del1962 said:
Guys, my point is about 1994 TDF comaprisons. Avoid the 1998 bike weights..it' 4 years on and not the bike weight Pantani had
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Guys, my point is about 1994 TDF comaprisons. Avoid the 1998 bike weights..it' 4 years on and not the bike weight Pantani had
Dave_1 said:
I am not disagreeing, I am just saying I doubt Froome's bike weighs 7.2kg on ,ountain staged as suggested
So do you have a link to the 94 bike weight?
Not that it really matters I guess, Marco climbed it slower than froome 2013 in 2000 on what I presume was a bike at least as light as his 98 bike.
Also you can't just take the weight difference of the bikes and say 14% heavier, you have to take the weight difference over the weight of bike and rider giving a much lower %
Ie not 1/7 = 14% but 1/(7+69) = 1%
Not that it really matters I guess, Marco climbed it slower than froome 2013 in 2000 on what I presume was a bike at least as light as his 98 bike.
Also you can't just take the weight difference of the bikes and say 14% heavier, you have to take the weight difference over the weight of bike and rider giving a much lower %
Ie not 1/7 = 14% but 1/(7+69) = 1%
Dave_1 said:
Is it fair to say then you've backed off your comments about the differences in times for years when Ventoux was ridden as an ITT? I'll confess I found them surprisingly un-informed, particularly after reading that you've been following the sport for 30 years.
I certainly don't think you're trolling by bringing up Pantani. I think you're potentially off-base in regard to bike weight (do we have those facts?). I don't know what either bike actually weighed, but it's certainly fair to assume Pantani's was more. Also fair to assume Pantani was doped to an extreme degree.
I also wonder why in focusing on Pantani, who (as has been mentioned) did his ride before the 50% limit was introduced, you have not addressed the fact that every other rider who did comparable (up to 2 whole seconds faster) or slower times is a proven doper. How can Froome, who was basically a mid-pack rider for most of his career, suddenly be equalling the times of the best doping champions of the very recent past?
Pointing out facts isn't trolling. Pointing out some and consistently ignoring others would be trolling. IMO as long as one engages in the debate in good faith one can't be trolling.
If one simply keeps repeating things in the face of better evidence or ignores major portions of the factual record, then you have to consider that such a person has an agenda and is trolling. I think that's easily avoidable.
red_flanders said:
No, I have not backed off. You are not entitled to your own facts. You are only entitled to your own opinion. Don't forget that. How uninformed am I re contrast of ITT vs road stage on same mountain? Pantani 37 minutes in road stage up Alpe D'huez...LA 37 minutes in the MTT at Alpe D'huez. froome 41 minutes in road stage up Alpe D'huez in 2013..but some insist he must be drugged. The TT vs road stage thing ..it's a red herring. I suggest you do not make any assumptions about what you think I don't know. I know a lot more than you think. You should learn a little from this encounter
Dave_1 said:
Fact is despite making a big deal about bike weights you fail to realise it is only a 1% difference even if we take your un referenced word for the weights. So yes I am learning from this encounter.
red_flanders said:
That sums up why there are 1000's and 1000's of posts on this subject.
Something that both factions are guilty of.
Cherry picking to lead to the desired interpretation/conclusion.
For instance, the "new", shorter Ventoux timings used here, replacing the full climb, because it makes room for a stronger, negative conclusion.
ralphbert said:
ralphbert said:
This reads as if you are combining the weight of bike and rider to reach this conclusion?
So, Rujano, weighing 49kgs, should be able to ride a 27kg bike at the same speed up a mountain, as Froome on a 7kg bike.
Is that really what you are claiming?
Dave_1 said:
Let me outline the differences bewteen a road stage and a TT stage on Ventoux.
• Riding ~200 km before hitting the ascent vs. warming up near bus
• Different bike
• Riding your own pace
• No race tactics involved, pure effort
For every major climb that has done both road stages and TT's the TT times are uniformly faster. You can't simply pick one time from two different riders and extrapolate that to a trend. In addition to it being 2 different riders, tactics and conditions blur the issue.
When you look at groups of times, as normal, TT times go to the top. Outliers exist but the trend is more than clear. This is a fact, and ignoring it would indicated maybe you're not really all about the facts. I can't believe you actually think it doesn't matter. It's not even a question.
Ventoux particulars. TT times in bold. Note Armstrong's times. For the TT, consistently a minute faster than his road stage times.
1. 2004: 55:51 Iban Mayo 23.10 km/h
2. 2004: 56:26 Tyler Hamilton 22.86 km/h
3. 1999: 56:50 Jonathan Vaughters 22.70 km/h
4. 2004: 56:54 Oscar Sevilla 22.67 km/h
5. 1999: 57:33 Alexander Vinokourov 22.42 km/h
6. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h
7. 1999: 57:34 Wladimir Belli 22.41 km/h
8. 2004: 57:39 Juan Miguel Mercado 22.38 km/h
9. 1999: 57:42 Joseba Beloki 22.36 km/h
10. 2004: 57:49 Lance Armstrong 22.31 km/h
11. 1999: 57:52 Lance Armstrong 22.29 km/h
12. 2004: 58:14 Inigo Landaluze 22.15 km/h
13. 1999: 58:15 Kevin Livingston 22.15 km/h
14. 1999: 58:31 David Moncoutie 22.05 km/h
15. 2004: 58:35 José Enrique Gutierrez 22.02 km/h
16. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h
17. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h
18. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h
19. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h
20. 1999: 58:51 Unai Osa 21.92 km/h
21. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h
22. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h
23. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h
24. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h
25. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h
There is a very, very strong trend of TT times at the top. The other strong trend is that all but 2 of those riders have been popped for doping or strongly linked to doping or doping doctors. One, Moncoutie, is the outlier in the TT. The other is Froome, who somehow manages to match the times of Armstrong, Virenque, Contador and Schleck...clean.
The facts are that TT's are ridden faster than road stages. The conclusions based on those facts are opinion. You can certainly be of the opinion that Froome is clean. You can't invent facts about TTs not having faster times than road stages. It's absurd.
Mellow Velo said:This reads as if you are combining the weight of bike and rider to reach this conclusion?
So, Rujano, weighing 49kgs, should be able to ride a 27kg bike at the same speed up a mountain, as Froome on a 7kg bike.
Is that really what you are claiming?
No. It is the bike and rider that goes up the mountain so you must consider the weight of the system not the components. I will illustrate with an example.
Say I have a car and I want it to go faster. The car weighs 1000kg. The factory bonnet weighs 10kg. I replace the bonnet with a carbon one which is 50% lighter.
The new weight is 995kg. So even tho the bonnet is 50% lighter my car is only 0.5% lighter.
Clearer?
red_flanders said:
How does comparing Pantani in 1994 up Ventoux with Froome 2013 up Ventoux support the tenor of debate that Froome is doped,..that's leaving aside Froome's quite rubbish 41 minutes up Alpe D'huez 4 minutes off the MTT and road stage times od LA and Pantani. In any case, the ITT vs road stage debate you want to get going is your attempt to side track away with red herrings rather than face facts..hard hard data we have comparing 1994 with 2013 road stage over Ventoux. Can you say Froome is faster than Pantani up Ventoux?
Dave_1 said:How does comparing Pantani in 1994 up Ventoux with Froome 2013 up Ventoux support the tenor of debate that Froome is doped,..that's leaving aside Froome's quite rubbish 41 minutes up Alpe D'huez 4 minutes off the MTT and road stage times od LA and Pantani. In any case, the ITT vs road stage debate you want to get going is your attempt to side track away with red herrings rather than face facts..hard hard data we have comparing 1994 with 2013 road stage over Ventoux. Can you say Froome is faster than Pantani up Ventoux?
How about we compare Virenque 1994 to Froome 2013?
Mellow Velo said:
Used where? Don't know why you're quoting my post regarding times. To that point I'd not posted any.
I assume you're referring to others, but if that's the case not sure why you're quoting my post and not referencing the posts to which you refer.
I also think the idea that there are "factions", "cherry-picking" and "desired" conclusions unsupported.
There is data. For me the data, in either timing, lead to certain interpretations. Believe me, I'd much rather the data led to another conclusion, but it doesn't. What you state suggests people had a pre-conceived "desire" to find that Froome is a doper. I can assure you if I had any preconception it was that he was riding clean. The facts changed that.
If that leads to factions, it's too bad. I would suggest that facts lead pretty convincingly in one direction.
Dave, instead of just throwing out Pantani, had you just performed some really simple calculations, you would have seen that he does not support your contention. Based on 58 vs. 59 min. and a 1.2 kg heavier bike, we can estimate that Pantani's watts/kg was 3-4% > Froome's. But if Pantani had merely raised his HT to 50%--forget 60%--he might have achieved as much as a 15% increase in power, obliterating the calculated difference. And that doesn't even take into account the much greater effect a study has shown in increasing time to exhaustion, nor its effect in accelerating recovery and in reversing the usual decline in HT over the race, which would make a rider fresher two weeks into a GT.
Now I see that you have turned to Alpe d'Huez, where Pantani's time was about 9% faster than Froome's (based on 14.5 km climb). That was his best time, he climbed it a little more slowly in other races several times, but the margin over Froome,who clearly was struggling that day, is still well within what he might have gained by blood boosting.
And it isn't just Pantani. If you look at the top times for that climb, you see one known or highly suspected doper after another. The fastest times pre-1990 are all a minute or so slower than Froome, and there are only three of them. They were probably done by riders without access to EPO, but that can't be absolutely certain. Other than those three times, there is no time pre-EPO less than 45 minutes. Hinault and Lemond did it in 48 minutes, 17% slower than Froome.
If you want to talk about Ventoux, it's the same thing. Take away the ITTs, and Pantani is the fastest, just 2.5% faster than Froome. Again, this is easily within the margin gained from blood boosting. In Cycle of Lies, Vaughters says that just by raising his HT from 48 to 52--a boost that wouLd be extremely tame by pre-50% rule standards--he obtained a 4-6% increase in power.
Now I see that you have turned to Alpe d'Huez, where Pantani's time was about 9% faster than Froome's (based on 14.5 km climb). That was his best time, he climbed it a little more slowly in other races several times, but the margin over Froome,who clearly was struggling that day, is still well within what he might have gained by blood boosting.
And it isn't just Pantani. If you look at the top times for that climb, you see one known or highly suspected doper after another. The fastest times pre-1990 are all a minute or so slower than Froome, and there are only three of them. They were probably done by riders without access to EPO, but that can't be absolutely certain. Other than those three times, there is no time pre-EPO less than 45 minutes. Hinault and Lemond did it in 48 minutes, 17% slower than Froome.
If you want to talk about Ventoux, it's the same thing. Take away the ITTs, and Pantani is the fastest, just 2.5% faster than Froome. Again, this is easily within the margin gained from blood boosting. In Cycle of Lies, Vaughters says that just by raising his HT from 48 to 52--a boost that wouLd be extremely tame by pre-50% rule standards--he obtained a 4-6% increase in power.
red_flanders said:
Yes.
It was a general, not specific observation.
Hitch's link up thread.
http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/...km-h-VAM-W-W-kg-etc-%29&p=2061073#post2061073
Upon the rest, I'll agree to disagree.
Merckx index said:
of dear..another one. Let me make this clear to you I AM ONLY interested in comparison of times from bottom to top of hill, comparisons of bike weight, comparable stage. Those FACTS do not support your Froome's is doped allegations. Again, the blood stuff is your attempt to move debate away from these facts, like the doubtful road stage v ITT thing your mate has just tried. If you don't like the fact one did it in 57.54 on 8kg bike while other did it in 59 on a 6.9kg bike, I can't help that. It's your problem
Gentle(wo)men, have a VERY serious think about the content of your post... Especially replies... Because this thread has veered perilously close to a clash of personalities rather than a discussion of opinion...including accusation of trolling.
And it's now my night.
Draw your own conclusions
And it's now my night.
Draw your own conclusions
And on that note Dave_1 is having some time out to cool down a bit. Obviously needs some practice getting back in the saddle.
Dave_1 said:How does comparing Pantani in 1994 up Ventoux with Froome 2013 up Ventoux support the tenor of debate that Froome is doped,..that's leaving aside Froome's quite rubbish 41 minutes up Alpe D'huez 4 minutes off the MTT and road stage times od LA and Pantani. In any case, the ITT vs road stage debate you want to get going is your attempt to side track away with red herrings rather than face facts..hard hard data we have comparing 1994 with 2013 road stage over Ventoux. Can you say Froome is faster than Pantani up Ventoux?
No, I can't. Why would I? Just makes no sense.
This is getting silly. Facts about times are now "red herrings" and "side track[ing]". Here's some more "hard data". Top 200 times for l'Alpe:
How about that. 46 of the fastest times ever recorded are in one year when they had a TT there, by far the largest block, nearly double the nearest year. What a shock. Also stunning is the EPO era lift in times.
Armstrong also recorded a time of 41:18 in 2003. I don't see Froome's time on the fastest list in the 41 range. Are we to conclude Armstrong was clean? Or do we give it to race tactics, whether he was on a good day, or what they rode preceding the Alpe that day? You can't look at single data points and draw conclusions.
The TT time issue is funny, because in a way it doesn't really matter. In either comparison, with TT times or without, from either starting point, what you have is Froome grouped in with nothing but dopers with one possible exception. Of the top 25 times we have Froome and we have the outlier Moncoutie who have not been linked convincingly to doping.
So if we are to believe that Froome is clean, we need to believe that he is, as Rasmussen put it, the greatest talent of a generation (or better). Funny that it never showed at all until 2011.
Merckx index said:
Yes
So P*t = AWC + CP*t but somehow P when t = 0 is not equal to AWC? That is exactly how they get the number in their table...
Where have I challenged that? I'm not that much of an idiot. That does not make critical power models any better than a rule of thumb (or even descriptive) approach to guessing the P-t relationship, especially when adding another layer compounds any errors in the initial data. People get worked up enough over individual power estimations yet somehow one at 20mins and one at 60mins and we have cracked a rider's physiology, to the point when we have even decomposed power into aerobic and anaerobic sources. If the results produce numbers that do not make any sense and may even be physiologically impossible then I will haggle over them...
the best way to compare alpe d'huez ascents is to delete 1994 and 1997 because they were pretty much flat stages. in 2013 they did alpe d'huez on the first way up, on equivalent of 42:30, rolland, nieve and andy -41:30 which is pretty fast as a penultimate climb
Merckx index said:
Yes, exactly. Either you accept that froome is the greatest natural climber ever by a significant margin and didn't show it until he was 27 or you conclude he is enhanced. The performance data doesn't really allow any other conclusions.
Hmmm, just used some dodgy numbers for Purito Vuelta 2012 and only got anaerobic capacity of 45 kJ, goddamn that slow time on Arrate, maybe he could challenge Contador for punch if not for that. Contador was pretty dominant anaerobically in that race (something like 70 kJ), how else do you explain him being crap on Bola.
ralphbert said:
I dont think it's as black and white as that, the argument that a GT winner is either a living legend, the best of all time etc etc....or a doper....doesnt take into account so many other variables.
Was Froome hindered early in his career by riding for teams like Konica-Minolta and Barloworld?....what if he'd turned pro and signed immediately with a World Tour team, would his results pre 2011 look better?
How much did Bilharzia subdue his ability?
Was he held back at Sky because of their preference for Wiggins initially, would 2010 have been an earlier breakthrough year instead if he'd been the GC rider at another team?
This forum is informative in so many ways but the desire to jump to the doping conclusion to explain every little thing in cycling is worrying....rider-X had a good day, must have had a blood bag....rider-X won the race, must be doping....rider-X under performed today, must have had a bad blood bag....rider-X isnt performing, must be off the dope....rider-X isnt performing, must be due to health issues from all the dope....rider-X withdrew from the race, must be to go on a training camp and get on the dope again....rider-X withdrew, must be to avoid testing as he's obviously doping....rider-X won, he must be doping too (but will now get tested, so which is it, why didnt he withdraw also?!)....and so on and so forth, while some of the knowledge on here is great the need to explain everything as doping related does the forum a disservice.
We all know that nutrition, rest, training, weight, equipment, form, injury, illness, stress, etc will factor into the equation of whether or not rider-X performs well in a race....but it all gets swept away to concentrate on banal treads about power outputs that are at best estimates with huge margins for error....when the makers of power meters themselves state a margin of error how the hell do armchair critics justify their nonsensical wafflings based on observations, guessing rider weights, televised timings of a stage etc etc and then state this as 'proof' that rider-X is doping?!
Unless you have fitted the power meter to the rider's bike yourself and are able to see the data afterwards then you are at best throwing around mere possibilities....not the absolutes that some deluded individuals on here seem to stand by.
Sure, a lot of these guys dope and if/when they get caught we can revel in the humiliation of said rider, we can debate the methods used, whether the team were complicit etc....but to dismiss the effects of all the other variables and leap to the doping conclusion to explain every good and bad performance from a rider makes the forum look daft.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 986
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Started by Logic-is-your-friend
- Replies: 751
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Latest posts
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024
- Latest: Oldermanish
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram