Yep, it is - I'm on my iPhone on the train ATM. Can't find all the typosLe breton said:BTW, he is JV1973 I believe, not 1971.
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!
Yep, it is - I'm on my iPhone on the train ATM. Can't find all the typosLe breton said:BTW, he is JV1973 I believe, not 1971.
42x16ss said:Put down Walsh's work of fiction and do some research on the effect increased hematocrit has on FTP and time to exhaustion. Then consider that Pantani's hematocrit was 60% or higher at times during a grand tour.
That may also requires basic numeracy skills, so don't get ahead of yourself
Merckx index said:There's a big difference between some value being somewhat inaccurate and it's meaning nothing. Again, as you extrapolate to zero, the values are going to be less and less accurate, because the assumptions underlying the curve--that power equals anaerobic reserves over time--break down. E.g., there are limits to the rate at which anaerobic reserves can be tapped into. At longer intervals of time, those limits are not a factor, whereas at shorter periods they are. IOW, the curve suggests Froome has enough reserves so that if he could tap into them all at once, he could have such and such power at two minutes. But he can't necessarily mobilize them all in that period, whereas he can mobilize them, gradually, over a much longer period of time.
That does not mean that at other parts of the curve the assumptions may not be much more accurate. Even if you don't strictly buy the concept of CP, it's clear from any power curve that the decrease in power slows down as time is extended, to the point that we can estimate some value which is not much less than the value at one hour. Infinity isn't a problem here, if there isn't a genuine asymptope there is still a value at some very long period of time that can be estimated fairly accurately. And again, all riders are being treated the same. If, e.g., Horner's climbs at longer times are faster than Froome's, whereas the reverse is the case for shorter climbs, then one can definitely conclude--IF THOSE TIMES AND GRADIENTS ARE ACCURATE--that Froome has a higher anaerobic component and Horner a higher aerobic component. Even if there is no such thing as a CP.
To me, the significance of this study is that it takes into account an anaerobic component, and that different riders may have very different relative contributions from the aerobic and anaerobic components. This leads to predictions about how well they will do on short vs. long climbs, as well as, of course, speculation about what kind of doping they would be engaging in if they are doping.
And what I find most interesting, though not at all surprising, is that people get their panties all into a wad depending on where they stand on Froome and Horner. Mention the possibility that this suggests that your devil is clean and your hero is dirty, and the study becomes nonsense, automatically. Or conversely, if it supports that your hero is clean and your devil is dirty, the study is great. One can accept this method without being confined to particular conclusions about either. E.g., as I said earlier, there is a selection problem. Froome's ITT in the Vuelta suggests a higher CP than was calculated here. Also, there are no error estimates, which are particularly critical for calculating slope.
Le breton said:Source please?
red_flanders said:All those guys were doped to the gills. Pantani probably the greatest climber ever, and recorded that time before the 50% hematocrit limit was put in place.
I would offer that it's probably an advantage not to have a hilly or even mountainous 200 km lead-in to the climb. Possibly you would be less fresh than a 1-hour TT effort. Maybe. Never mind that the times on climbs on TT's are always faster, independent of rider or course. See TT times up...well Ventoux and l'Alpe.
You're not seriously arguing that Froome's performance was legit, are you?
He's not new - Dave_1 has been a member longer than either of us. More than half of his posts have been made in the last week as well.red_flanders said:I want to apologize for my tone in this post. Unnecessary and rude to a new member. I'm sorry about that.
red_flanders said:I want to apologize for my tone in this post. Unnecessary and rude to a new member. I'm sorry about that.
Dave_1 Dave_1 is offline
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 77
Dave_1 said:Trollin', trollin' trollin' for a good time
Saint Unix said:Using eye measurement only the two Sky riders should be producing far less power than the other three, due to their incredibly skinny legs.
Ferminal said:But CP assumes you can dump your AWC instantaneously. Of course that's not practically correct but if you drop that assumption then your CP and anything else you derive from it will have to be higher to compensate.
happychappy said:It doesn't work like that, cycling is an endurance sport - it isn't powerlifting. I can put out the same power as Cancellara and Martin, I can even put out the same power as Armstrong 1999. The difference is the duration I can hold that power. Climbing and Time Trialing are aerobic endurance, not muscular strength.
If it was as easy as more muscle=faster TT everyone would be doing leg presses all day.
And from the right angle Wiggins' legs aren't as skinny as you think: http://oi57.tinypic.com/j6ub2v.jpg
It does not look like you are answering my question!MonkeyFace said:It's garbage. Track riders are just as dirty and no road cyclist comes close to what they do aside from maybe pursuit. 1km stuff is not even in the same area code. A road cyclist would have a had time doing what Sir Chris can do with one leg for a minute.
42x16ss said:He's not new - Dave_1 has been a member longer than either of us. More than half of his posts have been made in the last week as well.
Draw your own conclusions
nomapnocompass said:Coggan weighing in as well....
"Garbage in + overly-simplified model + misunderstanding of physiology = bad conclusions"
Ripper said:Trollayyyyy trollinator is trolling along the troll path.
F*ck. Nice obfuscation of the facts buddy ... but there's no wind up in you though, you're just a nit (but your posts were amusing) You need to work the craft a bit more ...
Mellow Velo said:Certainly sounds like the original Dave_1
In which case he's totally legit
Long, long term cycling aficionado.
Not an ardent Sky fan either.
Seems to me his points are valid.
So, if Pantani went 6-7% faster on a bike 12-15% heavier,
,without the aid of superior, accepted* technical/training methods,
(* if it is accepted that there have been any since 1994)
but with a HCT 15-20% above the legal limit, approximately how doped was
Chris Froome?
I've no idea how you figure that one out.
Merckx index said:You're making the mistake of comparing yourself to riders who are elite at these disciplines.
Merckx index said:And that’s why steroids have long been used by all riders, climbers as well as TTers.
Mellow Velo said:Seems to me his points are valid.
So, if Pantani went 6-7% faster on a bike 12-15% heavier
42x16ss said:Put down Walsh's work of fiction and do some research on the effect increased hematocrit has on FTP and time to exhaustion. Then consider that Pantani's hematocrit was 60% or higher at times during a grand tour.
That may also requires basic numeracy skills, so don't get ahead of yourself
ralphbert said:
ralphbert said:Except pantani's bike was 6.9kg and froome's bike is 7.2kg. So no, not that valid.
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/retro-pro-bike-marco-pantanis-1998-bianchi-mega-pro-xl-24877/
http://bicyclingaustralia.com.au/2013/11/spotlight-pinarello-dogma-651-think2
ralphbert said:Except pantani's bike was 6.9kg and froome's bike is 7.2kg. So no, not that valid.
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/retro-pro-bike-marco-pantanis-1998-bianchi-mega-pro-xl-24877/
http://bicyclingaustralia.com.au/2013/11/spotlight-pinarello-dogma-651-think2
Dura-Ace C24 wheels are usually Froome’s choice in in the mountains and Shimano’s alloy / carbon hybrid C50s seen here, for flatter stages.
The standard 65.1 Think 2 uses a Fizik Arione cx with carbon rails (205g). Froome favours the braided carbon railed Fizik Antares weighing just 135g.