Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 460 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
ScienceIsCool said:
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
If I've misrepresented you, fair enough, but it seems pretty clear that you're claiming Bahamontes could have gone no faster.
 
ScienceIsCool said:
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
Please expand on this (published, peer reviewed?) study, my friend.
I would be most interested in your methods and conclusions.
 
deValtos said:
Wait what ? I get the feeling you're responding to a completely different point.

My original point was the discussion of what is humanly possible and what Froome is capable of are different if Froome doped but similar if he's clean. You said they weren't.

If he's clean, then he's pushing the limits of whats humanly possible right now.

If he's doped then he's probably not.

The fact that he wasn't pushing the limits of human potential in the first part of his career is completely irrelevant to that, I don't know what you're arguing against.
What I'm saying is that it is demonstrable that he is not the kind of athlete who could push the limits of human performance. We know this because he never, ever showed that kind of potential.

He is currently riding above clean human potential. Still waiting to hear how that could happen with this athlete, without dope.

Of course the answer is that it can't.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Ventoux Boar said:
Why do you ignore the fact that he doesn't make the top 50 all time for ascents of Alpe D'Huez? Or that his supposedly most mutant performance on Ax3 was well below peak climbing performances by VAM.
Indeed. On a related note, there is little evidence Lance was doping because if there was, how come there are instances where he actually wasn't the best rider?

Or maybe bringing up some facts that aren't strongly indicative of doping doesn't magically take the sting out of the facts that are. One of which the poster you quoted mentioned in the post you quoted: That Froome dominates talented riders that probably dope.
 
the sceptic said:
Just ignore him. He is trolling.
I was thumbing through the 2010 Giro the other day. Looking for something else but somehow landed on the TTT.

And there it was... the Dawg falling off the back of the Sky team! Could barely keep up with them! Finished 2:30s back.

Somehow went from that into one of the best TT'ers in the world :eek:
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
oldcrank said:
Please expand on this (published, peer reviewed?) study, my friend.
I would be most interested in your methods and conclusions.
I detect skepticism in your post. What do you think happens to that force applied to the pedals?

Go put a pillow on your scale and weigh yourself before you answer.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
thehog said:
I was thumbing through the 2010 Giro the other day. Looking for something else but somehow landed on the TTT.

And there it was... the Dawg falling off the back of the Sky team! Could barely keep up with them! Finished 2:30s back.

Somehow went from that into one of the best TT'ers in the world :eek:
He learnt racing tactics. Realized that he needed to finish with the leaders and not the 'bus if he wanted more $$$$$$ from Dave.
 
Jun 5, 2014
883
0
0
This is my first post and english isn't my mother language.
I think there might be an explanation for why the best climbers of today can not even come close to the ascent times of Pantani-Armstrong- 1997 Ullrich. But at the same time achieve remarkable times on some other climbs.
As Dr. Ferrari explained, headwind or tailwind can make a BIG difference on a climb. But not on Alpe d'Huez. Why? Because of the serpentines at almost 180 degrees. You go from headwind into tailwind and viceversa. It's almost 50/50.
And a perfect example for full-genius doping in the 90's vs microdosing today.

Riders nowadays struggle to break the 40 minutes barrier. And it won't change until there'll be a miracle drug as effective as EPO, not detectable for years ( so that nobody has to be careful about when and how much to shoot).

I'm not a Froome defender. Think he's an average/solid talented professional and his transformation was ridiculous. On an 1 hour and pretty straighforward climb like the Ventoux there might be a day without (or almost) wind. You do a fixed watt/kg effort. Climb the Ventoux in 60 minutes. Strong headwind - might need 3 minutes more. Strong tailwind - 3 minutes less.
Numbers are roughly estimated. For shorter climbs maybe 2 minutes or so (4 from one extreme to the other). That makes it interely possible to match some of best the ascent times in the 90's and early 00's.

Keep in mind, most of the GT riders are doping. Every podium finisher, yeah.
Though - with an exceptional talent + hard training + mind of steel a top 10 in a GT might be possible , along with some stage wins, winning smaller races. (David Moncoutie)

Anyone's thoughts on Alpe d' Huez?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Having done a bit of climbing, I would be interested in the power savings availed from the cooling you get with a headwind vs the lack of cooling with a tailwind / no wind.

Especially on the longer climbs where you need to shunt a lot of body heat in the middle of July as you ride at or on FTP at the end of a long stage where dehydration etc is going to limit your BV and sweat potential.

If it's a 5% speed difference, you go from 20km/hr to 21 - not a noticeable difference in terms of cooling air flowing over you.
In both the tailwind and the headwind scenario you ride to FTP, so your power is a constant but your speed may vary, as may your cadence.
 
Good to see that a lot of the people who appear not to be online when Froome's lies or his transformation or his uberpeak etc are discussed, fly in from the shadows the second one poster makes one mention of Federico Bahamontes, to assure us with post after post showing links and studies and whatnot that the bicycle really has evolved since before colour tv existed.

Because ultimately if you can explain why Froome can ride faster than someone who was born over half a century before synthetic epo, you've pretty much explained why he can ride faster than just about everyone else, ever since. :cool:
 
Dear Wiggo said:
Having done a bit of climbing, I would be interested in the power savings availed from the cooling you get with a headwind vs the lack of cooling with a tailwind / no wind.

Especially on the longer climbs where you need to shunt a lot of body heat in the middle of July as you ride at or on FTP at the end of a long stage where dehydration etc is going to limit your BV and sweat potential.

If it's a 5% speed difference, you go from 20km/hr to 21 - not a noticeable difference in terms of cooling air flowing over you.
In both the tailwind and the headwind scenario you ride to FTP, so your power is a constant but your speed may vary, as may your cadence.
I can't do all of the math, and you may be able to if you study up with this, but the body's "shut down" temp is about 40*C: Muscle activation decreases so the body no longer accumulates heat. Depending on motivation; some athletes will taper off in performance as they approach that line, while others will blast themselves until they hit a "wall".

Big athletes dissipate heat slower than smaller athletes. Adaptation to heat matters, as the ability to sweat can change over time depending on the environment. Cloud cover, humidity... there's a lot, but I'll let the article handle the specifics.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
More Strides than Rides said:
I can't do all of the math, and you may be able to if you study up with this, but the body's "shut down" temp is about 40*C: Muscle activation decreases so the body no longer accumulates heat. Depending on motivation; some athletes will taper off in performance as they approach that line, while others will blast themselves until they hit a "wall".

Big athletes dissipate heat slower than smaller athletes. Adaptation to heat matters, as the ability to sweat can change over time depending on the environment. Cloud cover, humidity... there's a lot, but I'll let the article handle the specifics.
Thanks for the link - might be quicker to ask Ross directly? :D

I refuse to participate in studies involving muscle biopsies, but the whole "rectal temperature" thing is going to be added to that list too now. :eek:
Unfortunately, we could not source any
further details of the management he received in the 1-h
period between his collapse and his admission to the hos-
pital, and there was no record of his rectal temperature be-
fore hospitalization
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
More Strides than Rides said:
I can't do all of the math, and you may be able to if you study up with this, but the body's "shut down" temp is about 40*C:

The runner (case 4) had run slowly for almost 7 h in cooler conditions (average ambient temperature of 18.1-C with a relative humidity of 61.4%) before he collapsed, also comatose, with a core temperature of 41.8-C. Unlike cases 1 and 2, case 4 survived after receiving immediate cooling including a 50-min immersion of his torso in ice-cold water that lowered his temperature by only 1.7-C. His core temperature, however, only returned to normal after a further 9 h of continuous cooling. :eek:
Yikes. I would've thought that ice water would create a lethal shock under such circumstances. I suppose I don't know a damn thing about this topic. Very interesting. Thanks for the link.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
The Hitch said:
if you can explain why Froome can ride faster than someone who was born over half a century before synthetic epo, you've pretty much explained why he can ride faster than just about everyone else, ever since. :cool:
Yup.

In claiming he is clean he is saying he is the greatest climber in history. Faster then Merckx, LeMond, Hinault, Coppi, Lucho, Gaul, Van Impe. Not by a little, but a lot. He would put 3-4 minutes on any of them on a 30 minute climb, regardless of equipment.

Funny how that talent did not not show up in his first 5 years as a full time athlete. Late bloomer I guess.
 
Race Radio said:
...Funny how that talent did not not show up in his first 5 years as a full time athlete. Late bloomer I guess.
didn't show up as a youth or amateur either....first indication is Veulta 2011, when he defied team orders to fetch Wiggos bottles and pipped him for second during contract negotiations/P45
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
The Hitch said:
Good to see that a lot of the people who appear not to be online when Froome's lies or his transformation or his uberpeak etc are discussed, fly in from the shadows the second one poster makes one mention of Federico Bahamontes, to assure us with post after post showing links and studies and whatnot that the bicycle really has evolved since before colour tv existed.

Because ultimately if you can explain why Froome can ride faster than someone who was born over half a century before synthetic epo, you've pretty much explained why he can ride faster than just about everyone else, ever since. :cool:
Sudden, irrevocable, 20% increase in bombast. Suspicious.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Race Radio said:
Yup.

In claiming he is clean he is saying he is the greatest climber in history. Faster then Merckx, LeMond, Hinault, Coppi, Lucho, Gaul, Van Impe. Not by a little, but a lot. He would put 3-4 minutes on any of them on a 30 minute climb, regardless of equipment.

Funny how that talent did not not show up in his first 5 years as a full time athlete. Late bloomer I guess.
To be fair to the lad, he went to a team with a shocking rider development program. Done well to succeed in spite of them.
 
Ventoux Boar said:
To be fair to the lad, he went to a team with a shocking rider development program. Done well to succeed in spite of them.
Barloworld? Yeah, they were hopeless at developing riders. Impey, Soler, Augustyn (before his injuries), Tanner, Gasparotto, Siutsou, Geraint Thomas...

Terrible, terrible riders :rolleyes:
 
Oct 17, 2011
1,315
0
0
the sceptic said:
Yes, but you havent explained how he is doping either! (just kidding)

I would like Froome defenders to imagine how good Froome would be if he got put on the same doping program as Lance.

Lets say this would give him a 10% boost, which would mean something like 3-5 minutes on every MTF. Since we already know that Froome is as good if not better than Lance cleans, it means he would drop him like a stone on every MTF and win the tour by something like 20 minutes.

Does that sound plausible to anyone?
Well clearly doping has shifted from being mostly epo/blood-doping to dropping weight to anorexia standards. If Froome is allowed to use the epo/blood-doping/test/hgh combo Lance should be allowed to use the 3 months concentration camp ped's.

Lance weight would probably go from 71/72 to like 68kg while retaining his power output. That would allow some killer performances uphill holy **** :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts