Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

My point is that they have provided data that shows Froome's power in line with other riders and a lot of people on here have immediately just said they are lying.

His power was the same, uh, lower than Gesink, yet he was able to sprint away on a pretty tough mountain. Somehow the math got mixed up there, perhaps not for you but for others it doesnt look to be right. Make your next try better.

No - YOU think the maths are wrong. So he had lower power than Gesink, so what. We saw what happened and now we have the figures. They could be bullshitting but there has already been a leak so why take the risk. And most of the assessments on CN are by posters who are amateur analysts ...

What explanations and where? They werent on here earlier. Post and I will read.


Explanations have already been posted as to why things don't add up. Seems pretty convincing to me. Why don't you address those explanations and show them to be wrong with your superior understanding of the physics of riding a bike. Proclaiming the Sky Number to be indisputable truth with zero reasoning behind it gets old quick.

I think this is where we find out that you don't actually have a good understanding of the physics at all, yet have an odly strong opinion on the veracity of the numbers anyway, cause Dave B wouldn't lie now would he.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

I have just loved today.

1. Sky release data.
2. Data shows power & other data in line with other riders.
3. Data doesn't show / support Clinic 12 view that Sky are doping.
4. Clinic 12 view = they are lying to cover up and therefore must be doping.

Except for the time gaps at the finish. 1:33 to Gesink and 2:04 to Yates. You're doing a good job of embarrassing yourself at every turn. Keep it up.

And you are an expert in physiology are you??? And how many on here are? .

1 spud claims power in line with other riders
2 other posters say - is not.
3 spud says - is so
4 other posters say - is not
5 spud attacks them for not being physiologists.

6... Presumably now spud shows his qualification?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

I have just loved today.

1. Sky release data.
2. Data shows power & other data in line with other riders.
3. Data doesn't show / support Clinic 12 view that Sky are doping.
4. Clinic 12 view = they are lying to cover up and therefore must be doping.

Except for the time gaps at the finish. 1:33 to Gesink and 2:04 to Yates. You're doing a good job of embarrassing yourself at every turn. Keep it up.

And you are an expert in physiology are you??? And how many on here are? You all love to take the numbers and quote them but I bet you know F'all about it.

The main poster on here worthy of being taken seriously is Merck Index.

You see the numbers, it doesnt support what you want and you call fowl. So CF beat another rider with the same (ish) power. Are you qualified to comment about it? I think not.

Like you need to be an expert on physiology to do basic math.

Good grief get a grip.

 

[Bannockburn]

Re: Re:

1 spud claims power in line with other riders
2 other posters say - is not.
3 spud says - is so
4 other posters say - is not
5 spud attacks them for not being physiologists.

6... Presumably now spud shows his qualification?

It would be easier if Spud first operated on the correct premise. That being that the data Spud is relying on to promote her false premise is utter nonsense. Always seems to conveniently skip over that part.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I think Spud does not fully understand the concept of relative power output and its relation to climbing times.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

My point is that they have provided data that shows Froome's power in line with other riders and a lot of people on here have immediately just said they are lying.

His power was the same, uh, lower than Gesink, yet he was able to sprint away on a pretty tough mountain. Somehow the math got mixed up there, perhaps not for you but for others it doesnt look to be right. Make your next try better.

No - YOU think the maths are wrong. So he had lower power than Gesink, so what. We saw what happened and now we have the figures. They could be bullshitting but there has already been a leak so why take the risk. And most of the assessments on CN are by posters who are amateur analysts ...

What explanations and where? They werent on here earlier. Post and I will read.


Explanations have already been posted as to why things don't add up. Seems pretty convincing to me. Why don't you address those explanations and show them to be wrong with your superior understanding of the physics of riding a bike. Proclaiming the Sky Number to be indisputable truth with zero reasoning behind it gets old quick.

I think this is where we find out that you don't actually have a good understanding of the physics at all, yet have an odly strong opinion on the veracity of the numbers anyway, cause Dave B wouldn't lie now would he.

Not quite sure what was happening here - there was no reply, and I dont think I was posting one ...

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

I have just loved today.

1. Sky release data.
2. Data shows power & other data in line with other riders.
3. Data doesn't show / support Clinic 12 view that Sky are doping.
4. Clinic 12 view = they are lying to cover up and therefore must be doping.

Except for the time gaps at the finish. 1:33 to Gesink and 2:04 to Yates. You're doing a good job of embarrassing yourself at every turn. Keep it up.

And you are an expert in physiology are you??? And how many on here are? .

1 spud claims power in line with other riders
2 other posters say - is not.
3 spud says - is so
4 other posters say - is not
5 spud attacks them for not being physiologists.

6... Presumably now spud shows his qualification?

Froome was quoted in line with Pinot ...

 

[mrhender]

Re:

Let's keep this about the topic at hand, and not posters at hand shall we?

Cheers
mrhender

I'll try again..

Quit the personal stuff...

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

I think Spud does not fully understand the concept of relative power output and its relation to climbing times.

Then maybe you would like to explain it all ...

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

So Froome has gained ~1:30 on Quintana from 3 mountain stages. Should more than 30s a stage be a watershed time gain in GT cycling that other riders teams will also need to release data if they cross?

This is the most hilarious explaining away of the PSM performance I've seen yet.

Just average the time gain over 3 days.

OK, simply any teams release data for the climbs where their riders are gaining +1:30 over 3 days, 1:00 in two days and 0:30 in one day. This is what seems to being asked of Froome and Sky this year. It puts what's being asked for into context perfectly. Obvious 4 days in Alps, so if a rider gains 2:00 the same needs to apply, just to catch the really dodgy ones!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

I think Spud does not fully understand the concept of relative power output and its relation to climbing times.

Apparently not being a mechanic means you do not know how to drive a car. Or calculate trip time or something.



How do non-veterinarians ride horses anyway?

Or non-chef trained people cook dinner?

All these non-experts doing such simple things is beyond me. Just beyond me.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

I think Spud does not fully understand the concept of relative power output and its relation to climbing times.

Then maybe you would like to explain it all ...

The basics:
Higher W/kg (=relative power output) = faster climbing time
Lower W/kg = slower climbing time.
So no, it's not possible Gesink had a higher relative power output yet finished 1.5 minutes down on Froome unless Froome had a massive and I mean MASSIVE bike & equipment advantage. We would not be talking marginal gains but huge gains.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Is there a recording of the kimmage interview?

Worth reposting

https://soundcloud.com/offtheball/paul-kimmage-on-chris-froome-team-sky-and-the-2015-tour-de-france

I thought kimmage was actually quite gentle with sky compared to what I expected. Made it out like Valverde and contador had been equal to froome. Didnt mention team overall dominance.
Also way overrated pre 2011 froome saying he was a pretty good cyclist, which isn't close to the truth.

 

[arvc40]

Re: Re:

[quote="

He was 62kg in Dauphine in June.

Really? Highly doubt that

Froome/Sky released his weight. So were they lying then? If so then why are they not lying now?

I haven't seen them ever release anything saying he was 62 kgs and he would look probably be on his death bed if he did. I've seen several articles where he was quoted as having a racing weight at GT's of being 67kgs.

One thing I'm 100% sure of is that he is way under 67kg. I'm an ex Elite rider with Similar build and going by the way he looks hes probably is in the 62 to 64 range. He is incredibly lean. Would not look like someone on death bed at 62k. I've raced at 67kg, he is less than that.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

OK, simply any teams release data for the climbs where their riders are gaining +1:30 in over 3 days, 1:00 in two days and 0:30 in one day. This is what seems to being asked of Froome and Sky this year. It puts what's being asked for into context perfectly. Obvious 4 days in Alps, so if a rider gains 2:00 the same needs to apply, just to catch the really dodgy ones!

Trust me, if Quintana or Contador end up out-Frooming Froome the Clinic will be the first place that calls foul play.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

OK, simply any teams release data for the climbs where their riders are gaining +1:30 in over 3 days, 1:00 in two days and 0:30 in one day. This is what seems to being asked of Froome and Sky this year. It puts what's being asked for into context perfectly. Obvious 4 days in Alps, so if a rider gains 2:00 the same needs to apply, just to catch the really dodgy ones!

Trust me, if Quintana or Contador end up out-Frooming Froome the Clinic will be the first place that calls foul play.

I agree - but it would be a much more relaxed discussion .....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

OK, simply any teams release data for the climbs where their riders are gaining +1:30 in over 3 days, 1:00 in two days and 0:30 in one day. This is what seems to being asked of Froome and Sky this year. It puts what's being asked for into context perfectly. Obvious 4 days in Alps, so if a rider gains 2:00 the same needs to apply, just to catch the really dodgy ones!

Trust me, if Quintana or Contador end up out-Frooming Froome the Clinic will be the first place that calls foul play.

And NO ONE will disagree. No one. It will be *crickets*

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

OK, simply any teams release data for the climbs where their riders are gaining +1:30 in over 3 days, 1:00 in two days and 0:30 in one day. This is what seems to being asked of Froome and Sky this year. It puts what's being asked for into context perfectly. Obvious 4 days in Alps, so if a rider gains 2:00 the same needs to apply, just to catch the really dodgy ones!

Trust me, if Quintana or Contador end up out-Frooming Froome the Clinic will be the first place that calls foul play.

You can see how people especially newcomers like myself struggle to believe that.

The only other current rider until about 20/30 minutes ago that wasn't on Team Sky but was on the first page of the clinic is Nibali. Contador has just gone up and that's only because he said he doesn't mind sharing his data

 

[Bannockburn]

Re: Re:

1 spud claims power in line with other riders
2 other posters say - is not.
3 spud says - is so
4 other posters say - is not
5 spud attacks them for not being physiologists.

6... Presumably now spud shows his qualification?

It would be easier if Spud first operated on the correct premise. That being that the data Spud is relying on to promote her false premise is utter nonsense. Always seems to conveniently skip over that part.

If you could put that in English it would be good, and by the way I am male not female.

If you can't make sense of simple English that's your problem, not mine.

 

[samhocking]

It will never happen. Quintana, Contador and Nibali have regularly gained more than this in GT mountains and hardly a murmur!

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

So Froome has gained ~1:30 on Quintana from 3 mountain stages. Should more than 30s a stage be a watershed time gain in GT cycling that other riders teams will also need to release data if they cross?

This is the most hilarious explaining away of the PSM performance I've seen yet.

Just average the time gain over 3 days.

Oscar Pereiro averaged 5 minutes a day over an entire week including flat stages over the entire rest of the gc field in the 2006 tdf

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

OK, simply any teams release data for the climbs where their riders are gaining +1:30 in over 3 days, 1:00 in two days and 0:30 in one day. This is what seems to being asked of Froome and Sky this year. It puts what's being asked for into context perfectly. Obvious 4 days in Alps, so if a rider gains 2:00 the same needs to apply, just to catch the really dodgy ones!

Trust me, if Quintana or Contador end up out-Frooming Froome the Clinic will be the first place that calls foul play.

You can see how people especially newcomers like myself struggle to believe that.

The only other current rider until about 20/30 minutes ago that wasn't on Team Sky but was on the first page of the clinic is Nibali. Contador has just gone up and that's only because he said he doesn't mind sharing his data

Has there been anything of note about these riders?
It's simple - you can start a discussion about whether there riders are doping - but it would be a very one-sided discussion. No one believes these riders.
If Contador drops Froome and takes 1 minute on him, by all means, start a discussion. I don't think anyone will disagree that he is doping though.

Edit: by the way, several years ago there was plenty of discussion about Contador. During the Giro there was a lot of talk about Astana. During the spring Katusha was discussed a lot.

 

[Eagle]

Re: Re:

His power was the same, uh, lower than Gesink, yet he was able to sprint away on a pretty tough mountain. Somehow the math got mixed up there, perhaps not for you but for others it doesnt look to be right. Make your next try better.

No - YOU think the maths are wrong. So he had lower power than Gesink, so what. We saw what happened and now we have the figures. They could be bullshitting but there has already been a leak so why take the risk. And most of the assessments on CN are by posters who are amateur analysts ...

What explanations and where? They werent on here earlier. Post and I will read.


Explanations have already been posted as to why things don't add up. Seems pretty convincing to me. Why don't you address those explanations and show them to be wrong with your superior understanding of the physics of riding a bike. Proclaiming the Sky Number to be indisputable truth with zero reasoning behind it gets old quick.

I think this is where we find out that you don't actually have a good understanding of the physics at all, yet have an odly strong opinion on the veracity of the numbers anyway, cause Dave B wouldn't lie now would he.

Not quite sure what was happening here - there was no reply, and I dont think I was posting one ...

You accidentally put your comment in the middle of Sam's

 

[mrhender]

Everyone take a breather...

I am going through the last few pages and will take action..

Do not continue these personal infights...

Cheers
mrhender

 

[Escarabajo]

I think Froome has been singled out since the 2011 Vuelta conversion.

-The fact that even 5.78 watts/kg is suspicious when compared to his values pre Vuelta 2011.
- They choose the biggest weight at 67.5 kg and the biggest conversion factor to get the power corrected does not help the issue.
- The fact that once converted the values are smaller than the actual data for other cyclist. The exposure to the wind in Gesink's case does not provide enough evidence for the difference. Is too short for accounting for that difference. I question the strength of the head wind and the amount of time exposed to it.
- the fact that you can come up with mathematical calculations and not come up with such a low number such like the presented by Sky. By using the energy equation with their weight of 67.5 kilograms and time I get 393 watts for a value of 5.82 Watts/ kilogram with no wind at all. This is the worst case scenario. P90 scenario. If you submit it to a probabilistic run the most likely case would probably put it closer to the 6 watts/kg. This number is more in line with the other power numbers presented by the other riders like Gesink.