Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[lllludo]

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.
Anyway, it's not the numbers that are important - but what he then does with them.

About the accuracy of the models. On the Tour, Portoleau goes to the major cols to measure the wind etc... So when the conditions are "standard" the best models can be very accurate ... if you know the weight.

About the accuracy of the SRM : how do you think SRM and Powertap measured their 1,5-2% accuracy ? how do you think Schoberer the guy who invented srm validated his work ? One realistic answer: he's used some models (to calculate his estimates as you call them) in lab conditions.
However the SRMs, Powertaps etc... are not certified so you can't be 100% sure of the measures on a given equipment. Same thing with the log files sent by the riders you can't be 100% sure they are accurate.
So EVERYBODY, including the ones using power-captors, is talking about power data with error margins.

Vayer is using his estimates to underline that only dopers have been able to achieve a level of performance similar Froomey's performance in Oman (btw it's also superior to Froomey's perf in Ax 3 Domaines last July).
So Vayer says Froome is doping. I think Froome is very suspicious (the "very" because of his background).

 

[The Hitch]

it's awesome how saying few same things, again and again, can get to 8700 posts. amazing isn't it?

Aren't all your posts essentially slight variations of 1 generic post?

 

[biokemguy]

I tend to think that Vayer is on to something, but rates himself as more insightful than he really is, especially with comments like this:

AV: They[his contacts in the peloton] can look at a rider and they can tell immediately if something is not right, by their pedaling style, how they’re breathing...

1) This sounds like much of the reasoning used in the clinic

2) If true, then Omerta is VERY strong these days

Should note my personal bias: Pro athletes are, in general, dumb.

 

[Digger]

I tend to think that Vayer is on to something, but rates himself as more insightful than he really is, especially with comments like this:



1) This sounds like much of the reasoning used in the clinic

2) If true, then Omerta is VERY strong these days

Should note my personal bias: Pro athletes are, in general, dumb.

He's right though. Fast cadence...you need a lot of red blood cells for that.

 

[EnacheV]

Aren't all your posts essentially slight variations of 1 generic post?

for you maybe, depends on reader level.

an interview with Froome, including a generic apology from Tyler Hamilton for the legacy that Armstrong era that weights on today's cycling.

http://www.talkfeed.co.za/cycletalksa/tyler-hamilton-apologises-to-chris-froome/

 

[Ventoux Boar]

About the accuracy of the models. On the Tour, Portoleau goes to the major cols to measure the wind etc... So when the conditions are "standard" the best models can be very accurate ... if you know the weight.

About the accuracy of the SRM : how do you think SRM and Powertap measured their 1,5-2% accuracy ? how do you think Schoberer the guy who invented srm validated his work ? One realistic answer: he's used some models (to calculate his estimates as you call them) in lab conditions.
However the SRMs, Powertaps etc... are not certified so you can't be 100% sure of the measures on a given equipment. Same thing with the log files sent by the riders you can't be 100% sure they are accurate.
So EVERYBODY, including the ones using power-captors, is talking about power data with error margins.

Vayer is using his estimates to underline that only dopers have been able to achieve a level of performance similar Froomey's performance in Oman (btw it's also superior to Froomey's perf in Ax 3 Domaines last July).
So Vayer says Froome is doping. I think Froome is very suspicious (the "very" because of his background).

Good discussion. Any idea on the methodology used to take one rider's SRM data and extrapolate a value for another rider?

 

[Parker]

About the accuracy of the models. On the Tour, Portoleau goes to the major cols to measure the wind etc... So when the conditions are "standard" the best models can be very accurate ... if you know the weight.

About the accuracy of the SRM : how do you think SRM and Powertap measured their 1,5-2% accuracy ? how do you think Schoberer the guy who invented srm validated his work ? One realistic answer: he's used some models (to calculate his estimates as you call them) in lab conditions.
However the SRMs, Powertaps etc... are not certified so you can't be 100% sure of the measures on a given equipment. Same thing with the log files sent by the riders you can't be 100% sure they are accurate.
So EVERYBODY, including the ones using power-captors, is talking about power data with error margins.

Vayer is using his estimates to underline that only dopers have been able to achieve a level of performance similar Froomey's performance in Oman (btw it's also superior to Froomey's perf in Ax 3 Domaines last July).
So Vayer says Froome is doping. I think Froome is very suspicious (the "very" because of his background).

To address each of the paragraphs

1. The day wind is 'standard' is the day rain is dry. And the roads aren't straight either. But this is not really that pertinent to my point - I'm more interested in how the figures are used than their accuracy.

2. Modelling? Why the hell would you need that. Power meters are just glorified stain gauges. All you have to do is apply a known force in a known direction. The rest is high school maths. Although I image they have more sophisticated rigs for that.

3. And how many clean riders have tried? Until quite recently their have been precious few clean team leaders. The data on what a clean rider can do is very thin on the ground. And who knows what some of the dopers could have done clean. (The performance of Froome's that people keep banging on about Ax3 was beaten by a Roberto Laiseka - a very run-of the-mill rider. Quinitana comfortably outclimbed him when he didn't attack too early.)

Yet Vayer seems know the limits of human performance - and has absolutely nothing to back up his ideas. If he produced something to support his idea of what is 'normal' then maybe I might not think he's jus making it up. (He's not a scientist, you know, he's a PE teacher)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

To address each of the paragraphs

1. The day wind is 'standard' is the day rain is dry. And the roads aren't straight either. But this is not really that pertinent to my point - I'm more interested in how the figures are used than their accuracy.

2. Modelling? Why the hell would you need that. Power meters are just glorified stain gauges. All you have to do is apply a known force in a known direction. The rest is high school maths. Although I image they have more sophisticated rigs for that.

3. And how many clean riders have tried? Until quite recently their have been precious few clean team leaders. The data on what a clean rider can do is very thin on the ground. And who knows what some of the dopers could have done clean. (The performance of Froome's that people keep banging on about Ax3 was beaten by a Roberto Laiseka - a very run-of the-mill rider. Quinitana comfortably outclimbed him when he didn't attack too early.)

Yet Vayer seems know the limits of human performance - and has absolutely nothing to back up his ideas. If he produced something to support his idea of what is 'normal' then maybe I might not think he's jus making it up. (He's not a scientist, you know, he's a PE teacher)

Why would Vayer need to know what exactly is the limit of human performance?

The data is there - even with a good margin of error its still a significant performance. The questions are how is that possible? Whats so unique about Froome? Or what are Sky doing differently to realise the potential?

 

[Parker]

Why would Vayer need to know what exactly is the limit of human performance?

The data is there - even with a good margin of error its still a significant performance. The questions are how is that possible? Whats so unique about Froome? Or what are Sky doing differently to realise the potential?

He needs to know it because that is how he is selling his opinions to the public. With words like 'mutant' and 'miraculous' and 'not normal'. His whole arguments is about what is and isn't apparently normal, but provides nothing to back it up.

Is the data there? A large set of data from known super-elite athletes? Where is it? Because Vayer isn't showing it to us.

And is Froome unique? Quintana seems to be able to outclimb him half the time? Or is Froome just the best at the moment (someone has to be). In four or five years time there will be another couple just like him. He just seems unique as you have sod all to compare him to.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He needs to know it because that is how he is selling his opinions to the public. With words like 'mutant' and 'miraculous' and 'not normal'. His whole arguments is about what is and isn't apparently normal, but provides nothing to back it up.

No - its based on whats normal - thats in relation to others and what has happened until now.

if he said it is beyond the limit of "human performance" then you would have a point that Vayer would need to show where that was, but Vayer didn't.

Is the data there? A large set of data from known super-elite athletes? Where is it? Because Vayer isn't showing it to us.

And is Froome unique? Quintana seems to be able to outclimb him half the time? Or is Froome just the best at the moment (someone has to be). In four or five years time there will be another couple just like him. He just seems unique as you have sod all to compare him to.

Good question - would you consider Froomes peers and opponents super elite athletes? Because that is the data set Vayer is using.

 

[LaFlorecita]

an interview with Froome, including a generic apology from Tyler Hamilton for the legacy that Armstrong era that weights on today's cycling.

http://www.talkfeed.co.za/cycletalksa/tyler-hamilton-apologises-to-chris-froome/

FFS! Can it get any more ridiculous?

What is the Chris Froome era anyways? 2013?

 

[Parker]

No - its based on whats normal - thats in relation to others and what has happened until now.

if he said it is beyond the limit of "human performance" then you would have a point that Vayer would need to show where that was, but Vayer didn't.

He says it quite a lot in his magazine, if I recall. And what is 'normal' anyway. Elite athletes aren't normal. And the further you get to the end of the distribution bell curve the greater disparities you will find. Have a read of a book called The Sports Gene, after which you won't use the word 'normal' again.

Good question - would you consider Froomes peers and opponents super elite athletes? Because that is the data set Vayer is using.

Yes I would. But it's a pitifully small data set. A snapshot in time. One of them has to be the best. And two of them - Qunitana and Rodriguez have shown they can outclimb him. (We also have to remember that Froome benefits from an expensively assembled team being allowed to set exactly the pace he wants - doubt he'd fancy taking on Quintana one-on-one on a 40 minute climb)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He says it quite a lot in his magazine, if I recall. And what is 'normal' anyway. Elite athletes aren't normal. And the further you get to the end of the distribution bell curve the greater disparities you will find. Have a read of a book called The Sports Gene, after which you won't use the word 'normal' again.

Thats the whole point.
Vayer didn't use the local postman who delivers on a bike to compare - he used the "normal" figures of super elite athletes.

Yes I would. But it's a pitifully small data set. A snapshot in time. One of them has to be the best. And two of them - Qunitana and Rodriguez have shown they can outclimb him. (We also have to remember that Froome benefits from an expensively assembled team being allowed to set exactly the pace he wants - doubt he'd fancy taking on Quintana one-on-one on a 40 minute climb)

Aha - Quintana.
When Quintana is a climber, and he TTs like one - if he starts kicking the snot out of top TTers we can discuss Quintana in the appropriate thread.

None of this offers any sort of explanation on Froomes + 6w/kg

 

[The Hitch]

lol wut. Froome benefited over Quintana by having an expensive team setting tempo on the climbs for him? Quintana had a better mountain team than Froome

And what expensive riders? The only rider who was anywhere near special as a climber when Sky signed them was Kiriyenka, and by Ventoux he wasn't even in the race. Peter Kennaugh was the second to last domestique. There are teams at continental level with more expensive second to last domestiques than Peter Kennaugh ffs.

I suppose absolutely anything can be twisted in order to make Froome look like he was nothing impressive. Maybe next we'll here how all the other riders were peaking all season and Froome went so well because Albert Einstein Kerrison invented peaking for the Tour de France.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

And what expensive riders? The only rider who was anywhere near special as a climber when Sky signed them was Kiriyenka, and by Ventoux he wasn't even in the race. Peter Kennaugh was the second to last domestique. There are teams at continental level with more expensive second to last domestiques than Peter Kennaugh ffs.

Farcical point. On one thread Sky are Postal (2nd coming edition). Here Sky are no better than continentals.

 

[Parker]

Aha - Quintana.
When Quintana is a climber, and he TTs like one - if he starts kicking the snot out of top TTers we can discuss Quintana in the appropriate thread.

None of this offers any sort of explanation on Froomes + 6w/kg

Quintana can do +6w/kg too. And Rodriguez. And several others. They can't TT as well as the kg bit loses it's influence.
And what basis d you have for +6W/kg being exceptional. The likes of Sassi reckoned that 6.2 for a long effort at the end of a GT was credible. So why is 6.4W/kg for an 18 minute while completely fresh and drafting for half of it, is astonishing?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

(We also have to remember that Froome benefits from an expensively assembled team being allowed to set exactly the pace he wants - doubt he'd fancy taking on Quintana one-on-one on a 40 minute climb)

The Ventoux Bunny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52xv2Hg2fkI

I agree Parker. Thunder Chris are go.

 

[Parker]

lol wut. Froome benefited over Quintana by having an expensive team setting tempo on the climbs for him? Quintana had a better mountain team than Froome

And what expensive riders? The only rider who was anywhere near special as a climber when Sky signed them was Kiriyenka, and by Ventoux he wasn't even in the race. Peter Kennaugh was the second to last domestique. There are teams at continental level with more expensive second to last domestiques than Peter Kennaugh ffs.

You don't need specialist climbers. You need people who can get the final climb and tap out a steady pace for the required time. If you want someone to do 500W on the front for a couple of kilos then Thomas and Kennaugh are going to be a hell of a lot better than a couple of lightweight Spaniards. The domestiques don't need to get to the top in a lead group.
Froome likes to accelerate from a small group around 15 minutes from the summit. He gets to do that time and time again. If Quintana has a better mountain team, then maybe he should use them to his advantage, but every time it's Sky that ride on the front.

 

[BYOP88]

The Ventoux Bunny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52xv2Hg2fkI

I agree Parker. Thunder Chris are go.

That footage is still funny now and it will still be funny in 50 years time.

 

[Parker]

The Ventoux Bunny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52xv2Hg2fkI

I agree Parker. Thunder Chris are go.

That wasn't one-on-one. Froome still had teammates for 5km after Quintana attacked (too early)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Quintana can do +6w/kg too. And Rodriguez. And several others. They can't TT as well as the kg bit loses it's influence.
And what basis d you have for +6W/kg being exceptional. The likes of Sassi reckoned that 6.2 for a long effort at the end of a GT was credible. So why is 6.4W/kg for an 18 minute while completely fresh and drafting for half of it, is astonishing?

Can you find me a quote that backs that up?

Because I find very different pieces:
Here::

The late Aldo Sassi, who was respected as one of the best cycling coaches and whose reputation was spotless, concluded that a sustained 6.2 watts per kilo was probably the limit of human achievement under normal physiological conditions. Unpredictable variables, such as length of effort, would skew the numbers a little, but figures above 6 are freakish – the absolute limit of human achievement. 6.0 would win a Grand Tour these days (Sassi was quoted in the New York Times as saying that in the 2009 Giro, only one rider – Denis Menchov – got above six). 6.7 is impossible. It’s over 11 per cent more than 6.0, in an elite area of performance where the margins between riders are impossibly thin. It would be the equivalent of a long jumper jumping 9.93 metres (Mike Powell’s world record is 8.95 metres, and that was a pretty freakish jump).

And here;

In the past Sassi has said that any value over 6.2w/kg for a long effort on a major climb at the end of a stage race could be an indication of doping.

 

[LaFlorecita]

That footage is still funny now and it will still be funny in 50 years time.

Good stuff

PS Awesome signature

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

You don't need specialist climbers. You need people who can get the final climb and tap out a steady pace for the required time. If you want someone to do 500W on the front for a couple of kilos then Thomas and Kennaugh are going to be a hell of a lot better than a couple of lightweight Spaniards. The domestiques don't need to get to the top in a lead group.
Froome likes to accelerate from a small group around 15 minutes from the summit. He gets to do that time and time again. If Quintana has a better mountain team, then maybe he should use them to his advantage, but every time it's Sky that ride on the front.

Team tactics on a mountain mean shiete Parker. The best man wins, we all know that is the Ventoux Bunny. One only needs a strong team to get some dangerous escapee back, not im Frage with the Ventoux Bunny and his Tailwind Tigers.

 

[EnacheV]

The Ventoux Bunny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52xv2Hg2fkI

I agree Parker. Thunder Chris are go.

Did you ever see something like this in the history of cycling?

No?

Clearly best cyclist ever. 6.7W/kg is peanuts for him, redefining the human limits.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Did you ever see something like this in the history of cycling?

No?

Clearly best cyclist ever. 6.7W/kg is peanuts for him, redefining the human limits.

Yes I did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TvHMSyxAfCw#t=1294

Miguel le Grande, a purebred. Love that video too. Do you want the 1994 Ventoux video too? The one where Indurain is riding at 27k/h? Must have been a big tailwind that day too.

Chris and Mig are my big heroes too.