Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[MikeS369]

I have question after reading Merckx Index's posts. It seemed to me that he is saying that if a group of riders start a climb at the same time, that they will finish the climb at the same time if their average w/kg are identical. Even with attacks. Is this correct?

 

[hrotha]

Re:

I have question after reading Merckx Index's posts. It seemed to me that he is saying that if a group of riders start a climb at the same time, that they will finish the climb at the same time if their average w/kg are identical. Even with attacks. Is this correct?

For all intents and purposes, yup. There will be tiny variations depending on their starting position in the peloton, air resistance, drag, etc, but that's what they are - tiny.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

I have question after reading Merckx Index's posts. It seemed to me that he is saying that if a group of riders start a climb at the same time, that they will finish the climb at the same time if their average w/kg are identical. Even with attacks. Is this correct?

I don't get the same answer in my math model. Correcting for CDA for each rider because Quintana is smaller I get very close. In reality they will be different to account for different position in the bikes, drafting, total weight, etc. Variables make a difference.

They will be close but not be the same.

Example:
With no wind in PSM and different CDA for Quintana and Froome I get the following:

Froome: 5.82 watts/kg (VAM=5.98 w/kg)
Quintana: 5.9 watts/kg (VAM=5.98 w/kg)

Ok. Now I understand what Merkx Index is saying. VAM is the same. But Math model will be different.

 

[Poursuivant]

It really is groundhog day every day in here

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

It really is groundhog day every day in here

I look forward to this post tomorrow, same time?

 

[MikeS369]

Re: Re:

I have question after reading Merckx Index's posts. It seemed to me that he is saying that if a group of riders start a climb at the same time, that they will finish the climb at the same time if their average w/kg are identical. Even with attacks. Is this correct?

I don't get the same answer in my math model. Correcting for CDA for each rider because Quintana is smaller I get very close. In reality they will be different to account for different position in the bikes, drafting, total weight, etc. Variables make a difference.

They will be close but not be the same.

Example:
With no wind in PSM and different CDA for Quintana and Froome I get the following:

Froome: 5.82 watts/kg (VAM=5.98 w/kg)
Quintana: 5.9 watts/kg (VAM=5.98 w/kg)

Ok. Now I understand what Merkx Index is saying. VAM is the same. But Math model will be different.

I think I sent a post to the wrong thread so I'll try again.

I am mainly asking if it is possible for Froome to have put 1:30s into Gesink when Froome's w/kg avg (as reported by Sky) was lower than Gesink's w/kg avg? From what I have read here it would seem impossible.

 

[FroomehasneverdopedX]

Proof:

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

I have question after reading Merckx Index's posts. It seemed to me that he is saying that if a group of riders start a climb at the same time, that they will finish the climb at the same time if their average w/kg are identical. Even with attacks. Is this correct?

I don't get the same answer in my math model. Correcting for CDA for each rider because Quintana is smaller I get very close. In reality they will be different to account for different position in the bikes, drafting, total weight, etc. Variables make a difference.

They will be close but not be the same.

Example:
With no wind in PSM and different CDA for Quintana and Froome I get the following:

Froome: 5.82 watts/kg (VAM=5.98 w/kg)
Quintana: 5.9 watts/kg (VAM=5.98 w/kg)

Ok. Now I understand what Merkx Index is saying. VAM is the same. But Math model will be different.

I think I sent a post to the wrong thread so I'll try again.

I am mainly asking if it is possible for Froome to have put 1:30s into Gesink when Froome's w/kg avg (as reported by Sky) was lower than Gesink's w/kg avg? From what I have read here it would seem impossible.

In this universe yes, in another one maybe the lower number would win.

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

I have question after reading Merckx Index's posts. It seemed to me that he is saying that if a group of riders start a climb at the same time, that they will finish the climb at the same time if their average w/kg are identical. Even with attacks. Is this correct?

For all intents and purposes, yup. There will be tiny variations depending on their starting position in the peloton, air resistance, drag, etc, but that's what they are - tiny.

Are you sure? I heard Brailsford is working on a car for formula 1 that can win races even though it's average speed is lower than the others.

 

[Energy Starr]

Re: Re:

I'm aware of that, but if your belief is the top 30 are on PEDs based on erroneous observations like less-than perfect palamares, vein bulginess, time gains or comparing todays peloton to that of cycling's past it seems like a belief based on the logic of a type of religion and not the evidence in front of you and I'm not comfortable when belief-alone is used to accuse someone of something they can't prove because it requires the evidence of absence, which is simply impossible.

Oh dear Sam, I think you are a little bit confused.
Just a few Facts:

1. Hiring a Doping doctor
2. Having a DS who is extremely friendly with the dope courier of Lance, just a few weeks before the TdF
3. Multiple blatant lies by manager on things concerning doping and transparency.
4. Lieing about wattages. Because, truly, the posted wattages can't be true...or they are falsely reporting Froomes weight.
5. Having performmances that in the past only have been possible with doping. Which combined with 4 really should get you angry at Sky instead of rejecting ssacience and going into fantasy modus,

Belief:

1. believing everything Dave Brailsford says even though they are clearly lies.

You are on the side of blind faiith and magical skyfairies, whereas the critics are solidly on the facts concluding it's almost certainly doping

You should understand that I'm really uncomfortable talking with someone who believes in magic and trusts the words of a proven patholoigical liar and can only reject facts as they hurt his hero-worship.

1. OK, so Team Sky have doping doctors like every other team
2/3/4 Sure, Team Sky lies about doping when asked just like every other team and rider will
5. They are doing the same as everyone else given your belief of 1,2,3 & 4 therefore it's not the doping making them so dominant is it?

This is my point, you believe they are the same as the other teams and doping, yet can't give a reason why they are dominant and not them. The nearest anyone gets is saying 'oh, Contador, Nibali, Quintana and everyone else are not on top form this year' Bollocks!

So let me get this straight...your argument is that they're beating the dopers because they're clean?
They're not "doing the same"...they're doping better. That simple. Been done before, being done now.
Whether you like it or not the proof of doping is that they're beating the dopers.

 

[Pulp]

Re: Re:

I'm aware of that, but if your belief is the top 30 are on PEDs based on erroneous observations like less-than perfect palamares, vein bulginess, time gains or comparing todays peloton to that of cycling's past it seems like a belief based on the logic of a type of religion and not the evidence in front of you and I'm not comfortable when belief-alone is used to accuse someone of something they can't prove because it requires the evidence of absence, which is simply impossible.

Oh dear Sam, I think you are a little bit confused.
Just a few Facts:

1. Hiring a Doping doctor
2. Having a DS who is extremely friendly with the dope courier of Lance, just a few weeks before the TdF
3. Multiple blatant lies by manager on things concerning doping and transparency.
4. Lieing about wattages. Because, truly, the posted wattages can't be true...or they are falsely reporting Froomes weight.
5. Having performmances that in the past only have been possible with doping. Which combined with 4 really should get you angry at Sky instead of rejecting ssacience and going into fantasy modus,

Belief:

1. believing everything Dave Brailsford says even though they are clearly lies.

You are on the side of blind faiith and magical skyfairies, whereas the critics are solidly on the facts concluding it's almost certainly doping

You should understand that I'm really uncomfortable talking with someone who believes in magic and trusts the words of a proven patholoigical liar and can only reject facts as they hurt his hero-worship.

1. OK, so Team Sky have doping doctors like every other team
2/3/4 Sure, Team Sky lies about doping when asked just like every other team and rider will
5. They are doing the same as everyone else given your belief of 1,2,3 & 4 therefore it's not the doping making them so dominant is it?

This is my point, you believe they are the same as the other teams and doping, yet can't give a reason why they are dominant and not them. The nearest anyone gets is saying 'oh, Contador, Nibali, Quintana and everyone else are not on top form this year' Bollocks!

So let me get this straight...your argument is that they're beating the dopers because they're clean?
They're not "doing the same"...they're doping better. That simple. Been done before, being done now.
Whether you like it or not the proof of doping is that they're beating the dopers.

To be fair, Moviestar is 2nd and 3rd in GC. It`s not like they`ve been crushed except from stage 10. The rest of the difference is mostly from the echelon stage, which could have been opposite on a different day. I`d say especially Valverde is doing way better than most would have expected him to pre-tour.

Edit: well, it wasn`t as much an actual echelon as a crash in a roundabout on the echelon stage..

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

I have question after reading Merckx Index's posts. It seemed to me that he is saying that if a group of riders start a climb at the same time, that they will finish the climb at the same time if their average w/kg are identical. Even with attacks. Is this correct?

I don't get the same answer in my math model. Correcting for CDA for each rider because Quintana is smaller I get very close. In reality they will be different to account for different position in the bikes, drafting, total weight, etc. Variables make a difference.

They will be close but not be the same.

Example:
With no wind in PSM and different CDA for Quintana and Froome I get the following:

Froome: 5.82 watts/kg (VAM=5.98 w/kg)
Quintana: 5.9 watts/kg (VAM=5.98 w/kg)

Ok. Now I understand what Merkx Index is saying. VAM is the same. But Math model will be different.

I think I sent a post to the wrong thread so I'll try again.

I am mainly asking if it is possible for Froome to have put 1:30s into Gesink when Froome's w/kg avg (as reported by Sky) was lower than Gesink's w/kg avg? From what I have read here it would seem impossible.

For me it would be impossible.

I posted my numbers in a different thread but applies here as well. My minimum number is the one showing above: 5.82 watts/kg.

Basically this number ignores air drag for Froome when he was exposed. Other numbers can only make the calculation worse. I am only using the weight number that Brailsford gave us.

The only way that I could get lower than Gesink's number is if he was drafting 100% of the time and his bike was more efficient than Gesink's. The time difference in drafting between the two was not enough to make for the difference.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

I have question after reading Merckx Index's posts. It seemed to me that he is saying that if a group of riders start a climb at the same time, that they will finish the climb at the same time if their average w/kg are identical. Even with attacks. Is this correct?

I don't get the same answer in my math model. Correcting for CDA for each rider because Quintana is smaller I get very close. In reality they will be different to account for different position in the bikes, drafting, total weight, etc. Variables make a difference.

They will be close but not be the same.

Example:
With no wind in PSM and different CDA for Quintana and Froome I get the following:

Froome: 5.82 watts/kg (VAM=5.98 w/kg)
Quintana: 5.9 watts/kg (VAM=5.98 w/kg)

Ok. Now I understand what Merkx Index is saying. VAM is the same. But Math model will be different.

Yes, that Froome/Quintana comparison seems about right.

The size of the rider does make a difference, but in two ways that tend to cancel each other out. Imagine two riders weighing 50 and 70 kg, with same body shape. If they ride on 8 kg bikes, the heavier rider will have a 5% VAM advantage, that is, if VAM is the same for them, the lighter rider actually has to put out about 5% more W/kg (58/50 vs. 78/70).

But the heavier rider has to overcome more air resistance because of a larger frontal area. If they have the same body proportions, the 40% greater weight of the heavier rider implies about a 25% greater frontal area (area is proportional to height squared while weight is proportional to height cubed, so take the cube root of 1.40 and square it). On a climb like PSM, about 8-9% of energy goes to overcome air resistance, so the heavier rider has to put out about 2% more/kg. This is assuming they ride alone; if they ride in a pack, it’s roughly half of this, and somewhere in between if they ride some of the time in a group, and some of the time alone.

So on balance, VAM should underestimate a smaller rider’s W/kg relative to that of a larger rider, because the effect of bike weight is more than the effect of air resistance (unless the gradient is fairly shallow). But note that it’s only by a few %, and that is comparing 50 vs. 70 kg. There are very few if any (?) riders in the peloton who weigh less than 50 kg, and very few elite climbers who weigh more than 70 kg. So that is an extreme comparison, a worst case scenario.

Of course, if some riders spend more time attacking or otherwise riding alone, that also matters—not just for VAM, but for power meter estimates--but again, usually not much. E.g., I estimated that Gesink rode 11/15 km. on PSM alone vs. 7/15 for Froome. That makes a difference of about 0.07 – 0.08 W/kg. Another way of putting it is that if the two riders had identical W/kg values, Gesink would have finished about 30-35” behind Froome. This clearly doesn’t account for the 1:30 time gap plus a higher reported W/kg value for Gesink. If Gesink had ridden the entire 15 km alone, and Froome entirely protected, then this effect could be significant.

 

[SeriousSam]

“I was definitely pushed to my limits by all the attacks and can definitely expect more of it over next few days,” Froome admitted,

Sure thing Dawg. I think he might not go full *** again this Tour, not even at Alpe.

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

“I was definitely pushed to my limits by all the attacks and can definitely expect more of it over next few days,” Froome admitted,

Sure thing Dawg. I think he might not go full *** again this Tour, not even at Alpe.

He'll unleash on the Alpe, just to make up for 2013.

 

[MikeS369]

Re: Re:

I have question after reading Merckx Index's posts. It seemed to me that he is saying that if a group of riders start a climb at the same time, that they will finish the climb at the same time if their average w/kg are identical. Even with attacks. Is this correct?

I don't get the same answer in my math model. Correcting for CDA for each rider because Quintana is smaller I get very close. In reality they will be different to account for different position in the bikes, drafting, total weight, etc. Variables make a difference.

They will be close but not be the same.

Example:
With no wind in PSM and different CDA for Quintana and Froome I get the following:

Froome: 5.82 watts/kg (VAM=5.98 w/kg)
Quintana: 5.9 watts/kg (VAM=5.98 w/kg)

Ok. Now I understand what Merkx Index is saying. VAM is the same. But Math model will be different.

Yes, that Froome/Quintana comparison seems about right.

The size of the rider does make a difference, but in two ways that tend to cancel each other out. Imagine two riders weighing 50 and 70 kg, with same body shape. If they ride on 8 kg bikes, the heavier rider will have a 5% VAM advantage, that is, if VAM is the same for them, the lighter rider actually has to put out about 5% more W/kg (58/50 vs. 78/70).

But the heavier rider has to overcome more air resistance because of a larger frontal area. If they have the same body proportions, the 40% greater weight of the heavier rider implies about a 25% greater frontal area (area is proportional to height squared while weight is proportional to height cubed, so take the cube root of 1.40 and square it). On a climb like PSM, about 8-9% of energy goes to overcome air resistance, so the heavier rider has to put out about 2% more/kg. This is assuming they ride alone; if they ride in a pack, it’s roughly half of this, and somewhere in between if they ride some of the time in a group, and some of the time alone.

So on balance, VAM should underestimate a smaller rider’s W/kg relative to that of a larger rider, because the effect of bike weight is more than the effect of air resistance (unless the gradient is fairly shallow). But note that it’s only by a few %, and that is comparing 50 vs. 70 kg. There are very few if any (?) riders in the peloton who weigh less than 50 kg, and very few elite climbers who weigh more than 70 kg. So that is an extreme comparison, a worst case scenario.

Of course, if some riders spend more time attacking or otherwise riding alone, that also matters—not just for VAM, but for power meter estimates--but again, usually not much. E.g., I estimated that Gesink rode 11/15 km. on PSM alone vs. 7/15 for Froome. That makes a difference of about 0.07 – 0.08 W/kg. Another way of putting it is that if the two riders had identical W/kg values, Gesink would have finished about 30-35” behind Froome. This clearly doesn’t account for the 1:30 time gap plus a higher reported W/kg value for Gesink. If Gesink had ridden the entire 15 km alone, and Froome entirely protected, then this effect could be significant.

So Froome would have had to ridden at a higher w/kg avg than Gesink to put 1:30 into him. Is there any way to calculate what that w/kg avg would have had to been?

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

So Froome would have had to ridden at a higher w/kg avg than Gesink to put 1:30 into him. Is there any way to calculate what that w/kg avg would have had to been?

Sure. Let’s assume Gesink loses 30” because of riding unprotected longer. This reduces Froome’s gap to about a minute, IOW, without that extra loss, Gesink would have finished at about 42:30. Gesink’s power was about 5.90 W/kg., so Froome’s should be about (42.5/41.5) x 5.90 = 6.04 W/kg.

As Ross Tucker pointed out, if one assumes Froome’s weight was really 66 kg, as a lot of evidence and statements in the past imply it would be at most, then one could take the 414 W value furnished by Sky, reduce it by 4% rather than 6% (because the manufacturer estimated 4-5% correction for oval chainrings), and get 6.03. This is also very close to Sallet's estimate. I think we can pretty confidently conclude that Froome's power was in the range of 6.0-6.1 W/kg.

Which isnt unnatural from what i've seen people say, correct?

IMO it's certainly conceivable to put out that much power clean, at least one unidentified rider in a published study produced numbers compatible with this. It's not a great deal more than what several other riders, e.g., Pinot, have documented. But keep in mind:

a) it's on the cusp of what seems possible;
b) just because numbers have been measured in lab studies that are compatible with this doesn't mean those numbers were accomplished clean; and
c) whether someone with Froome's background is capable of putting out power apparently near the limits of current human performance, clean, is another question.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

So Froome would have had to ridden at a higher w/kg avg than Gesink to put 1:30 into him. Is there any way to calculate what that w/kg avg would have had to been?

Sure. Let’s assume Gesink loses 30” because of riding unprotected longer. This reduces Froome’s gap to about a minute, IOW, without that extra loss, Gesink would have finished at about 42:30. Gesink’s power was about 5.90 W/kg., so Froome’s should be about (42.5/41.5) x 5.90 = 6.04 W/kg.

As Ross Tucker pointed out, if one assumes Froome’s weight was really 66 kg, as a lot of evidence and statements in the past imply it would be at most, then one could take the 414 W value furnished by Sky, reduce it by 4% rather than 6% (because the manufacturer estimated 4-5% correction for oval chainrings), and get 6.03. This is also very close to Sallet's estimate. I think we can pretty confidently conclude that Froome's power was in the range of 6.0-6.1 W/kg.

Which isnt unnatural from what i've seen people say, correct?

 

[Benotti69]

Only a few riders can naturally produce a sustained wattage over 6w/kg and Froome aint doing it naturally. That Sky have barely released anything resembling verifiable data proves that. Heck they could have invited journalists to bring weighing scales to weigh Froome for themselves, but nope, transparency is not in sky's interests.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

Which isnt unnatural from what i've seen people say, correct?

Not in itself. Extraordinary, yes, but definitely doable with great physiology. Pinot's known maximum for a 45 minute effort is 5,9W/kg, according to his data. The 40 minute effort will be marginally higher, of course, but not by a lot.

In other words, Froome is a class above Pinot, even after riding a stage in the hot sun. Pinot is already very, very good. Froome is quite a bit better. Not impossible, of course, but it takes a pretty special athlete to pull it off.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Which isnt unnatural from what i've seen people say, correct?

Not in itself. Extraordinary, yes, but definitely doable with great physiology. Pinot's known maximum for a 45 minute effort is 5,9W/kg, according to his data. The 40 minute effort will be marginally higher, of course, but not by a lot.

In other words, Froome is a class above Pinot, even after riding a stage in the hot sun. Pinot is already very, very good. Froome is quite a bit better. Not impossible, of course, but it takes a pretty special athlete to pull it off.

Comparing the two is only going to REALLY confuse the issue.

I do not understand why people wish to compare Pinot's best ever power output with Froome's typical MTF, mid-GT, end of 200km stage output.

It's not apples to apples. Nowhere near it.

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

So Froome would have had to ridden at a higher w/kg avg than Gesink to put 1:30 into him. Is there any way to calculate what that w/kg avg would have had to been?

Sure. Let’s assume Gesink loses 30” because of riding unprotected longer. This reduces Froome’s gap to about a minute, IOW, without that extra loss, Gesink would have finished at about 42:30. Gesink’s power was about 5.90 W/kg., so Froome’s should be about (42.5/41.5) x 5.90 = 6.04 W/kg.

As Ross Tucker pointed out, if one assumes Froome’s weight was really 66 kg, as a lot of evidence and statements in the past imply it would be at most, then one could take the 414 W value furnished by Sky, reduce it by 4% rather than 6% (because the manufacturer estimated 4-5% correction for oval chainrings), and get 6.03. This is also very close to Sallet's estimate. I think we can pretty confidently conclude that Froome's power was in the range of 6.0-6.1 W/kg.

Which isnt unnatural from what i've seen people say, correct?

IMO it's certainly conceivable to put out that much power clean, at least one unidentified rider in a published study produced numbers compatible with this. It's not a great deal more than what several other riders, e.g., Pinot, have documented. But keep in mind:

a) it's on the cusp of what seems possible;
b) just because numbers have been measured in lab studies that are compatible with this doesn't mean those numbers were accomplished clean; and
c) whether someone with Froome's background is capable of putting out power apparently near the limits of current human performance, clean, is another question.

Gesink looked on the limit in pushing his numbers. The issue with Froome is the ease with which he disposed of Quintana and the evident lack of suffering.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

Comparing the two is only going to REALLY confuse the issue.

I do not understand why people wish to compare Pinot's best ever power output with Froome's typical MTF, mid-GT, end of 200km stage output.

It's not apples to apples. Nowhere near it.

I agree, and it isn't an attempt to compare Pinot and Froome like for like. Comparing like I just did is heavily in favour of Pinot, and Froome still comes out on top.

So if Pinot is good, what is Froome? Best clean climber of all time or just another doper?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

As an exercise, go ride a hill sub max @ 85rpm.
Now ride the same hill at 100 rpm.
Now at 110 rpm.

Report back here how it felt.

Now go find a 6km climb and do it all again.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re:

As an exercise, go ride a hill sub max @ 85rpm.
Now ride the same hill at 100 rpm.
Now at 110 rpm.

Report back here how it felt.

Now go find a 6km climb and do it all again.

If you're alluding to Froome's high cadence I'll have you know he worked specifically on spinning the pedal with Brailsford in the car honking the horn every time he slowed down and got out of the saddle to train his body to maintain the rhythm.

No wait... That was another guy. Oh well, honest mistake.