Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.

Page 541 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
buchanan said:
Some people can't read rows and columns. The data attached clearly shows he gained more time on the descents of Finestre and Sestriere than the time he gained on the corresponding climbs of each mountain.
https://twitter.com/imdonncha/status/1000150343039176705
viewtopic.php?p=2267432#p2267432
I'd rather believe what our own eyes could see on television than the "data" provided by Team Sky. They don't know how far Dumoulin was back except for the GPS times either. We know they're trying hard to push the narrative that Froome gained most time on the descents.

It's absolutely baffling how they got a 23" gain on Dumoulin on the Sestrière false flat and climb while GPS showed 1'19" as the time gain in that period.
Also, the time gain they cite doesn't even match up with Froome's eventual time gain: 198s vs 203s.
Even fudging numbers they can't do credibly.
Relying on GPS either way is silly. just watch the numbers jump all over especially if there are switch backs involved. my counting seconds in my head as riders pass a landmark is more accurate :) almost worse than trying to guess power numbers from a video.
 
Re: Re:

cantpedal said:
LaFlorecita said:
buchanan said:
Some people can't read rows and columns. The data attached clearly shows he gained more time on the descents of Finestre and Sestriere than the time he gained on the corresponding climbs of each mountain.
https://twitter.com/imdonncha/status/1000150343039176705
viewtopic.php?p=2267432#p2267432
I'd rather believe what our own eyes could see on television than the "data" provided by Team Sky. They don't know how far Dumoulin was back except for the GPS times either. We know they're trying hard to push the narrative that Froome gained most time on the descents.

It's absolutely baffling how they got a 23" gain on Dumoulin on the Sestrière false flat and climb while GPS showed 1'19" as the time gain in that period.
Also, the time gain they cite doesn't even match up with Froome's eventual time gain: 198s vs 203s.
Even fudging numbers they can't do credibly.
Relying on GPS either way is silly. just watch the numbers jump all over especially if there are switch backs involved. my counting seconds in my head as riders pass a landmark is more accurate :) almost worse than trying to guess power numbers from a video.
GPS is almost never more than a couple seconds off. Sure when the gaps are small you may get some inaccuracy for example when the motor rides in front of the first group and behind the second group. But especially for big gaps you won't see the GPS being off by much.
 
Started watching that stage again as I missed most of it the first time. It is quite astonishing how much Dumoulin and the other chasers faff about on the descent of Finestre and parts of the false flat. I suppose you could argue the attack was so outlandish, that they were in new territory for modern cycling. But It's hard to imagine Contador letting him get away like that
 
Re: Re:

cantpedal said:
LaFlorecita said:
buchanan said:
Some people can't read rows and columns. The data attached clearly shows he gained more time on the descents of Finestre and Sestriere than the time he gained on the corresponding climbs of each mountain.
https://twitter.com/imdonncha/status/1000150343039176705
viewtopic.php?p=2267432#p2267432
I'd rather believe what our own eyes could see on television than the "data" provided by Team Sky. They don't know how far Dumoulin was back except for the GPS times either. We know they're trying hard to push the narrative that Froome gained most time on the descents.

It's absolutely baffling how they got a 23" gain on Dumoulin on the Sestrière false flat and climb while GPS showed 1'19" as the time gain in that period.
Also, the time gain they cite doesn't even match up with Froome's eventual time gain: 198s vs 203s.
Even fudging numbers they can't do credibly.
Relying on GPS either way is silly. just watch the numbers jump all over especially if there are switch backs involved. my counting seconds in my head as riders pass a landmark is more accurate :) almost worse than trying to guess power numbers from a video.
You may not be able to guess exactly, but you can watch me on video and see that my watts are low...very low! :lol:
 
Mar 11, 2013
208
0
0
Re: Re:

cantpedal said:
LaFlorecita said:
buchanan said:
Some people can't read rows and columns. The data attached clearly shows he gained more time on the descents of Finestre and Sestriere than the time he gained on the corresponding climbs of each mountain.
https://twitter.com/imdonncha/status/1000150343039176705
viewtopic.php?p=2267432#p2267432
I'd rather believe what our own eyes could see on television than the "data" provided by Team Sky. They don't know how far Dumoulin was back except for the GPS times either. We know they're trying hard to push the narrative that Froome gained most time on the descents.

It's absolutely baffling how they got a 23" gain on Dumoulin on the Sestrière false flat and climb while GPS showed 1'19" as the time gain in that period.
Also, the time gain they cite doesn't even match up with Froome's eventual time gain: 198s vs 203s.
Even fudging numbers they can't do credibly.
Relying on GPS either way is silly. just watch the numbers jump all over especially if there are switch backs involved. my counting seconds in my head as riders pass a landmark is more accurate :) almost worse than trying to guess power numbers from a video.
I agree with you those GPS numbers can jump around a lot. Does anybody else remember in the 2015 Giro - Mortirolo stage - the GPS had Contador about 50 seconds behind Aru and Landa on the climb, then suddenly he appeared in the picture from round a corner, only about 10 seconds back?
 
Re: Re:

buchanan said:
cantpedal said:
LaFlorecita said:
buchanan said:
Some people can't read rows and columns. The data attached clearly shows he gained more time on the descents of Finestre and Sestriere than the time he gained on the corresponding climbs of each mountain.
https://twitter.com/imdonncha/status/1000150343039176705
viewtopic.php?p=2267432#p2267432
I'd rather believe what our own eyes could see on television than the "data" provided by Team Sky. They don't know how far Dumoulin was back except for the GPS times either. We know they're trying hard to push the narrative that Froome gained most time on the descents.

It's absolutely baffling how they got a 23" gain on Dumoulin on the Sestrière false flat and climb while GPS showed 1'19" as the time gain in that period.
Also, the time gain they cite doesn't even match up with Froome's eventual time gain: 198s vs 203s.
Even fudging numbers they can't do credibly.
Relying on GPS either way is silly. just watch the numbers jump all over especially if there are switch backs involved. my counting seconds in my head as riders pass a landmark is more accurate :) almost worse than trying to guess power numbers from a video.
I agree with you those GPS numbers can jump around a lot. Does anybody else remember in the 2015 Giro - Mortirolo stage - the GPS had Contador about 50 seconds behind Aru and Landa on the climb, then suddenly he appeared in the picture from round a corner, only about 10 seconds back?
Easily explained by the moto that was with Contador first hanging back. Just like when escapees are pretty much caught by the peloton and the GPS still shows 10s. When one of the groups is quickly gaining or losing time it may not be as accurate. But in general the timings are pretty reliable.
Just like cantpedal I tend to take a landmark or curve and time the differences - while there can be a difference it is usually not too big - and they certainly wouldn't explain the difference between Sky's claims and the GPS timings.
 
Re:

postmanhat said:
Started watching that stage again as I missed most of it the first time. It is quite astonishing how much Dumoulin and the other chasers faff about on the descent of Finestre and parts of the false flat. I suppose you could argue the attack was so outlandish, that they were in new territory for modern cycling. But It's hard to imagine Contador letting him get away like that
At the time I thought it made sense for Dumoulin to wait for Reitenbach, to have another body for the valley riding. In hindsight, he should have just put his head down the moment Froome attacked and rode his own race. Similar to when he was chasing Yates to Sappada the week before and Carapaz, Lopez etc wouldn’t ride with him, he actually made more time up when he just dieselled it.

Tbh, if he’d just put his head down to Sappada he could’ve put another 30s into Froome, and stage 19 would have been a different bag altogether.

Edit; and yeah, Bertie wouldn’t have ever sat up looking for someone to pitch in. But then, that’s how he lost the Dauphine in 2014.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
buchanan said:
Some people can't read rows and columns. The data attached clearly shows he gained more time on the descents of Finestre and Sestriere than the time he gained on the corresponding climbs of each mountain.
https://twitter.com/imdonncha/status/1000150343039176705
viewtopic.php?p=2267432#p2267432
I'd rather believe what our own eyes could see on television than the "data" provided by Team Sky. They don't know how far Dumoulin was back except for the GPS times either. We know they're trying hard to push the narrative that Froome gained most time on the descents.

It's absolutely baffling how they got a 23" gain on Dumoulin on the Sestrière false flat and climb while GPS showed 1'19" as the time gain in that period.
Also, the time gain they cite doesn't even match up with Froome's eventual time gain: 198s vs 203s.
Even fudging numbers they can't do credibly.

like flat roads that aren't there :lol:
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
LaFlorecita said:
buchanan said:
Some people can't read rows and columns. The data attached clearly shows he gained more time on the descents of Finestre and Sestriere than the time he gained on the corresponding climbs of each mountain.
https://twitter.com/imdonncha/status/1000150343039176705
viewtopic.php?p=2267432#p2267432
I'd rather believe what our own eyes could see on television than the "data" provided by Team Sky. They don't know how far Dumoulin was back except for the GPS times either. We know they're trying hard to push the narrative that Froome gained most time on the descents.

It's absolutely baffling how they got a 23" gain on Dumoulin on the Sestrière false flat and climb while GPS showed 1'19" as the time gain in that period.
Also, the time gain they cite doesn't even match up with Froome's eventual time gain: 198s vs 203s.
Even fudging numbers they can't do credibly.

like flat roads that aren't there :lol:
False flat, flat, potato, potato. A trained pro will notice barely any difference between a 1.5% incline and "true" flat roads.
You're great at nitpicking, I'll give you that
 
Re: Re:

Leinster said:
postmanhat said:
Started watching that stage again as I missed most of it the first time. It is quite astonishing how much Dumoulin and the other chasers faff about on the descent of Finestre and parts of the false flat. I suppose you could argue the attack was so outlandish, that they were in new territory for modern cycling. But It's hard to imagine Contador letting him get away like that
At the time I thought it made sense for Dumoulin to wait for Reitenbach, to have another body for the valley riding. In hindsight, he should have just put his head down the moment Froome attacked and rode his own race. Similar to when he was chasing Yates to Sappada the week before and Carapaz, Lopez etc wouldn’t ride with him, he actually made more time up when he just dieselled it.

Tbh, if he’d just put his head down to Sappada he could’ve put another 30s into Froome, and stage 19 would have been a different bag altogether.

Edit; and yeah, Bertie wouldn’t have ever sat up looking for someone to pitch in. But then, that’s how he lost the Dauphine in 2014.
Just watching the rest of it, and had forgotten they were going so slowly after Sestriere that Reichenbach caught them, and then did about 50% of the pulling till the final climb. Does put Froome's gains on that section slightly into perspective.

Back to the Tour. How do people think Froome will play this one? Trying to peak for the third week as at the Giro? Or trying to blast everyone away in the second week and hang on, as he often has at the Tour?

I think it'll be the former again. He can passenger the TTT a little, and still have a cushion for the Alps, or even be willing to sacrifice the lead before the Pyrenees
 
I can’t see Froome do anything but try to maximize his gains/minimize losses on every day, from the start of the race. The opening week is his best chance to put time into Bardet, Nibali, and Movistar. But he’ll also need to have a cushion on Dumoulin (and possibly Roglic) before the final TT.

The Finestre attack worked in the Giro because he/Sky worked out that Dumoulin would be chasing him on his own. That won’t work on the Tourmalet/Aubisque, because Froome on his own won’t hold off Landa, Valverde, Quintana, Martin, Bardet, Kruiswijk, Nibali, Zakarin, Yates etc etc, basically the Tour field is deeper and stronger, so you can’t just bank on being able to get 3 minutes on them in one day in the final week.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
buchanan said:
cantpedal said:
LaFlorecita said:
buchanan said:
Some people can't read rows and columns. The data attached clearly shows he gained more time on the descents of Finestre and Sestriere than the time he gained on the corresponding climbs of each mountain.
https://twitter.com/imdonncha/status/1000150343039176705
viewtopic.php?p=2267432#p2267432
I'd rather believe what our own eyes could see on television than the "data" provided by Team Sky. They don't know how far Dumoulin was back except for the GPS times either. We know they're trying hard to push the narrative that Froome gained most time on the descents.

It's absolutely baffling how they got a 23" gain on Dumoulin on the Sestrière false flat and climb while GPS showed 1'19" as the time gain in that period.
Also, the time gain they cite doesn't even match up with Froome's eventual time gain: 198s vs 203s.
Even fudging numbers they can't do credibly.
Relying on GPS either way is silly. just watch the numbers jump all over especially if there are switch backs involved. my counting seconds in my head as riders pass a landmark is more accurate :) almost worse than trying to guess power numbers from a video.
I agree with you those GPS numbers can jump around a lot. Does anybody else remember in the 2015 Giro - Mortirolo stage - the GPS had Contador about 50 seconds behind Aru and Landa on the climb, then suddenly he appeared in the picture from round a corner, only about 10 seconds back?
Easily explained by the moto that was with Contador first hanging back. Just like when escapees are pretty much caught by the peloton and the GPS still shows 10s. When one of the groups is quickly gaining or losing time it may not be as accurate. But in general the timings are pretty reliable.
Just like cantpedal I tend to take a landmark or curve and time the differences - while there can be a difference it is usually not too big - and they certainly wouldn't explain the difference between Sky's claims and the GPS timings.
Then, yes, the GPS was on the moto, but now doesn't the GPS come from the fin under every riders saddle?
 
Mar 11, 2013
208
0
0
Re: Re:

lartiste said:
buchanan said:
There is no asterisk next to Froome's name. In case people haven't received the news, he has been found innocent. Therefore he gets to keep everything. All the Tours, the Vuelta, the Giro. And the next GT he wins. No asterisks. The whole process was never even meant to have been made public since we're not even dealing with a banned substance. Sad that an innocent man has had his name dragged through the mud. And yet there are posters here, and even a mod, still libelling him.
You clearly do not understand the issues and did not get the point. He was denied option to be found innocent since the case was closed before any decision was adopted. In other words he is not innocent. To remind you, he breached the rules at least double more than Ulissi and Petacchi.

We can conclude, that money of Sky talks.
It's very clearly you who doesn't get the point.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
buchanan said:
Some people can't read rows and columns. The data attached clearly shows he gained more time on the descents of Finestre and Sestriere than the time he gained on the corresponding climbs of each mountain.
https://twitter.com/imdonncha/status/1000150343039176705
viewtopic.php?p=2267432#p2267432
I'd rather believe what our own eyes could see on television than the "data" provided by Team Sky. They don't know how far Dumoulin was back except for the GPS times either. We know they're trying hard to push the narrative that Froome gained most time on the descents.

It's absolutely baffling how they got a 23" gain on Dumoulin on the Sestrière false flat and climb while GPS showed 1'19" as the time gain in that period.
Also, the time gain they cite doesn't even match up with Froome's eventual time gain: 198s vs 203s.
Even fudging numbers they can't do credibly.
Plus, there was a TV in Pragelato and there was a KOM at the top of Sestriere so the GPS at Pragelato and top of Sestriere should be right which makes the time Froome gained on the climb of Sestriere, 58 seconds as GPS and ammattipyoraily wrote, correct.
 
Re:

Dekker_Tifosi said:
we knew froome took very little time on dumoulin on the real uphill parts (1 minute) and most of it on the false flat / downhill parts. Nothing knew.
Dumoulin just screwed that stage up.
What surprised me is the Reichenbach was dropped on Sestriere then they waited for him after descent

Froome not so much took time on Tom D on the descents, but on the combination of descents and the Tom D group waiting for Reichenbach, I think it is likely that had Tom D not waited for Pinot/Reichenbach then he would have had the leaders jersey at the days conclusion
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS