Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[gillan1969]

Walsh and some guy who is head of BC on the Today programme this morning...with Walsh being the sane one BC obviously think he is clean and Walsh believes he is clean but doesn't know he is clean. To be fair he at least punctured the naive interveiwer's views on testing...

Of course as is the way of the Today programme, and based on his introduction, I think Walsh was chosen as the one who had doubts about Froome...pretty disappointing for a programme that thinks its the number one radio news programme in the UK

you mean, the good cop bad cop perp interview dynamic?

yup...they are always very disappointing when their producers get it wrong and they agree...not sure if you ever caught 'the day today'...the war episode?? When walsh is bad cop you know you're in trouble...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Stacked deck. Not surprising.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Why doesnt a journo just take in a pair of scales to the press conference and say 'can you stand on these Chris please ? '

 

[harryh]

ChronosWatts: http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/37/

So, nothing extraordinary (or -terrestrial) on PSM (except some relatively poor performances)

 

[Bumeington]

I have a very hard time believing Froome weighs 67-68kg.

I am 180cm and weigh 67-68kg. I look a lot less skinny than he does.
In the past (early 20s) when I did look almost as skinny as he does now, I weighed 61-62kg.
(enter mountaineering and swimming => upper body muscles weight => 65kg, enter kids and reduced activity level => 68kg)
From photos he obviously has less upper body muscle (and fat) than I do.
And, I do not think it is a matter of him having so much more leg muscle.
While I am very far from elite cyclist, I do have reasonably sized legs (1600W 3s sprint power).

According to Wikipedia, Froome is 186cm. My early 20s race weight of 61kg would translate to 61*(186/180)^2=65. Judging from photos I would guess he is skinnier than I was in my 20s.
So if my guesswork is correct they are releasing a weight that is at least 2-3kg inflated.

It would be a brilliant success for SKY if they can get "transparency credibility" by releasing power data, and then unnoticed combine it with an inflated weight, which simply by journalists repeating it becomes accepted fact. That way the power data suddenly becomes more acceptable.

Of course, this is only based on my layman inspection of photos of him, and he may have weight placed somewhere on the body not visible in photos. So above is just my reading of the situation, not an absolute truth.

In honesty I truly hope Chris Froome is doping more than the others. It would be so devastating if it turns out that he is clean, which would imply that the ugliest riding style with elbows out staring at the SRM and the least inspiring race tactics (team train up the mountain, no echelons, no one-two attacks, no front-runner...) in the peloton is the winning formula.

Just for reference - When Sky gave Froome's power data to L'Equipe (who got Fred Grappe to comment on it), Grappe stated Froome's weight was around 68kg fluctuating over the season by +/- 900g. Froome stated his weight as 66kg in 2013, and 67kg this year.

So the Ventoux numbers are ~5.9W/kg, all the recent tours have estimates around here for long climbs at the end of stages, e.g. Contador/Schleck 2010 Tourmalet.

On the one hand, the numbers look human compared to Froome's self-claimed training numbers on the Madone (6.9W/kg for 30 mins) - at least the riders seem to be tired towards the end of the tour. On the other hand, where was Froome pre 2011, and Contador needed a special steak to similar numbers in 2010

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

ChronosWatts: http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/37/

So, nothing extraordinary (or -terrestrial) on PSM (except some relatively poor performances)

Was Pinot riding a tricycle that day?

 

[gazr99]

Re:

Why doesnt a journo just take in a pair of scales to the press conference and say 'can you stand on these Chris please ? '

Because then they would have to deal with facts instead of speculation/guessing. Facts can be much harder to fit your theory

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

Why doesnt a journo just take in a pair of scales to the press conference and say 'can you stand on these Chris please ? '

Because then they would have to deal with facts instead of speculation/guessing. Facts can be much harder to fit your theory

It's more likely that Brailsford would say "I'm sorry. We don't know how to stand on those."

 

[Tangled Tango]

Re: Re:

Froome seems authentic to me. Always strikes me as thoughtful and candid.

same. he seems like a good guy.

Good guys dope.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Froome seems authentic to me. Always strikes me as thoughtful and candid.

same. he seems like a good guy.

Good guys dope.

Yup. Just look at Indurain or Pantani.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Froome seems authentic to me. Always strikes me as thoughtful and candid.

same. he seems like a good guy.

Good guys dope.

he does not seem like a dope. he has access to his mental faculties.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Froome seems authentic to me. Always strikes me as thoughtful and candid.

same. he seems like a good guy.

Good guys dope.

Yup. Just look at Indurain or Pantani.

Froome himself says good guys can dope as he loves "Fanny" ( friend's nickname for Christian Pfannberger). "Fanny" was a known doper. But everyone at barloworld loved him. Star personality. At least according to the book.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Froome seems authentic to me. Always strikes me as thoughtful and candid.

same. he seems like a good guy.

Good guys dope.

Yup. Just look at Indurain or Pantani.

Froome himself says good guys can dope as he loves "Fanny" ( friend's nickname for Christian Pfannberger). "Fanny" was a known doper. But everyone at barloworld loved him. Star personality. At least according to the book.

It's the same fallacies that always come up when new people start posting isn't it...

 

[blackcat]

cound otoh...

 

[Bronstein]

Re: Re:

I guess he can - he did so right before our eyes. Maybe all the w/kg estimates people have been calculating have been way off. Gotta love real data ...

ammattipyöräily 's estimate in 2013:

Mont Ventoux (last 15.65km, 8.74%). Chris Froome ["67 kg"]: 48m 35s.
DrF: 5.88 W/kg, CPL: 5.94 W/kg. BCR: 5.99 W/kg. rst: 6.02 W/kg.

(https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/356897718540582912)



Real data revealed in 2015:

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport Jul 13
@BHayesCurtin @ammattipyoraily @veloclinic Actual power was 388W, estimate was 388W with Ferrari, 389W with CPL method.

(https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/620739947524325376)



Not sure where you got the idea that the estimates have been way off.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

Not sure where you got the idea that the estimates have been way off.

Apparently we forgot to factor in the magical Sky tailwind this time around.

Or Sky are releasing bulls*it numbers that are impossible to double-check because they've given two values that are complete junk (who TF cares about average cadence?) and one that doesn't "show the work". And anyone that has done elementary school maths will tell you that you have to show the work.

Also, Froome's max HR was 174? I thought that had been verified as 165 by some Sky doc and 170 by Froome himself. What are we supposed to believe here?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

ChronosWatts: http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/37/

So, nothing extraordinary (or -terrestrial) on PSM (except some relatively poor performances)

Am I missing something here?
A 1'04" time difference is only a difference of .03 W/kg, but a 29" time difference is a difference of .27W/kg?
Thomas has a lower relative power output than Valverde yet finished s.t.? Thomas' relative power output is similar to Rolland's, TJVG's and Contador's yet he finished well ahead?
Van Garderen had a lower relative power output than Contador yet finished ahead?
Isn't a rider's relative power output directly linked to their climbing time? I.e. if you climb faster, you have a higher W/kg?

 

[BYOP88]

So next week I'm guessing Froome's max HR will be around 185.

 

[Saint Unix]

And this is why half-transparency is worse than no transparency.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

Not sure where you got the idea that the estimates have been way off.

The confusion comes from the fact that Froome thrashed the field with a performance (allegedly 5.7 w/kg) that appears well within the power of Pinot:

Pinot data was the subject of a study by the University of Besancon. Vayer has it. It was possible to download it for 10 Euros or so, I have a PdF version of it. There's a thread about it too. Pinot's data lists his power output at 7.4W/kg for 5 minutes, 6.5W/kg for 20 minutes, 6.1W/kg for 30 minutes.

If Froome's reported power is correct, an entire peloton of dopers had a collective terrible day, n'est pas?

 

[Bronstein]

Re: Re:

Not sure where you got the idea that the estimates have been way off.

The confusion comes from the fact that Froome thrashed the field with a performance (allegedly 5.7 w/kg) that appears well within the power of Pinot:

Pinot data was the subject of a study by the University of Besancon. Vayer has it. It was possible to download it for 10 Euros or so, I have a PdF version of it. There's a thread about it too. Pinot's data lists his power output at 7.4W/kg for 5 minutes, 6.5W/kg for 20 minutes, 6.1W/kg for 30 minutes.

If Froome's reported power is correct, an entire peloton of dopers had a collective terrible day, n'est pas?

What Pinot is supposedly capable of is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the estimates were 'way off'. Please stop trying to derail the thread and deflect attention away from Froome. There is nothing stopping you from starting a Pinot thread.

 

[Saint Unix]

Not sure where you got the idea that the estimates have been way off.

The confusion comes from the fact that Froome thrashed the field with a performance (allegedly 5.7 w/kg) that appears well within the power of Pinot:

Pinot data was the subject of a study by the University of Besancon. Vayer has it. It was possible to download it for 10 Euros or so, I have a PdF version of it. There's a thread about it too. Pinot's data lists his power output at 7.4W/kg for 5 minutes, 6.5W/kg for 20 minutes, 6.1W/kg for 30 minutes.

If Froome's reported power is correct, an entire peloton of dopers had a collective terrible day, n'est pas?

I'd advice you to be quiet. You're not doing yourself any favours.

Firstly, Ventoux is a 1 hour effort. You can see yourself the drastic decrease in power between a 20 minute effort and a 30 minute effort. It would be natural for an effort twice as long as his 30 minute effort to be significantly lower than 6.1W/kg, no?

Secondly, these are Pinot's absolute maximum values. There's no way he could reproduce these values at the end of a long stage after two weeks of straight racing because human beings (ergo, not Froome) are affected by something called fatigue.

 

[franic]

Re: Re:

I guess he can - he did so right before our eyes. Maybe all the w/kg estimates people have been calculating have been way off. Gotta love real data ...

ammattipyöräily 's estimate in 2013:

Mont Ventoux (last 15.65km, 8.74%). Chris Froome ["67 kg"]: 48m 35s.
DrF: 5.88 W/kg, CPL: 5.94 W/kg. BCR: 5.99 W/kg. rst: 6.02 W/kg.

(https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/356897718540582912)



Real data revealed in 2015:

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport Jul 13
@BHayesCurtin @ammattipyoraily @veloclinic Actual power was 388W, estimate was 388W with Ferrari, 389W with CPL method.

(https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/620739947524325376)



Not sure where you got the idea that the estimates have been way off.

Having used some powermeters, I actually trust much more “external” estimations rather than powemeter-based data. Different powermeter do estimate different powers. For instance here you can read a test on Stages pwoermeter.
Moreover, power meters - especially the older generation - tend to go astray with very different climate conditions (heavy rain, extreme cold, extreme hot etc...).

 

[SeriousSam]

The (duration, w/kg) curve is convex though. The difference between 5 and 10 minues is greater than the difference between 35 and 40.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re:

The (duration, w/kg) curve is convex though. The difference between 5 and 10 minues is greater than the difference between 35 and 40.

But there is a difference, and that's my point.