How it Was Won in Madeira - Quarq Analysis

May 15, 2017 at 7:33
by UCI Mountain Bike World Series  
Martin Maes Briefly led the race on this one section of Stage 8!

The biggest race in EWS history saw drama unfold at every turn. The lead swapped, leaders dropped out, punctures, crashes, stages wins and consistency prevailed. With Quarq Race Intelligence have a look at how the race played out for the top 5 Men and Women. For comparison the flat blue line is the eventual race winner. But especially in the Men's, Greg Callaghan wasn't always up front.

Top 5 Women Quarq Analysis - Round 3 Madeira

With race winner Greg Callaghan represented as the flat blue line, it's incredible to see that at only 5 points during the 2 day race he actually led over the eventual top 5. With Jesse Melamed dropping out after SP7 due to a wheel catastrophe, the race placed the focus on Damien Oton and Martin Maes for day 2. In fact at the half way point on Stage 8, Maes had the race lead and even almost lost second place following a crash on the final Stage 9. The puncture for Jared Graves on Stage 3 took him out of the running for a top 3 and it with a strengthening Sam Hill, the battle for 4th remaind hot until the end. Although Oton crashed on Stage 6, he actually led out the race straight afterwards only to lose time to Maes and Callaghan in the final two stages. Congratuations to everyone for racing through one of the hardest fought and won EWS races in history.

Top 5 Men Quarq Analysis - Round 3 Madeira

In the Women's race, Ravanel-MTB led from Stage 1 until the end in a dominant display of strength and skill. Isabeau started strong on the physical Stage 1 and gained time again during the savage Stage 3 which shows Cecile can't relax too much this year. The podium newcomer Noga Korem raced inredibly well start to finish but was kept honest by a consistent Ines Thoma in fourth. Canadian rider Miranda Miller lost a lot of time on the steep and short Stage 4 but kept it clean through day 2 to finish a respectable 5th.

MENTIONS: @EnduroWorldSeries

Author Info:
ucimtb-worldseries avatar

Member since Apr 2, 2014
250 articles

  • 69 1
 Amazing how consistent Callaghan and Ravanel were. They just maintained the same speed throughout the entire event. Consistency wins.
  • 9 41
flag david2031 (May 15, 2017 at 11:11) (Below Threshold)
 they are flat because they are the baseline for the time gap measurement. not because of constant speed the entire race, which is virtually impossible.
  • 22 1
 @david2031: I think you missed the sarcasm....
  • 12 5
 @david2031: no shit sherlock
  • 22 0
 Sam stopped to take some instagram shots of his bike on that ridge I take it?
  • 5 1
 His profile is awesome - looks like he smokes the competition on certain sections, but is notably slower on others.
  • 6 0
 Looks like there was an issue with his GPS.
  • 1 0
 Could there have been a crash or mechanical issue?
  • 8 0
 a little Monday morning Nerduro to get my brain pedaling... nice..
  • 1 0
 I don't know man I've really come to like Enduro. I don't think people give enough credit to, "it's like downhill, but you have to pedal up the hill", the whole premiss is interesting, and daunting.
  • 4 0

May the trail point down to greet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face;
the rain fall soft upon your loam.
And while you ride in EWS,
may this be your only kind of flat.
  • 7 1
 Oton putting down the power.
  • 3 3
 Probably, but none of these data fields represent power output. Only time gap, elevation, and distance are shown.
  • 1 0
 @triptex: we can assume relative power output using time gap and elevation. Oton (and Maes) got a big gain on Callaghan at stage 5 which is flatter than other stages.
  • 2 1
 @rifu: all that proves is that they covered the distance faster. Doesn't prove they provided more power to do so. The data only proves that Callaghan didn't cover the distance as fast as them... Maybe he had a mechanical or picked a few poorer choices than Maes or Otton. Like I said Otton probably did put put down some power but this chart doesn't actually list power output and with the variables on course you can't be certain without sensor data. Smile
  • 1 0
 @triptex: yes, without some kind of empirical data from powermeters we can never be sure. That is why I use the word "assume". Educated guess from available data. Wink
  • 4 0
 @rifu: Plus like ... what if Oton and Maes happened to be 20 pounds lighter and it was really the same amount of power? We're gonna need some rider weights, bike weights, wheel weights and wheel sizes to say this with any accuracy (without a power meter). Plus like ... what if Oton and Maes have bikes that are more efficient climbers and less efficient descenders? Could be the same amount of power being transferred less efficiently.

Not to mention, is it really about power output or momentum maintenance? Chainless Gwin data might have something to say about that.

I guess if we are going to recognize Oton's "putting down the power", we should recognize the other's putting down the flow. We, on pinkbike have greater respect for flow anyways Razz
  • 1 0
 @VTwintips: nice argument on efficiency and power vs flow!
  • 3 0
 You don't need a stinking computer to tell you how it was won! Here is how it was won! Go really fast. Don't flat or crash. Check the guys out of the top 5 and it was almost all the same inflictions.
  • 2 0
 But how fast can you go before you got a flat or a crash? If you go really fast and got a crash, is the time gain still enough to be in the lead? Is going really fast worth the risk?

You can see in stage 3, Sam Hill was gaining time (going really fast) before maybe he got a crash, and then going really fast again before maybe got a crash again. Data like these shows which part of the stages where you should back it off a little or you played it too safe.
  • 1 0
 @rifu: Sam Hill had GPS data issues.
  • 4 0
 I would have liked to see Jesse Melamed on the chart, he was leading after day 1.
  • 1 0
 Found it a few articles back
  • 2 2
 Love the effort at collecting the Quarq info, but like was mentioned in the prior article, it could be a little easier to interpret. Aside from that, take a look at the diff between men and women. When the data is presented this way, it appears as though the men take big risks that might pay off, or maybe not. And makes it appear that the women are much more consistent than the men. Like life in general, no?
  • 9 0
 The overall time differences of the top 5 also affect how these results appear visually. The top 5 men were separated by 50 seconds; the women by 200. Yet, the axes are of identical height. The result is that the women's lines get smoothed out much more than those for the men. To compare 1:1 you'd need to vertically exaggerate the graph for the women by a factor 4. The time differences (both gained and lost) for, for example, Korem in Stage 5 and 6, would all of a sudden look much more 'risky'.
  • 1 1
 @mi-bike: Thank you for highlighting this - I had the same thoughts while reviewing
  • 3 0
 This definitely needs J. Melamed and A. Dailly's curves on the graph!
  • 2 0
 How awesome is this! So much more intra-stage variability than I would have expected. Love the chart.
  • 1 0
 Quarq analysis..thats funny in german
  • 1 0
 Whats going on with Sam Hill there
  • 1 1
 Yeah, so amazing their line was flat the whole race Smile
  • 1 3
 Strava is the best for this kind of comparisons
  • 1 4
 altitude on the left side of the chart is a bit confusing
  • 3 0
 never mind i got it now Wink

Copyright © 2000 - 2023. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.034877
Mobile Version of Website