Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 797 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Bumeington said:
Anyway, 2007 Froome probably was producing 5.7W/kg as a journeyman pro, but nowhere near that at the end of a 200km stage
I look forward to seeing the figures but highly doubtful he was doing that even for a straight up FTP test.

His TT's at the time are not indicative of someone who could hold this figure for 40 minutes or more.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,273
0
0
thehog said:
Bumeington said:
Anyway, 2007 Froome probably was producing 5.7W/kg as a journeyman pro, but nowhere near that at the end of a 200km stage
I look forward to seeing the figures but highly doubtful he was doing that even for a straight up FTP test.

His TT's at the time are not indicative of someone who could hold this figure for 40 minutes or more.
Between the sandshoes, the race marshals jumping out in front of him, and the Typhoid/Badzhilla/Influenza/Tuberculosis/Ebola/Time Spent in Iron Lung, this is all easily accounted for.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
42x16ss said:
thehog said:
red_flanders said:
Wow, Hoggie! One of your best posts in a while. Nicely done.
Thank you.

Froome effectively did an FTP test at the Commonwealth Games in 2006. If he was the big engine that Spud and Froome/Walsh et al claim that he might have been, he would have ridden a lot faster for 40km back in 2006. He rode just about an hour for 40km. He simply doesn't haven't a big engine. It doesn't take a secret lab test to prove that he did, he just doesn't have one.

Kenyan Christopher Froome stopped the clock in 53.58.01 for 40km.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/mar06/commgames06/?id=results/men_road_tt
So basically what a decent Continental rider should do. Good enough for a Pro Continental domestique IF they can climb.
I think "decent" would be pushing it! :rolleyes:

In saying that, Brailsford believes he saw something that day back in 2006!

Go figure ;)

“He didn’t have the best equipment. I watched his time trial; this was a guy from nowhere, he did this phenomenal performance,” Brailsford told VeloNews. “I was like, ‘bloody hell, who is this guy?’ That was the first time I ever saw him.”

“The performance he did, on the equipment he was on, that takes some doing. We thought, ‘that guy’s got something, for sure,”‘ Brailsford said. “We always thought he was a bit of a diamond in the rough, who had a huge potential.”
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/the-story-of-brailsfords-froome-discovery-dates-back-to-2006_294574#hd6QPYEFtuHSsOGg.99
yeah...showing the recuparative powers he would go onto demonstrate in grand tours he got lapped in the mtb race two days later :) His equipment doesn't look too bad...low-pro, tri-bars and rear disc. He also looks to have SRMs on...got to love Sir dave ;)
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re: Re:

harryh said:
thehog said:
If Froome was holding 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test in 2007 at 70kg's then he would have been winning just about every race he was in.
Jussi Veikkanen's FTP was 5.65 w/kg. Not won too much.
He came 5th at the (fricken) Comm Games TT 3 years later, 2 minutes behind the winner, Mr squeaky clean Millar.



I've asked Dr Michael Hutchinson if he has his W/kg from the TT on twitter but not sure if he's willing to answer. Doesn't factor in aero etc but still some sort of gauge.

For the record, I am doubting Froome was doing 5.7W/kg.
 
Beech Mtn said:
thehog said:
Bumeington said:
Anyway, 2007 Froome probably was producing 5.7W/kg as a journeyman pro, but nowhere near that at the end of a 200km stage
I look forward to seeing the figures but highly doubtful he was doing that even for a straight up FTP test.

His TT's at the time are not indicative of someone who could hold this figure for 40 minutes or more.
Between the sandshoes, the race marshals jumping out in front of him, and the Typhoid/Badzhilla/Influenza/Tuberculosis/Ebola/Time Spent in Iron Lung, this is all easily accounted for.
You can see now, the 2007 data will show Froome held 5.7w/kg for 90 seconds during a sprint, which puts him in the class of mountain climbers like Tour de France champion Alberto Contador :p
 
Mar 27, 2015
435
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
harryh said:
thehog said:
If Froome was holding 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test in 2007 at 70kg's then he would have been winning just about every race he was in.
Jussi Veikkanen's FTP was 5.65 w/kg. Not won too much.
I don't know much of Jussi but he is a 8 time national road champion. Won stages of medium tours. Froome was 70kg in 2007. Jussi is 66kg from Wikipedia. Again like Spud messed up, weight is important when using the watts per kilogram value.[\quote]
Well, Kiriyenka beat Samuel Pökälä by 7 mins in Baku European games tt who beat Veikkanen on national championships tt.
Do you have a link to the 5.65w?
http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/showthread.php?35845-Alberto-Contador-Kirjanpit%E4j%E4st%E4-p%E4%E4johtaja&p=1205601#post1205601

:D
 
Re: Re:

harryh said:
thehog said:
harryh said:
thehog said:
If Froome was holding 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test in 2007 at 70kg's then he would have been winning just about every race he was in.
Jussi Veikkanen's FTP was 5.65 w/kg. Not won too much.
I don't know much of Jussi but he is a 8 time national road champion. Won stages of medium tours. Froome was 70kg in 2007. Jussi is 66kg from Wikipedia. Again like Spud messed up, weight is important when using the watts per kilogram value.[\quote]
Well, Kiriyenka beat Samuel Pökälä by 7 mins in Baku European games tt who beat Veikkanen on national championships tt.
Do you have a link to the 5.65w?
http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/showthread.php?35845-Alberto-Contador-Kirjanpit%E4j%E4st%E4-p%E4%E4johtaja&p=1205601#post1205601

:D
Not an real FTP test then :cool: 'Predicted'.

Back to Spud's point he estimates Froome did 5.7w/kg for a FTP test back in 2007 at the UCI. He wasn't doing it in races so we can only assume this one of test was "off the charts".
 
Mar 27, 2015
435
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
harryh said:
thehog said:
harryh said:
thehog said:
If Froome was holding 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test in 2007 at 70kg's then he would have been winning just about every race he was in.
Jussi Veikkanen's FTP was 5.65 w/kg. Not won too much.
I don't know much of Jussi but he is a 8 time national road champion. Won stages of medium tours. Froome was 70kg in 2007. Jussi is 66kg from Wikipedia. Again like Spud messed up, weight is important when using the watts per kilogram value.[\quote]
Well, Kiriyenka beat Samuel Pökälä by 7 mins in Baku European games tt who beat Veikkanen on national championships tt.
Do you have a link to the 5.65w?
http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/showthread.php?35845-Alberto-Contador-Kirjanpit%E4j%E4st%E4-p%E4%E4johtaja&p=1205601#post1205601

:D
Not an real FTP test then :cool: 'Predicted'.

Back to Spud's point he estimates Froome did 5.7w/kg for a FTP test back in 2007 at the UCI. He wasn't doing it in races so we can only assume this one of test was "off the charts".
Not 'Predicted'. 'Suunnilleen sama' means 'about the same as'.
 
Agreed. Not a formal FTP test.

Froome did testing at the UCI in 2007, supposedly a formalized FTP test in a lab. Spud thinks he might have produced 5.7w/kg for one hour. Highly doubtful as his TTs around the time were nowhere near this value in power.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
thehog said:
42x16ss said:
thehog said:
red_flanders said:
Wow, Hoggie! One of your best posts in a while. Nicely done.
Thank you.

Froome effectively did an FTP test at the Commonwealth Games in 2006. If he was the big engine that Spud and Froome/Walsh et al claim that he might have been, he would have ridden a lot faster for 40km back in 2006. He rode just about an hour for 40km. He simply doesn't haven't a big engine. It doesn't take a secret lab test to prove that he did, he just doesn't have one.

Kenyan Christopher Froome stopped the clock in 53.58.01 for 40km.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/mar06/commgames06/?id=results/men_road_tt
So basically what a decent Continental rider should do. Good enough for a Pro Continental domestique IF they can climb.
I think "decent" would be pushing it! :rolleyes:

In saying that, Brailsford believes he saw something that day back in 2006!

Go figure ;)

“He didn’t have the best equipment. I watched his time trial; this was a guy from nowhere, he did this phenomenal performance,” Brailsford told VeloNews. “I was like, ‘bloody hell, who is this guy?’ That was the first time I ever saw him.”

“The performance he did, on the equipment he was on, that takes some doing. We thought, ‘that guy’s got something, for sure,”‘ Brailsford said. “We always thought he was a bit of a diamond in the rough, who had a huge potential.”
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/the-story-of-brailsfords-froome-discovery-dates-back-to-2006_294574#hd6QPYEFtuHSsOGg.99
yeah...showing the recuparative powers he would go onto demonstrate in grand tours he got lapped in the mtb race two days later :) His equipment doesn't look too bad...low-pro, tri-bars and rear disc. He also looks to have SRMs on...got to love Sir dave ;)
There's some more Brailsford gold in that article:

For Brailsford, it all started with that Commonwealth Games back in 2006.

“That really caught our eye, and made us start talking,” he said. “Then we found out he had a British passport, and the rest is history, as they say.”

Now that Brailsford has helped transform the diamond in the rough into a Tour winner, he’s not keen to let him go. La Gazzetta dello Sport reported Wednesday that Sky has signed the current maillot jaune to a contract extension through 2016 — a term that will keep the pair together a full decade after that inauspicious ride in Melbourne.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/the-story-of-brailsfords-froome-discovery-dates-back-to-2006_294574#hd6QPYEFtuHSsOGg.99
 
The 2006 top three whilst solid pros have not exactly set the world alight…I know Mcauley as he rode in the UK I think but from memory was a sort of burly one day specialist…never really known for his TT ability…..looking at the palmares of the other two medallists…well…they never really bothered the top end of a world class TT….ever. It’s not like there were world class Commie riders like Obree, Millar, Boardman, Yates, Dowsett in the field…so he loses 5.20 over 53 mins in what is in effect a national standard TT….and that is what really catches Sir Dave’s eye….
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
thehog said:
Agreed. Not a formal FTP test.

Froome did testing at the UCI in 2007, supposedly a formalized FTP test in a lab. Spud thinks he might have produced 5.7w/kg for one hour. Highly doubtful as his TTs around the time were nowhere near this value in power.
He had a tailwind in the Aigle lab ;)
 
Benotti69 said:
thehog said:
Agreed. Not a formal FTP test.

Froome did testing at the UCI in 2007, supposedly a formalized FTP test in a lab. Spud thinks he might have produced 5.7w/kg for one hour. Highly doubtful as his TTs around the time were nowhere near this value in power.
He had a tailwind in the Aigle lab ;)
Whilst some don't always agree with Coggan, his PowerChart is the generally accepted guide to FTP.

And, yes, if Froome was at 5.7w/kg in 2007 for one hour he would have had a massive tailwind wind in the lab on his stationary bike :cool:



http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/power-profiling
 
May 8, 2009
837
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
harryh said:
thehog said:
If Froome was holding 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test in 2007 at 70kg's then he would have been winning just about every race he was in.
Jussi Veikkanen's FTP was 5.65 w/kg. Not won too much.
He came 5th at the (fricken) Comm Games TT 3 years later, 2 minutes behind the winner, Mr squeaky clean Millar.



I've asked Dr Michael Hutchinson if he has his W/kg from the TT on twitter but not sure if he's willing to answer. Doesn't factor in aero etc but still some sort of gauge.

For the record, I am doubting Froome was doing 5.7W/kg.
I would guess 400W for MH (/kg not particularly relevant)
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
harryh said:
thehog said:
If Froome was holding 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test in 2007 at 70kg's then he would have been winning just about every race he was in.
Jussi Veikkanen's FTP was 5.65 w/kg. Not won too much.
He came 5th at the (fricken) Comm Games TT 3 years later, 2 minutes behind the winner, Mr squeaky clean Millar.



I've asked Dr Michael Hutchinson if he has his W/kg from the TT on twitter but not sure if he's willing to answer. Doesn't factor in aero etc but still some sort of gauge.

For the record, I am doubting Froome was doing 5.7W/kg.
6th place looks interesting at nearly another minute further back...
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re: Re:

Archibald said:
Dear Wiggo said:
harryh said:
thehog said:
If Froome was holding 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test in 2007 at 70kg's then he would have been winning just about every race he was in.
Jussi Veikkanen's FTP was 5.65 w/kg. Not won too much.
He came 5th at the (fricken) Comm Games TT 3 years later, 2 minutes behind the winner, Mr squeaky clean Millar.



I've asked Dr Michael Hutchinson if he has his W/kg from the TT on twitter but not sure if he's willing to answer. Doesn't factor in aero etc but still some sort of gauge.

For the record, I am doubting Froome was doing 5.7W/kg.
6th place looks interesting at nearly another minute further back...
He was a trackie and only just turned pro 3 years later, I believe.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Since Richard Moore was the invited 'independent' (hahahahaha) witness to Froome's 'independent' (hahahahaha) testing and is going to be writing about it, i found his answer to whether Cookson is better than McQuaid


Question
I think we can all agree that Cookson is less obtuse than Pat McQuaid was, but do you think the UCI ship has really changed course. If so, is it for the better? If not, what else could they be doing?


Richard Moore
I don't doubt Cookson's integrity or commitment to doing the right thing but it can't be easy skippering the good ship UCI. He's made some progress, and I like that he's trying to be transparent and democratic, but I think he has to impose himself more. That said, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Impose himself too much and he'll incur the wrath of ASO and others. Not straightforward, is it?
Phew, now that does stink of omerta!!!!
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Benotti69 said:
del1962 said:
Funny that "the best post in a while" has such glaringly faulty data
Care to 'correct' the data or you just gonna whinge?
He corrected the gradient on PSM, nothing else. The post still stands as it was about Froome's 2007 data. Spud is trying to tell us Froome might have an average watts of 400w in 2007 for an hour, not possible.

Froome might have done 5.7w for 10 minutes but not for an hour.
I said no such thing. I said that IF the data showed he had a big engine (fir example 5.7w/kg) would it change people's view. I got my answer - it wont change many peoples since they have made their mind up.

Hogs presentation of data is suspect in the extreme - "just about an hour for 40km" when it was 54 mins, so a10% error. More than any adjustment for strange shaped chainrings.

10% gradient, when in fact it was 7.4% - almost a 50% error.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
thehog said:
Benotti69 said:
del1962 said:
Funny that "the best post in a while" has such glaringly faulty data
Care to 'correct' the data or you just gonna whinge?
He corrected the gradient on PSM, nothing else. The post still stands as it was about Froome's 2007 data. Spud is trying to tell us Froome might have an average watts of 400w in 2007 for an hour, not possible.

Froome might have done 5.7w for 10 minutes but not for an hour.
I said no such thing. I said that IF the data showed he had a big engine (fir example 5.7w/kg) would it change people's view. I got my answer - it wont change many peoples since they have made their mind up.

Hogs presentation of data is suspect in the extreme - "just about an hour for 40km" when it was 54 mins, so a10% error. More than any adjustment for strange shaped chainrings.

10% gradient, when in fact it was 7.4% - almost a 50% error.
Again, how could the 2007 data show 5.7w/kg.

In 2007 he'd need to produce 400w avg for an hour. If Froome's 2007 data show's 5.7 then rightly people would question the validity of the test because every time in that timeframe 2006-2010 he never went anywhere near producing 400w avg for a given hour (FTP) in TTs.

That's why people don't agree, along with you not understanding how the value is created.

5.7 on its own is meaningless, not sure why you continue to present it as a "big engine". Context is very important here.
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
Re:

Benotti69 said:
Since Richard Moore was the invited 'independent' (hahahahaha) witness to Froome's 'independent' (hahahahaha) testing and is going to be writing about it, i found his answer to whether Cookson is better than McQuaid
Where was Moore described as an independent witness?
 
gillan1969 said:
The 2006 top three whilst solid pros have not exactly set the world alight…I know Mcauley as he rode in the UK I think but from memory was a sort of burly one day specialist…never really known for his TT ability…..looking at the palmares of the other two medallists…well…they never really bothered the top end of a world class TT….ever. It’s not like there were world class Commie riders like Obree, Millar, Boardman, Yates, Dowsett in the field…so he loses 5.20 over 53 mins in what is in effect a national standard TT….and that is what really catches Sir Dave’s eye….
Fairly funny isn't it?.... DB is outright lying here.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

TailWindHome said:
Benotti69 said:
Since Richard Moore was the invited 'independent' (hahahahaha) witness to Froome's 'independent' (hahahahaha) testing and is going to be writing about it, i found his answer to whether Cookson is better than McQuaid
Where was Moore described as an independent witness?
He is not independent, dont ya see. All part of the smoke screen. Just have to read his views on Cookson to know he wont rock the boat.
 
Mar 11, 2009
1,005
0
0
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Can anyone remind me on the progress that Cookson has made?
His companies and/or family are not promoting bike races in distant lands that get fast tracked onto the WorldTour (or whatever the name du joor is) calendar. and, and, and, um, er, um
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
TheSpud said:
thehog said:
Benotti69 said:
del1962 said:
Funny that "the best post in a while" has such glaringly faulty data
Care to 'correct' the data or you just gonna whinge?
He corrected the gradient on PSM, nothing else. The post still stands as it was about Froome's 2007 data. Spud is trying to tell us Froome might have an average watts of 400w in 2007 for an hour, not possible.

Froome might have done 5.7w for 10 minutes but not for an hour.
I said no such thing. I said that IF the data showed he had a big engine (fir example 5.7w/kg) would it change people's view. I got my answer - it wont change many peoples since they have made their mind up.

Hogs presentation of data is suspect in the extreme - "just about an hour for 40km" when it was 54 mins, so a10% error. More than any adjustment for strange shaped chainrings.

10% gradient, when in fact it was 7.4% - almost a 50% error.
Again, how could the 2007 data show 5.7w/kg.

In 2007 he'd need to produce 400w avg for an hour. If Froome's 2007 data show's 5.7 then rightly people would question the validity of the test because every time in that timeframe 2006-2010 he never went anywhere near producing 400w avg for a given hour (FTP) in TTs.

That's why people don't agree, along with you not understanding how the value is created.

5.7 on its own is meaningless, not sure why you continue to present it as a "big engine". Context is very important here.
Froomey has a big engine, they were putting Diesel into it rather than superplus petrol ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY