Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.

Page 299 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I don't think you can justify a theory of suspicion about rider A just because it isn't smooth and gradual like rider B? I mean we know during Froomes 2007 to 2011 rapid improvement he was closing in on riders we now know were definitely cheating. Those riders like your Armstrong, Basso, Rasmussen, Schumacher, Contador, Kohl, Ricco, Beltran, Sella, Astarloa, DiLuca, Piepoli, Rebellin, Sevilla, Sinkewitz, Kolobnev, Shlecks, Valverde, Gregorio, Danielson, Scarponi, Visconti etc etc. They all have the required 'unsuspicious' gradually improving palamares and all banned?

I would say, the reason for Froomes sudden improvement in 2007 to 2011 is simply because all those riders listed above were simply not riding against Froome!
 
Jun 19, 2009
597
0
0
Re:

samhocking said:
I would say, the reason for Froomes sudden improvement in 2007 to 2011 is simply because all those riders listed above were simply not riding against Froome!
If the speeds were slower this argument would hold weight, but the fact is Froome would be up there with Armstrong, Ullrich & the rest of them from the 00's.
 
I think you underestimate just how much better all teams aerodynamics are now while climbing. Aerodynamics have allowed speeds to remain similar to the bad old days. e.g. Pantani probably had a CdA of 0.300, today, Froome probably has 0.275.

Froome would effectively ride with 26.8w more power on his bike than Pantani's on the flat. 5.3w more on his bike power climbing than on Pantanis bike, finish 300 seconds faster on a 130km solo break riding his bike than Pantanis over a rolling course. 1.2km/hour faster on average. This is just the bike, not the skinsuits everyone uses now, even on the climbs, which pushes those difference even more.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
I think you underestimate just how much better all teams aerodynamics are now while climbing. Aerodynamics have allowed speeds to remain similar to the bad old days. e.g. Pantani probably had a CdA of 0.300, today, Froome probably has 0.275.

Froome would effectively ride with 26.8w more power on his bike than Pantani's on the flat. 5.3w more on his bike power climbing than on Pantanis bike, finish 300 seconds faster on a 130km solo break riding his bike than Pantanis over a rolling course. 1.2km/hour faster on average. This is just the bike, not the skinsuits everyone uses now, even on the climbs, which pushes those difference even more.
Are you kidding?

Its a guy on a bike. The only thing thats changed is the marketing techniques. Uncontrollable variations like the weather would make more difference than all the bullcrap tech that is about these days
 
Re: Re:

Taxus4a said:
Angliru said:
rhubroma said:
None of those performances though gave any indication that he would become so dominant against riders who showed obvious more class early in their careers.

The transformation is shocking.
There was an internal rider rating chart (based on their perceived potential) that Sky had released that had been posted here multiple times that showed Froome rated by in the 2nd from lowest category (pro tour domestique if I recall correctly...or something like that). Even Sky thought that little of Froome until his breakout at the Vuelta. Had he maintained his previous level of performance he likely would not have been re-signed.
i explained that in: Un unpolished diamond, the story of Chris Froome.

it is an uselees argument, that was just a mirrow, it is like to say Contador is a second level rider just watching as his result in 2013. it i jusst a picture of a moment. http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/cqRankingRider.asp
You and Sky can't have it both ways. They (and their supporters) have been touting themselves as being so far ahead of the rest of the teams in terms of rider development, training, detecting potential in their riders, so to have this chart surface and then to minimize it's importance because it contradicts or complicates their perceived image is very, well, interesting to say the least.
 
Re: Re:

observer said:
samhocking said:
I think you underestimate just how much better all teams aerodynamics are now while climbing. Aerodynamics have allowed speeds to remain similar to the bad old days. e.g. Pantani probably had a CdA of 0.300, today, Froome probably has 0.275.

Froome would effectively ride with 26.8w more power on his bike than Pantani's on the flat. 5.3w more on his bike power climbing than on Pantanis bike, finish 300 seconds faster on a 130km solo break riding his bike than Pantanis over a rolling course. 1.2km/hour faster on average. This is just the bike, not the skinsuits everyone uses now, even on the climbs, which pushes those difference even more.
Are you kidding?

Its a guy on a bike. The only thing thats changed is the marketing techniques. Uncontrollable variations like the weather would make more difference than all the bullcrap tech that is about these days
You're wrong. The science doesn't lie, even if you don't believe it. Those figures are basic aerodynamic calculation based on a round tube Bianchi of the 2000s and a typical aero carbon bike today.

Solo
26.8w Power Flat
5.3w Power Climbing
56.0w Power Descending
25.0w Average Power
334.9kcal Energy
3.9 Number of Gels
83.7 Grams of Carbs
1.2km/h Average Speed
294.7 Time Gained (seconds)

2 man break
22.7w Power Flat
4,5w Power Climbing
47.6w Power Descending
21.2w Average Power
284.7kcal Energy
3.3 Number of Gels
71.2 Grams of Carbs
1.2km/h Average Speed
307.3 Time Gained (seconds)

4 man break
20.7w Power Flat
4.1w Power Climbing
43.4w Power Descending
19.4w Average Power
259.6kcal Energy
3.0 Number of Gels
64.9 Grams of Carbs
1.1km/h Average Speed
314.4 Time Gained (seconds)

Turn every 20th man
19.1w Power Flat
3.8w Power Climbing
40.0w Power Descending
17.9w Average Power
239.5kcal Energy
2.8 Number of Gels
59.9 Grams of Carbs
1.1km/h Average Speed
320.7 Time Gained (seconds)

Sitting in
18.7w Power Flat
3.7w Power Climbing
39.2w Power Descending
17.5w Average Power
234.5kcal Energy
2.7 Number of Gels
58.6 Grams of Carbs
1.1km/h Average Speed
322.3 Time Gained (seconds)

1kg Mass Reduction
0.5w Power Flat
4.8w Power Climbing
-3.9w Power Descending
1.0w Average Power
13.1kcal Energy
0.2 Number of Gels
3.3 Grams of Carbs
0.0km/h Average Speed
6.8 Time Gained (seconds)
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re: Re:

Taxus4a said:
Angliru said:
rhubroma said:
None of those performances though gave any indication that he would become so dominant against riders who showed obvious more class early in their careers.

The transformation is shocking.
There was an internal rider rating chart (based on their perceived potential) that Sky had released that had been posted here multiple times that showed Froome rated by in the 2nd from lowest category (pro tour domestique if I recall correctly...or something like that). Even Sky thought that little of Froome until his breakout at the Vuelta. Had he maintained his previous level of performance he likely would not have been re-signed.
i explained that in: Un unpolished diamond, the story of Chris Froome.

it is an uselees argument, that was just a mirrow, it is like to say Contador is a second level rider just watching as his result in 2013. it i jusst a picture of a moment. http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/cqRankingRider.asp
Contador in 2013 was light years ahead of Froome 2007-2011! He maybe was 2nd level rider, but than Froome was probably 5th or 6th level :p
 
Re: Re:

harryh said:
dacooley said:
froome will be looking really great with his son on the podium in paris after winning his third tour.

https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/704622290894495744/photo/1
You mean with his "stupid kid" as a groupie of another GT contender used to characterize his son :eek:
absolutely not, i don't mind froomie or anyone else taking the big one. the thread just disastrously lacks a positive way of thinking so i decided to shake it up a bit. :p
 
Jun 19, 2009
597
0
0
Re:

samhocking said:
I think you underestimate just how much better all teams aerodynamics are now while climbing. Aerodynamics have allowed speeds to remain similar to the bad old days. e.g. Pantani probably had a CdA of 0.300, today, Froome probably has 0.275.
While bike are much more areo now, and far stiffer, which granted will give a ride a few watts over riders from 10-20 years ago the biggest factor in areo dynamics is frontal area. Everything else is small change. The biggest gain in TT areo dynamics was TT bars, by a large margin.

So although Froome has a much more areo bike one only needs to compare his riding position to, say pantani's position, to know that he is way less areo uphill and by your own rational need to produce more power.
 
Re: Re:

Mr.White said:
Taxus4a said:
Angliru said:
rhubroma said:
None of those performances though gave any indication that he would become so dominant against riders who showed obvious more class early in their careers.

The transformation is shocking.
There was an internal rider rating chart (based on their perceived potential) that Sky had released that had been posted here multiple times that showed Froome rated by in the 2nd from lowest category (pro tour domestique if I recall correctly...or something like that). Even Sky thought that little of Froome until his breakout at the Vuelta. Had he maintained his previous level of performance he likely would not have been re-signed.
i explained that in: Un unpolished diamond, the story of Chris Froome.

it is an uselees argument, that was just a mirrow, it is like to say Contador is a second level rider just watching as his result in 2013. it i jusst a picture of a moment. http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/cqRankingRider.asp
Contador in 2013 was light years ahead of Froome 2007-2011! He maybe was 2nd level rider, but than Froome was probably 5th or 6th level :p
Your answer is just a proof you didnt understand my reasoning.

Anyway, it is normal Contador at about 24 was much better than Froome in results, they dont came from the same place nor started in the same way nor at the same age. But the important thing is were you are at your best year, that could be 28, or 35, depend each story

But it is true that Froome did some result in his first Tour that Contador couldnt do at the same age in his first Tour. Some things maybe not easy to understand for someone who reason like you and only want to ee top results to ay: ou, this man is good, but something so easy to see even for you as Froome was better in both of 2 ITTs.

You can dont give importance to that, I give a lot, and I talked then, in 2008, about I was impressed for Froome ( I wrote that in an spanish forum), but was more impressed how Froome was in the queen stage with the top 20 at the begining of the last climb, Alp D Huez. Talking about cycling experience, that man was like Contador at 19 years old.
 
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
Jspear said:
Taxus4a said:
rhubroma said:
None of those performances though gave any indication that he would become so dominant against riders who showed obvious more class early in their careers.

The transformation is shocking.
You cant see indication of that in that way, at least if you only see result.

Amyway there was some datails in 2008 that indicates that man could become a rider to fight for le Tour.

Good performance as L hotellerie doent indicates he is going to be very good in GT.

Froome did big steps year by year from 2006 to 2008 and ride le Tour very early and he had very good moments at the best level in cycling in leTour and other races.

if you cant see that as a signal is your problem.

Of course he coul be a very good rider or just a good domestique, as a lot of riders of hi good generation, but that is something to resolve later.

Of course year by year biopasport was a help for him and a problem for others.

But his first test were amazing for the tecnhics, as well as later when he started in SKY.
In 2008/09 there was probably around 50 other riders that people could have picked for winning a gt before Froome. Everyone can have flashes of brilliance. To go from random moments of greatness (if you really consider his accomplishments from back then great) to being the top GT rider isn't normal no matter what you say.
so that's the reason why you don't want to see froome on top?
50?? come on! maybe 20, I could admit, I am a fan and follower of the 85-87 generation, and I kown everthing of those people,even of people that everybody talked then, as Capecchi or Arkaitz Duran, and finally one is quite good and other is almot finished.

But Mollema wa one of those promissing riders, and a fat boy coming from africa who crashed several times that race, beated him, the same to Rui Costa. That kind of details is something that an expert realized and you can say: this man can be very good, he need time, he came from Africa and he started to take seriusly cycling at 20, while others at 12. He dont know how to race, he need an school. he need to lose those Kilos.

You cant compare with an european rider, and you cant compare even with the people he race in Africa with him, as Impey, Lee Augustin,... becouse they started earlier. But Froome was much better that Lee in the ITT of the Tour and the Giro, although some people looked at Lee as the new Gaul.

Froome started with short and flat stages with short climbs, and he need endurace and long climbs and recovery.

He was riding Mauritious, and 2 years later Tour de France, is like a huge jump, and he was at the top in the Queen stage and in the final ITT. it is really amazing and his Director Corti said he was amazed for his performance.

The same that the thecnics who worked with him in Laussane, for the UCI team, they were amazed by his tests.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
dacooley said:
Jspear said:
Taxus4a said:
rhubroma said:
None of those performances though gave any indication that he would become so dominant against riders who showed obvious more class early in their careers.

The transformation is shocking.
You cant see indication of that in that way, at least if you only see result.

Amyway there was some datails in 2008 that indicates that man could become a rider to fight for le Tour.

Good performance as L hotellerie doent indicates he is going to be very good in GT.

Froome did big steps year by year from 2006 to 2008 and ride le Tour very early and he had very good moments at the best level in cycling in leTour and other races.

if you cant see that as a signal is your problem.

Of course he coul be a very good rider or just a good domestique, as a lot of riders of hi good generation, but that is something to resolve later.

Of course year by year biopasport was a help for him and a problem for others.

But his first test were amazing for the tecnhics, as well as later when he started in SKY.
In 2008/09 there was probably around 50 other riders that people could have picked for winning a gt before Froome. Everyone can have flashes of brilliance. To go from random moments of greatness (if you really consider his accomplishments from back then great) to being the top GT rider isn't normal no matter what you say.
so that's the reason why you don't want to see froome on top?
Taxus post makes it seem like it was obvious that Froome would become the rider he is today. My only point is that it wasn't obvious.
Where I have say obvious??

Please, I ask you to dont distort my words.

I say it is not a big surprise acording what I see in 2008. But the same I coudl say of a lot of riders: his team mate Lee, Mollema, Gesink, Kreuziger, Arkait Duran, Intxausti, Roland, Capecchi, Tony Martin, Rui Costa, Porte,... (in that moment not so clear his paper in cycling, now he is more a TT specialist than a GC rider), and several more...

All of then hadnt been a big surprise, but as well notso strange to see then wokling for other of even out of cycling.

I didnt say it was obvious, of course, but there is some people who say: Froome didnt show anything, Froome has never did the minimum to thing he could become a GT winner, and that is simply a lie.

Although in cycling mental stretngh isvery important and other things as acrifice, tobe a GT contender you needto ahve a body for that, and froome showed that from his first test, the same that Quintana, although Quintana showed his potential usually from the begining.

People here use to say very simple analysis or to thing at 20 you can know how good will be a rider at 30. Cycling doesnt work that way.

You could say Boom would be better than Kristoff in Flandeswhen they were bith 21...but reality is another.
 
It is not obvious,becouse as I admited in my article, when I took this picture to him in Burgos in 2009, I had big expectations with him (and more in other people, yes):



An when I took this one 2 years later I was quite disapointed and I though bad about him, I remerber I though: what a pity! (but then I didnt know some result from him as his second in ITT GB, better than Thomas, and a few more, I didnt follow him a lot, just some races, I followed much more other rider as Urán.



But 2 days later he finished the race 14th, with Contador, Tondo,... (Quintana as well, but very young) and I started to believe a little again.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
I don't think you can justify a theory of suspicion about rider A just because it isn't smooth and gradual like rider B? I mean we know during Froomes 2007 to 2011 rapid improvement he was closing in on riders we now know were definitely cheating. Those riders like your Armstrong, Basso, Rasmussen, Schumacher, Contador, Kohl, Ricco, Beltran, Sella, Astarloa, DiLuca, Piepoli, Rebellin, Sevilla, Sinkewitz, Kolobnev, Shlecks, Valverde, Gregorio, Danielson, Scarponi, Visconti etc etc. They all have the required 'unsuspicious' gradually improving palamares and all banned?

I would say, the reason for Froomes sudden improvement in 2007 to 2011 is simply because all those riders listed above were simply not riding against Froome!
I would turn the argument around and say how did any ethical rider stay with these guys back then. that's the puzzle
 
Re:

samhocking said:
I don't think you can justify a theory of suspicion about rider A just because it isn't smooth and gradual like rider B? I mean we know during Froomes 2007 to 2011 rapid improvement he was closing in on riders we now know were definitely cheating. Those riders like your Armstrong, Basso, Rasmussen, Schumacher, Contador, Kohl, Ricco, Beltran, Sella, Astarloa, DiLuca, Piepoli, Rebellin, Sevilla, Sinkewitz, Kolobnev, Shlecks, Valverde, Gregorio, Danielson, Scarponi, Visconti etc etc. They all have the required 'unsuspicious' gradually improving palamares and all banned?

I would say, the reason for Froomes sudden improvement in 2007 to 2011 is simply because all those riders listed above were simply not riding against Froome!
It is no so simple. But tour 2008 for some reasons was cleaner than other races he rode later.

But yes, from 2008 to 2011 cycling was in the right direction year by year and that was good for Froome and other riders, including some of those you mention here. But is not just those riders or other that leaves cycling forced without noise, as Menchov, it was almost one generation of cycling that change, with little exceptions who didnt need to change anything or who didnt want to change. A good example is Thomas Dekker. impossible to reach that level for Froome in 2009-2008, but if you put those performances away, oportunities came up.

But that is one reason, in Froome there are some reasons at the same time.
 
Re: Re:

cantpedal said:
samhocking said:
I don't think you can justify a theory of suspicion about rider A just because it isn't smooth and gradual like rider B? I mean we know during Froomes 2007 to 2011 rapid improvement he was closing in on riders we now know were definitely cheating. Those riders like your Armstrong, Basso, Rasmussen, Schumacher, Contador, Kohl, Ricco, Beltran, Sella, Astarloa, DiLuca, Piepoli, Rebellin, Sevilla, Sinkewitz, Kolobnev, Shlecks, Valverde, Gregorio, Danielson, Scarponi, Visconti etc etc. They all have the required 'unsuspicious' gradually improving palamares and all banned?

I would say, the reason for Froomes sudden improvement in 2007 to 2011 is simply because all those riders listed above were simply not riding against Froome!
I would turn the argument around and say how did any ethical rider stay with these guys back then. that's the puzzle
it is a transitional era.

Anyway before 2008 riders didnt have choice as you said, you just could ride clean if you were good enought to get results or good work that way.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
F Professional Road Racing 68

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS