We describe improvements we have made to the model our research group employs to predict stage-winning times of the Tour de France. Accounting for different stage-winning cyclist masses associated with different stage types, we use allometric scaling to modify our model’s cyclist power output. We show definitively that such a change to our model improved our prediction capabilities over what we were able to predict using the model we employed for the 2013 Tour de France. Excluding three tailwind-dominated stages, where our worst error was 7.79%, we predicted all other stages to better than 5%, including five stages that we predicted to better than 1%. We also show how to improve our model further with a different type of scaling.
HannasBLGoffJE. Model of the 2003 Tour de France. Am J Phys2004; 72(5): 575–579.
3.
HannasBLGoffJE. Inclined-plane model of the 2004 Tour de France. Eur J Phys2005; 26(2): 251–259.
4.
GoffJE. Gold Medal Physics: The Science of Sports. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.
5.
GoffJE. Predicting winning times for stages of the 2011 Tour de France using an inclined-plane model. Proc Eng2012; 34: 670–675.
6.
RamseyBAGoffJE. Predicting Tour de France stage-winning times with continuous power and drag area models and high speeds in 2013. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology2014; 228: 125–135.
7.
Le Tour de France (homepage on the Internet). Amaury Sport Organisation, http://www.letour.fr (2014, accessed 27 July 2014).
FintelmanDMSterlingMHemidaH. Optimal cycling time trial position models: aerodynamics versus power output and metabolic energy. J Biomech2014; 47(8): 1894–1898.
15.
DauweC. Past attempts to identify a single physiological parameter as the main indicator of success in the tour de France seem to have failed. J Sci Cycl2014; 3(2): 13–14.
16.
KittelCKroemerH. Thermal physics. 2nd ed.New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1980.
17.
GriffingDF. The dynamics of sports: why that’s the way the ball bounces. 4th ed.Oxford, OH: The Dalog Company, 1999.
18.
McMahonTA. On size and life. 1st ed.New York: Scientific American Books/W. H. Freeman and Company, 1983.
19.
GoldickHD. Mechanics, heat, and the human body. 2nd ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2001.
20.
JeukendrupAE. Nutrition for competitive cycling. In BurkeER (ed.) High-tech cycling. 2nd ed.Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2003, pp.241–264.
21.
VogelS. Comparative biomechanics. 1st ed.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014.
22.
TartarugaMPPeyré-TartarugaLACoertjensM. The influence of the allometric scale on the relationship between running economy and biomechanical variables in distance runners. Biol Sport2009; 26(3): 263–273.
23.
MullineauxDR. Research methods: sample size and variability effects on statistical power. In PaytonCJBartlettRM (eds) Biomechanical evaluation of movement in sport and exercise: the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences guidelines. 1st ed.Abingdon: Routledge, 2008, pp.153–175.
24.
BiewenerAA. Biomechanical consequences of scaling. J Exp Biol2005; 208: 1665–1676.
25.
ChowdhuryHAlamF. An experimental study on aerodynamic performance of time trial bicycle helmets. Sports Eng2014; 17(3): 165–170.
