Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Merckx index]

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.)

Nope. The amount of air resistance on that gradient would not be able to account for that large a difference. Particularly since Froome was riding in the wind on his own for the last half of the climb. Not unless there was a really strong headwind, and we can rule that out by the close agreement of VAM measurements with Gesink's actual data. It should also be noted that a rider leading others also gets some wind resistance benefit, though not as much as those following. It's enough so that there's some concern that motorcycles don't follow riders too closely.

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

Yes, more watts, but not more watts/kg, which is what we’re talking about. If two riders finish at same time on a steep climb, their W/kg values are basically identical. Air resistance is not going to affect that very much.

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

Efficiency has a precise meaning in cycling, and you’re using it in a very different way. Efficiency is the amount of useful or externally applied energy available per metabolic energy yielded from oxidation. This is the figure you need to get W/kg when you know the V02 sustained for the length of the climb. Froome might well have a higher efficiency than other riders, but that has no relevance to reconciling his W/kg with Gesink’s when he clearly finished well ahead of him. Higher efficiency might explain why he rode faster than Gesink, if they were to have identical V02max values and identical utilization values (sustainable V02), but it doesn’t explain why despite riding faster he could have the same W/kg value.

Clearly, there is a major discrepancy between Froome’s numbers and Gesink’s. You can’t reconcile it with postulating Gesink rode more in front, and you can’t reconcile it by postulating that Gesink was timed for a different length of climb (because the numbers refer to average power over the entire climb, and a few hundred meters, more or less, at about the same gradient, won’t significantly affect that).

Gesink’s numbers are more believable, because they also agree closely with VAM. But the easiest way to see who is right is get the numbers for a third rider on the climb. Apparently Adam Yates was around 5.8, too. So either Sky is wrong about the 6%, or Froome is getting a huge benefit from technology that ought to be banned, or made standard for everyone else.

The answer, of course, is almost certainly that 6% is a maximum error, not the known error in Froome’s case, or even the average error. In some cases, readings might be off by that much. Comparison of Froome with Gesink and apparently Yates clearly show they weren’t off by that much.

The good news, though, is that Sky clearly believes, like so many others, that 6.1 W/kg is suspicious. If they didn’t, they would just bite the bullet and admit that was what Froome did. They really want people to believe he didn’t.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Why would Kerrison add the 6% adjustment caveat to skew the data in his favour when he is the one that can manipulate the data easily anyway. I mean, i'm pretty sure the Sky accountant can show him how to do it in MS Excel or even Google Search?

Have you heard about the 'hacks'? What do you think will happen if people find out that it is manipulated numbers that Sky release?

What's the difference? Within a couple of hours we're debating 6% because we think it should be 4-5%.

 

[Savant12]

OMG. Sky are doping; math doping that is.

"Math doping" - the practice of gaining a competitive advantage using faulty math.

Undeterred, the UCI has laid out a new directive that every team's power (w/kg) calculations must be checked and cross-checked by only those holding PHDs in Applied Mathematics. [except those who obtained PHDs during the Lance years cause I heard math took a back-step in those days.

Has anyone's calculations put Froome's numbers to be mutant-like or is he just riding a good race whilst the other GC contenders are faltering?

 

[MatParker117]

“The attack I looked at was a period where power was over 450 watts and it was about a 24 seconds duration. There’s an average power of 556 watts, with a peak power of 929 watts. Again that’s just the power metre and does not include the 6 per cent adjustment (for O-symmetric).”

The highest power that Chris averaged for 10 seconds was 652 watts, which is 60 per cent of his max power. His average speed was 25.3km/h and his maximum speed was 27.7km/h.

“To put that in context, when you look at the four-minute period when the GC contenders were largely still there, the power was 449 watts and the VAM was 1777. Four minutes after the attack, the power was 435 watts. So after that initial attack, Chris’s power was lower than in the four minutes leading into the attack, yet he continued to ride away from Quintana and the others.”

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

If you ignore their caveat, you get the same figure the experts calculated, which lines up perfectly well with the performances of everybody else in terms of watts/kg and time lost.

In other words, their Osymetric chainrings do not cause their power meters to overstimate power output by as much as 6%, and they definitely don't give you 6% extra power for free either (I've found some references, including by Ferrari, to Richie Porte having reverted to normal chainrings, which he wouldn't have done if they actually worked like that).

Which means they're telling the truth.

Exactly, I think the reason more people don't use them is something to do with the chain coming off? Wiggins had them and there was a debate about them in 2012

If Osymetric rings worked, dont y'all think that Wiggins who had used them in 2012 would've used them in a controlled environment like an indoor track to use the 'gains' for his hour record? He didn't. Standard round ring.

Missed my point there is the gain worth dropping a chain in the middle of an hour record? Apparently not. There's also a chance Froome believed he gained a lot when he first switched and is benefitting from the placebo effect.

 

[Pulp]

Re:

The good news, though, is that Sky clearly believes, like so many others, that 6.1 W/kg is suspicious. If they didn’t, they would just bite the bullet and admit that was what Froome did. They really want people to believe he didn’t.

I think the main incentive for Sky was to rebuff Pierre Salet that claimed he did 7,04 w/kg which Brailsford was challenged on live on french tv a coulpe of days back. That number is insanely high, well above Armstrong`s "this-is-what-I-need-to-be-comfortable-of-winning-limit" of 6,7 w/kg. It surprises me though that they didn`t release a number around 6,1 as that seems to be more in line with what people that tend to estimate this fairly accurately have said. And from what I`ve come to believe is also not impossible without doping, albeit close to the limit.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

If you ignore their caveat, you get the same figure the experts calculated, which lines up perfectly well with the performances of everybody else in terms of watts/kg and time lost.

In other words, their Osymetric chainrings do not cause their power meters to overstimate power output by as much as 6%, and they definitely don't give you 6% extra power for free either (I've found some references, including by Ferrari, to Richie Porte having reverted to normal chainrings, which he wouldn't have done if they actually worked like that).

Which means they're telling the truth.

Exactly, I think the reason more people don't use them is something to do with the chain coming off? Wiggins had them and there was a debate about them in 2012

If Osymetric rings worked, dont y'all think that Wiggins who had used them in 2012 would've used them in a controlled environment like an indoor track to use the 'gains' for his hour record? He didn't. Standard round ring.

Missed my point there is the gain worth dropping a chain in the middle of an hour record? Apparently not. There's also a chance Froome believed he gained a lot when he first switched and is benefitting from the placebo effect.

Wiggins gave up on Osymetric rings long before the hour. Hardly likely to drop a chain on a track either.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

The good news, though, is that Sky clearly believes, like so many others, that 6.1 W/kg is suspicious. If they didn’t, they would just bite the bullet and admit that was what Froome did. They really want people to believe he didn’t.

I think the main incentive for Sky was to rebuff Pierre Salet that claimed he did 7,04 w/kg which Brailsford was challenged on live on french tv a coulpe of days back. That number is insanely high, well above Armstrong`s "this-is-what-I-need-to-be-comfortable-pf-winning-limit" of 6,7 w/kg. It surprises me though that they didn`t release a number around 6,1 as that seems to be more in line with what people that tend to estimate this fairly accurately have said. And from what I`ve come to believe is also not impossible without doping, albeit close to the limit.

I think you can be focused on details too much, which Sky is blatantly guilty off. Kerrison should have stopped before saying with Osymmetric rings you have to account for 6% error, as the original figures he said did equal 6.1 w/kg

 

[samhocking]

Could Kerrison have calculated the 6% to be the 4-5% difference required by stages/oval ring discrepancy and then another 1-2% to match Froomes older SRM data? i.e. there could well be a 1-2% difference between Stages & SRM?

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

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.)

Nope. The amount of air resistance on that gradient would not be able to account for that large a difference. Particularly since Froome was riding in the wind on his own for the last half of the climb. Not unless there was a really strong headwind, and we can rule that out by the close agreement of VAM measurements with Gesink's actual data. It should also be noted that a rider leading others also gets some wind resistance benefit, though not as much as those following. It's enough so that there's some concern that motorcycles don't follow riders too closely.

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

Yes, more watts, but not more watts/kg, which is what we’re talking about. If two riders finish at same time on a steep climb, their W/kg values are basically identical. Air resistance is not going to affect that very much.

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

The good news, though, is that Sky clearly believes, like so many others, that 6.1 W/kg is suspicious. If they didn’t, they would just bite the bullet and admit that was what Froome did. They really want people to believe he didn’t.

Yes it is.

 

[Pulp]

Re: Re:

The good news, though, is that Sky clearly believes, like so many others, that 6.1 W/kg is suspicious. If they didn’t, they would just bite the bullet and admit that was what Froome did. They really want people to believe he didn’t.

I think the main incentive for Sky was to rebuff Pierre Salet that claimed he did 7,04 w/kg which Brailsford was challenged on live on french tv a coulpe of days back. That number is insanely high, well above Armstrong`s "this-is-what-I-need-to-be-comfortable-of-winning-limit" of 6,7 w/kg. It surprises me though that they didn`t release a number around 6,1 as that seems to be more in line with what people that tend to estimate this fairly accurately have said. And from what I`ve come to believe is also not impossible without doping, albeit close to the limit.

Come to think of it, for me, It stinks more of 5,78 than say 6,1. The latter is high, but within realm of plausibiltity I would say. 5,78 seems very strange indeed given Gesink`s 5,91 (was it) and Adam Yates`5,84. (Strange to agree with benotti on something), to the point of the number being suspicious and make Sky look less credible. But what do I know, apart from that climb I haven`t caught myself wondering is he clean.

 

[veji11]

Re: Re:

Kerrison talks about high margin of errors to be drawn from the data! Wow, what have Sky being doing with all these numbers and looking for gains for the last 5+ years. One would almost draw the conclusion that they are scrabbling around in the dark...........

I mean Froome has been a Sky rider for how long now, 5 years, and Kerrison says they were surprised that his heart rate remained at a constant 160BPM on Ventoux in 2013! I mean what are Sky doing if not constantly measuring the riders information loo ing for where the gains work and how to improve on those gains? That was 2 years ago, and what have they done to find out why Froome's heart rate remained constant? Zilch it would appear.

Smoke and mirrors,,,,,,,

The sad thing is that all you have to do is compare to the Pinot data that the FDJ team has compiled over the years. Are Sky going to pretend they are a lot less data driven than FDJ ? What is sad is that there isn't a single quality journalist out there who is going to point that out, although they should...

 

[therhodeo]

OMG. Sky are doping; math doping that is.

"Math doping" - the practice of gaining a competitive advantage using faulty math.

Undeterred, the UCI has laid out a new directive that every team's power (w/kg) calculations must be checked and cross-checked by only those holding PHDs in Applied Mathematics. [except those who obtained PHDs during the Lance years cause I heard math took a back-step in those days.

Has anyone's calculations put Froome's numbers to be mutant-like or is he just riding a good race whilst the other GC contenders are faltering?

Can you not read?

 

[Pulp]

Re: Re:

The good news, though, is that Sky clearly believes, like so many others, that 6.1 W/kg is suspicious. If they didn’t, they would just bite the bullet and admit that was what Froome did. They really want people to believe he didn’t.

I think the main incentive for Sky was to rebuff Pierre Salet that claimed he did 7,04 w/kg which Brailsford was challenged on live on french tv a coulpe of days back. That number is insanely high, well above Armstrong`s "this-is-what-I-need-to-be-comfortable-pf-winning-limit" of 6,7 w/kg. It surprises me though that they didn`t release a number around 6,1 as that seems to be more in line with what people that tend to estimate this fairly accurately have said. And from what I`ve come to believe is also not impossible without doping, albeit close to the limit.

I think you can be focused on details too much, which Sky is blatantly guilty off. Kerrison should have stopped before saying with Osymmetric rings you have to account for 6% error, as the original figures he said did equal 6.1 w/kg

Valid point. The 5,78 W/kg is the value adjusted for the 6% error, so in fact he did measure somewhere close to 6,15 I guess. A little odd that attention to detail Sky would adjust 6% though, if 4-5% is what you should adjust for. Or is maybe 4-5% normal, but individual riders could say measure anyway from 3-6% off, so that theoretically 6% error is correct for Froome? Still doesn`t explain the number though, which is low.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

The good news, though, is that Sky clearly believes, like so many others, that 6.1 W/kg is suspicious. If they didn’t, they would just bite the bullet and admit that was what Froome did. They really want people to believe he didn’t.

I think the main incentive for Sky was to rebuff Pierre Salet that claimed he did 7,04 w/kg which Brailsford was challenged on live on french tv a coulpe of days back. That number is insanely high, well above Armstrong`s "this-is-what-I-need-to-be-comfortable-pf-winning-limit" of 6,7 w/kg. It surprises me though that they didn`t release a number around 6,1 as that seems to be more in line with what people that tend to estimate this fairly accurately have said. And from what I`ve come to believe is also not impossible without doping, albeit close to the limit.

I think you can be focused on details too much, which Sky is blatantly guilty off. Kerrison should have stopped before saying with Osymmetric rings you have to account for 6% error, as the original figures he said did equal 6.1 w/kg

Valid point. The 5,78 W/kg is the value adjusted for the 6% error, so in fact he did measure somewhere close to 6,15 I guess. A little odd that attention to detail Sky would adjust 6% though, if 4-5% is what you should adjust for. Or is maybe 4-5% normal, but individual riders could say measure anyway from 3-6% off, so that theoretically 6% error is correct for Froome? Still doesn`t explain the number though, which is low.

Either the doubters are correct and Sky are just really thick when talking to the press, muddling up the numbers when trying to prove Froome is clean. Or what I think they just overcomplicate everything, especially when talking to the media.

 

[samhocking]

I'm assuming 6% is Kerrisons adjustment for the 4-5% Stages/Oval Rings and maybe he needs to add another 1-2% to equal data from SRM, otherwise Kerrisons old data on Froome difficult to work with. I don't know the differences between power meters but i've heard 1-2% difference can be expected between manufacturers. This is surely another reason, you can't simlply compare rider to rider using different equipment?

 

[Escarabajo]

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.

It is the 6% correction factor that I am trying to digest!!!

 

[PremierAndrew]

6%: 5.78W/kg
5%: 5.85W/kg
4%: 5.9W/kg
3%: 5.96W/kg
0%: 6.15W/kg

If Kerrison's figure is accurate, Froome's ride could have been clean. However, the temperature was ridiculous on Tuesday, so to still put down those Watts is pretty impressive. Then again anything below 6W/kg on a day like that is probably fine. Anything above is verging on the ridiculous

 

[The Hitch]

So SKY publish data, and the reaction on here? "They're lying". how predictable ...

So people call out a lie Team Sky have made, when they see it, and the reaction from their fans is to troll the discussion. how predictable.

 

[Pulp]

Re:

I'm assuming 6% is Kerrisons adjustment for the 4-5% Stages/Oval Rings and maybe he needs to add another 1-2% to equal data from SRM, otherwise Kerrisons old data on Froome difficult to work with. I don't know the differences between power meters but i've heard 1-2% difference can be expected between manufacturers. This is surely another reason, you can't simlply compare rider to rider using different equipment?

I guess that sort of sums it up.. Without knowing that we are in fact comparing apples with apples, you can`t say too much from these numbers. I`dont see a big problem with a number of 6,1 anyways, as it is 5-10% lower than the epic numbers from previous time, and isn`t that pretty much the same as what you`re supposed to gain by doping? As long as the number is close to but not over what is humanly possible, I don`t really have a problem with a GT winner bordering that, as I would expect a GT winner being borderline physical freak.

In case of Froome that still leaves the sceptics with the argument that he was not good before Vuelta 11, so he didn`t really show any talent.. But since then he has lost weight and don`t suffer from the parasite thing anymore, so I could definately see that as reasons for being a late bloomer. The fact that he didn`t show GC promise until age of 26 isn`t proof of doping in my (naive for most in this forum I admit) view.

 

[Pulp]

Re:

6%: 5.78W/kg
5%: 5.85W/kg
4%: 5.9W/kg
3%: 5.96W/kg
0%: 6.15W/kg

If Kerrison's figure is accurate, Froome's ride could have been clean. However, the temperature was ridiculous on Tuesday, so to still put down those Watts is pretty impressive. Then again anything below 6W/kg on a day like that is probably fine. Anything above is verging on the ridiculous

5,99 would have been fine and 6,01 ridiculous?

Ridiculous statement.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

6%: 5.78W/kg
5%: 5.85W/kg
4%: 5.9W/kg
3%: 5.96W/kg
0%: 6.15W/kg

If Kerrison's figure is accurate, Froome's ride could have been clean. However, the temperature was ridiculous on Tuesday, so to still put down those Watts is pretty impressive. Then again anything below 6W/kg on a day like that is probably fine. Anything above is verging on the ridiculous

This is what someone posted on twitter:

The bolded is what Sky calculated. Power meter manufacturer says margin of error for oval chainrings = 4-5%.

Sky use 67.5 kg. In 2013 TDF, Froome was 66kg at the start. Mrs Froome stated in the past Froome's TDF weight = 64-65kg IIRC.

So together with what we know about what some of the other riders did, we can comfortably say that he did more than 6 W/kg.

 

[PremierAndrew]

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.

It is the 6% correction factor that I am trying to digest!!!

Let's face it, these numbers are purely for PR, so it would defeat the purpose of releasing the data if suggests that Froome's performances were suspicious. Obviously Gesink's data was before adjustment, and that would make sense, given that Froome's unadjusted data was 6.15W/kg, which is pretty suspicious.

I don't know enough to comment on whether 6% is reasonable, but I'd be willing to give Froome the benefit of doubt, and that's what it all comes down to.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

6%: 5.78W/kg
5%: 5.85W/kg
4%: 5.9W/kg
3%: 5.96W/kg
0%: 6.15W/kg

If Kerrison's figure is accurate, Froome's ride could have been clean. However, the temperature was ridiculous on Tuesday, so to still put down those Watts is pretty impressive. Then again anything below 6W/kg on a day like that is probably fine. Anything above is verging on the ridiculous

5,99 would have been fine and 6,01 ridiculous?

Ridiculous statement.

It's an indication. Anything above 6 makes me uncomfortable, that's all. Can happily accept anything under 6, above 6 and you need to question it

 

[LaFlorecita]

Alberto says he has no issue with releasing data, please Alberto give us your stage 10 numbers