'd expect it to be around 4% instead of the initial 12.5% (hopefully that was possible to follow).
I see the advantages of both, and I'm not saying that W/kg is absolute rubbish, I just think that pure wattage is better, and I've read several articles that inspired me to think about it, and in general there was agreement.
On July 09 2016 06:14 Gjhc wrote: Thanks FIWIFaKi, you were the first one wishing me happy birthday since actually my birthday is only tomorrow ^^
Tomorrow will definitely make bigger gaps, the Tourmalet alone will tire everyone especially if sky or movistar set a moderately high pace from the start of the climb, and those two first category climbs aren't easy at all either, and despite not being a summit finish there's really not much ground after the last climb to recover and since it's downhill I expect the gaps to remain pretty much the same as they were on the top.
Teamliquid is your real family
And yeah, for tomorrow the possibility for huge gaps is there. There isn't a single flat kilometer for almost 120km, which means there's little reason to ride in a peleton, so pushing early is just fine. Really just depends on when a team will decide to push, or if Quintana and Froome will be feeling everyone out until the last climb, and everyone else will be too nervous to expend energy on an attack.
Fiwifaki looks like you were right about Dumoulin after all, today he couldn't even follow the peloton while they were just cruising up the mountain o_o. He said in interview he feels fine but just can't find the power somehow. Apparently he did fall close before the start of the Tour, maybe that is working against him now someway.
Crazy scenes today. Nibali gets in perfect position to win the race, but suddenly can't even follow Daryl Impey up a mountain! What on earth. I know it's hard to do well in back to back Grand Tours but this is some weak shit from him. Wonder how Aru feels now. Also Pinot, so weird, his team even rode in front at the start of the mountain!?
Cummings is such a powerhouse, it's insane. Also 4 British wins already in this Tour (good revenge for their football team), and 4 for Dimension data as well. Who would have thought. And Van Avermaet extending his lead. I don't even know what is going on anymore.
And Yates getting hit by the inflatable finish thingy falling down LOL. https://streamable.com/ap9r Only in cycling. Apparently he attacked the peloton at that time when it came down on him. The organisation gave him a 1 second lead on that group so he could get the white jersey tomorrow for his troubles.
Pretty disappointed in GC guys not challenging eachother, tomorrow will probably be boring until the last climb if you look at this :X
I'll have to rewatch Nibali stuff, and though it is weak from him, when he got dropped on the previous stages, he said that it was nice that he didn't feel the pressure like last year, but that his legs wouldn't let him keep going, so I suppose it's not that unexpected, though he still got 4th, so he's doing better than Contador for points lol.
Yeah, great job from Cummings, and crazy that Dimension Data are doing so much work given that they're ranked last out of the 18 UCI World Tour teams this year.
And just need to be patient I suppose. Tomorrow the climbs are steeper, and far more riders will be dropped since you can't go up 4 climbs in the red, unlike today. If stage 8 doesn't do it, stage 9 will, that day everyone will be found out.
And then we have Stage 12 to look forward to, which will probably be the most fun stage to watch in the Tour, as everyone will come to the final climb of the toughest climb in TdF history together with 20km to go, and then riders will start going one by one until only one remains on the summit. It's truly my favorite kind of stage, everyone comes to one gigantic summit finish climb together and in top shape, and they start peeling off one by one, until there's only one less.
As for the acceleration stuff you mentioned, I don't think it plays that big of a role. Lets say a rider 1 plus bike weigh 80kgs and rider 2 it's 90kg. And lets assume they are accelerating from 40km/h to 55km/h, and perform the acceleration in 3 seconds. Assuming constant acceleration, that's 1.39m/s^2. And now P = F*delta_v = m*a*delta_v = 10kg*1.39*15/3.6. So to perform this acceleration, it requires 57.9W of additional power for the heavier rider, though I made the assumption that power transmission is the same for both riders, rolling resistance is the same for both riders, and CdA is the same for both riders... Actually I made too many assumptions here. The point I was trying to get at is the acceleration is a small part of the power needed in a race, and so a person's inertia isn't all that important. Secondly, what I also wanted to show is that the Cd*A of a rider doesn't change much with weight, as weight is proportional to volume, which is L^3, while surface area is L^2. So if rider 1 has a mass of 80, his area is equal to 18.566, while rider 2 with a mass of 90, has an area of 20.08 (relative terms). So his CdA would be 8.15% higher, instead of 12.5% higher. Not only that, muscle in denser at 1060kg/m^3 vs 960kg/m^3 for the rest of your body. Additionally, the bicycle aerodynamics are the same for riders of different muscle sizes, plus additional fluid dynamics effects, that I'd expect it to be around 4% instead of the initial 12.5% (hopefully that was possible to follow).
I see the advantages of both, and I'm not saying that W/kg is absolute rubbish, I just think that pure wattage is better, and I've read several articles that inspired me to think about it, and in general there was agreement.
I think this is a too low estimate. It's not just volume but also height since competing riders are usually the same bodytype so more weight is related to height as well as muscle mass.
When looking at these pictures, Coquard and Cavendish have significantly lower surface area than Greipel and Sagan.
You can also see that most of the body is above the bike during sprints so every inch of extra body directly affects airflow
And Cavendish can hide behind Greipel but Greipel can't hide behind Cavendish. Combine this with the extra effort required to accelerate mass and I don't see why Watts alone would be a more interesting metric than W/kg, except for flat time trials where everyone lays flat on their bikes and ride constant speed.
It seems a spectator unpluged accidentally the thing which blows air in the inflatable arc. Hopefully, Yates is still in the race, with the white jersey (best young rider).
I dont like such a hard stage finishing in a downhill..... i think it makes the GC guys play it safe as they can always downhill in a bunch and close any 30 seconds gap someone can get in an attack...... When its a hill finish you know that if you break the competition no one can recover , lets see what happens
On July 09 2016 23:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Pfff everyone still together at the fourth climb. Sky's constant tempo killing all action once again. 4 km left for some action and then a descent
There is 0 incentive to go for all in solo attack for the GC guys , the descent is really long and anything you get will be eaten easily , you test the waters abit but thats about it. if it was a hill finish you would see much more action.