Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 132 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 17, 2011
1,315
0
0
Gregga said:
Sub 31 on the Madone, do you realize what it means ?
HE DID A SUB 31 ON THE MADONE?? This tdf is over -.-

What was Lance his record time there? I remember Lance saying he did around 495 watts for 30 minutes, but his weight was higher then Froome's.

Edit: "Rominger set a time of 31.25 on the Madone in 1996 and the record stood until Lance Armstrong did 30.47 just before the 1999 Tour de France, a clue he was going to “win” that year."

So Froome actually went sub 31 too? Might have had a tailwind but damn.. That's sick

If 31 min performance was enough to win the tdf in 99 it will def be enough to win it in 2013..

LOL!

It get's even better.
Quote from Kerrison: "It is known that when Porte won the 9.4km time trial up the Col d'Eze in a little more than 19 minutes to win Paris-Nice in March, he averaged 400 watts. He was then 62.5kg, against his 61kg when he rode his time trial up the Col de la Madone last Sunday. He is still 61kg.

Kerrison did not elaborate on Porte's training data, including his Col de la Madone time; other than to say Porte ''is now averaging the same or more at a lower weight, which is only going to translate into significantly more impressive climbing than what we saw earlier in the season''.

Kerrison did not hide how impressed he was by Porte's time trial up the Col de la Madone, especially considering he flew on a standard training road bike. Whereas Froome raced up the climb on a bike set up for a mountain time trial, this including the addition of aero ''tri-bars''.

Kerrison added that Porte's ride was ''probably in the top three most impressive training efforts I've ever seen any athlete do.

''I have witnessed Bradley and Chris do some impressive things, but [with] Richie … that effort was on a par with anything I have seen from these guys. I can't say he is going better than Chris. Chris went faster, but on a different set-up, a mountain time-trial set-up. So we can't compare performances.''

Froome and Porte to destory everyone :O

Armstrong would still be faster considering he did the Madone on a non-aero bike in 99 that was heavy as **** compared to the bikes the use now.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I am on your side. I have read your interesting post you linked at your signature. Good job. :)

Even without all the knowledge you have shown in your article, i already defended Froome last year around the same time. For me his results were/are plausible if seen in context with his unusual career path. BTW: the only uneasy feeling i have with a Sky rider is Wiggins. The rest who show up in the so-called "Skyborg"-Train showed talent/and results with other teams before (example Knees finishing T-20-TdF w/Milram, Rogers multiple times T-20, EBH being a great talent early like Sagan, Porte in the Giro T-10, Sivtsov while with HTC multiple T-20 in GT´s, so was Uran, Cataldo, and so on).

And i think most guys here know i am very suspicious about sudden and stark improvements by riders in a relative high age (like Mosquera, Armstrong of course, Rominger, Rijs, to name a few). I agree mostly with the "Clinic-12-Apostel" like "hog" or "RR" for example. But i think they are a little harsh/over the line with team Sky. It´s normal that the teams with the highest payroll dominate (be it baseball or soccer, you name it). It´s called pro sports.

But: I would never guarantee Froome is totally clean. Of course at Sky they push the lines as much they can (as all the teams do). OTOH, which high paid, highly trained, or highly educated persons don´t push the lines in politics, business or sports? Welcome to the real world.

By knowing that, Froome is a deserving champ. He surely isn´t worse than those liars/ignorants and protected riders from spain like Valv-Piti, AC, SSanchez, etc.!

Conclusion: Go Froome. :)
What about some of your countrymen?
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
ianfra said:
Wrong again Garlic Ho. Wiggins dropped out because he was not prepared to train at the intensity required to retain his title. As a decent and honest family man he wanted more time with his family. His motivation had gone. End of story. As for your constant ravings about Wiggo/Froome on dope, they're looking more off the wall as each day passes.
You never did answer the question I asked FIRST. What do you stand to lose? Back out now for your own good. When the *** hits the fan, you are going to end up covered in excrement because you so steadfastly buy and believe the garbage Sky have fed. As I said, the rest of us lose nothing.

Wiggins doped for one reason. Money. For the family. Training intensity? Yeah right. Family time? Excuses excuses. Why talk all the crap before the Giro? Why did all the Sky fanboys hate it when I said right before the Giro that Wiggins had lost it? He didn't have it and chucked a tantrum when Nibali annihilated him at Giro del Trentino! Yeah, real family man there. Runs from the press, makes a story up about a mechanical (lie) and then when I call it what it was, your ilk run off to the mods to cry. What happened at the Giro champ? Your boy was smashed. Absolutely dominated! Thus what was the point of his trash talk pre Giro? The actions of a man who is being honest, reliable, someone of good character? No, he was peeved because he WANTED to win and couldn't anymore. But you kid yourself and think Wiggins was slumming it. It makes Sky's despicable actions even worse. Nominating Wiggins to lead the Giro and he didn't train! Wow ianfra! Great insight there champ! :rolleyes:

But run some more excuses for your hero. Let us know when Sky run their ABP by Ashenden...till then, they're dirty as, because they walk it, talk it, ride it and act it 24/7. Keep pushing ianfra, your going to end up looking worse than Polish did. Want to know what happened to his idol? Oh that's right, ask Wiggins who was singing about his hero all last year!

Whatever they're putting in the water in Chiang Ming or wherever you live, you should bottle it and sell it to Brits. Seriously. Something for a label along the lines of "Delude Thyself in Blissful Ignorance."

Edit: I see you replied back with quotes regarding doping at Barloworld. Want me to post the ones Wiggins said while at Cofidis and then contrast with his pro omerta rhetoric that was back slapping Armstrong? You better hope LA shuts his gob...if he wants to, he can make your Sky heroes real dirty. Take a look back over the thread and the climb Froome supposedly went sub 31 minutes on...the Madone. You should know Trek named a bike after it and guess who held the record? If Armstrong says how he got that record, well...veil lifted. But continue on with the theatrics. You're keeping plenty here entertained. Just like the Sky freak show is.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
hiero2 said:
I have to respond to this: Many, probably most, posters on the CN forums treat their opinions as fact. Especially on the doping front. Very few EVER start with "in my opinion". Nope, its always much more sure of itself than that.

Now - having said that - we, the READERS who may also be posters have enough sense and maturity, one hopes, that we can read such opinions and realize they are opinions. And treat them as such. Unfortunately, it seems that many readers are just as set on being "right" as the many posters who post opinion as unadulterated fact.
Arrggghhhh. Specific language is your forte then.

Since when did people have to address their post with the starting acronym IMO?

Does not doing so qualify a forumists post as fact? Nope, like you said it is down to the reader.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
"Why would I, someone who has come back from essentially a death sentence put something that dangerous in my body?"
Guess who's words these are?
Greg Lemond? :p

Alberto Contador? :p

Floyd? :p

Froome post Bilharzia? :p
 
webbie146 said:
Armstrong would still be faster considering he did the Madone on a non-aero bike in 99 that was heavy as **** compared to the bikes the use now.
Armstrongs 99 bike might have been lighter than those used today.
The weight limit came in, in 2000, and some of the bikes used previous to that, were lighter than the 6.8kg limit.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Bonascre stage will inevitably bring heat into the thread. If the Aliens destroys the opponents, vat of criticism will fall on him. If he will be equal to the other contenders, there will be jeers say 'Dawg, you can learn how to dope but you'll never learn how to peak since you and your team know nothing about cycling'. If Froome loses some ground, uuu...I fear imagine what will happen. :) I sure bet on option 1.
 
Sep 20, 2009
263
0
9,030
Galic Ho said:
Arrggghhhh. Specific language is your forte then.

Since when did people have to address their post with the starting acronym IMO?

Does not doing so qualify a forumists post as fact? Nope, like you said it is down to the reader. But my point to you stands. ianfra has a grudge against me. I deleted his PM to me from April yesterday, but it should still be on the server. Have a good read if you want. There were two. Another person who took 'personal' offence to something said about people he/she/it claims to know.

Yes that is right. ianfra claimed to be in personal contact with numerous Sky riders who are hurt by the Clinic. We should all feel sorry them now shouldn't we? :p It's not like a multi-million pound contract with trimmings can cushion the ego right?

PS: He will spam you like crazy. A lot of the Sky fans will. It's going to get worse before it gets better. It is July after all.
Well unless Froome or Porte tests positive its going to get worse for you! Why waste all this knowledge on an anonymous internet forum? Share your knowledge with the relevant ADA's. Sorry, I forgot you are just a sad man in a macintosh! Get a life!

PS Your evidence and facts are **** because there is no evidence (yet).
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
webbie146 said:
HE DID A SUB 31 ON THE MADONE?? This tdf is over -.-

What was Lance his record time there? I remember Lance saying he did around 495 watts for 30 minutes, but his weight was higher then Froome's.

Edit: "Rominger set a time of 31.25 on the Madone in 1996 and the record stood until Lance Armstrong did 30.47 just before the 1999 Tour de France, a clue he was going to “win” that year."

So Froome actually went sub 31 too? Might have had a tailwind but damn.. That's sick

If 31 min performance was enough to win the tdf in 99 it will def be enough to win it in 2013..

LOL!

It get's even better.
Quote from Kerrison: "It is known that when Porte won the 9.4km time trial up the Col d'Eze in a little more than 19 minutes to win Paris-Nice in March, he averaged 400 watts. He was then 62.5kg, against his 61kg when he rode his time trial up the Col de la Madone last Sunday. He is still 61kg.

Kerrison did not elaborate on Porte's training data, including his Col de la Madone time; other than to say Porte ''is now averaging the same or more at a lower weight, which is only going to translate into significantly more impressive climbing than what we saw earlier in the season''.

Kerrison did not hide how impressed he was by Porte's time trial up the Col de la Madone, especially considering he flew on a standard training road bike. Whereas Froome raced up the climb on a bike set up for a mountain time trial, this including the addition of aero ''tri-bars''.

Kerrison added that Porte's ride was ''probably in the top three most impressive training efforts I've ever seen any athlete do.

''I have witnessed Bradley and Chris do some impressive things, but [with] Richie … that effort was on a par with anything I have seen from these guys. I can't say he is going better than Chris. Chris went faster, but on a different set-up, a mountain time-trial set-up. So we can't compare performances.''

Froome and Porte to destory everyone :O

Armstrong would still be faster considering he did the Madone on a non-aero bike in 99 that was heavy as **** compared to the bikes the use now.
Interesting reading..
Where did you see the Kerrison interview..?
 
Oct 17, 2011
1,315
0
0
andy1234 said:
Armstrongs 99 bike might have been lighter than those used today.
The weight limit came in, in 2000, and some of the bikes used previous to that, were lighter than the 6.8kg limit.
No in 1999 he used a Trek 5500 that was definitely way heavier then the limit today:

"Armstrong's first Tour de France win in 1999 came aboard Trek's 5500 model – it was the first time a rider raced the Tour on a carbon bike from start to finish, according to Trek. It would be another year until the UCI instituted their 6.8kg (14.99lb) minimum bike weight rule, and 1999 was the the last year Armstrong would race with a threaded headset. Daubert told us that Armstrong's bike, seen below, weighed 8.6kg (18.9lb)."

8.6kg instead of 6.8kg these days. 1.8kg heavier almost 2kg. Would save him big time on the Madone. in 2000 Lance got a 5900 that was a fair bit lighter, but 1999 was the year Armstrong set the record.

Also got to consider the power transmission was not as great as it is now, and it was not aero at all. Also gear choice was limited to 9 speed instead of 11 speed now.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
timmers said:
Well unless Froome or Porte tests positive its going to get worse for you! Why waste all this knowledge on an anonymous internet forum? Share your knowledge with the relevant ADA's. Sorry, I forgot you are just a sad man in a macintosh! Get a life!

PS Your evidence and facts are **** because there is no evidence (yet).
So your an Apple man. Figures. Only the truly naive buy that crap. I suppose you support Apple not paying tens of billions in annual taxes too?

So on the forum for almost 4 years, almost no posts, but upset about Froome! You fanboys are living the dream hey! :D

I mean, you have no response to any of the dodgy behaviours listed in the Tennerife, Sky, Wiggins, Porte or Froome threads. You get beaten down again and again and what play book do you resort to? DEFLECTION.

Well deflection DENIED. Nobody calling Sky out or Froome for that matter, who suspects them of being doped, thinks for a second the competition is clean. But you keep up the charade. Remind me when the Contador, Schleck, Purito, JVDB, Purito and Evans brigade cry like you Skybots do! Okay?

Oh the irony...my bad. Nobody is going to cry like the Brit flag waving Sky chamois snifers do. Here we were thinking Armstrong nutters were the worst! Bahahaha. Not anymore! :eek:
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
andy1234 said:
Armstrongs 99 bike might have been lighter than those used today.
The weight limit came in, in 2000, and some of the bikes used previous to that, were lighter than the 6.8kg limit.
They were about the same weight depending on manufacturer. Still good bikes to use. Even though webbie146 says they were a lot heavier, I don't remember them being that much heavier. With what Lance was on that year it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

One way to find out. Ask him. He'd still have the bike.
 
Oct 17, 2011
1,315
0
0
Galic Ho said:
They were about the same weight depending on manufacturer. Still good bikes to use. Even though webbie146 says they were a lot heavier, I don't remember them being that much heavier. With what Lance was on that year it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

One way to find out. Ask him. He'd still have the bike.
the 5500 he rode in 1999 was introduced in 1992/1993.
 
webbie146 said:
No in 1999 he used a Trek 5500 that was definitely way heavier then the limit today:

"Armstrong's first Tour de France win in 1999 came aboard Trek's 5500 model – it was the first time a rider raced the Tour on a carbon bike from start to finish, according to Trek. It would be another year until the UCI instituted their 6.8kg (14.99lb) minimum bike weight rule, and 1999 was the the last year Armstrong would race with a threaded headset. Daubert told us that Armstrong's bike, seen below, weighed 8.6kg (18.9lb)."

8.6kg instead of 6.8kg these days. 1.8kg heavier almost 2kg. Would save him big time on the Madone. in 2000 Lance got a 5900 that was a fair bit lighter, but 1999 was the year Armstrong set the record.

Also got to consider the power transmission was not as great as it is now, and it was not aero at all. Also gear choice was limited to 9 speed instead of 11 speed now.
Good info, I ddn't realise how much those Treks had changed over the years.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
webbie146 said:
the 5500 he rode in 1999 was introduced in 1992/1993.
Right. I must be getting his 2000 or 2001 model mixed up then. I swore it was around 7 kilos.

Fearless Greg Lemond said:
That is what I remember about Armstrong's 99 Trek. That it was Titanium. But I mixed the road bike and TT bike up. Was the TT bike not the road bike. My bad.:(

Edit: Ahaha, if this article is correct Andy Schleck wasn't using electronic shifters in 2010. Chaingate hey....

I also like that the article talks about most wins for a manufacturer. Pinarello have quite a few and Froome rides one. As for Gitane? They still around? As for Trek and Specialised winning this year is also on the cards. BMC? Podium.
 
I find that hard to believe. The weight limit was introduced because bikes were starting to go below what would become the proposed weight, not to force manufacturers who were manufacturing juggernauts to make lighter bikes. 8.6 kg is way too heavy.
 
Oct 17, 2011
1,315
0
0
Galic Ho said:
Right. I must be getting his 2000 or 2001 model mixed up then. I swore it was around 7 kilos.



That is what I remember about Armstrong's 99 Trek. That it was Titanium. But I mixed the road bike and TT bike up. Was the TT bike not the road bike. My bad.:(

Edit: Ahaha, if this article is correct Andy Schleck wasn't using electronic shifters in 2010. Chaingate hey....
Correct in 2000 the Trek 5900 came out that bike was wayyy lighter then the 5500.

hrotha said:
I find that hard to believe. The weight limit was introduced because bikes were starting to go below what would become the proposed weight, not to force manufacturers who were manufacturing juggernauts to make lighter bikes. 8.6 kg is way too heavy.
As I already posted that Trek 5500 was introduced in 1992....
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS