Part 2 For the Lance Fans
Reggie
2) Hautacam 2000: 2175 Leg lifts of 45 kg in a row!
This 205 km stage in the Pyrennees, contested in cold, partly rainy weather,
was
Won by Javier Ochoa, rider for the Spanish team Kelme, at the end of 155km
breakaway. Lance Armstrong finished second on this 10th stage, and took the
yellow jersey, relegating Jan Ullrich to a time of 4 minutes 14 seconds on
the general classification.
"This time," relates Antoine Vayer, "he established an average
output of 457 watts, after a period of 557 watts at the foot of the climb,
following the attack of Marco Pantani, then he released a burst of 500 watts
to drop the Italien in terrible atmospheric conditions after a succession of
mountain passes. There, where he should have lost his facility on a steady
climb after five hours in the saddle, he actually increased it! He was able
to accelerate without appearing tired. At Hautacam, he paced himself, after
having dropped Pantani by outputting more than 500 watts, then he was able
to accelerate again toward the summit to take the wheel of and then drop the
attacking Spanish rider Jose Maria Jimenez, while outputting 450 watts. This
is no longer cycling."
To bring these numbers into context, Antoine Vayer provides the
following base of comparison: "During his ascent, the American demonstrated
an average output of 457 watts for a climb which lasted 36 minutes 25
seconds. If we put into perspective the output of watts over this time, the
result is astonishing: the force he used pushing on the pedals
alternatively, one leg after the other, corresponds to the force necessary
to lift a bag weighing 45 kg every second for 36 minutes 25 seconds, in
other words to do this 2175 times in a row without any apparent tiredness.
2175 times! Training and weight lifting can't explain everything,
especially since these exertions occurred at the end of a stage of the Tour
de France."
pages 308-309 More to come.
Peter Allen
news:x_LXd.4644$oO4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> 2) Hautacam 2000: 2175 Leg lifts of 45 kg in a row!
When copying someone else's work, at least try to show you understand what
they were trying to say.
The above is not difficult, merely boring. I've done 1,000 bodyweight squats
without breaks a few times; my bodyweight minus guess factor for the parts
that don't move as far is 60kg. It's not all that difficult, just boring.
The author was trying to make the point that doing it in a short time
requires a high power output.
Peter
Reggie
"Peter Allen" <petero...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0o428$s22$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
With the exception of the last line at the bottom of the post, all the words
are a direct translation from the French.
R.
Alec Sander
Reggie wrote:
> 2) Hautacam 2000: 2175 Leg lifts of 45 kg in a row!
Thanks for the great posts Reggie. Best RBR contribution this year.
We Westworlders without the French background appreciate it. And
please ignore the trolls extolling their fascinating leglifting
abilities. Keep it up!
-Alec
Robert Chung
> 2) Hautacam 2000: 2175 Leg lifts of 45 kg in a row!
> the following base of comparison: "During his ascent, the American
> demonstrated an average output of 457 watts for a climb which lasted 36
> minutes 25 seconds. If we put into perspective the output of watts
> over this time, the result is astonishing: the force he used pushing on
> the pedals alternatively, one leg after the other, corresponds to the
> force necessary to lift a bag weighing 45 kg every second for 36
> minutes 25 seconds, in other words to do this 2175 times in a row
> without any apparent tiredness. 2175 times! Training and weight
> lifting can't explain everything, especially since these exertions
> occurred at the end of a stage of the Tour de France."
Oh my. Oh my goodness my. I think we've identified the problem: Vayer's
calculation assumes Armstrong's cadence was 60 rpm. Do the calculation
yourself to see.
Robert Chung
> Thanks for the great posts Reggie.
I agree. They've been very illuminating.
> Keep it up!
Please do.
Tim Lines
Thanks. I've only been reading this thread to watch you play with the
stats that've been thrown around.
Sounds like he could have saved himself a lot of time if he'd just
assumed LA was on EPO to start with. It'd make for a short paper, and
that's not necessarily a bad thing.
amit
Tim Lines wrote:
> Sounds like he could have saved himself a lot of time if he'd just
> assumed LA was on EPO to start with. It'd make for a short paper,
and
> that's not necessarily a bad thing.
vayer's so-called "analysis" isn't a detailed calculation, it's a bunch
of ballpark estimates. he has to rely on many estimated parameters.
sixteen pages of it doesn't change that.
for example he says at one point the required VO2 for a certain
(wattage) effort is 89-90ml/min.kg, but the observed range of economy
implies a range much larger than that. it's as if by presenting a small
uncertainty (kills 99.98% of germs!) he can be more convincing than if
he presents none at all.
in a race a speed, power, grade and wind are constantly changing, he
just presents averages, so the error in those averages is what 5%, 10%?
which is a lot when you're comparing rides and riders.
but that's not the issue. my problem, as i've said, with this line of
reasoning is it doesn't answer the question (wrt. doping).
Peter Allen
My apologies. I should have realised that you were not merely copying
someone else's work, but copying someone else's poor write-up of a third
person's original comments.
Peter
Robert Chung
> but that's not the issue. my problem, as i've said, with this line of
> reasoning is it doesn't answer the question (wrt. doping).
Yeah, but it's kinda fun to read. I'm hoping the next excerpt includes
Vayer's astonishment at seeing "des gros culs passer les cols en tete."
LanceFan
I have only been weight lifting for two months, but I was able to do 30 kg
for five minutes in a row. That means that someone like LA who has been
training for 15 years can easily do 45 kg for 37 minutes. I'm surprised that
all cyclists can't easily do that, because they have also been training a
long time.
thanks, blind Armstrong sycophant
Philip Holman
"Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:39a25qF...@individual.net...
You are correct if you assume a constant force on the pedals. Vayer
probably assumed a peak force 1.5 times average force. Either way his
analysis is flawed and amounts to nothing more than trying to
sensationalize Armstrong's performance data.
Phil H
Robert Chung
> You are correct if you assume a constant force on the pedals. Vayer
> probably assumed a peak force 1.5 times average force. Either way his
> analysis is flawed and amounts to nothing more than trying to
> sensationalize Armstrong's performance data.
The "2175 times" is a clue (it appears that Vayer thinks that 36 minutes
and 25 seconds = 36.25 minutes). Elsewhere, Vayer appears to confuse force
with work: "lors de son ascension victorieuse à Hautacam en 2000,
Armstrong a généré une puissance moyenne de 457 watts, après 200 bornes de
course. Cela équivaut à la force requise pour soulever alternativement d'
une jambe puis de l'autre, et à hauteur de 1 mètre, un sac de 45kg attaché
à chacun de ses pieds pendant 36 minutes 25 secondes (son temps d'
ascension), soit 2175 fois de suite sans aucune faiblesse.
Impressionnant." (http://laflammerouge.com/archives/cat_dopage.php)
Ewoud Dronkert
> The "2175 times" is a clue (it appears that Vayer thinks that 36 minutes
> and 25 seconds = 36.25 minutes). Elsewhere, Vayer appears to confuse force
> with work: "lors de son ascension victorieuse à Hautacam en 2000,
> Armstrong a généré une puissance moyenne de 457 watts, après 200 bornes de
> course. Cela équivaut à la force requise pour soulever alternativement d'
> une jambe puis de l'autre, et à hauteur de 1 mètre, un sac de 45kg attaché
> à chacun de ses pieds pendant 36 minutes 25 secondes (son temps d'
> ascension), soit 2175 fois de suite sans aucune faiblesse.
> Impressionnant." (http://laflammerouge.com/archives/cat_dopage.php)
Sounds like a gym teacher to me.
--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/
Philip Holman
"Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
sophistication he has not demonstrated.
Phil H
Robert Chung
> "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote
>>
>> The "2175 times" is a clue (it appears that Vayer thinks that 36
>> minutes and 25 seconds = 36.25 minutes). Elsewhere, Vayer
>> appears to confuse force with work: "lors de son ascension
>> victorieuse à Hautacam en 2000, Armstrong a généré une
>> puissance moyenne de 457 watts, après 200 bornes de
>> course. Cela équivaut à la force requise pour soulever alternativement
>> d'une jambe puis de l'autre, et à hauteur de 1 mètre, un sac de 45kg
>> attaché à chacun de ses pieds pendant 36 minutes 25 secondes
>> (son temps d'ascension), soit 2175 fois de suite sans aucune
>> faiblesse. Impressionnant."
>> (http://laflammerouge.com/archives/cat_dopage.php)
>>
> You are probably right. Assuming peak force would attribute a
> sophistication he has not demonstrated.
It's worse than that. His passage was meant to illustrate what 457 watts
means, but the French version has enough info in it to double-check. He
says 457 watts is equivalent to having Armstrong attach a 45kg weight to
each leg and climbing 1 m/sec. Vayer uses 71 kg for Armstrong's mass, so
the total mass is 71+45+45 = 161 kg. How much power does it take to raise
161 kg 1 meter in 1 second? Hmmm. Seems like Vayer's helpful little
putting-things-in-context illustration has exaggerated Armstrong's
performance by just a tad. Vayer's level of hackery? Impressionant.
Jenko
> It's worse than that. His passage was meant to illustrate what 457
watts
> means, but the French version has enough info in it to double-check.
I assumed 45 was just 457 (W) divided by 9.8 (m/s) rounded to the
nearest factor of 5.
Jenko
Jenko
I meant, multiple.
Jenko