Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 85 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,122
0
0
Froome19 I admire your staying power. I wouldn't be able to discuss it with the people whose main argument is 'Froome is a joke'
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Please, dont come in here and claiming his technique is fine. You'll look like a fool. His technique is awfull, anyone with a brain can see that. Just wait till he improves on that part, it will be a killing field. The second coming.
Froome's technique works for him. Grabsch used a huge gear to get his TT wins, among which a WC, while his technique looks horrible. It might not work for the average rider, but for him it was the most efficient technique, with the highest power output. For Froome the same. Barely any pro has a perfect technique, and it doesn't indicate much about their power output. Ever seen Mollema or Escartin?
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
Pentacycle said:
Froome's technique works for him. Grabsch used a huge gear to get his TT wins, among which a WC, while his technique looks horrible. It might not work for the average rider, but for him it was the most efficient technique, with the highest power output. For Froome the same. Barely any pro has a perfect technique, and it doesn't indicate much about their power output. Ever seen Mollema or Escartin?
Reminds me of a story by Tim Krabbé. He knew an amateur cyclist who had spends hours and hours, days and days with his bike next to a mirror, constantly changing his position, untill he sat on his bike just like Merckx. His speed on the bike only suffered and he never won anything of note, but then again, he was the spitting image of Merckx.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,122
0
0
Pentacycle said:
Please, dont come in here and claiming his technique is fine. You'll look like a fool. His technique is awfull, anyone with a brain can see that. Just wait till he improves on that part, it will be a killing field. The second coming.
Another lol. Who the hell are you dear? Ex pro with a perfect technique, a superdescender, an aerodynanics specialist from Massachusetts University?? If you had been 1 of them, I'd gladly read you and take note. But no, you are just a CN forum member who despises Froome so much that tries to belittle his in any aspect.

It's a winning technique. It's all what matters.


Just for a record, I find Froome's technique very decent. He rides uphill very ergonomically and tries to save his legs, using relatively small gears. His TT manner is hard to object to critics too. FGL, we can discuss his technique in details. Apparently you see lots flaws. Could you be so polite to call them? So...?
 
Pentacycle said:
Froome's technique works for him. Grabsch used a huge gear to get his TT wins, among which a WC, while his technique looks horrible. It might not work for the average rider, but for him it was the most efficient technique, with the highest power output. For Froome the same. Barely any pro has a perfect technique, and it doesn't indicate much about their power output. Ever seen Mollema or Escartin?
I always wonder about the term "has a big engine".

What does it mean? :rolleyes:
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
thehog said:
I always wonder about the term "has a big engine".

What does it mean? :rolleyes:
It's literally the engine of a rider, the FTP. It's mostly expressed in lab tests and TT's. But in most cases, it's about the rider's ability to deliver a high FTP at the end of a gruelling stage or classic, or to be able to consistently produce high power over three weeks.

Lots of riders from Scandinavia are pretty good at producing high power, but when it comes to real racing, they tend to disappoint. EBH is a prime example.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
2
0
I cant be bothered to read all these skybot posts, but is the latest theory that dawg has always had a big engine because he came 36th in the U23 ITT?
 
ToreBear said:
If he is doping, I hope he gets found out as fast as possible.
I think and hope everybody in this part of the CN forums will agree with you on that.

Personally in regards to the substance of the discussion on the last couple pages of this thread I'll say: It seems clear, that Bilharzia is not sufficient as an explanation why Froome's results from 2008 to 2010 were lacking, since he most likely got "infected" (if you can call it that) only at some point in the second half of 2010 I suppose, or it would have been diagnosed earlier.
However I believe, that what seperates successful professional cyclists from mediocre pro cyclists is not just talent, but also or motivation, determination and training knowledge. And there's plenty room here for growth other than doping that could explain his performances up to that point.

All the cyclists who are heralded as having had awesome results in early years, Lemond, Contador, Indurain, Ullrich, whatever. They all always knew who they were and what they wanted to be. You think Lemond ever half-assed a race in his life? I am not sure the same is true for Froome. Until I'm convinced of the opposite, I'm willing to accept the reasons for his unimpressive palmares until the 2011 Vuelta were not a lack of talent, or a lack of doping compared to now, but primarily psychological in himself.
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
the sceptic said:
I cant be bothered to read all these skybot posts, but is the latest theory that dawg has always had a big engine because he came 36th in the U23 ITT?
That's BS, although someone suggested that 36th place indicated some kind of ability. However, it doesn't indicate his limits.

Who knows what kind of form or equipment he was competing with there? He had to manage all by himself, meaning he had a certain disadvantage over his opponents. On top of that he lost close to a minute because of a crash.

The main 'evidence' for Froome's engine are his undisclosed lab tests results, in which his numbers were reportedly off the charts. Numbers are unknown, but JV said that it's not for our eyes to see, just for insiders.
 
Pentacycle said:
The main 'evidence' for Froome's engine are his undisclosed lab tests results, in which his numbers were reportedly off the charts. Numbers are unknown, but JV said that it's not for our eyes to see, just for insiders.
JV said. I think thats the end of the world as we know it! JV said.

The main evidence is “undisclosed”?

For insiders only?

You do realize that JV himself hasn’t even seen these supposed numbers. He only heard about them.

And this is the “main” evidence you’re holding on to?

Good luck with that!

Sounds like Armstrong's thigh bone story or his extra large heart etc.

The things people will believe.

JV also once said USPS were clean, no EPO and that the hematocrit testing machine wasn’t calibrated properly when he hit 52%.

JV said.
 
Pentacycle said:
Lots of riders from Scandinavia are pretty good at producing high power, but when it comes to real racing, they tend to disappoint. EBH is a prime example.
And there's me thinking that people from Scandinavia were sexually repressed and paid high taxes.
 
great!

hektoren said:
You can't tell from one photo. Was it late in the stage? Early on? How flexible is his lower back? You can make up your mind about the ideal way of clearing the bar in the high-jump, and along comes **** Fosbury, and changes the game.
What we can tell about Froome's TTing ability is that he's fast. He's got a big engine. His technique obviously works for him. Who are you to say that he could do better? Do you have pro-level expertise as a TT-trainer?
so hoggy was talking bs? and they sounded so believable.............i would
have lapped it up

and their response was strange...............citing laura lynn.............ah well
i guess it was a diversion

Mark L
 
spalco said:
And Floyd Landis said he's innocent. Your ****ing point is?
If your reliance is on “undisclosed” evidence of some test that may or may not have occurred, somewhere in Switzerland before anyone had heard of the name Froome then you really don’t have anything to prove that the Dawg has a – wait for it! – “big engine”.
 
spalco said:
I think and hope everybody in this part of the CN forums will agree with you on that.

Personally in regards to the substance of the discussion on the last couple pages of this thread I'll say: It seems clear, that Bilharzia is not sufficient as an explanation why Froome's results from 2008 to 2010 were lacking, since he most likely got "infected" (if you can call it that) only at some point in the second half of 2010 I suppose, or it would have been diagnosed earlier.
However I believe, that what seperates successful professional cyclists from mediocre pro cyclists is not just talent, but also or motivation, determination and training knowledge. And there's plenty room here for growth other than doping that could explain his performances up to that point.

All the cyclists who are heralded as having had awesome results in early years, Lemond, Contador, Indurain, Ullrich, whatever. They all always knew who they were and what they wanted to be. You think Lemond ever half-assed a race in his life? I am not sure the same is true for Froome. Until I'm convinced of the opposite, I'm willing to accept the reasons for his unimpressive palmares until the 2011 Vuelta were not a lack of talent, or a lack of doping compared to now, but primarily psychological in himself.
According to Bobby Julich that was pretty much the case:

"Chris was just an unpolished diamond," says former American professional Bobby Julich, Froome's personal trainer for the past two seasons. "As soon as I met him, I could see that he was switched on professionally, but maybe he was a bit over his head in the day-to-day life stuff. But right away I could see that his numbers were great."
 
thehog said:
If your reliance is on “undisclosed” evidence of some test that may or may not have occurred, somewhere in Switzerland before anyone had heard of the name Froome then you really don’t have anything to prove that the Dawg has a – wait for it! – “big engine”.
I fully agree with you that Vaughters' explanations of why he was interested in signing Froome were not convincing, but what you said in the post I quoted was simply an unreasonable polemical cheap shot imo.
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
thehog said:
JV said. I think thats the end of the world as we know it! JV said.

The main evidence is “undisclosed”?

For insiders only?

You do realize that JV himself hasn’t even seen these supposed numbers. He only heard about them.

And this is the “main” evidence you’re holding on to?

Good luck with that!

Sounds like Armstrong's thigh bone story or his extra large heart etc.

The things people will believe.

JV also once said USPS were clean, no EPO and that the hematocrit testing machine wasn’t calibrated properly when he hit 52%.

JV said.
Never have I mentioned those numbers as valid evidence, since they're not confirmed and probably never will be.

JV should get some credits for sharing some info and thoughts with us, but he also makes us feel powerless. Outsiders won't get any evidence or insider's info. Ever.

JV1973 said:
btw - why would anyone on this forum have access to chris froome's vo2 max testing from his barloworld time? it's not mysterious. you guys just aren't involved in professional cycling, so you don't have access. hardly odd.
All we can legimimately discuss has been discussed over and over; while the only things that are added are wins to Froome's palmares, and some interviews and inaccurate climbing power data. This thread is just a great guessing game; and no matter what your viewpoint is, eventually Froome will have to unmask himself, as we can't do it. We're not involved.
 
MatParker117 said:
According to Bobby Julich that was pretty much the case:
Which numbers are those?

What are these numbers everyone keeps talking about? :rolleyes:

In JVs days good numbers meant a hematocrit of 42% that could be lifted "high".

I do wonder about these numbers.

Terms to descibe a rider whos had a meteoric rise:

"Good numbers", "big engine", "I was going sign him", "performs well in testing".

Riiiighht. So much clearer now :rolleyes:
 
Pentacycle said:
Never have I mentioned those numbers as valid evidence, since they're not confirmed and probably never will be.

JV should get some credits for sharing some info and thoughts with us, but he also makes us feel powerless. Outsiders won't get any evidence or insider's info. Ever.

All we can legimimately discuss has been discussed over and over; while the only things that are added are wins to Froome's palmares, and some interviews and inaccurate climbing power data. This thread is just a great guessing game; and no matter what your viewpoint is, eventually Froome will have to unmask himself, as we can't do it. We're not involved.
Well you did say it was the "main evidence" - what did you expect me believe you meant?

This thread is not a guessing game.


You underestmate those who follow Pro Cycling. People who have watched 1000’s of hours of cycling over 10-20 years know balony when they see it.

Frooome is balony.

Pure and simple.

There’s not a lot of guessing about it.

It reletivly simple really.

Go watch the 2012 Tour – first MTF – turn the sound down on the commentry. Watch it. No sound. Silence. What do you see in the last 4kim? Did it seem real?

Honest opinion.

Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGcq-jDkhqU - 22.30 onwards.
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
thehog said:
And there's me thinking that people from Scandinavia were sexually repressed and paid high taxes.
They're among the happiest and highest educated people on the planet. Don't know if being sexually repressed contributes to that.
 
Well if we want to go along with what 'JV said' then let's look at JV saying he thinks Froome could do 39mins for the Alpe...serious implications.

As regards Sky and Julich addressing his technical deficiencies - let's go with that for one minute. Why did it take almost two years for it to click into place...and when it did click into place, why so suddenly in such a high quality race as his contract was about to be let run out, and as DB had said rated Froome the lowest of all the Sky squad...One would have thought that Froome would have shown signs of these technical improvements at the Tour of Poland just before the Vuelta...the tour of Poland where he was mid pack mediocrity in a very mediocre field in the first place.
The national bias shown towards Froome and Sky is complete and utter horsesh**. (From both the media and the fans).
Regarding JV...In 2004 he gave an interview saying how amazing lance is. He also tried to sign Alberto, saying that he may not have doped...JV has a dog in this fight whether he admits it or not...Sky doping does not look good for JV. Because of Wiggins' fourth place with Garmin. Also JV needs to sell this idea of clean cycling so as to preserve sponsors...otherwise it's Doug Ellis' money which will be used again and again.
 
Lanark said:
Reminds me of a story by Tim Krabbé. He knew an amateur cyclist who had spends hours and hours, days and days with his bike next to a mirror, constantly changing his position, untill he sat on his bike just like Merckx. His speed on the bike only suffered and he never won anything of note, but then again, he was the spitting image of Merckx.
I think every rider has a natural style through which he gets the maximum power out of his body. Some styles are pretty smooth like Contador, Betancur "dancing on the pedals" or downright "wrestling on the bike" style of Escartin or the middle of the road style like Evans, Froome etc or the "calm seated" style of Wiggins, Cancellara. Of course, the more your body moves the more energy you spent but if your body is already used to it then it is perfectly ok. The more the upper body muscles are brought into play, the more ragged the style becomes. Also the more bigger the gear the more likely it will need other muscles of the body. Most likely Contador and Betancur donot have upper body muscles like the others to bring them into play and for Cancellara and Wiggins the out of the saddle style is probably uneconomical in energy.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY