Power from Tour of Georgia Bike race

[Nosmo]

Just came across this link: http://www.velonews.com/article/75255
has some info on one Frank Pipp's power output in the first three stages of the Tour of Georgia bike race.

11.3 hours
9,614 kJ’s
364k
143k in breakaways (40 percent of the total race).
Max power efforts included: 1 bridge, 1 KOM, 2 breakaways and 3 bonus point sprints.

The comparison to an erg is not really valid but I'll make it anyway.

If it were an erg, it would be equivelent 178,444 meters in three days at an average pace of 1:54 (236.3 Watts). However during that time the power output is highly variable. It included 2.5 hours at an average of 325W (1:42), 6 seconds at 1396 (1:03), 14 seconds at 866W (1:14), plus more I don't want to bother with.

Pretty impressive for a 150 lbs guy who still has 4 days of racing left.

[TabbRows]

Very impressive vs erg, but I believe bikers typically measure their performance via Power/Weight Ratios.

World class PWRs for 5 seconds for a 68.2kg rider would equate to ~1580 watts (23.16*68.2; ~1:00). For 20 minutes that same rider would equte to 443 watts. (1:31/1:32 on erg). Not sure what standards are for long tour distance, but no doubt a 3.46 PWR, while cat. 3/4 for 20 minutes would be right up there for longer periods.

Nosmo, in your experience, would PWRs make any equivalent sense for rating rowers to account for weight size?

[Nosmo]

... Nosmo, in your experience, would PWRs make any equivalent sense for rating rowers to account for weight size?

PWR in cycling really only tells you how well someone can climb hills. For time trialing it is power / surface area, which is very roughly P/W^ (2/3)
(i.e. ratio of power over weight raised to the 2/3rds).

For rowing it is the same relationship: P/W^(2/3). In this case it is much more accurate because the water drag on the boat doesn't depend on the shape of the rower, just the total weight. Note velocity is proportional to the P^1/3, so to compare speeds then the relationship is W^(2/9).

This is what C2 uses for the weight adjustment factor:
http://www.concept2.com/us/training/too ... adjfaq.asp

This is a little simplistic for a number of reasons
e.g. 1) anerobic power is proportional to muscle mass, but aerobic power is proportional to muscle cross section. So the above formula is most accurate above 20 minutes and becomes significantly less accurate below 2K.
2) It does not take into account the weight of the boat, or how the drag varies with weight in different size boats.

For more details:
http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/rowing/ ... eight.html


Erg races could have a prize for fastest adjusted time. One could also give a prize for fastest time adjusted for weight and age. OTW Masters race do have an age handicap: c times (age-27) squared per 1000m, where c is .025 seconds for singles, .0216 seconds for doubles. I don't recall for other boats. The age handicap does seem to give an advantage to those over 60, and more so at longer distances.

[Nosmo]

More data from today's fourth stage of the Tour de Georgia:

http://www.velonews.com/article/75340/p ... tage-4-ttt

396 normalized watts and 362 average watts for 20:17
... "anaerobic power ruled the race, From the power data file, I counted seven, 20- to 26-second efforts between 506 and 638 watts. The final 30-second effort was at 639 watts or 170 percent of Frank’s threshold power. There was nothing steady about this time trial at all"

Don't know how they define normalized power is, but 396 watts is a 1:36 on the erg, and 362 is 1:39.
The power variation does show how different bike racing is from rowing, even in a time trial. Again Frank Pipp is about 150 lbs.

[Chris Brett]

How are they measuring the power output in the cycling race?

Obviously a direct comparison with power measured at the C2 flywheel is unlikely to be a fair comparison. Cycling is a much more efficient way of generating power 'at the wheel' than rowing.

Those are still very impressive figures though.

[Nosmo]

How are they measuring the power output in the cycling race?

Obviously a direct comparison with power measured at the C2 flywheel is unlikely to be a fair comparison. Cycling is a much more efficient way of generating power 'at the wheel' than rowing.

Those are still very impressive figures though.

The pros pretty much all use cranks with strain gauges that measure torque and rotational speed. The technology is widely available on all the major brands. There are also rear hubs that measure power. I believe the cranks are more accurate (and more expensive) then the hubs, additionally they measure power applied at the pedals, while the hub systems don't measure power lost in the chain and freewheel (which is negligable if the bike is in good condition, but I would except some loss after a long race in the rain, mud or snow).

Several years ago the UCI (cycling's governing body) instituted a minimum weight requirement (just under 15 lbs I think). Bikes have gotten so much lighter and stronger in recent years, that it is now easy have a power meter and still be at weight. Most of the pros use them now, and I often see them on local riders bikes.

The power numbers are impressive. But these pros are really on another level. Cycling is much more competitive then rowing. If indoor rowing was as competitive as cycling there would be scores of lightweights with erg scores below 6:10, and the lightweight world record would not be held by an 18 year old. Thats what happens when you have a sport that pays the top athletes several million a year.

[Chris Brett]

Thanks for the fascinating info regarding the latest bike technology. I didn't know how common such equipment was? You probably know about the latest indoor bike and its analysis capabilities.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/si ... ttbike.asp

Oooops I may just have come over all Ranger like.

I still think that drawing parallels between Indoor Rowing splits and the power recorded from Bike instrumentation has little value and portrays an unfair comparison between the two sports.

The assertion that because the sport of cycling has more competitive participants and higher rates of pay for its elite, it must therefore have dramatically fitter athletes seems potentially flawed. By the same token you could justify saying that footballers are on average significantly fitter than cyclists. The levels of fitness in sport are not purely governed by finance and volumes of participation although these factors do have some bearing in most cases.

I also think that your examples taken purely from the world of lightweight rowing are a little selective. It is less likely that a 19 (not 18) year old will ever hold the Open Heavyweight record again. Are you stating that the likes of Rob Waddell are leagues below any of the world's top cyclists in terms of their physiology? It is also worth mentioning Rebecca Romero's comprehensive success in the recent World track championships.

The sport of cycling can obviously boast that it has amongst its ranks some of the fittest competitive athletes on earth. However to make sweeping generalisations about them all being in a different league to top rowers based on general observations and unfair power comparisons seems to serve no worthwhile purpose whatsoever. It also seems necessary to point out that from the point of view of drug abuse you are comparing one of the cleanest sports in the world with one that has an extremely poor track record.

I am not claiming that rowers are fitter than cyclists, merely that if you wish to claim that the opposite is true on a rowing forum you should at least be a little more precise in your comparisons.

[Nosmo]

Chris,

You are reading more into the post then I intended. I didn't mean to insult any rowers. Rob Waddell is also at another level! (My respect for him has much more to do with what he does in a boat then on an erg).

I don't believe cyclists are dramatically fitter then the top rowers, just that there are so many more of them. Dump hundreds of millions of dollars in to rowing, and in a few years you may not have any more who are faster then Waddell, but you will have many times as many who are really close.

The power numbers I found were for a top level pro but not a particular standout. He is not on anyone's list of someone who may win the world championships or a major tour this year. And I do know the power numbers are not really comparable--I've stated as much.

Yes my examples were selective. I choose lightweights because I am one, and because most cyclists are very light so that seemed to be the natural comparison. 165 lbs is considered really big for a road rider. The physiological demands of a professional cyclists are completely different from a rower. Even thought I did it, I know it is not reasonable to compare a 2000m rowing race with a one or two thousand mile bike race.

As for drug use, are you sure there is not much of a problem in rowing? Cycling has been the most aggressive in going after dopers, and that is why they are caught. At this point I would be really surprised if other pro sports didn't have more. The drug testing for football and baseball is a joke. Yeah, but I do agree, rowing is probably a relatively clean sport, but how would we know?

I have seen the Wattbike but hadn't paid much attention. I hate indoor bike riding--much too boring. Never could stand the trainers and would much rather use a C2 erg. I did this even when I was primarily bike riding. Kind of funny that I don't like them but don't get bored during a 30K erg workout.

[PaulS]

Thanks for the fascinating info regarding the latest bike technology. I didn't know how common such equipment was? You probably know about the latest indoor bike and its analysis capabilities.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/si ... ttbike.asp

Oooops I may just have come over all Ranger like.

I still think that drawing parallels between Indoor Rowing splits and the power recorded from Bike instrumentation has little value and portrays an unfair comparison between the two sports.

Well, we could do it more accurately if the cyclist had to use only the right or left pedal, but using both (as designed) produces too contstant a power input. This reminds me a lot of a Superstars competition (Pro Jocks get together on sports TV, compete in various events, and finally run an obstacle course to determine the ultimate winner) back in the 80's. They invited Karch Kirally (Volleyball Player), because the USA mens team had become famous in the olympics, and he proceeded to kcik the butts of all the "Pro Athletes" who were far more famous, only to come second due to an obscure ruling that allowed a Football player to be the "Superstar" at the end of the day. I mean really, Holy sh*t!, can't have a frigging Volleyball player winning against the sports stars of the day. As far as I know, they've never invited a rower, for the simple reason that it would likely be even a larger margin of victory that no ruling could legitimately overcome in the end.

To be Rangeresque you would have to compare 300watts on the stepper with 300 watts on the Erg, which he has in fact done, but I suppose that might even equate if one were to hop from step to step, or pedal to pedal as the case may be.

[kirbyt]

I remember that show. They had an international version too. World Superstars. There was a Canadian soccer player, Brian Budd, who kept kicking everyone's ass--won it three years in a row from 78-80--because he was way more fit than all the football and baseball players. They actually made up a rule (that some called the Brian Budd rule) that if you won it three times you had to retire from competition. Guess they should have only invited the people they really wanted to win.

Kirby

[Snail Space]

I still think that drawing parallels between Indoor Rowing splits and the power recorded from Bike instrumentation has little value and portrays an unfair comparison between the two sports.

As the anthropometric characteristics of athletes from both sports are different no comparison can be either fair or meaningful. Power comparisons of line-backers and male ballet dancers would be equally inappropriate; I have always thought myself to be weaker than the former but stronger than the latter, although I doubt that I could lift a ballerina above my height with only one hand. Anyway, I haven't got a big enough lunch-box to fit in those tights!

I had the impression that Nosmo was merely highlighting an interesting observation.

Cheers
Dave

[Chris Brett]

I knew I had come over all Ranger-like and I do apologise. I appreciate the intent of the original post. I am a big fan of le Tour even if it seems to have lost some appeal since we have recently lost such a lot of big names.

The problem I had was the repeated quoting of equivalent erg times, which even if it was unintentional does imply a direct comparison between the 2 sports. I hadn't taken any offence but I was concerned about the potential alarming inaccuracies in making such a comparison.

Don't know how they define normalized power is, but 396 watts is a 1:36 on the erg, and 362 is 1:39.

I think we have now established that this is about as fair as comparing pole vaulter clearances with those of high jumpers. Those high jumpers just don't come close I can generate much better watts on an exercise bike than on an erg despite several years of rowing specific training.

As for superstars I remember Brian Budd. He was an impressive athlete. We had a 'past master' called Lynn Davies who held the British long jump record for many years. Despite being a veteran he qualified to represent the UK in the World Superstars event.

The revamped Superstars in the late 90's (I think) was a joke. Rowers weren't allowed to do canoeing ????? yet 400m runners could compete in an 800m. Funnily enough they tended to win that event. This wound me up somewhat especially considering the fact that his godliness Lord Seb used to compete for the UK in both 800 and the 4X400.

[Nosmo]

The problem I had was the repeated quoting of equivalent erg times, which even if it was unintentional does imply a direct comparison between the 2 sports. I hadn't taken any offense but I was concerned about the potential alarming inaccuracies in making such a comparison.

Guilty as charged. Furthermore it was done with full knowledge of the crime.

I can generate much better watts on an exercise bike than on an erg despite several years of rowing specific training.

Just curious how do the numbers compare? Do you think the exercise bike gave an accurate power reading? (I've seen different brands, and different machines from the same brand give vastly different numbers, so I wouldn't trust an exercise bike power reading unless I know something about it).

[Chris Brett]

Nosmo,

I can't remember the specifics but I do know that when I was in sub 6 shape I was always able to generate over 1KW on a 'bike' with significantly less effort than pulling a sub 1:10 split on an erg. This was always the case whether I was using one of several brands of exercise bike or at least 2 brands of turbo trainer which I think were pretty reliable and were owned by competitive cyclists or triathletes.

I agree some of the gym bikes are probably inaccurate and I don't think the vast difference in wattage over say a 1 hour piece that I have often observed are fair.

I may be able to find the time to do a test but don't hold your breath.

[Orc]

More data from today's fourth stage of the Tour de Georgia:

http://www.velonews.com/article/75340/p ... tage-4-ttt

396 normalized watts and 362 average watts for 20:17
... "anaerobic power ruled the race, From the power data file, I counted seven, 20- to 26-second efforts between 506 and 638 watts. The final 30-second effort was at 639 watts or 170 percent of Frank’s threshold power. There was nothing steady about this time trial at all"

Don't know how they define normalized power is, but 396 watts is a 1:36 on the erg, and 362 is 1:39.
The power variation does show how different bike racing is from rowing, even in a time trial. Again Frank Pipp is about 150 lbs.

Normalized Power attempts to quantify the physiologic strain of a variable effort compared to a steady effort. the idea is that is you were to ride or row at a constant 200W it would be a lot less taxing than if you were to row at an easier pace with an all-out 20 stroke piece every 3 minutes and got the same average power.

NP is obtained by
1- taking 30" rolling averages
2 raising them to the 4th power
3- summing them and finding the average
3- taking the 4th root

in cycling it works out very well that what a person can obtain in NP for a hard and very variable effort is almost the same as what he can do for average power for a constant power effort.

power on the bike jumps all over the place, especially outdoors. but I think if you had a detailed (certainly if data were fractions of a second, but even stroke by stroke) plot of wattage from an erg, it would be significantly more variable than when you look at splits/500m.

btw- I bike and row, and I am curious what the relationship is between erg and bike power, but not so curious that I actually have done any erg testing! I do all out power efforts of various durations all the time, since I mostly bike race these days.

marc