# Teams & RidersFroome Talk Only

Page 720 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

#### Merckx index

Kender said:
Does watts/Kg take into account the weight of the bike and biddons onboard?
In the case of power meters, W/kg is determined by dividing the power reading by the rider’s weight, so no, that value does not include the weight of the bike. There’s no reason to.

The weight of the bike does come into play when calculating power from VAM, that is, the speed up a climb of known gradient and distance, because for any given power the cyclist puts out, he must raise the weight of both his body and the bike up that vertical distance. The VAM formula is supposed to take this into account, not perfectly, because it’s not perfect, but close enough. If some breakthrough occurred that allowed manufacture of ultra-light bikes that weighed less than a kilo, in principle the VAM formula might have to be tweaked a little. Not a lot, though, because as it is, the bike’s weight is relatively small compared to the rider’s weight. Online bike calculators allow you to make somewhat more precise estimates of power taking into account the weight of the bike, among other factors.

carton said:
But the riders would be taking in at least 1 bidon of fluid adding 700 grams in rider weight an hour. And sweating out a similar amount. Plus likely taking a piss at some point. So on any given day rider weight should fluctuate at least +/- 1kg (probably much more on a hot day). Since dehydration could absolutely kill you (or at the very least put a serious damper on performance), my guess is that you'll be aiming at having taken in at least 1L (1kg) extra of fluids vs. training on a balmy day.
Sure, the rider’s weight will fluctuate, but that doesn’t affect power calculations that much. Using that 414 W value for Froome (uncorrected), if his weight is 68 +/- 1 kg, his power output is 6.09 +/- 0.09 kg. But it will tend towards an equilibrium value, because any more results from drinking more than the body can immediately absorb, and any less results in dehydration and thirst. A rider will feel comfortable at some normally hydrated level.

In any case, this is why VAM—despite being affected by wind and other conditions--is useful, since it’s proportional to power/weight. It doesn’t matter what a rider’s weight is, so two riders of different weights riding under the same conditions will have essentially the same W/kg values if they climb at the same speed.

BYOP88 said:
I'm way too lazy and it's baseball season.
And the Angels are hot! And Albert is putting out Froome-like numbers!

#### saganftw

Re: Re:

carton said:
Saint Unix said:
samhocking said:
Well I don't hear Quintana's, Contador's or Nibalis team saying they are riding clean! Oh wait, now that would be hypocritical looking at each of their teams history! I can see why Sky are one of the only teams who can say they are riding clean because they are the only team without History lol!
Apart from their history of hiring Leinders, Rogers, De Jongh, Knaven, Julich, Arvesen and others with plenty of history. And then there's the Henao case and of course JTL.

A lot of their riders have come from some seriously sketchy teams too. I seem to recall that Barloworld reeked of fish back in the day, Lopez and Kiri came from Movistar, Eisel rode for T-Mobile, Porte for CSC, Viviani came from Liquigas and Knees from Milram. Pate and Wiggins came from Garmin that has employed more former dopers than any other team in the peloton. The latest is Landa, one of the most suspicious from this year's Giro, joining from Clinic favorites Astana.

Lots of history if you connect the dots.
If they develop riders then they are suspicious. If they buy good ones from a dirty team (and all teams are dirty) even more so. So the only way they could be clean is if they sucked. But then they'd be Cannondale-Garmin. Who are also dirty
if you develop a talented rider,there is never a "lets grab a pitchfork" suspicion,just the normal "everybody is on something" suspicion

if you classics specialist pulls on the front,catching elite climbers and patting them on the back you kinda brought it on yourself

#### samhocking

Garmin Cannondale haven't spent god knows how many millions of lottery funding within a National Team and development program for 16 years with a secret squirral basement of Sports Science that then spawned a road team. Before they started, Brailsford said the data from those 16 years of track success suggests Britain should win Tour de France. Why would you say that before you've started? What reason would you make up a story like that if the real reason was an undetectable doping. You can poo-poo success on the track as not the same, but if that 16 years of success didn't mean anything, why start Team sky with most of the staff from those Olympic cycles? Why would you do that if it was simply a doping solution?

#### carton

Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
Ok got you. Think that's an almost impossible task to calculate, so can't it see it being accounted for, could be wrong though
Exactly. General point was that rider weight is probably at least a +/- 1kg proposition, particularly on a hot day. So squabbling over 66-68 kg is likely for naught.

#### Tonton

Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Piet they don't want facts, they just want you to admit you hate Sky/Britain/The Queen etc etc. Stop being a doubter and support these clean, honest hardworking cyclists.
Well if you've already deduced everyone else is already guilty of doping, what's taking you so long to sort Froome and Sky out? The Contador & Nibali thread didn't seem quite as protracted?
Check the other threads and you'll read the same about Bertie, Piti, Nibbles, Nairito (so far hasn't got too much), so you're wrong if you think that Sky/Froome is being singled out.

#### Tonton

Re: Re:

carton said:
gazr99 said:
Ok got you. Think that's an almost impossible task to calculate, so can't it see it being accounted for, could be wrong though
Exactly. General point was that rider weight is probably at least a +/- 1kg proposition, particularly on a hot day. So squabbling over 66-68 kg is likely for naught.
It's more like 63-65kg IMO. The bottom line being: I've never been back from a ride heavier than when I started it.

#### BYOP88

Re:

Merckx index said:
Kender said:
Does watts/Kg take into account the weight of the bike and biddons onboard?
In the case of power meters, W/kg is determined by dividing the power reading by the rider’s weight, so no, that value does not include the weight of the bike. There’s no reason to.

The weight of the bike does come into play when calculating power from VAM, that is, the speed up a climb of known gradient and distance, because for any given power the cyclist puts out, he must raise the weight of both his body and the bike up that vertical distance. The VAM formula is supposed to take this into account, not perfectly, because it’s not perfect, but close enough. If some breakthrough occurred that allowed manufacture of ultra-light bikes that weighed less than a kilo, in principle the VAM formula might have to be tweaked a little. Not a lot, though, because as it is, the bike’s weight is relatively small compared to the rider’s weight. Online bike calculators allow you to make somewhat more precise estimates of power taking into account the weight of the bike, among other factors.

carton said:
But the riders would be taking in at least 1 bidon of fluid adding 700 grams in rider weight an hour. And sweating out a similar amount. Plus likely taking a piss at some point. So on any given day rider weight should fluctuate at least +/- 1kg (probably much more on a hot day). Since dehydration could absolutely kill you (or at the very least put a serious damper on performance), my guess is that you'll be aiming at having taken in at least 1L (1kg) extra of fluids vs. training on a balmy day.
Sure, the rider’s weight will fluctuate, but that doesn’t affect power calculations that much. Using that 414 W value for Froome (uncorrected), if his weight is 68 +/- 1 kg, his power output is 6.09 +/- 0.09 kg. But it will tend towards an equilibrium value, because any more results from drinking more than the body can immediately absorb, and any less results in dehydration and thirst. A rider will feel comfortable at some normally hydrated level.

In any case, this is why VAM—despite being affected by wind and other conditions--is useful, since it’s proportional to power/weight. It doesn’t matter what a rider’s weight is, so two riders of different weights riding under the same conditions will have essentially the same W/kg values if they climb at the same speed.

BYOP88 said:
I'm way too lazy and it's baseball season.
And the Angels are hot! And Albert is putting out Froome-like numbers!
They don't call him 'The Machine' for nothing.

#### jmdirt

Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
jmdirt said:
red_flanders said:
gazr99 said:
I didn't realise there were so many talented physiologists on the forum who know how to interpret data like the pros? Also out of curiosity how many riders have actually told the press in the middle of the race their precise weight? I know of riders saying they have lost a few kgs normally before a race or at the start of the season thats it
No one is arguing that others have released exact weights. The point is that without an accurate weight, the numbers Sky released are completely meaningless. They provided the data, so they need to provide proof it's accurate, including rider weight. So either provide the correct weight with proof or admit the data is useless.

The numbers Sky released show less W/kg than the competitors who he beat. Why?
Sky claim a 6% adjustment for the oval chainrings. I have heard the manufacturer says 4-5%. Why 6%?
The weight they released for Froome, 67.5 kg, is higher than Froome himself claims in the Kimmage interview as 66 and in Cyclingnews earlier this year at 66, with presumably more weight to drop. Why the discrepancy?

Strangely, if you put in the correct weight, which I'd put at 65 kg due to weight loss during the Tour and the right adjustment for the chainring, you end up with numbers that probably aren't humanly possible and certainly aren't for Froome in the race conditions of the day.
He said that he DIDN'T adjust for the chain eggs: "Again that’s just the power metre and does not include the 6 per cent adjustment (for O-symmetric).”

I really want to see Froome step on a scale on TV (with a third party calibrated scale) because that would either support their data or, support what this thread is saying.
Eh?
Sky mentioned multiple numbers, 1 being 414W which is what the power meter measured, another being 390W which is the corrected number. So they clearly adjusted the number.
I went back and read it again and in one paragraph he adjusts it, yet in another he doesn't. Yes, that gave me the "which cup is the ball under" feeling.

"That’s why it has to be considered when interpreting Chris’ power. With his weight hovering around 67.5kg that gives a correct power of 5.78 watts per kilo.”

"Again that’s just the power metre and does not include the 6 per cent adjustment (for O-symmetric).”

#### chuckmicD

how does a comment about viagra get deleted on a doping forum? It really does work even though it's not on the banned substances list...sensitive souls on here, I guess.

#### samhocking

Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
samhocking said:
So the difference is, everyone else is maintaining omerta and only saying they are riding clean when asked, yet Team Sky say they are riding clean before they are asked so are obliged to release data to prove it?

In the vastly illogical World of the clinic, saying you're riding clean when asked is fine, but saying you're riding clean when not asked is mightily suspicious and demand threads at least several 1000 pages long of looping discussion going nowhere?
After the extraordinary weird maths you were offering in the Thomas thread, do you really think you are in a position to lecture people about logic?
So are you saying you would believe the man who said he didn't screw your wife when you ask him more than man who says he'll never screw your wife before you ask him? It's a subtle difference, but hardly illogical.

#### carton

Merckx index said:
Sure, the rider’s weight will fluctuate, but that doesn’t affect power calculations that much. Using that 414 W value for Froome (uncorrected), if his weight is 68 +/- 1 kg, his power output is 6.09 +/- 0.09 kg. But it will tend towards an equilibrium value, because any more results from drinking more than the body can immediately absorb, and any less results in dehydration and thirst. A rider will feel comfortable at some normally hydrated level.
Just missed this. Yeah, what you said . What I was trying to get at is that there's too much quibbling about a kilo or two. +/- 1kg is a pretty decent margin for error.

Merckx index said:
In any case, this is why VAM—despite being affected by wind and other conditions--is useful, since it’s proportional to power/weight. It doesn’t matter what a rider’s weight is, so two riders of different weights riding under the same conditions will have essentially the same W/kg values if they climb at the same speed.
Agreed, that's why I like the work you guys do to get the estimated power and it adds to the discussion vis-a-vis 6% being a bit of an overcorrection on the o-rings. But on the flip side there's a lot of assumptions being made regarding rolling resistance, drag and wind. I'm no expert but I haven't even seen estimates attempting to correct for barometric pressure.

People here are insulting each other and Brailsford and Kerrison over point estimates for an individual rider on one climb, when I'd think you'd be lucky to be within +/- 0.2 w/kg for a rider on a climb with power meter data. Perhaps you could narrow it down to +/- .1w/kg using the VAM models and the data of several riders for better calibration.

#### SeriousSam

Re: Re:

keeponrollin said:
Bronstein said:
Bump !

Seriously folks, clear the wax out of your ears & listen to this podcast !

I've been a fan of PK's writing from back when he was still racing; he says so much with so few words, & he actually cares about the sport, & he's a fan first, & everything else comes after that.

Great Interview. Kimmage pretty much nails it.

#### the sceptic

that guy is going to get hell if Michelle Hound ever reads that

#### Escarabajo

Re:

Kender said:
Does watts/Kg take into account the weight of the bike and biddons onboard?
Denominator no, numerator yes.

The numerator which is the power calculation has to take it into account because you need power to drag that weight.

So Brailsford is proved right all along - it was utterly pointless releasing data, because people will see what they want to see from it

The treatment of Froome has been dusgusting the last few days. I think he's handled it exceptionally well personally

I want to see dopers named and shamed. But this lynch mentality is out of hand and I think actually damages the credibility of those seeking the truth about performance

#### the sceptic

Re:

So Brailsford is proved right all along - it was utterly pointless releasing data, because people will see what they want to see from it

The treatment of Froome has been dusgusting the last few days. I think he's handled it exceptionally well personally

I want to see dopers named and shamed. But this lynch mentality is out of hand and I think actually damages the credibility of those seeking the truth about performance
Froome is only getting what he deserves. He is the biggest fraud in cycling history and him and Team Sky have been insulting everyones intelligence with their lies for the past 4 years.

I hope Team Sky get busted soon so we can get back to watching some real cycling.

#### SeriousSam

If they actually wanted to provide evidence Froome is performing on pan y agua, they wouldn't release doctored *** drawn from a black box with zero transparency. They'd release raw data, and they'd have done it years ago.

Instead, they conjured up a number for the Guardian, the Telegraph, the BBC, the Daily Mail and the Sun to cheer about. It worked, they are now writing how it proves Froome is extraordinary as British athletes tend to be, but normal and clean, and the French/the internet pseudo scientists are just salty.

#### Saint Unix

It's pointless to release a fraction of the relevant data of the stage after spending significant time massaging it to make it seem more human, yes. It's not nearly enough and it's not correct data. There were only two remarkable pieces of information taken from the data.

1) Froome's max HR changed yet again. For a team that's all about details, they haven't even got a clue what their star rider's max heart rate is.
2) Sky felt the need to play with the numbers and factor in every tiny variable they could find to force the W/kg down to a minimum, even if that meant getting it entirely wrong in relation to the riders and teams that actually have uploaded relevant data.

Release everything and everyone will rejoice. Even just upload the stage on Strava. Something other than "Here's the average cadence. Happy?No? But transparency!!!!11!"

#### Escarabajo

Re: Re:

Escarabajo said:
Kender said:
Does watts/Kg take into account the weight of the bike and biddons onboard?
Denominator no, numerator yes.

The numerator which is the power calculation has to take it into account because you need power to drag that weight.
For the estimated power in the numerator you can add half of a bottle plus the bike weight. Assume your body is at equilibrium like Merkx Index explained:

Numerator = Power required to drag the naked human weight+ half a bottle + weight of bike
Denominator = Weight of the human with balls hanging out.

Numerator also contains the power to break the wind and overcome friction with pavement.

Is it better??

#### The Hitch

I think Vayer was on BBC radio 5 today. Wonder if there will be a recording.

#### red_flanders

Re:

So Brailsford is proved right all along - it was utterly pointless releasing data, because people will see what they want to see from it

The treatment of Froome has been dusgusting the last few days. I think he's handled it exceptionally well personally

I want to see dopers named and shamed. But this lynch mentality is out of hand and I think actually damages the credibility of those seeking the truth about performance
No. They released limited and fudged numbers and claim transparency. It's just like when they released everything but the pre-Vuelta data and then asked, literally, "What more can we do?"

You could actually be transparent. But of course they can't be, because obvious doping is obvious.

#### snccdcno

BANNED
Re:

The Hitch said:
I think Vayer was on BBC radio 5 today. Wonder if there will be a recording.
Pierre Sallet was on 5 live.

This is the recording http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b062djhm#play

35:50-52:15

Not listened to it yet outside of the beginning and end to get the time stamp, but the Great British public did not seem to like Dr Sallet!

#### jmdirt

Re: Re:

the sceptic said:
So Brailsford is proved right all along - it was utterly pointless releasing data, because people will see what they want to see from it

The treatment of Froome has been dusgusting the last few days. I think he's handled it exceptionally well personally

I want to see dopers named and shamed. But this lynch mentality is out of hand and I think actually damages the credibility of those seeking the truth about performance
Froome is only getting what he deserves. He is the biggest fraud in cycling history and him and Team Sky have been insulting everyones intelligence with their lies for the past 4 years.

I hope Team Sky get busted soon so we can get back to watching some real cycling.
Yet another post that implies that only Sky and Froome are dirty.