Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 959 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

Cycle Chic said:
he is looking worried though when he isnt dropping his rivals. Sh*t his pants when Chavez was up his back wheel the other stage.
Because the peloton has woken up and got back into full scale doping again. Sad to think most of the 90's riders wouldn't even keep up with the leading group in today's peloton.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Cycle Chic said:
he is looking worried though when he isnt dropping his rivals. Sh*t his pants when Chavez was up his back wheel the other stage.
Because the peloton has woken up and got back into full scale doping again. Sad to think most of the 90's riders wouldn't even keep up with the leading group in today's peloton.
aye, you just made that up
 
Jul 10, 2009
918
0
0
Is it baffling how he pedals on a lower gear, I see the high cadence, yet generates so much power??? Are we on different bikes? When I am going up a hill, the lower the gear the easier to pedal but the less power I generate. Even if I pedal to get cadence of 100, the power generation is not great and of course there is a big cardio hit. How is it Froome is defying mathematics? Maybe he needs to publish a paper on his own math.

I have talked about how someone who won the TDF still seems as fresh as daisy
 
Even if you are on a lower gear, if your cadence is high enough you can go faster.

You can't do the same thing Froome does, because you didn't practice it enough and your pedaling technique is probably very ineficient.

I can do the type of seated accelerations that Froome does, but I start to struggle when I go near 120 rpms. A few months a go I had a similar problem with 100 rpms, but I have been practicing it, so now I can achieve higher cadences.

The seated accelerations aren't a problem. It is just his way of doing things. Lot's of cyclists ride in different ways. Some like lower cadences and heavy gears, others don't.

There are a lot of question marks surrounding Froome's performances, I don't think this is one of them.
 
Re:

carolina said:
Even if you are on a lower gear, if your cadence is high enough you can go faster.

You can't do the same thing Froome does, because you didn't practice it enough and your pedaling technique is probably very ineficient.

I can do the type of seated accelerations that Froome does, but I start to struggle when I go near 120 rpms. A few months a go I had a similar problem with 100 rpms, but I have been practicing it, so now I can achieve higher cadences.

The seated accelerations aren't a problem. It is just his way of doing things. Lot's of cyclists ride in different ways. Some like lower cadences and heavy gears, others don't.

There are a lot of question marks surrounding Froome's performances, I don't think this is one of them.
Sure it is, just as it was with Armstrong. Why does this technique work better for them? Because it moves the load from the muscular system more onto the cardio-vascular system, broadly. Why is that a good thing? Well it stops muscles from getting tired as quickly, which is useful in a GT and if you have an extraordinary CV system, you're taking advantage of your best gifts.

Of course neither Froome nor Armstrong showed an extraordinary CV system (for a top GT rider) before certain transformations, so basically what it shows is the movement toward oxygen vector drugs off of whatever they might have been doing before.
 
Yes, the 'Egg Whisk' style as it is known in some cycling circles has defined Froome's success.

Lance Armstrong's cycling Dr./Guru/Scientist/Supplier Michele Ferrari is said to have concluded it is better to abandon the raw leg power of churning huge gears and go for an aerobic-enhanced style relying on a seemingly-unlimited supply of O2 feeding the muscles.

He then pointed Lance in the best direction of ensuring he had all the O2 in his blood he needed to keep peddling rapidly at high-cadence in a low gear.
 
Well, I don't do any type of drugs and I go faster on hills when I use higher cadences. I feel my legs get less tired. If I go bellow 80 rpms I start to struggle and usually the leg pain appears quicker.

I ride with several people that don't do this. One of them as asked me several times why I'm almost always seated. He doesn't feel confortable pedaling the same way I do.

Not everyone pedals the same way. Froome is so ridiculous in so many ways, but this seems pretty normal to me.
 
Aug 14, 2015
245
1
3,030
Re:

carolina said:
Well, I don't do any type of drugs and I go faster on hills when I use higher cadences. I feel my legs get less tired. If I go bellow 80 rpms I start to struggle and usually the leg pain appears quicker.

I ride with several people that don't do this. One of them as asked me several times why I'm almost always seated. He doesn't feel confortable pedaling the same way I do.

Not everyone pedals the same way. Froome is so ridiculous in so many ways, but this seems pretty normal to me.
Opinion of a Tour de France winner on the egg-beater style: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/greg-lemond-miracles-in-cycling-still-dont-exist/
LeMond expressed doubts about Froome's high-cadence attacking style in the L'Équipe interview.
"He turned his legs at a high speed, but it's not effective and contrary to all physiological laws," LeMond is reported as saying, also dismissing the idea of Team Sky's marginal gains philosophy.

"You can't get a gap on small gears," LeMond argued.

"The great physiologist Frederick Portoleau showed that when Froome accelerates hard, his heart only shows small variations. This is troubling. What bothers me is hearing some technicians say it's science fiction, which is a kind of misinformation. Others make us believe they are ahead of the best scientists, the famous Team Sky marginal gains! What bollocks! There are no new methodologies. That is wrong. In this area too, miracles do not exist."
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

rick james said:
thehog said:
Cycle Chic said:
he is looking worried though when he isnt dropping his rivals. Sh*t his pants when Chavez was up his back wheel the other stage.
Because the peloton has woken up and got back into full scale doping again. Sad to think most of the 90's riders wouldn't even keep up with the leading group in today's peloton.
aye, you just made that up
http://www.climbing-records.com/2017/08/team-sky-storms-to-andorra.html

:lol:
 
Re: Re:

TeflonDub said:
carolina said:
Well, I don't do any type of drugs and I go faster on hills when I use higher cadences. I feel my legs get less tired. If I go bellow 80 rpms I start to struggle and usually the leg pain appears quicker.

I ride with several people that don't do this. One of them as asked me several times why I'm almost always seated. He doesn't feel confortable pedaling the same way I do.

Not everyone pedals the same way. Froome is so ridiculous in so many ways, but this seems pretty normal to me.
Opinion of a Tour de France winner on the egg-beater style: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/greg-lemond-miracles-in-cycling-still-dont-exist/
LeMond expressed doubts about Froome's high-cadence attacking style in the L'Équipe interview.
"He turned his legs at a high speed, but it's not effective and contrary to all physiological laws," LeMond is reported as saying, also dismissing the idea of Team Sky's marginal gains philosophy.

"You can't get a gap on small gears," LeMond argued.

"The great physiologist Frederick Portoleau showed that when Froome accelerates hard, his heart only shows small variations. This is troubling. What bothers me is hearing some technicians say it's science fiction, which is a kind of misinformation. Others make us believe they are ahead of the best scientists, the famous Team Sky marginal gains! What bollocks! There are no new methodologies. That is wrong. In this area too, miracles do not exist."
Or alternatively listen to Lance's disbelief on the gearing used by Froome. Go to 8:20-10:40. Two guys both arch enemies and former tour winners dissing the effectiveness of the cadence/gearing used by Froome.

https://soundcloud.com/user-411867241/episode-09-stage-9-stages-a-tdf-podcast-with-lance-armstrong
 
Aug 14, 2015
245
1
3,030
Re:

rick james said:
Using lemond on here as something to back up your argument is a big no no around here
Try to play the ball, not the man. Do you have an issue with anything he said? Or just that he was the one saying it?

High cadence accelerations in incredibly low gears and numerous examples of having to freewheel through hairpins going UP mountains. Yeah, don't believe your lying eyes, what you're seeing from Froome is totes legit.
 
Re: Re:

TeflonDub said:
rick james said:
Using lemond on here as something to back up your argument is a big no no around here
Try to play the ball, not the man. Do you have an issue with anything he said? Or just that he was the one saying it?

High cadence accelerations in incredibly low gears and numerous examples of having to freewheel through hairpins going UP mountains. Yeah, don't believe your lying eyes, what you're seeing from Froome is totes legit.
no I have a problem with him using LeMond as a back up to an argument, Lemond is hated on here yet when it suits some he's the big dog in cycling

and yes Froome is totes legit as you'd say
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
TeflonDub said:
rick james said:
Using lemond on here as something to back up your argument is a big no no around here
Try to play the ball, not the man. Do you have an issue with anything he said? Or just that he was the one saying it?

High cadence accelerations in incredibly low gears and numerous examples of having to freewheel through hairpins going UP mountains. Yeah, don't believe your lying eyes, what you're seeing from Froome is totes legit.
no I have a problem with him using LeMond as a back up to an argument, Lemond is hated on here yet when it suits some he's the big dog in cycling

and yes Froome is totes legit as you'd say
eh...he is a big dog...whether anyone likes it or not...

a bigger dog than either you, me or even the bold sniper.....when you're asked to be a commentator by the media I may reassess my opinion.... ;)
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
Re:

DanielSong39 said:
Motoring along as usual?
Alone is the word. Chaves, Woods and Contador push big gear at 7.1W/kg meaning they are not motoring. Cancellara is another example of an unmotorized rider 'cause he's not spinning like an alien with an egg beater.

Oh, and everyone knows that when you stop pedalling at 20km/h, an unmotorized bike isn't freeweeling but stops immediately, unless you push bigger gear like Chaves.
 
Re: Re:

miguelindurain111 said:
DanielSong39 said:
Motoring along as usual?
Alone is the word. Chaves, Woods and Contador push big gear at 7.1W/kg meaning they are not motoring. Cancellara is another example of an unmotorized rider 'cause he's not spinning like an alien with an egg beater.

Oh, and everyone knows that when you stop pedalling at 20km/h, an unmotorized bike isn't freeweeling but stops immediately, unless you push bigger gear like Chaves.
Obviously they are all doped and some of them may be using motors (though probably inferior to Froome's). But Cancellara? He's probably the one rider who is even more suspicious than Froome when it comes to motodoping.
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
Re: Re:

DanielSong39 said:
miguelindurain111 said:
DanielSong39 said:
Motoring along as usual?
Alone is the word. Chaves, Woods and Contador push big gear at 7.1W/kg meaning they are not motoring. Cancellara is another example of an unmotorized rider 'cause he's not spinning like an alien with an egg beater.

Oh, and everyone knows that when you stop pedalling at 20km/h, an unmotorized bike isn't freeweeling but stops immediately, unless you push bigger gear like Chaves.
Obviously they are all doped and some of them may be using motors (though probably inferior to Froome's). But Cancellara? He's probably the one rider who is even more suspicious than Froome when it comes to motodoping.
Cancellara ain't spinning any faster than Boonen when he drops him like a stone. Well, maybe Fabian isn't using Lemond's high cadence motor but low cadence motor used by Contador & al.
 
Re: Re:

miguelindurain111 said:
DanielSong39 said:
miguelindurain111 said:
DanielSong39 said:
Motoring along as usual?
Alone is the word. Chaves, Woods and Contador push big gear at 7.1W/kg meaning they are not motoring. Cancellara is another example of an unmotorized rider 'cause he's not spinning like an alien with an egg beater.

Oh, and everyone knows that when you stop pedalling at 20km/h, an unmotorized bike isn't freeweeling but stops immediately, unless you push bigger gear like Chaves.
Obviously they are all doped and some of them may be using motors (though probably inferior to Froome's). But Cancellara? He's probably the one rider who is even more suspicious than Froome when it comes to motodoping.
Cancellara ain't spinning any faster than Boonen when he drops him like a stone. Well, maybe Fabian isn't using Lemond's high cadence motor but low cadence motor used by Contador & al.
Cancellara went up a 19% cobblestone section at 15mph.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
rick james said:
TeflonDub said:
rick james said:
Using lemond on here as something to back up your argument is a big no no around here
Try to play the ball, not the man. Do you have an issue with anything he said? Or just that he was the one saying it?

High cadence accelerations in incredibly low gears and numerous examples of having to freewheel through hairpins going UP mountains. Yeah, don't believe your lying eyes, what you're seeing from Froome is totes legit.
no I have a problem with him using LeMond as a back up to an argument, Lemond is hated on here yet when it suits some he's the big dog in cycling

and yes Froome is totes legit as you'd say
eh...he is a big dog...whether anyone likes it or not...

a bigger dog than either you, me or even the bold sniper.....when you're asked to be a commentator by the media I may reassess my opinion.... ;)

Of course he's a big dog, it's only on here that's he's hated.....unless he talks about sky :lol:
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Of course he's a big dog, it's only on here that's he's hated.....unless he talks about sky :lol:
What's with the hate thing? Lemond has been a champion since he first swung his leg over a top-tube. I can't think of a single thing he's gotten wrong about the EPO era (and beyond). Granted, he's not as eloquent or "charming" as someone like Landis or Armstrong. But he's not a raging azzhole either. The only hate I've seen directed at him was when he was actively destroying some flawed myths and it made some heads explode. Go figure. Otherwise, he's pretty much recognized as a cycling god and a good guy.

John Swanson
 
Aug 14, 2015
245
1
3,030
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
rick james said:
Of course he's a big dog, it's only on here that's he's hated.....unless he talks about sky :lol:
What's with the hate thing? Lemond has been a champion since he first swung his leg over a top-tube. I can't think of a single thing he's gotten wrong about the EPO era (and beyond). Granted, he's not as eloquent or "charming" as someone like Landis or Armstrong. But he's not a raging azzhole either. The only hate I've seen directed at him was when he was actively destroying some flawed myths and it made some heads explode. Go figure. Otherwise, he's pretty much recognized as a cycling god and a good guy.

John Swanson
Leaving aside qualitative assessments of Lemond's cycling status, I quoted his remarks as relevant to the general principle of high-cadence, low-gear accelerations being credible. As I said, play the ball, not the man. If Rick disagrees with the merits of anything Lemond says on this subject, or if anybody has a quote from a Grand Tour winner that disgrees with Lemond's claims, I would love to hear those. That would benefit all rather than questioning whether Lemond can or cannot be quoted. Just the facts, please.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS