Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 439 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
Is it just me or does that seem high for Ten Dam? close to 6.0w/kg and it wasnt even a MTF.

Seems like the "cleans" riders (depending on what you believe) are now pushing 6.0 w/kg.
 
the sceptic said:
Is it just me or does that seem high for Ten Dam? close to 6.0w/kg and it wasnt even a MTF.

Seems like the "cleans" riders (depending on what you believe) are now pushing 6.0 w/kg.
Ten Dam pushed under 6 W/kg and the effort was only ~27 minutes. Hardly mind blowing.

Froome on the other hand...
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Netserk said:
Ten Dam pushed under 6 W/kg and the effort was only ~27 minutes. Hardly mind blowing.

Froome on the other hand...
Froome is basically putting out 10% more W/kg. Frightening.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
Netserk said:
Ten Dam pushed under 6 W/kg and the effort was only ~27 minutes. Hardly mind blowing.

Froome on the other hand...
Yeah I dont know.. just seems like more and more riders are getting close to the magical 6.0w/kg.
 
Mellow Velo said:
I thought you had a track background, hog, or am I confusing you with another poster?:confused:

I'm afraid 1500w is the normal figure for top female track sprinters.
Just to meet girls in my youth. Isn't that why anyone did track? :rolleyes:

Don't quote me on the 1500w, I was just pointing out that less weight and more power tends to look suspicious than more weight and power.

Dumb *** example I gave and should have said 2000w or more. The point wasn't lost though.

Just contributing to another posters question.
 
Netserk said:
Back on topic...

Might have to up the estimate of Chris.

Apparently Belkin have had problems with accuracy of power meters this season, so the estimate should be more precise than the SRM data.

So no need to up the estimate of Chris. Still hugely impressive, baring in mind that he waited for Spilak.

What is his average for the 25 minutes? 6.5 or a tiny bit over or under?



Late edit: Actually I thought about it, and I'm not sure what the graph plots, W/kg total average (does that make sense?) or 'instant'/current output. With the first the average for the whole climb is ~6.15, with the latter it's ~6.5.
 
Netserk said:
So no need to up the estimate of Chris. Still hugely impressive, baring in mind that he waited for Spilak.

What is his average for the 25 minutes? 6.5 or a tiny bit over or under?
Ross Tucker on physiological limits:

Briefly, however, the premise here is that in order to produce 6.2 W/kg or higher for longer than about 30 minutes requires physiology that is, frankly, not seen in normal situations. That doesn’t mean it’s not possible, but to illustrate, in order to ride at this kind of power output, a cyclist must have a VO2max that is tremendously high, in combination with an exceptional efficiency, and the ability to sustain upward of 85% of VO2max for those 30 minutes or more, at the end of a 5 hour stage. The combination of physiological factors does not, in my opinion, exist in order to validate power outputs above 6.2 W/kg for those durations.

On shorter climbs, in the range of 10 to 20 minutes, it is absolutely expected that these power outputs will be recorded. But on the HC climbs that end the big mountain stages, I would be very, very skeptical of anything above those values…

if the Tour is clean (and how big an ‘if’ that is depends on your point of view, your disillusionment with the sport and your cynicism), then we expect to see power outputs in the range of 5.9 W/kg to 6.1 W/kg for the HC climbs.
By the way, his most recent post discusses the effect of fatigue. A recent study (which Tucker criticizes for believing they were the first to discover this) found that after cyclists pedaled to exhaustion, they were still able to put out a 5" burst of power about three times what their power was on the ride to exhaustion. This supports a theory that psychology is an important part of exhaustion, that we leave a certain amount in reserve in even when riding to exhaustion. But more to it than that, interesting discussion.
 
I'm not a fan of Tucker. He's horribly biased. But he does do good work. There is good method to his approach. He treats cyclists from the Mediterranean much differently than his Anglo friends.
 
Merckx index said:
Ross Tucker on physiological limits:



By the way, his most recent post discusses the effect of fatigue. A recent study (which Tucker criticizes for believing they were the first to discover this) found that after cyclists pedaled to exhaustion, they were still able to put out a 5" burst of power about three times what their power was on the ride to exhaustion. This supports a theory that psychology is an important part of exhaustion, that we leave a certain amount in reserve in even when riding to exhaustion. But more to it than that, interesting discussion.
So 6.2 for 30' is dirty, but 7.0 for 28' is possible clean? :confused:

Does that mean that if a rider climbs Alpe d'Huez under 30 minutes, one cannot conclude anything from it???

:confused:

edit: I'm not sure what your point is.
 
thehog said:
I'm not a fan of Tucker. He's horribly biased. But he does do good work. There is good method to his approach. He treats cyclists from the Mediterranean much differently than his Anglo friends.
Can you provide a link to back that up? He pretty much cleared Contador (not Medi, but not Anglo, either) on the Tourmalet, while sounding somewhat suspicious of Froome on Aix.

Netserk said:
So 6.2 for 30' is dirty, but 7.0 for 28' is possible clean? :confused:

Does that mean that if a rider climbs Alpe d'Huez under 30 minutes, one cannot conclude anything from it???

:confused:

edit: I'm not sure what your point is.
I thought my point was pretty clear. If > 6.2 watts/kg for > 30 min. is suspicious, then 6.5 watts/kg for 25 min. obviously is, too. There is a pretty well known power vs. time curve that indicates that while power can increase for shorter periods, it doesn't increase that much.

Of course there is no magic cutoff period. You can define a suspicious value at any time. I was just using the 30 min value to show that a value at 25 mins. is almost certainly suspicious.

More from that post:

What is the physiology of riding at 6W/kg? If a cyclist has an efficiency of 24%, then the VO2 at 6W/kg is about 71 ml/kg/min. If this represents 85% of a maximum, then a VO2max of 83 ml/kg/min is estimated. If the efficiency is 23% (measured by Coyle for Armstrong in 1999), incidentally, then the VO2 is 74ml/kg/min and the estimated max would be 87 ml/kg/min. Neither jumps out as not-seen-before-physiology. But, if you go up to 6.2W or 6.3W/kg, then it starts to become, well, questionable.
You can get over 6.2 for that period of time if you have a really high V02max, maybe over 90, and very high efficiency, and very high lactate threshold. Alex Simmons has published some curves that illustrate this very well, and this is why he and Coggan refuse to draw any kind of line in the sand. But Tucker’s point is that it’s quite unlikely that a rider would be an outlier in all of these respects.

Btw, in that same post he discussed Horner's ride, too, because his SRM data were available, and could be used to validate the power values determined from VAM for Contador and Schleck. He estimated that Horner had a V02 of 66, which would be a V02max probably in the upper 70s.

And finally, Tucker's calculations there and other places indicated that the difference in power determined from VAM vs. SRM is generally not that great, usually about 0.2 watts/kg at most.
 
thehog said:
I'm not a fan of Tucker. He's horribly biased. But he does do good work. There is good method to his approach. He treats cyclists from the Mediterranean much differently than his Anglo friends.
That's interesting, I've wondered about some of his conclusions..or rather observations. Do you have examples of the bias from his stuff? Would be good to see.
 
Merckx index said:
I thought my point was pretty clear. If > 6.2 watts/kg for > 30 min. is suspicious, then 6.5 watts/kg for 25 min. obviously is, too. There is a pretty well known power vs. time curve that indicates that while power can increase for shorter periods, it doesn't increase that much.

Of course there is no magic cutoff period. You can define a suspicious value at any time. I was just using the 30 min value to show that a value at 25 mins. is almost certainly suspicious.
Thanks, I misunderstood you then.
 
red_flanders said:
That's interesting, I've wondered about some of his conclusions..or rather observations. Do you have examples of the bias from his stuff? Would be good to see.
Not really. Just his tone. He's good and all but his writing styled pre-determines the Spanish are dopers (which they are) and provides benefit of the doubt for others. Is more conservative.

Let me dig up some examples otherwise it will be fingernails down a blackboard stuff on this forum :cool:
 
thehog said:
Not really. Just his tone. He's good and all but his writing styled pre-determines the Spanish are dopers (which they are) and provides benefit of the doubt for others. Is more conservative.

Let me dig up some examples otherwise it will be fingernails down a blackboard stuff on this forum :cool:
Yeah, no worries. Not trying to hammer you on this, just had the same creeping feeling. Tone describes it well, but it's totally subjective and I might be completely wrong. In general he seems pretty good.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
red_flanders said:
Yeah, no worries. Not trying to hammer you on this, just had the same creeping feeling. Tone describes it well, but it's totally subjective and I might be completely wrong. In general he seems pretty good.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/froomes-non-published-tdf-power-output-noise-for-people-who-are-pseudoscientists/

First, he makes some valid points, particularly the comparison between power and bio-passport data. There is, without question, “a lot of noise” in power output data, and so the context and calibration are so important – a windy day could make a clean rider look like a doper, and vice-versa. Historical comparisons (which are the point) are clouded by issues such as those, and so yes, it is possible that those with a cynical view will bend power output numbers to suit their prejudices.
A tailwind tiger. Pretty stupid comment, power is power.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS