mig wrote:what's (watts?) with the big disparity in the 'power' column on the strava thing?
The ones with a lightning bolt are measured values from a power meter. Obviously everyone was tucked at 100+ km/h, so not pedalling and therefore at zero power.
The others are Strava’s estimates based on the terrain and a standard atmosphere, i.e. how much power a road cyclist of typical drag and rolling resistance would need to put out to achieve those speeds going down that hill. They’re high because a pro in a tuck has a lot less drag than Strava’s model cyclist. Think of them as the approximate values that would be needed to achieve those speeds if you pedalled down the hill instead of tucking and coasting.
The speeds are high because it’s a broad and smooth road with large-radius corners, a steep descent, and the whole thing is at altitude where drag is low due to low air density.