Dylan van Baarle thread

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Logic-is-your-friend said:
Bushman said:
Logic-is-your-friend said:
Bushman said:
I think the problem is that some teams are reluctant to give out that kind of information. I remember a few years back in the Tour when Froome went mental there were some discussions about his watt/kg and if it seemed too good to be true. Sky released his numbers and listed his weight around 68 or 70 kg or so. There is no way in hell that Froome in absolute top shape in his prime was anywhere near 70 kg.

With Van Baarle it’s difficult to say because he used to be primarily a classics rider who could climb a bit as well so obviously he was a lot heavier then. If I were to guess I’d say he is in low 70’s now but it’s impressive nonetheless.
So Froome would rather have doping insinuations/accusations regarding watts/kilo (if he in reality weighs less) needed for a certain effort, than disclosing his actual weight, which would give adversaries a tactical advantage in estimating what numbers he can push?

Well, somehow that's not surprising i guess.
I’m not sure I read your post correctly but the purpose of listing him heavier than he really is seemingly was to make his numbers look less impressive and therefore avoid accusations of cheating, yes.
How on earth is saying you're even heavier than you are, make his efforts look LESS impressive? Because the fatter you are, the better you climb?


:lol: :lol: :lol: Priceless...you don't really get the science behind cycling do you :lol:
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Logic-is-your-friend said:
How on earth is saying you're even heavier than you are, make his efforts look LESS impressive? Because the fatter you are, the better you climb?

:lol: Priceless...you don't really get the science behind cycling do you :lol:
ROFL, are you *** kidding me.

Yes i understand it means in theory he'd be pushing less watts per kilo. I know it means in theory he'd have a lower VO2max. Could you tell me how on earth that makes it any more likely, to be dropping guys (supposedly) 10 kilo's lighter with a (supposedly) higher VO2max, pushing (supposedly) far more watts per kilo?

Maybe Indurain was lying about his weight as well. In reality, he was only 60 kilo, but he said his weight was 80, to make it LESS suspicious. Hahaha. WTF.
 
Re: Re:

Logic-is-your-friend said:
brownbobby said:
Logic-is-your-friend said:
How on earth is saying you're even heavier than you are, make his efforts look LESS impressive? Because the fatter you are, the better you climb?

:lol: Priceless...you don't really get the science behind cycling do you :lol:
ROFL, are you **** kidding me.

Yes i understand it means in theory he'd be pushing less watts per kilo. I know it means in theory he'd have a lower VO2max. Could you tell me how on earth that makes it any more likely, to be dropping guys (supposedly) 10 kilo's lighter with a (supposedly) higher VO2max, pushing (supposedly) far more watts per kilo?

Maybe Indurain was lying about his weight as well. In reality, he was only 60 kilo, but he said his weight was 80, to make it LESS suspicious. Hahaha. WTF.
Because when analyzing data from climbers it’s all about (or mostly about) watt/kg and adding a few kilograms to a rider’s listed weight naturally makes his power output seem slightly less impressive.

Of course you can argue that the heavier the more power you have to push but since the power data is the one that is released, you have to adjust the weight if you want to skew the numbers.
 
Re: Re:

Bushman said:
Because when analyzing data from climbers it’s all about (or mostly about) watt/kg and adding a few kilograms to a rider’s listed weight naturally makes his power output seem slightly less impressive.

Of course you can argue that the heavier the more power you have to push but since the power data is the one that is released, you have to adjust the weight if you want to skew the numbers.
Yes i got that. But this has to be pretty easy to debunk in any case, when you compare it to riders who climbed slower but had better numbers. Also when you calculate the numbers going on length of the climb, total climbing time, elevation... and weight. It would be easy to conclude something is not right. In fact, in that scenario, going by the inflated weight numbers, he'd have to push far more dubious watts, making it more suspicious than it already was.

Anyway, if he actually asked to inflate his weight, it seems like a dumb move, because people that actually are interested in these things, wouldn't need much time to figure out something is off, and could quite possibly come to far more damaging conclusions.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS