Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[ScienceIsCool]

Go on then. Compare Froome to Bahamontes. Actual specifics please. Because I'm guessing you've seen no more than a total of a minute of old footage of Bahamontes.

That's an easy one. Puy de Dome, Tour 1959, was held as a time trial. Bahamontes, arguably the best pure climber of all time, won it in 36:15, which works out to a VAM of 1700. Coincidentally, a VAM of 1700 is what Merckx Index has informed us is pretty much the natural limit for non-doped performance.

Then we have Froome at 1830 VAM on Madone...

Seriously, folks. He and Cound are laughing at us; taking us all for fools. You'd think the last two decades of farce would have taught us something.

John Swanson

 

[TailWindHome]

That's an easy one. Puy de Dome, Tour 1959, was held as a time trial. Bahamontes, arguably the best pure climber of all time, won it in 36:15, which works out to a VAM of 1700. Coincidentally, a VAM of 1700 is what Merckx Index has informed us is pretty much the natural limit for non-doped performance.

Then we have Froome at 1830 VAM on Madone...

Seriously, folks. He and Cound are laughing at us; taking us all for fools. You'd think the last two decades of farce would have taught us something.

John Swanson

So.....anyone who goes up Puy de Dome quicker than Bahamontes did 55 years ago must be doping?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Oh, come on. Use some critical thought. If you have an obvious, naturally talented climber that shows remarkable ability (like Herrera or Bahamontes), then yes you would expect that they would occasionally beat past performances.

Is Chris Froome that rider? No. That's absurd.

John Swanson

 

[TailWindHome]

Oh, come on. Use some critical thought. If you have an obvious, naturally talented climber that shows remarkable ability (like Herrera or Bahamontes), then yes you would expect that they would occasionally beat past performances.

Is Chris Froome that rider? No. That's absurd.

John Swanson

Do you really believe that a time set 55 years ago represents the peak of human achievement?

 

[red_flanders]

Do you really believe that a time set 55 years ago represents the peak of human achievement?

Before you all go too far down this path, let's recognize that there are already two conversations going on here.

– What is humanly possible, and how has that changed or not over time?
– What is Froome capable of?

Very different discussions. The baseline for Froome is not that of the peak of human performance or even close. Froome is a rider who was a mid-level elite talent. Yes elite, as he's in the pro peloton. The Lanterne Rouge is an elite talent. But among those people, there are the super-elites, those who proved to be at the top of the top their entire career. With Froome we have a rider who moved from the middle to crushing to super-elites.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Do you really believe that a time set 55 years ago represents the peak of human achievement?

To answer with a question, how have humans changed in 50 years?

Partial answer with another question: Do you believe that changes in training, equipment and nutrition would have prevented Bahamontes from reaching his full potential? Or, after years of training and racing, is that largely determined by his genetics?

To help you out, I once created a simple spring model of a bicycle frame and did a comparison between a frame with ridiculously high spring constants (i.e., stiff frame) and ridiculously low spring constants (i.e., super noodly frame). From memory, I believe the difference in losses was on the order of 0.1%, or half a watt at 500 Watts.

Do you believe that steak, salad, bread, bananas and eggs are more nutritious today than 50 years ago?

Do you believe that Bahamontes, using modern training techniques, would have significantly improved his climbing performances? In other words, would he have gone significantly higher than 1700 VAM on Puy de Dome in 1959? How does that reconcile with the fact that the human limit (non-doped) is roughly 1700 VAM?

John Swanson

 

[Will Carter]

Do you believe that steak, salad, bread, bananas and eggs are more nutritious today than 50 years ago?

If anything they are less nutritious than 50 years ago, unless perhaps you stick to organic free range stuff.

What I think has progressed is how much people now understand about nutrition and how it affects recovery, etc. and what to eat when.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

How does that reconcile with the fact that the human limit (non-doped) is roughly 1700 VAM?

John Swanson

Would you mind confirming this fact with a link? Thanks.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

A few pages back, Merck Index showed the utterly ridiculous values for efficiency, lactate threshold and VO2max that would be required to go to 1800 VAM.

But, really? You avoid the entire big picture and narrow in on a single factoid? If it pleases you, I retract that statement entirely. Are you nodding your head, muttering "Yes. Now Froome's performance make sense..."?

The dust hasn't even settled on the Armstrong era and we're already being asked to believe in miracles.

John Swanson

 

[deValtos]

Very different discussions. The baseline for Froome is not that of the peak of human performance or even close. Froome is a rider who was a mid-level elite talent. Yes elite, as he's in the pro peloton. The Lanterne Rouge is an elite talent. But among those people, there are the super-elites, those who proved to be at the top of the top their entire career.

Different discussions if you think Froome is doped.

Very similar discussions if you think he's clean.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

A few pages back, Merck Index showed the utterly ridiculous values for efficiency, lactate threshold and VO2max that would be required to go to 1800 VAM.

But, really? You avoid the entire big picture and narrow in on a single factoid? If it pleases you, I retract that statement entirely. Are you nodding your head, muttering "Yes. Now Froome's performance make sense..."?

The dust hasn't even settled on the Armstrong era and we're already being asked to believe in miracles.

John Swanson

No need for hysterics. I thought you were claiming to know the human speed limit. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Digger]

No need for hysterics. I thought you were claiming to know the human speed limit. Thanks for clarifying.

clean steve and dopey dan eh....not taking off helmets saves hours!!

 

[the sceptic]

No need for hysterics. I thought you were claiming to know the human speed limit. Thanks for clarifying.

The human limit is however fast Froome goes.

In 2012 it was 5.99w/kg.

in 2013 it became pseudo-science and tailwinds.

in 2014 it has become "we are not sure, please lets talk about something else"

 

[Catwhoorg]

Do you really believe that a time set 55 years ago represents the peak of human achievement?

Just look at how height has changed over the years.

So clearly not. Nutrition, and understanding of such. General healthier living, less childhood disease.

Then for sports folks and times or distance
Better training methods, equipment.

(And yes doping plays its part especially for some 'improvement' seen. East German and Chinese women T&F records being the best example.)


But if a simple thing like height hasn't reached its genetic potential even now, how we can even get close to working out what the human limit for pedaling a bike is ?

 

[Kretch]

The way Wiggo rode at P-R he might be a favorite for the stage.

**Boonen**

 

[Ventoux Boar]

clean steve and dopey dan eh....not taking off helmets saves hours!!

Great post. Up with your best.

 

[red_flanders]

Different discussions if you think Froome is doped.

Very similar discussions if you think he's clean.

No, not at all.

Different conclusions if you think he was at the same level, the top, his entire career.

Very similar discussions if you think he wasn't.

Since it's a point of fact that he wasn't at the top level his entire career, the second part is moot. The question of doping only applies to "how" he changed, not "whether" he changed.

 

[TailWindHome]

To answer with a question, how have humans changed in 50 years?

Partial answer with another question: Do you believe that changes in training, equipment and nutrition would have prevented Bahamontes from reaching his full potential? Or, after years of training and racing, is that largely determined by his genetics?

To help you out, I once created a simple spring model of a bicycle frame and did a comparison between a frame with ridiculously high spring constants (i.e., stiff frame) and ridiculously low spring constants (i.e., super noodly frame). From memory, I believe the difference in losses was on the order of 0.1%, or half a watt at 500 Watts.

Do you believe that steak, salad, bread, bananas and eggs are more nutritious today than 50 years ago?

Do you believe that Bahamontes, using modern training techniques, would have significantly improved his climbing performances? In other words, would he have gone significantly higher than 1700 VAM on Puy de Dome in 1959? How does that reconcile with the fact that the human limit (non-doped) is roughly 1700 VAM?

John Swanson

I think he'd have significantly improved his time by doing nothing more than changing to a modern wheelset.

 

[TailWindHome]

Since it's a point of fact that he wasn't at the top level his entire career, the second part is moot. The question of doping only applies to "how" he changed, not "whether" he changed.

This.

I give him the benefit of the doubt until further evidence emerges and reserve the right to change my mind if it does.

YMMV

 

[deValtos]

No, not at all.

Different conclusions if you think he was at the same level, the top, his entire career.

Very similar discussions if you think he wasn't.

Since it's a point of fact that he wasn't at the top level his entire career, the second part is moot. The question of doping only applies to "how" he changed, not "whether" he changed.

Eh ??

A discussion between what is humanly possible and what Froome is capable of would be very similar if Froome were clean, since he would be one of those guys pushing what is humanly possible.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

re Bahamontes and equipment improvements, a scientist writes

Certainly, comparisons in performance between the 1980s and present day are grossly inaccurate, affected enormously by the advances in bikes – lighter frames, stiffer, gearing, brakes etc. So the best way to understand performance progression is to try to rule out major technological advances as much as possible, and this is done by narrowing the time-frame as much as possible. I accept that bicycles improve all the time, but these are incremental improvements, and the magnitude of advantage they confer is now small enough that I think it is negligible within the time-frames being discussed here.

Ross Tucker

FWIW from the same article he estimates Froome's mutant Ax3 VAM at 1715.

 

[ralphbert]

re Bahamontes and equipment improvements, a scientist writes



Ross Tucker

Didn't Tucker get the memo, doping stopped in 2006 and doesn't really help that much anyway.

IMO he grossly under estimates the advantage of blood manipulation, you can not compare it to steroids when talking about endurance sport.

 

[SeriousSam]

Froome said: "He probably would argue he was on his limits physically but I felt it was more a mental thing that he switched off when he saw me going."

When asked by BBC Radio 5 live if it was a sign of weakness, Froome, 29, said: "Yes, it was to an extent."

Froome also admitted that, had he been racing 10 years earlier, he would have been tempted to take performance-enhancing drugs but would not have gone through with it.

[...]

Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles between 1999 and 2005 as drugs blighted the sport.

"Certainly, I would have been tempted but that is not a decision I would have made," said Froome.

"I would have realised that was not a sport I wanted to be involved in. It isn't the dream or passion I thought it was when I was growing up in Kenya.

Hilarious in many ways but I particularly like the subtle suggestion that the drugs blighted the sport period started in 1999 and ended in 2005.

 

[the sceptic]

Why would Froome need to consider doping, he could win all those tours clean anyway.

 

[sniper]

Hilarious in many ways but I particularly like the subtle suggestion that the drugs blighted the sport period started in 1999 and ended in 2005.

Thanks for that.
I dont get the first two lines though.
who,s "he" and who showed signs of weakness?