Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 800 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
thehog said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
Yes he was (as support for Wiggins), but only just - he almost wasn't fit after crashing in Romandie a few weeks earlier. But never mind that fact.
And at Barloworld, he forgot to bring his big engine? What about that fact?

He had 'transformed' by the time he towed Wiggins around France in 2012. Again never mind the 'transformation' fact!
Barloworld had Sobakawa pillow's once you change that it is a different ballgame. :D
The supposed 'big engine' only turned up once prior to the 2011 Vuelta. It was for the crazy adaptive test in 2007 at the UCI. What are the odds?
Really? Do you have a list of absolutely every result of his to be able to verify that?
Yes, that's what the internet is called, it records results :rolleyes:

Again you're confused on what the 5.7w/kg figure actually represents.

If you conduct a lab based FTP test is goes for one hour. It records Functional Threshold Power (FTP) and is based on the riders weight and average wattage for one hour.

If Froome produced 5.7w/kg on a small climb for 3 minutes in a race it doesn't translate to a "big engine" as he was only able to produce the value for a short time. It does not translate to 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test.

You're confused about the figures that are produced after a climb and that its the same as a lab based FTP test. People do make correlations but they are not the same figure.

Riders use their FTP value as a guide (with some computation) to know what range they can stay in when climbing.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
TheSpud said:
Really? Do you have a list of absolutely every result of his to be able to verify that?
Yes, that's what the internet is called, it records results :rolleyes:

Again you're confused on what the 5.7w/kg figure actually represents.

If you conduct a lab based FTP test is goes for one hour. It records Functional Threshold Power (FTP) and is based on the riders weight and average wattage for one hour.

If Froome produced 5.7w/kg on a small climb for 3 minutes in a race it doesn't translate to a "big engine" as he was only able to produce the value for a short time. It does not translate to 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test.

You're confused about the figures that are produced after a climb and that its the same as a lab based FTP test. People do make correlations but they are not the same figure.

Riders use their FTP value as a guide (with some computation) to know what range they can stay in when climbing.

I'm not confused about anything Hog - yet again you are presuming things about my knowledge. Its not about me so don't get personal, its about the so called 'evidence' that the picture shows and what the (as yet) unpublished data might show.

You say Froome only showed a big engine once but you don't seem to be able to substantiate it (either way). Then you say he may have produced that for a few minutes on a climb somewhere. What is the relevance - I haven't mentioned anything like that? I know the difference between lab tests and race conditions.

You can post as many snide remarks and rollingeyes icons as you like but they are not a coherent argument.
 
Can someone explain to me what these tests are supposed to prove? We KNOW he's putting out huge power now. Is anyone disputing this? They have already pointedly NOT released his pre-Vuelta 2011 data. That's the only question and who at this point is going to believe any release of 5-year old data which SKY have been sitting on. The released garbage data during the Tour last year, as shown by the release of rider data who put out more watts per kilo but somehow went slower than Froome.

Seriously, what is it going to prove to show he's putting out a certain wattage now? I don't get it. I mean I do get why they're doing it, but I don't get why anyone with an operating brain cares.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
3
0
Re:

red_flanders said:
Can someone explain to me what these tests are supposed to prove? We KNOW he's putting out huge power now. Is anyone disputing this? They have already pointedly NOT released his pre-Vuelta 2011 data. That's the only question and who at this point is going to believe any release of 5-year old data which SKY have been sitting on. The released garbage data during the Tour last year, as shown by the release of rider data who put out more watts per kilo but somehow went slower than Froome.

Seriously, what is it going to prove to show he's putting out a certain wattage now? I don't get it. I mean I do get why they're doing it, but I don't get why anyone with an operating brain cares.
its the old we know you don't know game.

But the really funny thing is. What was dudes results before these big numbers?

Did he ride the Tour de Fasso?
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
thehog said:
TheSpud said:
Really? Do you have a list of absolutely every result of his to be able to verify that?
Yes, that's what the internet is called, it records results :rolleyes:

Again you're confused on what the 5.7w/kg figure actually represents.

If you conduct a lab based FTP test is goes for one hour. It records Functional Threshold Power (FTP) and is based on the riders weight and average wattage for one hour.

If Froome produced 5.7w/kg on a small climb for 3 minutes in a race it doesn't translate to a "big engine" as he was only able to produce the value for a short time. It does not translate to 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test.

You're confused about the figures that are produced after a climb and that its the same as a lab based FTP test. People do make correlations but they are not the same figure.

Riders use their FTP value as a guide (with some computation) to know what range they can stay in when climbing.

I'm not confused about anything Hog - yet again you are presuming things about my knowledge. Its not about me so don't get personal, its about the so called 'evidence' that the picture shows and what the (as yet) unpublished data might show.

You say Froome only showed a big engine once but you don't seem to be able to substantiate it (either way). Then you say he may have produced that for a few minutes on a climb somewhere. What is the relevance - I haven't mentioned anything like that? I know the difference between lab tests and race conditions.

You can post as many snide remarks and rollingeyes icons as you like but they are not a coherent argument.
As a FYI, 5.7w/kg for 3 minutes is not a big engine. He doesn't have a big engine. You know that, I sense you were trying to indicate that he does by a mystery test but that wouldn't be possible on everything we saw pre-Vuelta-11.

Or are you suggesting his test data will be vastly different from his race performances for that time period?

That would be a stretch but as a fan you're welcome to believe it.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
TheSpud said:
thehog said:
TheSpud said:
Really? Do you have a list of absolutely every result of his to be able to verify that?
Yes, that's what the internet is called, it records results :rolleyes:

Again you're confused on what the 5.7w/kg figure actually represents.

If you conduct a lab based FTP test is goes for one hour. It records Functional Threshold Power (FTP) and is based on the riders weight and average wattage for one hour.

If Froome produced 5.7w/kg on a small climb for 3 minutes in a race it doesn't translate to a "big engine" as he was only able to produce the value for a short time. It does not translate to 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test.

You're confused about the figures that are produced after a climb and that its the same as a lab based FTP test. People do make correlations but they are not the same figure.

Riders use their FTP value as a guide (with some computation) to know what range they can stay in when climbing.

I'm not confused about anything Hog - yet again you are presuming things about my knowledge. Its not about me so don't get personal, its about the so called 'evidence' that the picture shows and what the (as yet) unpublished data might show.

You say Froome only showed a big engine once but you don't seem to be able to substantiate it (either way). Then you say he may have produced that for a few minutes on a climb somewhere. What is the relevance - I haven't mentioned anything like that? I know the difference between lab tests and race conditions.

You can post as many snide remarks and rollingeyes icons as you like but they are not a coherent argument.
As a FYI, 5.7w/kg for 3 minutes is not a big engine. He doesn't have a big engine. You know that, I sense you were trying to indicate that he does by a mystery test but that wouldn't be possible on everything we saw pre-Vuelta-11.

Or are you suggesting his test data will be vastly different from his race performances for that time period?

That would be a stretch but as a fan you're welcome to believe it.
I'm bored with this senseless going round in circles with you - I simply cant be bothered to kick the ball if you are going to keep moving the goal posts, see you when the data is released.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0


Be interesting if there were limb circumference measurements. Froome's arms have defintiely reduced in size in-comp but his legs look the same.

Love to know how he does that...
 
Re:

harryh said:
By Coggan's power chart 5.7w/kg/h isn't world class but domestic level.
No one is claiming him to be 'world class' but you may want to look at the chart again? 5.69 is at the cross over with 5.7 in world class.

Regardless Froome wasn't producing that type of power in 2007 by his TTs at the time. At 70kg's he was a lot lower than a average of 400w for a given hour.
 
Re: Re:

harryh said:
By the chart you need to put at least 5.78 W/kg/h to be world class.
I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. The World Class line intersects between 5.69 and 5.78. In 2007 Froome was not at that point although Spud was attempting to indicate that his test results at the time would.

Doubtful.

In 2012 he was at that point though:

http://www.skysports.com/cycling/news/20192/7452102/froome-trainingpeaks-analysis

Froome averaged 5.8w/kg at 406W for nearly an hour! He paced the event to perfection as the first half had a total altitude gain of 219m and he averaged 414w, versus the second half where the course had a total elevation gain of only 86m and he averaged 398w. There were certainly riders who started the time trial too hard and suffered in the final 20km where Froome ended up gaining ground.

This is the ideal test of one’s true capabilities at what is termed Functional Threshold Power (FTP). A cyclist’s FTP is the average watts they can maintain for a 60-minute effort. Given the fact that Froome’s 47km time trial took him 57 minutes we can easily conclude that his FTP equals a tad more than 400w.

Now that you know what it takes to compete at the highest levels it can be easy to see how you compare to the world’s best. Well it’s easy to do if you have a power meter that is. If you don’t own one try asking if your local fitness gym has any indoor bikes which display power. Or ask at your local cycling club to see if you can rent one for a day in order to conduct some of your own field tests.

Analysis

How long can you maintain 5.8 watts per kilogram? Chris Froome can do this for 60 minutes and now he knows his true potential and can apply those power values within his future training. Another great concept we can learn from Froome’s TT file is the idea of assigning a score, known as Training Stress Score (TSS), to each and every ride.

Froome rode for almost 60 minutes at FTP so that equals 99 TSS. One hour at FTP equals 100 TSS. Using TrainingPeaks and SRM power meters Team Sky can quantify each day’s training load in terms of intensity, duration and frequency. When viewed over time TSS values paint a picture of each athlete’s fitness, fatigue and form.
 
Mar 27, 2015
435
0
0
The border line between domestique and world class level is somewhere between 5.78 and 5.87 W/kg/h. No?

Anyway, 5.8w/kg at 406W implies he would have weighted 70kg at Vuelta 2012. I think his weight was more like 67kg so he more likely put ~6 W/kg/h in that TT.

Moreover, I don't think Froome was able to put 5.7W/kg/h in 2007 in a test. Perhaps 5.6W/kg at 71 kg. And likely this number is extrapolated from standard 20 min test by multplying the average watts by 0.95.

So, I believe he had the potential. I'm not interested in how he fulfilled his potential. The methods are available for everyone. So go ahead and win your GT, it can't be that hard :)
 
Re:

red_flanders said:
To know his watts per kg, you need to know his weight. We don't know his weight, only what's reported.
Very true.

He self reported it at 70-71kg in 2007 and 66-67kg now when racing. I tend to think he gets down to 63-64kg at the Tour but that's me surmising.

Even then with self reporting I'm sure we don't get the full story.
 
TheSpud said:
Puckfiend said:
Savant12 said:
I've enjoyed all the recent discussions about training numbers and FTP tests but this picture thing is pure trolling.

Bandage on his knee alludes to his doping? And all the people stoking the trolling with doping talk. Come on, this is really scraping the barrel.

Do some background on the picture. Froome was riding as a domestique, the picture shows Giro 2010 stage 10 and was a stage win possibility for Greg Henderson, hence why Froome is trying to get him back into the stage. Froome was also complaining of knee problems so it's reasonable that he would stop to help his team-mate out.
Why would Froome be riding as a domestique? Has Contador EVER ridden a Grand Tour as a domestique? Did Lance Armstrong ever ride a Grand Tour as a domestique? Ullrich?

Unless of course, Team Sky knew his numbers, etc. and had determined that his talent equated to being a domestique.
Contador - 2005?
Armstrong - 1993/4/5?
Armstrong -1993/4/5? That would be before Ferrari and Bryuneel. At that time he WAS just a high level domestique. Then, he made the third greatest transformation in cycling history. We now know how he did it. All that remains is the discovery of the other two transformations: Wiggins and Froome. Surely, in the end, their story will be the same?
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Re:

red_flanders said:
Can someone explain to me what these tests are supposed to prove? We KNOW he's putting out huge power now. Is anyone disputing this? They have already pointedly NOT released his pre-Vuelta 2011 data. That's the only question and who at this point is going to believe any release of 5-year old data which SKY have been sitting on. The released garbage data during the Tour last year, as shown by the release of rider data who put out more watts per kilo but somehow went slower than Froome.

Seriously, what is it going to prove to show he's putting out a certain wattage now? I don't get it. I mean I do get why they're doing it, but I don't get why anyone with an operating brain cares.
I think it is great Froomey is doing all these tests to show how good he is. It would be even more funnier if 'the Mythical Aigle Test' show he had a big engine.

Why?

Well, that answer is pretty simple.

Just explain the lack of results prior to September 2011.

Did he suffer from Badzillah for years?

Impossible, he would be having severe damage to his kidneys or other parts in his body.

Why didnt the big engine man have any results? Was it all just because of race tactics, the lack of?

Did Bobby Julich turn this big engine into the best stage racer around?

Not only that of course.

Why havent the magical gains of guru Tim Kerrison made Froome better?

By the third of december there will be more questions than answers I predict.

red_flanders said:
To know his watts per kg, you need to know his weight. We don't know his weight, only what's reported.
408/5,8 equals 70,3kg in 2011

It isnt science...

By the way, doesnt anyone see that doesnt correlate with the weight Fred Grappe was told Froomey was on?

Puckfiend said:
Armstrong -1993/4/5? That would be before Ferrari and Bryuneel. At that time he WAS just a high level domestique. Then, he made the third greatest transformation in cycling history. We now know how he did it. All that remains is the discovery of the other two transformations: Wiggins and Froome. Surely, in the end, their story will be the same?
Your cycling knowledge lacks a bit, do some research.

Armstrong never was a dom.
 
TheSpud said:
Puckfiend said:
Savant12 said:
I've enjoyed all the recent discussions about training numbers and FTP tests but this picture thing is pure trolling.

Bandage on his knee alludes to his doping? And all the people stoking the trolling with doping talk. Come on, this is really scraping the barrel.

Do some background on the picture. Froome was riding as a domestique, the picture shows Giro 2010 stage 10 and was a stage win possibility for Greg Henderson, hence why Froome is trying to get him back into the stage. Froome was also complaining of knee problems so it's reasonable that he would stop to help his team-mate out.
Why would Froome be riding as a domestique? Has Contador EVER ridden a Grand Tour as a domestique? Did Lance Armstrong ever ride a Grand Tour as a domestique? Ullrich?

Unless of course, Team Sky knew his numbers, etc. and had determined that his talent equated to being a domestique.
Contador - 2005?
Armstrong - 1993/4/5?
Actually Berto had a more or less free role in the team
 
Correct Armstrong was never a Dom.

Armstrong was a decent rider pre cancer. He was also doping pre-cancer. His semi-transformation was from a really good one day rider into a GT rider. It took him 18 months to come back after cancer to win a GT. His 1998 Vuelta was fairly good but it took him time.

Froome went from very average, to really poor in Poland, then in 3 weeks he was sprinting up mountains after shielding Wiggins in the first week. That was truly the most absurd thing I've ever seen in cycling. On Peña Cabarga Wiggins actually dropped his chain 5km from he climb. Froome even had time to pace him back to the group before he went on his El Cobo rampage.

To the Froome tests, agree, I don't know how they plan to explain this pre-11-Vuelta period but it will make fun reading!
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
red_flanders said:
To know his watts per kg, you need to know his weight. We don't know his weight, only what's reported.
Very true.

He self reported it at 70-71kg in 2007 and 66-67kg now when racing. I tend to think he gets down to 63-64kg at the Tour but that's me surmising.

Even then with self reporting I'm sure we don't get the full story.
of course we won't. if anyone does realy hope it's just a day-dreaming.
 
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
thehog said:
red_flanders said:
To know his watts per kg, you need to know his weight. We don't know his weight, only what's reported.
Very true.

He self reported it at 70-71kg in 2007 and 66-67kg now when racing. I tend to think he gets down to 63-64kg at the Tour but that's me surmising.

Even then with self reporting I'm sure we don't get the full story.
of course we won't. if anyone does realy hope it's just a day-dreaming.
1 kilo here, one kilo there and boom! Dawg had a big engine even when he was pushing sprinters!

It will be the butchers finger on the scale all through the testing.

The reason I'm looking forward to the report is how they spin the almost unspinnable. Alastair Campbell will be reading intently.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS