Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[red_flanders]

There was a tailwind on the climb, but pointing out this fact drives people nuts so no need to bring it up.

If it were relevant to the question "Is Froome doping?", it wouldn't bother anyone. As is, it's become a standing joke for good reason.

 

[Race Radio]

If it were relevant to the question "Is Froome doping?", it wouldn't bother anyone. As is, it's become a standing joke for good reason.

Yup, good reason. It is a perfect example of how a couple of toxic posters
can disrupt a forum with twisting and baiting, making it close to impossible to discuss anything with nuance.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

As a reference, Simon Gerrans says at theshold "he can stick with the top riders on a climb at 450+ watts, before topping out at 15 minutes" (Bicycling Australia March/April 2014 edition, page 57).

Appreciate the data point and the reference to back it up.

 

[Race Radio]

As a reference, Simon Gerrans says at theshold "he can stick with the top riders on a climb at 450+ watts, before topping out at 15 minutes" (Bicycling Australia March/April 2014 edition, page 57).

interesting number, I wonder what Gerran's weight is? He is pretty small, maybe 64 kg. That is about 7 w/kg. Every rider is different though after 15 minutes. I can see how Gerrans might be one of the better riders in the world for short (<15 min) efforts

Ritchie Porte said his best effort was 6.25 w/kg for 24 minutes in training, but this was a year ago I expect he has improved.

In the Armstrong Lie Ferrari says Armstrong's best effort was over 7/wkg but did not give the time. I had the impression it was in the 30 min range. It was not in competition.

 

[roundabout]

I think Porte did approximately 400 watts for 19 minutes up Col d'Eze last year when he won.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re-posting here as it seems more appropriate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone is talking about Froome, so I thought I'd head on over to http://www.procyclingstats.com to do a bit of analysis. I started with the premise that ITT results are usually a good indicator of a rider's capabilities. So I took all the ITT results from 2007 to 2014 and put them into a spreadsheet. I excluded short prologues and races like Commonwealth games where the field is artificially restricted.

Using that data, I calculated two things. First was how many seconds per kilometer he lagged by in each race. The second was his relative ranking. I.e., if he placed 20th out of 200 racers, that gives him a 20/200 = top 10% of riders ranking. To say that I was shocked by the results is a vast understatement. Please check out the following:

From 2007 to Romandie, 2011:
Froome lost by an average 6.4 seconds/km and had an average placing of 27.6%. His best performance during that time was a loss of 3.3 s/km and 11% ranking.

From Tour de Suisse, 2011 to present:
Froome lost by an average 1.7 seconds/km and had an average placing of 4.7%. Excluding a single bad performance in Romandie (2012), his worst performance during that period was a loss of 1.9 s/km and a ranking of 6.5%. (!!!)

I'll post the raw numbers in a bit. But until then... Wow. Just wow.

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Raw data:
2007 - 2011 (Romandie)

Loss per km (s) Placing (%)

3.4 11.0%
3.8 18.8%
4.0 18.9%
5.4 18.3%
7.1 60.7%
3.3 11.0%
17.5 25.3%
9.8 60.2%
4.1 16.8%
5.2 35.5%
6.4 27.6%

2011 TdS to Present

1.9 6.5%
1.5 1.1%
1.0 1.6%
1.5 1.3%
0.9 1.1%
1.7 3.5%
6.2 29.3%
0.0 0.6%
0.4 1.1%
1.6 1.7%
1.8 2.6%
1.7 5.6%
1.7 4.7%


Anyone else see a difference!? Holy transformation.

John Swanson

 

[peloton]

Raw data:
2007 - 2011 (Romandie)

Loss per km (s) Placing (%)

3.4 11.0%
3.8 18.8%
4.0 18.9%
5.4 18.3%
7.1 60.7%
3.3 11.0%
17.5 25.3%
9.8 60.2%
4.1 16.8%
5.2 35.5%
6.4 27.6%

2011 TdS to Present

1.9 6.5%
1.5 1.1%
1.0 1.6%
1.5 1.3%
0.9 1.1%
1.7 3.5%
6.2 29.3%
0.0 0.6%
0.4 1.1%
1.6 1.7%
1.8 2.6%
1.7 5.6%
1.7 4.7%


Anyone else see a difference!? Holy transformation.

John Swanson

This is were Dr. Leinders comes in. Funny that.

 

[EnacheV]

I'll post the raw numbers in a bit. But until then... Wow. Just wow.

John Swanson

i don't see any wow factor

did you do the same stats for today's top gc riders and compare? also please compare with someone that at 22y of age was amateur riding in Africa, for a better sample calibration.

also using averages is pretty wrong imo. many people race may races for training or simply without giving a damn.

edit: you just waste a lot of your time to come to the obvious conclusion that he improved a lot. your stats don't say anything though about the causes that led to this improvement.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

i don't see any wow factor

did you do the same stats for today's top gc riders and compare? also please compare with someone that at 22y of age was amateur riding in Africa, for a better sample calibration.

also using averages is pretty wrong imo. many people race may races for training or simply without giving a damn.

Wait, what!? Have you taken even the briefest look at the numbers? At the 2011 TdS, someone flipped a switch and permanently altered Froome's athletic ability. There is no progression. There is no variation in performance. He went from zero to hero in his fourth year as a pro and never looked back. The numbers are quite explicit and frankly more than a bit shocking.

John Swanson

 

[red_flanders]

Wait, what!? Have you taken even the briefest look at the numbers? At the 2011 TdS, someone flipped a switch and permanently altered Froome's athletic ability. There is no progression. There is no variation in performance. He went from zero to hero in his fourth year as a pro and never looked back. The numbers are quite explicit and frankly more than a bit shocking.

John Swanson

But he's from Africa. Totally normal.

Sorry, great post John. Great to see the facts.

 

[EnacheV]

Wait, what!? Have you taken even the briefest look at the numbers? At the 2011 TdS, someone flipped a switch and permanently altered Froome's athletic ability. There is no progression. There is no variation in performance. He went from zero to hero in his fourth year as a pro and never looked back. The numbers are quite explicit and frankly more than a bit shocking.

John Swanson

So lets draw the line at no16 and declare all under that line zeroes.

http://www.procyclingstats.com/race.php?id=102921

Again the same meme's.

 

[WinterRider]

Wait, what!? Have you taken even the briefest look at the numbers? At the 2011 TdS, someone flipped a switch and permanently altered Froome's athletic ability. There is no progression. There is no variation in performance. He went from zero to hero in his fourth year as a pro and never looked back. The numbers are quite explicit and frankly more than a bit shocking.

John Swanson

A better argument would be made with a pretty picture. Graph these results alongside similar results for other top tier pro cyclists, preferably against gt contenders, and others with similar backgrounds to Froome.

 

[Benotti69]

Raw data:
2007 - 2011 (Romandie)

Loss per km (s) Placing (%)

3.4 11.0%
3.8 18.8%
4.0 18.9%
5.4 18.3%
7.1 60.7%
3.3 11.0%
17.5 25.3%
9.8 60.2%
4.1 16.8%
5.2 35.5%
6.4 27.6%

2011 TdS to Present

1.9 6.5%
1.5 1.1%
1.0 1.6%
1.5 1.3%
0.9 1.1%
1.7 3.5%
6.2 29.3%
0.0 0.6%
0.4 1.1%
1.6 1.7%
1.8 2.6%
1.7 5.6%
1.7 4.7%


Anyone else see a difference!? Holy transformation.

John Swanson

yeah but he 'never tested positive'........................

Wonder is Froome still working Leinders in Monaco and South Africa

 

[Saint Unix]

And it's not like he decided to train exclusively to become a better time-trialler or a better climber, which probably would have seen a slight increase in one area at the cost of a decrease in the other. He just shed a load of weight and increased his aerobic capabilities almost instantaneously and became a world class climber and a world class time-trialler.

I'm no expert when it comes to physiology or sports science or anything, but my limited grasp of the subject tells me that that transformation on both fronts is impossible without serious help from some shady characters. If anyone with more know-how can tell me how that is possible I'd be as interested as anyone.

There is one fact: The only riders who have ever undergone anything close to a transformation like Froome's are:

a) Known dopers

or

b) Currently riding for Sky.


Those two are probably not mutually exclusive.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i don't see any wow factor

did you do the same stats for today's top gc riders and compare? also please compare with someone that at 22y of age was amateur riding in Africa, for a better sample calibration.

also using averages is pretty wrong imo. many people race may races for training or simply without giving a damn.

edit: you just waste a lot of your time to come to the obvious conclusion that he improved a lot. your stats don't say anything though about the causes that led to this improvement.

Either you dispute the numbers, or you dont.
And if you dont then why not suggest the causes that would explain this?

 

[Parker]

Wait, what!? Have you taken even the briefest look at the numbers? At the 2011 TdS, someone flipped a switch and permanently altered Froome's athletic ability. There is no progression. There is no variation in performance. He went from zero to hero in his fourth year as a pro and never looked back. The numbers are quite explicit and frankly more than a bit shocking.

John Swanson

Unless they are in the team as a TT specialist, domestiques don't usually give it 100% in time trials. They take it easy and try to save energy.

 

[the sceptic]

I bet the numbers look similar if you compare placings and time behind the winner in stage races and grand tours as well.

 

[EnacheV]

Either you dispute the numbers, or you dont.
And if you dont then why not suggest the causes that would explain this?

1. where i disputed the numbers? read 2-3 more times and come back to tell me where i disputed a basic excel sheet operation using few stats.

i disputed the WOW factor, their interpretation.

2. froome is god gifts to cycling and humanity in general. if there will be a need for a perfect human specimen to meet the aliens they will pick Froome. do you like my explanation? i like it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

1. where i disputed the numbers?[/B] read 2-3 more times and come back to tell me where i disputed a basic excel sheet operation using few stats.

i disputed the WOW factor, their interpretation.

So, you are not disputing the numbers. Ok.

2. froome is god gifts to cycling and humanity in general. if there will be a need for a perfect human specimen to meet the aliens they will pick Froome. do you like my explanation? i like it.

It seems a little far fetched, but you are entitled to it, it might explain a lot about you.
I prefer the easier conclusion that he is doping.

 

[PunchingRouleur]

So lets draw the line at no16 and declare all under that line zeroes.

http://www.procyclingstats.com/race.php?id=102921

Again the same meme's.

2 or 3 average result during 4 years of pro career before miraculous transformation are all what skybots needs to justify destroying current field, beating doped times...

Its just not possible going from average cyclist to one of the best ever. It never happened(without doping) and I am sure never will.
Once a generation talent no matter how raw he is, especially in physical sport like cycling would shine much more from start.

Yes he got some decent result U23, when he was already 22-23 years old, but results like that got almost any random gc contander and they are nowhere comparing to Froome even if their progress in pro ranks is much more believable.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

So lets draw the line at no16 and declare all under that line zeroes.

http://www.procyclingstats.com/race.php?id=102921

Again the same meme's.

I clicked your link, and picked Cadel Evans since he has a nice, long career. Lo and behold, his numbers show early promise, consistency, a progression, and then the inevitable (if you aren't Horner) decline with age. You're welcome.

Loss per km (s) Placing

3.3 20.8%
4.6 7.9%
1.4 1.9%
3.7 16.8%
2.7 10.6%
3.6 9.2%
2.3 4.5%
3.3 14.5%
3.1 9.0%
3.1 8.8%
0.7 1.8%
0.9 2.9%
3.9 11.0%
2.4 4.8%
0.9 2.3%
0.3 2.2%
2.1 5.2%
1.9 7.7%
0.2 1.4%
3.5 9.8%
1.5 2.9%
3.2 1.3%
0.2 1.2%
1.9 3.4%
2.1 5.7%
6.8 34.0%
2.7 3.4%
1.9 4.7%
6.2 30.1%
4.9 34.3%
4.5 11.5%
7.4 14.6%
0.7 3.5%
5.2 40.2%


John Swanson

 

[pastronef]

2 interesting things said by Vayer here http://velonews.competitor.com/2014...ome-but-doesnt-have-enough-information_318036

1
Antoine VAYER @festinaboy
Froome's power output ~6.70 W/kg at Oman Tour, 9 mn for "GREEN mountain's" It's a ****ing RED ridiculous performance. Bull****, joke.

2
Those who want to race clean can do it and post results. Riders like Dan Martin winning Liège-Bastogne-Liège is a very good sign. He is a rider we can believe. That’s very encouraging.

 

[EnacheV]

damn and people in the clinic teach me that theres no improvement over the years.

Antoine Vayer: There are two things: doping and true sport. Today, there are more and more clean riders. I was recently at some races in the south of France, and I have close contact with many riders, and they came to me to say you can stay pure and still have good results. Many riders are fed up with the doping culture. It does not concern them. Today, the professionals train better and more, and they can begin the season with very good results. Without a doubt, there are more good pure riders at the top level. I remember back in the 1990s, nobody really trained. Everyone was quite stupid. There was no science, no coaching, no training camps, no warmups before a time trial. Now everyone is doing that. The level has increased.

or maybe he is the supreme troll

 

[the sceptic]

For example, to calculate Froome’s numbers in Oman, a rider who finished very close to him gave us his power meter files. So that way, we can make direct and indirect calculations.

VN: But there must be some margin of error?
AV: They are very accurate. They can be off by one percent. People who say that our numbers are off do not understand what we are doing, or they say it to make us lose credibility

Good. I trust Vayer and I like his credibility.