Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[vrusimov]

Well you claimed they were the top 30 times in your post when they are not the top 30 times. I'm not saying it's wrong to exc 2004&1999 tho but those are not the top 30 times up Mont Ventoux that you have given. (To clarify Armstrong in 2002 would take the 22nd best time for the full distance, his 15km split is higher up)

actually, if you look back at the post, it is actually Ross Tucker's list from The Science of Sport http://www.sportsscientists.com/ If you go there, it will give you much more information about the Ventoux and historical performances. I think this climb is being measured from two places, 15 and 15.65 km, at least that is what I've have seen from the predicted VAM charts.

 

[The Hitch]

This goes all the way back to Verbier in 2009, when everyone (even Ross Tucker) tried desperately to use a tailwind to justify a VAM performance by Contador that surpassed even Riis at Hautacam in 1996...It is always a tailwind...always!

at least with verbier everyone posted very high figures that day. Today only froome and to a lesser extent Quintana.

And don't get me wrong I always said verbier was proof Contador was juiced.

 

[The Hitch]

I didn't see that, but yeah, that's worse.

Even so, as bad as Froome may be, he hasn't committed a genocide yet.

No one said that he has. The reference was to foxys support of doping. Suggestion being he likes medical experiments.

I agree it's unnecessary though.

 

[bigcog]

Nothing out of the ordinary:

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/356425009620725761

 

[meat puppet]

Nothing out of the ordinary:

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/356425009620725761

two secs slower than LA says no.

 

[vrusimov]

Vetooo has completed his calculations, it seems.

The whole hog

Stage 15. Mont Ventoux (last 15.65 km, 8.74 %, 1368 m) Chris Froome: 48 min 35 sec (±5s), 19.33 Kph, VAM 1689 m/h, 5.88 W/kg [DrF]

Section 15,65k -> 6,15k

Stage 15. Mont Ventoux (15.65→6.15 = 9.50 km, 9.22%, 876m) Chris Froome: 30 min 54 sec (±5s), 18.45 Kph, VAM 1701 m/h, 5.82 W/kg [DrF]

Section 6,15k -> Finish

Stage 15. Mont Ventoux (last 6.15 km, 8.00 %, 492 m) Chris Froome: 17 min 41 sec, 20.87 Kph, VAM 1669 m/h, 5.96 W/kg [DrF]

So, in the range of 7 secs shy of LA in 2002 to 3secs faster than him.

Busted, IMO.

This seems to confirm that he has not weakened at all and it is almost a mirror image of the performance he gave at AX3, just short of 5% above pVAM.

Jeez. I feel like I'm discussing a tropical cyclone here!

 

[The Hitch]

Nothing out of the ordinary:

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/356425009620725761

Continued: Wiggins 2009 was faster. - yeah cos Wiggins 09 was ordinary

 

[Telmisartan]

There's something demonic about Froome going full *** attack with dual smoke flares exploding in tandem behind him on the highlights tv package.Supernatural...

 

[Bakhjulet]

Nothing out of the ordinary:

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/356425009620725761

Sshhh, you're spoiling the fun.

 

[deValtos]

So, in the range of 7 secs shy of LA in 2002 to 3secs faster than him.

Busted, IMO.

Did anyone see the 2002 climb ? I'm guessing it was windy conditions as LA is 22nd and no one else from 2002 appears in the top 50 times (full climb)

 

[whittashau]

Actually just to give some more context for the full climb it seems the standings are:

1. 2004: 55:51 Iban Mayo 23.10 km/h
2. 2004: 56:26 Tyler Hamilton 22.86 km/h
3. 1999: 56:50 Jonathan Vaughters 22.70 km/h
4. 2004: 56:54 Oscar Sevilla 22.67 km/h
5. 1999: 57:33 Alexander Vinokourov 22.42 km/h
6. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h
7. 1999: 57:34 Wladimir Belli 22.41 km/h
8. 2004: 57:39 Juan Miguel Mercado 22.38 km/h
9. 1999: 57:42 Joseba Beloki 22.36 km/h
10. 2004: 57:49 Lance Armstrong 22.31 km/h
11. 1999: 57:52 Lance Armstrong 22.29 km/h
12. 2004: 58:14 Inigo Landaluze 22.15 km/h
13. 1999: 58:15 Kevin Livingston 22.15 km/h
14. 1999: 58:31 David Moncoutie 22.05 km/h
15. 2004: 58:35 José Enrique Gutierrez 22.02 km/h
16. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h
17. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h
18. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h
19. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h
20. 1999: 58:51 Unai Osa 21.92 km/h
21. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h
22. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h
22 eq. 2013: 59:00 Vroooooooomey 21.86 km/hr

hmmm I don't think I trust any of the riders above him though not even moncoutie ... but yea work with the full numbers people ! or at least make it clear why you might want to exclude other performances when excluding them and not just ignoring them entirely

Pretty sure all those 2004 times were from a MTT

 

[beowulf]

Vetooo has completed his calculations, it seems.

Stage 15. Mont Ventoux (last 6.15 km, 8.00 %, 492 m) Chris Froome: 17 min 41 sec, 20.87 Kph, VAM 1669 m/h, 5.96 W/kg [DrF]

So, in the range of 7 secs shy of LA in 2002 to 3secs faster than him.

Busted, IMO.

The last 10kms was very fast, especially compared to the first 5kms.

He reminds me so much of Rasmussen, right down to his gaunt unhealthy body. Having said that though, Chicken at least got out of his seat when he attacked.

 

[Parrulo]

Not that I am defending Froome, but Contador has been rather mediocre.

3:22 ahead of Peraud on GC of which 2:04 were due to the much superior team.

But maybe this is as good as Contador can be right now.

I think Contador overcooked himself by going too far into the red trying to follow Froome on both MTF's so far. Had he ridden like say, Mollema, he would have been comfortably sitting on second place right now imo.

 

[vrusimov]

two secs slower than LA says no.

Yes...the acceleration is always amazing to sport scientists. Either that or the tailwinds that help produce stupendous performances. This guy has not weakened since AX3 and his performance today is virtually identical in regards to pVAM.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Do you have a link for this? Not that I don't believe you.

video on NOS.nl with ten dams interview

 

[zalacain]

Good ol' free press in the UK. If you mention "l'ecart" Guardian moderators block it!

 

[deValtos]

Pretty sure all those 2004 times were from a MTT

Yes and I think 1999 was an MTT too, so you can make a case about it being a poor comparison.

As a time it still stands though as those riders made it from the same point A to point B faster than in the other years.

 

[vrusimov]

I think Contador overcooked himself by going too far into the red trying to follow Froome on both MTF's so far. Had he ridden like say, Mollema, he would have been comfortably sitting on second place right now imo.

I am not inclined to believe this. Contador is simply ordinary. The day you lose your rival is the day you lose the tour. Contador has not been merely distanced, he has been "easily" destroyed all three times he's gone toe to toe with Froome. He will lose more before it is over. Second place doesn't mean much to a multiple tour winner.

 

[go crazy]

Meh, though I totally believe Froome is dirty, this ride was not "full ***" as people in here seem to be suggesting, even looking at the times. It was clear he was holding back, even at the top when he rode away from Quintana "gritting his teeth". It reminded me very much of an LA climb. Never looked in any discomfort. LA never had to go full gas because he knew he could go easier and still drop everyone else with ease.

The scariest part to me was the insane acceleration away from AC. That was really crazy, Porte had already blown everyone else away then Froome still had the power to pull that crazy acceleration. It was far more vicious an attack than Armstrong ever showed he could do. In fact, it looked like to me he had to grab the brakes to avoid crashing into the motos or a fan or something. Grabbing the brakes going UP Ventoux? It was clear he could have continued a higher pace, probably finished a minute faster than he did. But he kept getting instructions to slow down, it seemed.

Not the demonstration I hoped for, but the accelerations were scary in and of themselves.

 

[MrRoboto]

Yes and I think 1999 was an MTT too, so you can make a case about it being a poor comparison.

As a time it still stands though as those riders made it from the same point A to point B faster than in the other years.

Yes, both were MTT's in the Dauphine Libere.

 

[the sceptic]

Yes and I think 1999 was an MTT too, so you can make a case about it being a poor comparison.

As a time it still stands though as those riders made it from the same point A to point B faster than in the other years.

Pretty sure Froomedawg would be a few minutes faster too, if he was going full gas the entire climb and didnt already have 200km+ in his legs

 

[Pulpstar]

Chris Froome went up this climb as fast as he wanted to, noone was anywhere near his level today. He won in 3rd gear/trot.

The only time he went top speed was whizzing past Contador, never seen anyone accelerate like that - not even Lance.

 

[No_Balls]

I think that's the most disgusting thing I've ever read on this forum. You should be ashamed of yourself. You won't be, but you should.

Oh, come on. Everyone knows in which manner i said this. Maybe i went a little overboard but sometimes you need to crack a few eggs to make an omelett.

 

[Robert21]

Good ol' free press in the UK. If you mention "l'ecart" Guardian moderators block it!

The real problem here is the UK's libel law!

 

[Northern Monkey]

Nothing out of the ordinary:

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/356425009620725761

The guy posing the question to Tucker there comes out with the now standard Sky defending point that 'you cannot make an accusation of doping based on one data point.'

Which of course, fails to take into account or acknowledge the performances from the 2011 Vuelta until now which have set alarm bells ringing for many observers, and instead pretends that in a vacuum each of Froome's performances are seemingly explainable.