Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 710 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/124659727778

Stages who Sky use for power meters claim that their meters are 100% compatible. 4-5% increase on readings when used with non-round chainrings and recommend it to be taken into account.

Sky masters of detail don't read the manuals that come with power meters...more lies from Sky

Pity the 'Sky lies thread' was closed, plenty of posts for it lately.
 
Re:

gooner said:
I don't take any notice of what Jalabert said after his performance previously at the French Senate hearing.

He has some cheek to be throwing stones.
The same could be said about Landis. I guess you think he should've shut up as well? How dare he throw stones at Lance after all the lies he told? :rolleyes:
 
Jun 18, 2011
49
0
0
Re:

hrotha said:
They probably thought they could get away with it if they added a few percent points to the margin of error and a couple of kilos to Froome's weight to compensate.
Exactly.

It works until a few more teams release power files. By then, only the Clinic will be paying attention.
 
Stages themselves tell you to adjust for readings for oval chainrings. Kerrison isn't lying. I'm not sure what exact rings Froome uses, but I see no reason to not believe it, when Stages confirm it anyway?

"Due to the changes in velocity non-round chain rings produce through the course of an 'event' you will see that your power will be skewed higher than with a round ring, which has a constant velocity throughout each event. Through our own testing, and using a hub-based meter as a control, we conclude that there will be a 4-5% increase on the readings from a Stages Power meter when used with a non-round chain rings. We recommend that our customers take this into account when changing from round to non-round chain rings, as they may need to adjust their functional threshold power accordingly. "
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Re: Re:

panache said:
hrotha said:
They probably thought they could get away with it if they added a few percent points to the margin of error and a couple of kilos to Froome's weight to compensate.
Exactly.

It works until a few more teams release power files. By then, only the Clinic will be paying attention.
That's the sad thing, no serious media outlets will be digging the issue enough to point at the discrepancies. We know that in road cycling a few %points make a massive difference, so Sky rounding/doctoring some key datas (weight, effect of the chainring on the meter) would make all the difference between looking right and looking wrong.
 
Re: Re:

panache said:
hrotha said:
They probably thought they could get away with it if they added a few percent points to the margin of error and a couple of kilos to Froome's weight to compensate.
Exactly.

It works until a few more teams release power files. By then, only the Clinic will be paying attention.
This.

I doubt many teams will release. But assume Quintana does release it. Sky's move has granted them a higher ground, so they basically can yell (allege, more like) doper if he does. :D
 
Jul 21, 2015
2
0
0
Stages, the maker of Sky's power meters, notes that there is an increase of 4-5 % in power readings, when using their power meter with Osymetric chainrings, whereas Kerrison stated that the increase was 6 %.

http://support.stagescycling.com/support/solutions/articles/1000158537-can-i-use-the-stages-power-meter-with-oval-or-osymetric-chain-rings-

Another thing to consider is that Stages is only measuring power from the left leg, which it then doubles to determine total power. While this is fine for perfectly balanced riders, the total power will be skewed, if a rider is stronger in one leg than the other. Leg balance is also variable and can be influenced by for example fatigue, power and cadence.

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.dk/2013/11/left-right-out-of-balance.html
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re:

This Farming Man said:
Stages, the maker of Sky's power meters, notes that there is an increase of 4-5 % in power readings, when using their power meter with Osymetric chainrings, whereas Kerrison stated that the increase was 6 %.

http://support.stagescycling.com/support/solutions/articles/1000158537-can-i-use-the-stages-power-meter-with-oval-or-osymetric-chain-rings-

Another thing to consider is that Stages is only measuring power from the left leg, which it then doubles to determine total power. While this is fine for perfectly balanced riders, the total power will be skewed, if a rider is stronger in one leg than the other. Leg balance is also variable and can be influenced by for example fatigue, power and cadence.

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.dk/2013/11/left-right-out-of-balance.html
They have a double crank arm model that Froome is testing, apparently.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
who cares about power, who cares about bodyweight.

we have the ultimate meta, just watching who crosses the line on the stage. in which position. i dont mean sprinting over the last 100 metres.

And Froome did say he was 66kg in 2013. Before he had become more guarded. I think that is a safe weight, +/- half a pound.

Compare his physique for Barloworld, 71kg +/- half a pound. He did not have a skerrick of weight to lose at 71kg. There was no puppy fat, He had "youthful" cheeks, but not puppy fat cheeks. Just normal cheeks for a 6'1" 71kg cyclist.

So how does he render this excess weight? this functional red (muscle) tissue? I use those adjectives with tongue firmly in cheek.

lipotropin, GW1516, Aicar, cortisone, clean, hgh.
 
Jul 14, 2015
81
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
TheSpud said:
So SKY publish data, and the reaction on here? "They're lying". how predictable ...
So Sky publish data that don't in fact make any sense.
Fan reaction? Unblinking swallowing without a skerrick of critical thought.

Critical thinkers point out the preposterous nature of the data:
eg: Froome 5.79 W/kg finishes ~1:30 ahead of Gesink @ 5.93W/kg (ie removing weight as a variable)

Fan reaction: man them critical thinkers are haters.

So, so sad.
wasent gessink riding alone for a long time before froome attacked? i mean froome was behind the wheel for most of the climb.
 
Jul 14, 2015
24
0
0
Crank-based power meters with non-round chainrings have indeed been shown to measure incorrectly high due to the way they have to average torque vs. how they average rotational speed of the crank. The effect has been measured previously as a 3-4% effect for Quarq.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/2013/01/whats-up-with-those-funky-rings.html

Stages (what Sky uses) website says it is a 4-5% effect.

http://support.stagescycling.com/support/solutions/articles/1000158537-can-i-use-the-stages-power-meter-with-oval-or-osymetric-chain-rings-

It's possible that Sky have measured the differences themselves for different riders and found it to be 6%, although without them showing the measurements I would tend to think 6% is an over-estimation. As has been said earlier, if it's 3% instead of 6%, the "pseudoscience" estimates are correct. So...the truth probably is somewhere between 5.8 W/kg and 6.1 W/kg, with it probably being closer to the 6.1 W/kg number.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re:

blackcat said:
who cares about power, who cares about bodyweight.

we have the ultimate meta, just watching who crosses the line on the stage. in which position. i dont mean sprinting over the last 100 metres.
Agreed.

The public's interest in w/kg is comparing them with Pantani, Riis and Armstrong. If so, that would be evidence of doping (but oval chain rings, 15% equipment bonus, swimming training, human evolution, crazy adaptive physiology mitigate this to an extent).

The clinic's interest seems to be about whether the estimated w/kg requires a sufficiently rare combination of physiological traits, such as V02max and efficiency. If so, that would be evidence of doping.


Yet neither the former nor the latter constitute the strongest reason to think Froome is doping.
 
Jul 18, 2015
238
9
4,045
OmieeZF said:
Dear Wiggo said:
TheSpud said:
So SKY publish data, and the reaction on here? "They're lying". how predictable ...
So Sky publish data that don't in fact make any sense.
Fan reaction? Unblinking swallowing without a skerrick of critical thought.

Critical thinkers point out the preposterous nature of the data:
eg: Froome 5.79 W/kg finishes ~1:30 ahead of Gesink @ 5.93W/kg (ie removing weight as a variable)

Fan reaction: man them critical thinkers are haters.

So, so sad.
wasent gessink riding alone for a long time before froome attacked? i mean froome was behind the wheel for most of the climb.
Froome rode 6.5 km alone, I don't think Gesink rode more than that alone.
 
OmieeZF said:
Dear Wiggo said:
TheSpud said:
So SKY publish data, and the reaction on here? "They're lying". how predictable ...
So Sky publish data that don't in fact make any sense.
Fan reaction? Unblinking swallowing without a skerrick of critical thought.

Critical thinkers point out the preposterous nature of the data:
eg: Froome 5.79 W/kg finishes ~1:30 ahead of Gesink @ 5.93W/kg (ie removing weight as a variable)

Fan reaction: man them critical thinkers are haters.

So, so sad.
wasent gessink riding alone for a long time before froome attacked? i mean froome was behind the wheel for most of the climb.
If data were actually avaliable to everyone I guess they could do all sorts of partial analysis such as from the time Froome passed Gesink to the time they crossed the finish line.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

TomekA said:
Jagartrott said:
Does Sky have bikes & gear that are lightyears ahead of competitors
I was wondering that too. I think bikes are the area where Sky team has the biggest advantage.
Somehow i dont think so. But if the advantages were that good, teams would buy dogmas......but they aren't.
 
Jun 27, 2015
539
0
0
Re: Re:

Dalakhani said:
46&twoWheels said:
Can Froome have a smaller average W/kg and still finishing ahead of Gesink?
Possibly.

If Gesink rode more of the climb on his own and Froome rode more in the wheels, then you could argue that Gesink could put out more watts, but be going slower due to wind/air resistance. (Assuming identical weights.)

Also, if Gesink was heavier than Froome, then he could still finish behind, even if he put out slightly more watts.

So it's not as simple as more w/kg = less time to climb. Efficiency has to be taken into consideration.

IMO, the first things the analysts have to do are

(A) ensure they're doing a like for like comparison - i.e. start the measurements from the same point on the climb and adjust for different measuring methods.

and

(B) ensure they have reliable weights for both riders.

Once you have that, it shouldn't be too hard for the experts (not for me!) to see if Sky's numbers are credible. (I assume we all trust Gesink's.)

And, from there, we'll have an idea if this was an extraordinary wattage, or something that's believable.
thanks, great explanation
It seems that Efficiency is the real X,which sets Froome apart and has to do with how much energy is converted or how much you spend to do an effort. (that may even depend on what kind of bikes or engines you have)

So the effort (w/kg) doesn't tell the whole story,how strong you are,unless they are sustained for huge periods of time
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
TomekA said:
Jagartrott said:
Does Sky have bikes & gear that are lightyears ahead of competitors
I was wondering that too. I think bikes are the area where Sky team has the biggest advantage.
If you say that you're going to have to post some evidence. I've not seen anything at all to suggest that.
In the clinic? LOLZ. If we can't entertain baseless speculation here then where?

I've always said it's all about the lube, about the lube...
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Jul 18, 2015
238
9
4,045
"Brailsford confirms Vuelta on Froome’s radar. Chris Froome may aim for the double — the Tour-Vuelta double, that is — this year."

In 2016 Giro - TdF - Vuelta. Easy task for Froome and Sky.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY