Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Mellow Velo]

Ah I see what u mean now. It might have been calculated from the point of attack, but I doubt that. 6.7 for 9 min is not that out the world.

Hence the reason I put the question.
If it were exactly as he tweeted, Vayer would appear to be over reacting by some margin.
For the full climb, less so.

 

[Red Lobster]

6,7 for 18 minutes, i don't find it so tremendous. the thing is well we are only in february.

This is what floors me. A GT rider doing this in February.

 

[EnacheV]

This is what floors me. A GT rider doing this in February.

Check what Valverde is saying after Ruta del Sol, times have changed, you can't be lazy until July, etc

Many GC riders started pretty strong this year, in fact all of them except Nibali, i could be wrong and left few out, but main contenders all started strong : Froome, Quintana, Contador, Valverde, Porte, even Purito and Evans didn't finished in autobus in their first races.

I highly suspect that the July peak was something invented by Armstrong and people started to notice that winning stuff from February is not impossible if you don't eat pies all winter.

 

[the sceptic]

6,7 for 18 minutes, i don't find it so tremendous. the thing is well we are only in february. i think for the caliber of the rider which froomey is, he can go 7 w/kg + for 20 minutes in july. like contador did on verbier

papy peraud did something like 6,6 w/kg on faron this year for the same period of time as chris. so why a tdf champ can't do even better?


can you blame a rider because he goes fast? no you can't. he's not even paid by our money like the politicians we choose. that's his job to go from point a to point b as fast as possible. my only wish is that he will do that without dropping dead after. that's why i think health officials should be named instead of anti-doping in all the races.

but most importantly, can he beat Riis?

 

[jens_attacks]

but most importantly, can he beat Riis?

absolutely not. that's out of the window. not even riis of 1996 could beat his time on hautacam on a stage with tourmalet. and arguably on a more difficult route overall of the tour. i think on a very easy tour like 2009, in a 15 km mountain time trial or a very short 150 km flat stage like in '96, froome could get very close to riis record. if he had to, of course. full-gas

i don't even expect froome to beat lance's time on hautacam. only if he needs to take time back, stage 18...very hard to imagine that he will need.

of course most of us dream of a very balanced fight even for stage 18, with the schlecks, alberto, vincenzo attacking froome all left and right for tour victory

 

[LaFlorecita]

i think for the caliber of the rider which froomey is, he can go 7 w/kg + for 20 minutes in july. like contador did on verbier

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/2248/Contador-on-Verbier-recalculated.aspx

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Numbers. Best not to get too attached to them.

 

[EnacheV]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/2248/Contador-on-Verbier-recalculated.aspx

Imo this just shows that Vayer usually get the number after . from his pocket, for attention, and also that he generally sucks even at pseudo science.

 

[Red Lobster]

Check what Valverde is saying after Ruta del Sol, times have changed, you can't be lazy until July, etc

Many GC riders started pretty strong this year, in fact all of them except Nibali, i could be wrong and left few out, but main contenders all started strong : Froome, Quintana, Contador, Valverde, Porte, even Purito and Evans didn't finished in autobus in their first races.

I highly suspect that the July peak was something invented by Armstrong and people started to notice that winning stuff from February is not impossible if you don't eat pies all winter.

I'm not suggesting you don't throw a leg over until February 1. I suppose if one assumes Froome can go 7.1 - 7.3 at his peak, it may make sense that he's in for 6.7 on Feb form.

Back in the Reference Era, guys like LeMond might be good enough to ride at the sharp end in the early spring, but they weren't going at these levels. Of course, those lazy guys like LeMond couldn't even get their act together enough to come near Froome's Feb numbers in July.

 

[EnacheV]

I'm not suggesting you don't throw a leg over until February 1. I suppose if one assumes Froome can go 7.1 - 7.3 at his peak, it may make sense that he's in for 6.7 on Feb form.

Back in the Reference Era, guys like LeMond might be good enough to ride at the sharp end in the early spring, but they weren't going at these levels. Of course, those lazy guys like LeMond couldn't even get their act together enough to come near Froome's Feb numbers in July.

Please stop with the 1980 stuff, we are in 2014. In 1980 people died from stuff that is now cured with a pill , training was run like a dog and drink in pub after, and a long list of things that never existed in that time.

A lot of things changed a lot , and very fast.

Also, how do you compare their numbers? Did you asked Le Mond if he targeted February races specially and if his life was a continuous training camp , in which even every bit of food you put in your mouth is weighted, from December to August?

Im getting extremely bored by 1980 era comparisons.

 

[Saint Unix]

Imo this just shows that Vayer usually get the number after . from his pocket, for attention, and also that he generally sucks even at pseudo science.

While there's no reason to doubt that other guy? Why is he more credible in your eyes?

 

[the sceptic]

Please stop with the 1980 stuff, we are in 2014. In 1980 people died from stuff that is now cured with a pill , training was run like a dog and drink in pub after, and a long list of things that never existed in that time.

A lot of things changed a lot , and very fast.

Also, how do you compare their numbers? Did you asked Le Mond if he targeted February races specially and if his life was a continuous training camp , in which even every bit of food you put in your mouth is weighted, from December to August?

Im getting extremely bored by 1980 era comparisons.

what changed? and do you have any links that can explain how those changes can make such a huge difference?

has things changed from 2005 as well?

 

[GuyIncognito]

Please stop with the 1980 stuff, we are in 2014. In 1980 people died from stuff that is now cured with a pill , training was run like a dog and drink in pub after, and a long list of things that never existed in that time.

A lot of things changed a lot , and very fast.

Also, how do you compare their numbers? Did you asked Le Mond if he targeted February races specially and if his life was a continuous training camp , in which even every bit of food you put in your mouth is weighted, from December to August?

Im getting extremely bored by 1980 era comparisons.

Thank you for reminding us that in 2014 there's still no cure for stupid.
Hang in there little buddy, they'll find one soon

 

[BYOP88]

Please stop with the 1980 stuff, we are in 2014. In 1980 people died from stuff that is now cured with a pill , training was run like a dog and drink in pub after, and a long list of things that never existed in that time.

A lot of things changed a lot , and very fast.

Also, how do you compare their numbers? Did you asked Le Mond if he targeted February races specially and if his life was a continuous training camp , in which even every bit of food you put in your mouth is weighted, from December to August?

Im getting extremely bored by 1980 era comparisons.

I turn my back and when I look back they've cured AIDS and a whole bunch of other stuff that killed people in the 1980's, to borrow a line from one of my fav movies of the 80's 'most triumphant!!!'.

Just out of interest what have 'they' cured with a pill, that killed people 30 years ago?

 

[Red Lobster]

A lot of things changed a lot , and very fast.

Indeed, the change in the early '90s was shockingly abrupt. But I suppose it was just because those newly fast guys suddenly figured out they shouldn't eat pies all winter.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Thank you for reminding us that in 2014 there's still no cure for stupid.
Hang in there little buddy, they'll find one soon

Quoted just for sanitation reasons, just ****ed my pants.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

I think the debate would be much more entertaining if people could disagree without the insults.

Fringe opinions like nothing legitimate has changed since the 1980s exist. They just don't need to dominate. Coaching, nutrition, science etc can be much improved AND teams can still be doping. When even Vayer confesses, it's surrender time.

 

[EnacheV]

Thank you for reminding us that in 2014 there's still no cure for stupid.
Hang in there little buddy, they'll find one soon

Yes, im eagerly waiting for that to.

It's extremely frustrating to explain over and over again 1+1=2 level stuff to lots of people. But you know the word, world is full of idiots, i accepted it a long time ago.

 

[Catwhoorg]

I turn my back and when I look back they've cured AIDS and a whole bunch of other stuff that killed people in the 1980's, to borrow a line from one of my fav movies of the 80's 'most triumphant!!!'.

Just out of interest what have 'they' cured with a pill, that killed people 30 years ago?

Well to be fair AIDS has gone from a death sentence, to a chronic managed condition* (much like say diabetes), thanks to the anti-retroviral cocktails.

Not an outright cure, but certainly close to that for most sufferers.

*In the Western world where people can afford said treatments.

 

[lllludo]

Imo this just shows that Vayer usually get the number after . from his pocket, for attention, and also that he generally sucks even at pseudo science.

OK Young man it looks like you're majoring in litterature.
People usually don't get the model from their pocket...even Vayer. Vayer uses Portoleau's equation and Portoleau, like Grappe, Ferrari and many others have developed his equation /model to calculate the wattage developed by a rider during a climb.
You input some parameters : weight of rider, weight of bike, length and gradient of the ascent (at least) and for the more complex models you input frictional forces, wind, Cx etc... Press the ENTER key and you have estimate the watts developed
Porotleau's model is good because he can oftens validate the results of his calculations with SRM data provided by pro riders.
Ferrari's model though quite simple is quite good... no surprise
So when Portoleau's model say its 6,7 Watt/kg it may be 6,6 or 6,8 but no more than 2% error margin.

The only problem for all the models is that Froome's weight is a secret data. Like for his VO2 max he or team SKY never really answered that question.
Why? Maybe because that way nobody is able to calculate Froomey's power output

 

[Ventoux Boar]

OK Young man it looks like you're majoring in litterature.
People usually don't get the model from their pocket...even Vayer. Vayer uses Portoleau's equation and Portoleau, like Grappe, Ferrari and many others have developed his equation /model to calculate the wattage developed by a rider during a climb.
You input some parameters : weight of rider, weight of bike, length and gradient of the ascent (at least) and for the more complex models you input frictional forces, wind, Cx etc... Press the ENTER key and you have estimate the watts developed
Porotleau's model is good because he can oftens validate the results of his calculations with SRM data provided by pro riders.
Ferrari's model though quite simple is quite good... no surprise
So when Portoleau's model say its 6,7 Watt/kg it may be 6,6 or 6,8 but no more than 2% error margin.

The only problem for all the models is that Froome's weight is a secret data. Like for his VO2 max he or team SKY never really answered that question.
Why? Maybe because that way nobody is able to calculate Froomey's power output

When there's significant differences of opinion on the gradient and length of climb such as Verbier (cited earlier) I think claims of small problems with the models are ambitious.

(Editing to clarify that the problem may be at least as much with interpretation of the results as inaccuracies in the model. By the way, how transferable is one rider's SRM data to another?)

 

[Parker]

Porotleau's model is good because he can oftens validate the results of his calculations with SRM data provided by pro riders.
Ferrari's model though quite simple is quite good... no surprise
So when Portoleau's model say its 6,7 Watt/kg it may be 6,6 or 6,8 but no more than 2% error margin.

SRM and Powertap only claim 1.5-2% accuracy, so anyone claiming that their estimates are 2% accurate is just straight up talking crap - especially as some of the variables - e.g. weight, wind (which varies) are not measured at source.

In his magazine Vayer compared seven estimates of climbs done by Chris Horner in one of the Tours and compared them to his actual power meter. Four were within 2%, three weren't - one was 4.5% out, the worst 9% out.

Anyway, it's not the numbers that are important - but what he then does with them. He seems to definitively know what is possible clean despite there being very limited amounts of data from super-elite clean cyclists to work from. These ideas of what is 'normal'. Where do they come from and how valid are they?

 

[jens_attacks]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/2248/Contador-on-Verbier-recalculated.aspx

i hope you realize who roberto corsetti is. the doctor with the fresh fruits at liquigas

6,1 w/kg lol. that's how much probably did the 25th place on verbier.

alberto did 7 w/kg there if not higher.

 

[SundayRider]

This is what floors me. A GT rider doing this in February.

LA never showed any signs of that sort of form at this stage of the season.

 

[LaFlorecita]

i hope you realize who roberto corsetti is. the doctor with the fresh fruits at liquigas

6,1 w/kg lol. that's how much probably did the 25th place on verbier.

alberto did 7 w/kg there if not higher.

I'm sorry jensie I prefer to believe he did 6.1 W/kg. No way the entire top 10 did over 7 W/kg or almost 7.