Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Gutsy move to win a mountain top finish with a motor when you know the debate has been raging for quite some time.

And yet it is possible. LA had the guts to have motoman & In-the-Bus-transfusions, yet knowing police raids were everywhere.

 

[Supimilian]

Re:

lol, this is becoming increasingly ridiculous
some guy makes up some graphs (he said he received them from a good samaritean) and voila

i see just salty people

And this guy is supposed to be some kind of professional gatekeeper of cycling?
Would be better off converting the Mystery Machine to an ice cream truck.
Embarrassing.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Gutsy move to win a mountain top finish with a motor when you know the debate has been raging for quite some time.

And yet it is possible. LA had the guts to have motoman & In-the-Bus-transfusions, yet knowing police raids were everywhere.

good point.

plus, what "raging debate" is Walkman referring to? There was some debate (and subsequent testing) in 2010, and recently after Hesjedal's bike went berserk. But in 2013 it was really very quiet around motors, and no testing that I'm aware of. And how is testing relevant anyway if you're protected by the testing body.

 

[McLovin]

Re: Re:

Are the time scales (x axis I presume) in sync? Assuming that they are, we have the 1000w+ attack yielding 32-ish speed and then the speed is more or less maintained at decreasing power ending up with 400w or less. This I find puzzling. Does the gradient shallow out dramatically, or what? Moreover, what is the time scale supposed to be anyway?

Froome has a lowish heart rate naturally, also had a sub 150bpm avg in the 2011 vuelta tt if my memory is not totally effed.

147 average
169 Maximum
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

Pfu! I climbed last year Col de Bassachaux, (true, after a break because of my left knee) and never went under 192bpm for 6km. I don't know how other pros are regarding bpm but those numbers are amazing. My measured maximum is 212 bpm on a hill near my house.

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

lol, this is becoming increasingly ridiculous
some guy makes up some graphs (he said he received them from a good samaritean) and voila

i see just salty people

Do you have any evidence he made them up?

I'd take Vayers word over yours, no offence.

The graphs show a power output increase of 600 watts, or equivalently, an increase of 150% and his heart rate increase by 5 strokes per minute. That has got to be one hell of a motor to generate that kind of power. And we know they did x-ray/weigh bikes in 2013 so I'd say it's pretty accurate to say those graphs are made up.

Unless Froome did have a motor and his bike was not controlled. Gutsy move to win a mountain top finish with a motor when you know the debate has been raging for quite some time..

shouldn't be too hard to figure out if they checked the Dawgs bike or not.

No matter what it was, I think we can all agree that The Acceleration was something way out of the ordinary.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Re: Re:

Gutsy move to win a mountain top finish with a motor when you know the debate has been raging for quite some time.

And yet it is possible. LA had the guts to have motoman & In-the-Bus-transfusions, yet knowing police raids were everywhere.

good point.

plus, what "raging debate" is Walkman referring to? There was some debate (and subsequent testing) in 2010, and recently after Hesjedal's bike went berserk. But in 2013 it was really very quiet around motors, and no testing that I'm aware of. And how is testing relevant anyway if you're protected by the testing body.

Even if Sky is not protected... the chance of getting away with it (at least back then) must have been high. Do we know if bikes were x-rayed at all?

 

[Supimilian]

The issue of motors has been debated on and off since it started with Cancellara. Almost certainly it must have been talked about after the Ax3 stage.
Vaguely remember some talk of scanning bikes around the Ventoux stage.

 

[el_angliru]

Froome's cadence (rpm) can be mesured pretty accurately by viewing the videos from the stage. I attempted such a measurement at the time (page 324 in this thread) and got approximately 122 rpm when Froome attacked Contador and I found that it dropped to c. 115 a bit later when he caught Quintana and rode past him. So there shouldn't be a 2nd peak in rpm when Froome attacked Quintana. Vayer's data actually seems accurate on this point.

Velocity could be calculated easily if we knew Froome's gearing and were able to determine from the TV pictures which sprocket/chainring he was using at any time (and knew the exact wheel size, of course). But again, velocity can also be measured pretty accurately from the TV footage by precisely determining where he is at the route at any given time. But this is a bigger forensic task, and we'd probably have to be on Mt. Ventoux to make exact measurements. It's pretty silly to speculate this far, I know, but what I'm trying to say is this: We can't just post any set of data out of the blue and believe these to be true. Because the truth is out there and can be verified if we want to.

In this case I think Vayer's data seem believable (except HR which I have no idea about) but I'm really suspicious as to why and how Vayer got these data in the first place.

 

[Walkman]

Re: Re:

Gutsy move to win a mountain top finish with a motor when you know the debate has been raging for quite some time.

And yet it is possible. LA had the guts to have motoman & In-the-Bus-transfusions, yet knowing police raids were everywhere.

good point.

plus, what "raging debate" is Walkman referring to? There was some debate (and subsequent testing) in 2010, and recently after Hesjedal's bike went berserk. But in 2013 it was really very quiet around motors, and no testing that I'm aware of. And how is testing relevant anyway if you're protected by the testing body.

That is not how I recall it, but I might be wrong. Anyway, here is a link. Does not mention if Froome had his bike checked at Ventoux though. Just says they checked it after stage 17 (the time trial he won).

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/uci-check-tour-de-france-bikes-for-hidden-motors-and-illegal-kit-37937/

And of course, if he is protected it does not matter. But, I must ask, how do they select the people do be protected? I mean, in 2013 Wiggins was the defending Champion, Nibali had just won the Giro and Contador was back in business again after winning the Vuelta. Why and when was Froome chosen to be protected? Or do they protect all the "big names", e.g. Sagan, Nibali, Cav, Canc and so on? And which testing body are we talking about? UCI? WADA? AFLD?

Just asking, I am not making a case for Froome to be clean.

 

[Supimilian]

Froome's cadence (rpm) can be mesured pretty accurately by viewing the videos from the stage. I attempted such a measurement at the time (page 324 in this thread) and got approximately 122 rpm when Froome attacked Contador and I found that it dropped to c. 115 a bit later when he caught Quintana and rode past him. So there shouldn't be a 2nd peak in rpm when Froome attacked Quintana. Vayer's data actually seems accurate on this point.

Velocity could be calculated easily if we knew Froome's gearing and were able to determine from the TV pictures which sprocket/chainring he was using at any time (and knew the exact wheel size, of course). But again, velocity can also be measured pretty accurately from the TV footage by precisely determining where he is at the route at any given time. But this is a bigger forensic task, and we'd probably have to be on Mt. Ventoux to make exact measurements. It's pretty silly to speculate this far, I know, but what I'm trying to say is this: We can't just post any set of data out of the blue and believe these to be true. Because the truth is out there and can be verified if we want to.

In this case I think Vayer's data seem believable (except HR which I have no idea about) but I'm really suspicious as to why and how Vayer got these data in the first place.

A couple of those graphs are plausible by themselves, but they don't match each other at all. The Speed vs Power, and also HR vs Power in particular are all over the place.
Those comparisons makes it look like a total forgery.

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

Gutsy move to win a mountain top finish with a motor when you know the debate has been raging for quite some time.

And yet it is possible. LA had the guts to have motoman & In-the-Bus-transfusions, yet knowing police raids were everywhere.

good point.

plus, what "raging debate" is Walkman referring to? There was some debate (and subsequent testing) in 2010, and recently after Hesjedal's bike went berserk. But in 2013 it was really very quiet around motors, and no testing that I'm aware of. And how is testing relevant anyway if you're protected by the testing body.

Even if Sky is not protected... the chance of getting away with it (at least back then) must have been high. Do we know if bikes were x-rayed at all?

I don't know why people have faith the UCI would be interested in catching motors.

After all they have a long history of looking the other way with doping so why would motors be any different?

Actually, I believe they would have even more reasons to avoid catching riders using motors. The scandal if Dawg got busted with a motor would be even bigger than a doping bust, and the credibility of the sport would reach an all time low.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Why and when was Froome chosen to be protected?

I also wonder. Chances are he isn´t, but just started to dope like everybody else did. His transformation looks stark, since it seems he wasn´t "on" before Romandie 2011.
We all know that GTs on panigua and fully doped extremely differ.
TH finsishing 100something, 2 hours down clean, fighting for podium fully prepared.
Further: Froome style doesn´t make him a worse doper than AC or Valv-Piti. I actually like the style of Froome. May I am the only one. But the MtVentoux acceleration was a bit too much, but still not as worse like riding for hours out of the saddle on one leg...

 

[Nicko.]

Re: Re:

Are the time scales (x axis I presume) in sync? Assuming that they are, we have the 1000w+ attack yielding 32-ish speed and then the speed is more or less maintained at decreasing power ending up with 400w or less. This I find puzzling. Does the gradient shallow out dramatically, or what? Moreover, what is the time scale supposed to be anyway?

Froome has a lowish heart rate naturally, also had a sub 150bpm avg in the 2011 vuelta tt if my memory is not totally effed.

147 average
169 Maximum
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

WTF?
Average HR 22 beats below peak (max?) HR!
1. What a wuss!
.. or ..
2. A cardiovascular efficiency/capacity way overdimensioned for the sustained output of 414W
NOT NORMAL!

You'd expect a GT podium contender to push a TT to the limit, at least sustaining MLSS during the climbs, if not more. You'd expect the guy to recover during the long 65+kph descents, not keep pushing 400+W. You'd expect the HR to creep up to 5-10 beats within HRmax for several minutes before the finish.

I say he had for him unusual oxygen throughput. Legs and mind not prepared for the extra capacity.
That preparation was completed the next year...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Re: Re:

Gutsy move to win a mountain top finish with a motor when you know the debate has been raging for quite some time.

And yet it is possible. LA had the guts to have motoman & In-the-Bus-transfusions, yet knowing police raids were everywhere.

good point.

plus, what "raging debate" is Walkman referring to? There was some debate (and subsequent testing) in 2010, and recently after Hesjedal's bike went berserk. But in 2013 it was really very quiet around motors, and no testing that I'm aware of. And how is testing relevant anyway if you're protected by the testing body.

Even if Sky is not protected... the chance of getting away with it (at least back then) must have been high. Do we know if bikes were x-rayed at all?

I don't know why people have faith the UCI would be interested in catching motors.

After all they have a long history of looking the other way with doping so why would motors be any different?

Actually, I believe they would have even more reasons to avoid catching riders using motors. The scandal if Dawg got busted with a motor would be even bigger than a doping bust, and the credibility of the sport would reach an all time low.

True. A caught rider using motors would be a all time low... I guess they´d deal with it behind closed doors. But the "protection" counts for all riders A to Z.
I mean nobody would do business suicide. Not even UCI. So I understand their POV, as ugly as it might be...

 

[Tommy79]

My understanding was that the watts are measured by the cranks so extra watts generated by a motor would not show on the power graph? So an indication of a motor in the bike would be increased cadence without such a big power increase?

 

[the sceptic]

Remain five "suspects" still spared. Nibali and Wiggins, equal to 426 watts in 2009, then crashed the Tour with "only" 417 watts for the Italian, in 2014, and 415 for English, in 2012, just before his Olympic crown. The Sicilian swear on the heads of five children Armstrong he never worked with Ferrari, a friend of Lance. Record-time since June 7, to 54.526 km / h, Sir Bradley Wiggins hung up. His compatriot Froome also has the power inversely proportional to the thinness of his legs in 2013 on Mount Ventoux, we flashed from 19 km / h to 31 km / h in five seconds, developing an instantaneous power 1 028 watts. The List of Adrian Messenger Quintana. Us spare it for the moment, he will win this year.

Learn more about http://www.lemonde.fr/tour-de-france/article/2015/07/08/en-20-ans-48-coureurs-inhumains-par-antoine-vayer_4675127_1616918.html#WelMJhpCJ0sKcPvH.99

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Are the time scales (x axis I presume) in sync? Assuming that they are, we have the 1000w+ attack yielding 32-ish speed and then the speed is more or less maintained at decreasing power ending up with 400w or less. This I find puzzling. Does the gradient shallow out dramatically, or what? Moreover, what is the time scale supposed to be anyway?

Froome has a lowish heart rate naturally, also had a sub 150bpm avg in the 2011 vuelta tt if my memory is not totally effed.

147 average
169 Maximum
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

WTF?
Average HR 22 beats below peak (max?) HR!
1. What a wuss!
.. or ..
2. A cardiovascular efficiency/capacity way overdimensioned for the sustained output of 414W
NOT NORMAL!

You'd expect a GT podium contender to push a TT to the limit, at least sustaining MLSS during the climbs, if not more. You'd expect the guy to recover during the long 65+kph descents, not keep pushing 400+W. You'd expect the HR to creep up to 5-10 beats within HRmax for several minutes before the finish.

I say he had for him unusual oxygen throughput. Legs and mind not prepared for the extra capacity.
That preparation was completed the next year...

His HR looks fine to me in that TT - you don't go anywhere near max HR after 9 stages of a GT.

You also do push downhill when it's half the TT - he's not pushing as hard as the uphill, and has larger dips, so I'd say he is recovering of a sort - but there's nothing to really recover for either.

I'd say that TT pacing is spot on.

 

[Catwhoorg]

From my ignorant reading, the front half back half watts close to even, sounds like good pacing to me.

IIRC Wiggo started off too fast and 'blew up' on that stage. Ahead of Froome at the intermediate, and down 23 secs by the end.

 

[the sceptic]

speaking of heartrate, wasn't Dawg on the radio with Brailsford after the alien attack?

 

[SeriousSam]

I hope the Dawg will want to "test" the others again today.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

After all they have a long history of looking the other way with doping so why would motors be any different?

Under previous management, and probably mainly previous + 1

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

speaking of heartrate, wasn't Dawg on the radio with Brailsford after the alien attack?

I believe so, and so what? Whats the issue? He attacks, he's pushing - he gets on the radio, probably to say "how much have I got on AC?". Why is that a problem? Or do you think he was there saying "shall I inject now, or later?". Seriously - get a grip.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

WTF?
Average HR 22 beats below peak (max?) HR!
1. What a wuss!
.. or ..
2. A cardiovascular efficiency/capacity way overdimensioned for the sustained output of 414W
NOT NORMAL!

Can I just ask how you can make that comment (ie how are you qualified. I'm not baiting, I'm just trying to understand what qualifies you to make that comment).

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

speaking of heartrate, wasn't Dawg on the radio with Brailsford after the alien attack?

I believe so, and so what? Whats the issue? He attacks, he's pushing - he gets on the radio, probably to say "how much have I got on AC?". Why is that a problem? Or do you think he was there saying "shall I inject now, or later?". Seriously - get a grip.

It gives an upper bound on how straining the 1000w effort was for Froome. Apparently not even out of breath enough to prevent him being articulate on the radio.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

speaking of heartrate, wasn't Dawg on the radio with Brailsford after the alien attack?

I believe so, and so what? Whats the issue? He attacks, he's pushing - he gets on the radio, probably to say "how much have I got on AC?". Why is that a problem? Or do you think he was there saying "shall I inject now, or later?". Seriously - get a grip.

It gives an upper bound on how straining the 1000w effort was for Froome. Apparently not even out of breath enough to prevent him being articulate on the radio.

Well you might be right and I understand your logic. But even at full pelt he could be trying to talk. And when exactly was he talking - during the initial burst or after?