I'm sure it has been asked a hundred times, but how is it possible to go 10% faster on a climb than known dopers from 15 years ago? New technology cannot mean that much when air resistance is negligible because you average 10mph.
Given the tech improvements and such I think this is probably the equivalent to someone breaking the 1500m world record now by a couple of tenths.
A truly remarkable performance that is probably the best ever single effort in cycling. Like breaking the 1500m record now would be one of if not the greatest running performance ever, especially if it is done at an equivalent stage such as the tdf.
Without even mentioning running, lets look at it this way. FTP, functional threshold power, is the power a person could sustain for "about" an hour at their max lactate steady state. This will probably be closer to 45 min power for a novice, 75 min for an advanced cyclist.
Trainerroad and cycling analytics, two online training platforms for cyclists, have posted some pretty good stats on the estimated ftps of their user base over the years. An "average" recreational male cyclist has an ftp between 3-3.75 w/kg. This is a guy doing fairly structured training 5-10 hours a week but never had great "talent". The 3-4w/kg range is the top of the bell curve for dedicated cyclists. Once you go north of 4, you're really starting to slim down the pack. I personally am a little lower than 4w/kg and can post a top 10% overall bike split in an Ironman race or hang onto the lead pack in most fondos until the action really starts.
4.25+ is starting to get to the guys that can survive the lead pack of fondos and enter the fastest non-pro heats of crit races. 4.5w/kq is generally a benchmark for people looking to qualify for Kona in the tri world. Not fast enough to be a guarantee, but if you have the running legs it puts you in a great spot. Guys with FTPs north of 5w/kg are in contention for the amateur win at many of those races. (5w/kg is the top 2.5% or so of cyclists on TR or CA). 6 w/kg is going to be low/mid level pro, and 7w/kg is a handful of people in the world. Pogi held ~7w/kg for 40 minutes, after almost 60 hours of racing in the last two weeks.
I'm a pretty good amateur cyclist. If I'm visiting cities of 25,000 - 100,000, I'll have a chance of getting a Strava KOM on any hill climb that's 2-20minutes, and it's pretty rare I can't crack the top 10 (unless there's an annual race involving said climb).
There's also specific context of the race to consider.
Sunday's race followed a fairly hard race up the final climb to Pla d'Adet, but the entire week leading into it was 3 'easy' sprint stages and one hilly harder day. Pretty perfect setup for a max effort.
Pantani set the record up this climb in 1998. He wasn't in the lead (over very close to it) and was going for the stage win. Yesterday Pog was basically motorpaced by Jonas who had a huge incentive to solidify 2nd over TT specialist Remco. Yes Pog then took off, but even at climbing speeds there is a tangible and mental benefit to being paced 2/3 of the way up.
Pog is a generational talent. The bike tech is getting better. Skinsuits are more aero and cool better, everything is lighter and more efficient. The training techniques are getting better. There's a recent article about intentional CO inhalation as a augmentation to altitude training to induce even further hematocrit gains. It shouldn't be overly surprising that performances get better over the years.
To guesstimate at the original question: It's not directly comparable. 4h of cycling at regular TdF race pace is (for pros) kinda hard but not terribly draining. The race into the base of Plateau de Beille on Sunday was very hard for the first half of a race, comparable to something like a 20 mile long run at an honest pace. Reasonable to think that Pog/Ving hit the bottom at 5/10 freshness. In a running context it may be similar to someone running a 10k qualifying heat, and then winning a 5k final on the same night.
If you have a Coros watch then it can tell you your running watts. Don't know how accurate that is but it can help you compare. A 60kg athlete running at 420watts will be 7w/kg.
My very rough guess would be running at around ~2:35min/km for 40min.
Running Watts and Cycling Watts are not comparable. When I did a ton of triathlons (Read: pretty equaly trained for running and cycling) My cycling FTP was 270w, my running FTP was 380w as stated by Coros.
There have been some pretty big leaps in nutrition in recent years with top athletes taking well over 100 carbs/hr while riding. And if you think about it, this makes a bigger difference in cycling than in other sports because of how long these cycling races are. Combine that with Pogacar as a generational talent and it is more believable.
But probably the biggest difference is the specificity of training and fueling. For a sport that's been around for so long, they had extremely archaic training traditions that held on for so long. Basically put in your 30 hours a week, make sure you get your sprints and elevation in, and may the best rider win. Now you see lactate testing just like in running. And as far as fueling, especially when you consider these crucial climbs are at the end of a long day, it's lead to even greater improvements compared to just a decade ago.
I'll just jump in on this part. They've been doing lactate testing for decades in cycling, so that's not it. There have been some improvement in carb consumption in the last 30 years, but I'd say in the last five years, almost everyone is getting in 100-130g/hr of carbs compared to 80-90g/hr of decades past. I think that's why overall things may be slightly faster, but that wouldn't explain this outlier.
I spent a decade racing in the US and Europe in the 90s and have closely followed the sport since I retired. Every five years or so ppl make the argument that something [insert: tech, aero, food, training, etc.] is now so advanced that this explains the jump for that "generational" talent. And there's almost always a doping conviction, admission, or oh-that-was-a-shady practice behind it. So I'm just a bit jaded at this point.
Top teams Visma and UAE confirm they have access to specialized equipment for testing, but deny using the potentially powerful new method for performance enhancement.
Rusty Woods did 7w/kg for 26 minutes for a virtual Zwift race. Not sure his numbers on Puy de Dome last year, but that might tell you more. He still holds the Canadian juniors mile record at 3:57 (no super spikes). Tadej's climb was after a long fast day in the saddle.
I'm sure it has been asked a hundred times, but how is it possible to go 10% faster on a climb than known dopers from 15 years ago? New technology cannot mean that much when air resistance is negligible because you average 10mph.
Doping - because everyone in every sport is!
Tech - It is more like 15 mph, so aero/rolling resistance does matter. 15 years ago only top riders would wear speed suits only for time trials, now everyone wears them every day. Fatter tires are now faster than old 23c, chains are tested for friction, climbing positions have become more narrow, marginal gains is still gains.
Weight - Top riders today are crazy thin. Peak Amrstrong would look fat compared to Pogacar. This is also where the charts are just wrong because they use the same weight for every performance, making the heavy guys look worse.
Nutrition/Training - Far more carbs/hour, and everything planned out instead of "here is a bag of food, eat what you want". Power meters and lactate testing everywhere, much more active recovery, blood testing during training for things other than PEDs.
Race conditions - Pogacar didn't do the climb alone, he was drafting for the first half while others were going full power. Pantani only rode about a quarter in the pack. Need a real time trial to be better comparable.
I'm sure it has been asked a hundred times, but how is it possible to go 10% faster on a climb than known dopers from 15 years ago? New technology cannot mean that much when air resistance is negligible because you average 10mph.
There is 2 possible answers:
1) he’s doping(which I don’t think is so)
2) he’s that special once in a generational talent that is able to take what is known to heights before unthinkable. Usain Bolt, Kelvin Kiptum are perfect examples of this.
All three were/are on the juice, hate to break it to you.
I'm sure it has been asked a hundred times, but how is it possible to go 10% faster on a climb than known dopers from 15 years ago? New technology cannot mean that much when air resistance is negligible because you average 10mph.
Bike weight is nominal since they instituted a 6.8kg lower weight limit in 2000. But most bikes are now both aero and light. Gearing has gotten more sane. Spinning a lower gear is much more efficient than Pantani out of the saddle stamping down his pedals. Power meters allow riders to ride their own even pace and not go into the red. It's kind of like how pace lights have increased track times. Having a team of super domestiques to tow you most of the way is a huge advantage. And... then there's the obvious. Only time will tell, but riders being able to attack like they do and hold off chasers hasn't been the norm since the EPO era. It's not like I think some riders are clean and the top guys are doping. They're all doping and the top guys are on to something new. Or they just have a better way of evading tests with old techniques. Either way, I think they're able to use some method in competition without worry of detection.
What am I on! I’m on the bike. Doping has been institutionalized in the sport of cycling for decades. I’m still impressed with Tade’s ride this year and Vingo’s time trial last year. The playing field is level but to think the top teams aren’t bending the rules is naive. Riding at the level the my do for 3 weeks requires a little help. It’s brutal!!!
If it is doping (which I acknowledge is probably still a factor) - how do these athletes (in any sport where doping is routinely tested) get comfortable that they aren't ultimately going to get caught? Either by testing while they are racing, or retroactive testing once the tests catch up? Particularly when you win in the fashion of Jonas or Pogacar, there is a mark on you and you are going to get the extra scrutiny where IF you are doping - getting caught is an inevitability. I just hope there is some level of integrity where these athletes understand that their legacy will be completely ruined if testing catches up to them. Maybe I'm being pollyannish, but hopefully making an example of Lance and some of the other cheats has had some impact.
On the other hand, while widely considered to be a fraud and a cheater with a terrible legacy, Lance is still wealthy and living comfortably, podcasting every day - so maybe thats a bad example...
I'm sure it has been asked a hundred times, but how is it possible to go 10% faster on a climb than known dopers from 15 years ago? New technology cannot mean that much when air resistance is negligible because you average 10mph.
I'm sure it has been asked a hundred times, but how is it possible to go 10% faster on a climb than known dopers from 15 years ago? New technology cannot mean that much when air resistance is negligible because you average 10mph.
Doping - because everyone in every sport is!
Tech - It is more like 15 mph, so aero/rolling resistance does matter. 15 years ago only top riders would wear speed suits only for time trials, now everyone wears them every day. Fatter tires are now faster than old 23c, chains are tested for friction, climbing positions have become more narrow, marginal gains is still gains.
Weight - Top riders today are crazy thin. Peak Amrstrong would look fat compared to Pogacar. This is also where the charts are just wrong because they use the same weight for every performance, making the heavy guys look worse.
Nutrition/Training - Far more carbs/hour, and everything planned out instead of "here is a bag of food, eat what you want". Power meters and lactate testing everywhere, much more active recovery, blood testing during training for things other than PEDs.
Race conditions - Pogacar didn't do the climb alone, he was drafting for the first half while others were going full power. Pantani only rode about a quarter in the pack. Need a real time trial to be better comparable.
You can even do the math on this. Let's say Pog went 10% faster than Pantani and held 400w. Power:speed is pretty linear for a climb, so it's reasonable to say that Pog had a ~40watt gain in either power output, efficiency, or a combo of the two.
Efficiency:
Drivetrain-Waxed chain (~2w) on an optimized chainline (~2w) with a 12sp drivetrain that gives gear options closer to the optimal cadence at any speed. Low friction BB bearings (1w). Versus Pantani square-taper BB on a 9sp drivetrain lubed with motor oil.
Tires - Modern low friction tubeless are known to be >5w per tire faster than 90's tubulars at race speeds. Call it half that at climbing speed but it's still ~5w.
Aero - A modern bike is anywhere from 20-50w faster than 90's bikes at race speeds. It's far less at 10mph, but not nothing. Adding in skinsuit, wheels, frame, exposed cables, it's probably 3-5w faster at 10mph.
A reasonable guess is that Pog's setups is ~15-20w faster than Pantani's. That's about half of the difference. Would Pog breaking the record by 90sec instead of 3min be more believable? IMO a 5% increase in ability over 25 years is inline with developments in athletic performance.
Anyone who follows cycling closely understands that the all the small improvements in training and technology (tires/pressure ALONE, for example) has led to massive speed increases overall.
But the training science is where things have changed the most.
If you follow both sports it's obvious that running is laughably behind when it comes to modern training theory. (This "oh, look at the pros checking lactate levels" stuff is hilarious. Cyclists have been doing that since the 90s. ) The ONE TIME a running group/brand put the kind of effort into the sport as cycling teams do every day was the Breaking 2 project. Go back and read about that.
The time/energy/money that went into the science of that is about the equivalent of a bottom-tier TDF team.
Runners have no idea how much more advanced cycling is at the top levels.
Gearing hasn't been mentioned. Back in the 90's/00's pros would use much smaller gears which made it harder to go up.
It was a machismo thing. Fast dudes ride big gears was the theory, which isn't correct. Now everyone picks the right gear for the grade/power/cadence and they go up much faster.
Not sure how to quantify this effect. But as a hack biker, I really am faster with correct gearing.
