Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Froomster]

I did an objective analysis (a few pages back) of his performance using time trial results from 2007 to present. Starting at the Tour de Suisse in 2011, Froome's performance suddenly and permanently changed whereby he added an estimated 20% to his FTP.

I added the raw data so that anyone can look at it, graph it, etc. I also did a similar analysis of Cadel Evans which showed a much more reasonable set of data. His early career showed good performance, followed by a steady progression, and then a steady decline in the last few years as he passed his peak.

John Swanson

John,

I'd be very interested in seeing a similar analysis of Wiggins' 2012. Looking back at my list of his record, upon reflection it's not quite as big a transformation as Froome, but still pretty astonishing.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1405586&postcount=8754

 

[Parker]

Just indulge me for a minute. This coming July, a rider who comes from nowhere like Froome and goes on to destroy Froome in the Tour whilst putting out numbers that are Froome-esque, you'll be cool with that and wont cry 'foul'?

Define coming out of nowhere? Froome had come 2nd, 2nd, 4th in GTs before winning. Also he didn't come through a normal cycling programme like 95% of pros. His Barloworld days were basically the equivalent of other's under 23 days.

If out of nowhere means a Western European guy who has been trying to be a GC guy at WT level for many years - then BS. If it's some guy you have dragged out of a cycling backwater and given some training - then maybe it's legit.

 

[The Hitch]

lol, remember this is the same poster who in 2012 denied that Wiggins had ever praised Lance because "you can't trust what Wiggins says" ergo he never meant what he said when he praised Lance ergo he never praised Lance and was always anti Lance Armstrong.

Froome transformation legit because he came 2nd in a gt before he won one? Madone, thats even worse logic.

 

[Parker]

Froome's technique isn't efficient, his build is spindly and he isn't aerodynamic, yet he's still TTing the same speed as guys with nigh on perfect aerodynamic positions, minimal movement and calves like tree trunks. His lesser drag due to lower frontal area is offset by his less dynamic position.

Where the hell did you learn aerodynamics? Usually 'spindly' is more aerodynamic than 'tree trunks'. And how do you know his position is less dynamic? Do you have a link to the figures?

Or is this just 'received wisdom' you have picked? I'm betting you haven't formally studied anything scientific since the age of 16. You're just parroting lazy stereotypes.

 

[BYOP88]

Define coming out of nowhere? Froome had come 2nd, 2nd, 4th in GTs before winning. Also he didn't come through a normal cycling programme like 95% of pros. His Barloworld days were basically the equivalent of other's under 23 days.

If out of nowhere means a Western European guy who has been trying to be a GC guy at WT level for many years - then BS. If it's some guy you have dragged out of a cycling backwater and given some training - then maybe it's legit.

Ok what's a 'normal cycling programme'?

Right if Froome was Spanish/Italian/American/whatever didn't ride for Sky and had beaten Wiggins/the next British cycling hero, would you still defend his 'numbers' and performance?

 

[Parker]

lol, remember this is the same poster who in 2012 denied that Wiggins had ever praised Lance because "you can't trust what Wiggins says" ergo he never meant what he said when he praised Lance ergo he never praised Lance and was always anti Lance Armstrong.

Do you realise that when you bring up what someone said two years ago you don't come across as some great debater as you think, but us some massively creepy guy who keeps dossiers on people so he can get small wins on the internet. It's almost sociopathic behaviour. You seriously creep me out.

(But for the record everyone knows Wiggins changes his mind on a daily basis).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Define coming out of nowhere? Froome had come 2nd, 2nd, 4th in GTs before winning. Also he didn't come through a normal cycling programme like 95% of pros. His Barloworld days were basically the equivalent of other's under 23 days.

If out of nowhere means a Western European guy who has been trying to be a GC guy at WT level for many years - then BS. If it's some guy you have dragged out of a cycling backwater and given some training - then maybe it's legit.

Yup, straight out of nowhere. If there were linear progress between 2008 (raw but showing potential) and late 2011 (losing GTs on bonus seconds due to team clipping his wings) then maybe that argument could be bought. Unfortunately due to a combination of Froome making no progression and his illness stunting his development we can't really see any progress being made until he explodes into the distance and instead of losing to lauded climbers like Alessandro Bertuola on MTFs in the Brixia Tour, he's quashing guys like Cadel Evans in the Tour de France.

What about if Rafael Andriatto starts killing the Italian one-day calendar like Murilo Fischer did a few years ago? He's Brazilian, showed a bit of promise at home, came to Europe, did decently in some second- and third-tier one-day races racing for a slightly dubious team couple of CQ scores of 150-200... should be perfectly set to podium San Remo, no?

You know we had a guy that did what you ask last year, right? A guy from a cycling backwater who showed a bit of promise, got given some training, got to do some better races, and then started putting out 6W/kg en route to wins.

His name was Mustafa Sayar, and he's the Turkish Chris Froome.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Where the hell did you learn aerodynamics? Usually 'spindly' is more aerodynamic than 'tree trunks'. And how do you know his position is less dynamic? Do you have a link to the figures?

Or is this just 'received wisdom' you have picked? I'm betting you haven't formally studied anything scientific since the age of 16. You're just parroting lazy stereotypes.

IMO spindly legs don't make as much difference as height when it comes to CdA.

Tree trunk legs probably generate more absolute power.

The TT formula is W/m^2. So a heavier + shorter rider doing the same W/kg, or even less, will /should / could have higher W/m^2 and go faster.

Completely forgetting the fact Froome had not even been in a wind tunnel, whereas many, many other riders have. More than once.

ETA: Getting personal is an inefficient way to post.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Where the hell did you learn aerodynamics? Usually 'spindly' is more aerodynamic than 'tree trunks'. And how do you know his position is less dynamic? Do you have a link to the figures?

Or is this just 'received wisdom' you have picked? I'm betting you haven't formally studied anything scientific since the age of 16. You're just parroting lazy stereotypes.

So is it, or is it not, suspicious if Bert Grabsch starts climbing with GT winners? The calves are but one part of the body, as I'm sure you're aware. Froome's TT position is not more aerodynamic than Martin's, or Wiggins', or Cancellara's, and you don't need a degree in physics to understand that.

Also, just fyi Linguistics is a scientific study field. I couldn't have got as far along in that by 16 unless I was a total savant with natural talent of the kind you're claiming Froome to have. I know it's not a 'pure' science per se, but it's still a science.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Do you realise that when you bring up what someone said two years ago you don't come across as some great debater as you think, but us some massively creepy guy who keeps dossiers on people so he can get small wins on the internet. It's almost sociopathic behaviour.

(But for the record everyone knows Wiggins changes his mind on a daily basis).

Actually, what TheHitch just did is used his attention to detail to eek out the marginal gains in performance and it is perfectly legal.

 

[Parker]

Also, just fyi Linguistics is a scientific study field. I couldn't have got as far along in that by 16 unless I was a total savant with natural talent of the kind you're claiming Froome to have. I know it's not a 'pure' science per se, but it's still a science.

Linguistics is barely a science. I'm guessing there wasn't a fluid dynamics module. There was in my engineering degree.

You're the perfect target for heuristic BS - someone who thinks that they are a scientist but has sod all appreciation for scientific method. You show this by using an emotive single example in Sayer, rather than consensual data.

What you do is pick up a few 'truths' that work for you, basically old axioms - 'you can't lose weight without losing power', 'thin people can't time trial', 'blood counts always go down', 'you can't 'peak' for more than six weeks' etc, etc. But you've never really questioned whether they are true.

Any sports scientist would laugh at most of them, but these are the cruxes - the heuristics - that you use to form you intuitive decisions. But those decisions are largely, not on fact, but on crap received wisdom and bias confirmation.

Everyone thinks they are smart and logical - but they're not.

 

[red_flanders]

Where the hell did you learn aerodynamics? Usually 'spindly' is more aerodynamic than 'tree trunks'. And how do you know his position is less dynamic? Do you have a link to the figures?

Or is this just 'received wisdom' you have picked? I'm betting you haven't formally studied anything scientific since the age of 16. You're just parroting lazy stereotypes.

You're twisting yourself in a pretzel to explain Froome. Occam's razor an all that...

 

[zlev11]

'you can't lose weight without losing power'

you ever try to train at a "caloric deficit"?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Linguistics is barely a science. I'm guessing there wasn't a fluid dynamics module. There was in my engineering degree.

You're the perfect target for heuristic BS - someone who thinks that they are a scientist but has sod all appreciation for scientific method.

What you do is pick up a few 'truths' that work for you, basically old axioms - 'you can't lose weight without losing power', 'thin people can't time trial', 'blood counts always go down', 'you can't 'peak' for more than six weeks' etc, etc.

Any sports scientist would laugh at most of them, but these are the cruxes - the heuristics - that you use to form you intuitive decisions. But those decisions are largely, not on fact, but on crap received wisdom and bias confirmation.

Everyone thinks they are smart and logical - but they're not.

Since you are clearly the superior academic because of having selected a purer speciality (hey, I chose a scientific field from within the Arts, which is a contradiction in terms), if you can show me the legitimate scientific evidence that suggests Froome's aerodynamics and build in fact justify his performing up to the level of the likes of Martin in time trials, I will gladly look at reconsidering my position.

I would then ask, how come no other riders of comparable build to Froome have been able to adopt the same principles to produce similar results.

Until then, crap received wisdom and bias confirmation that may not be backed up by academic papers but is backed up by several decades of cycling results sheets will have to suffice for us unenlightened artistes. Forgive us.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Linguistics is barely a science. I'm guessing there wasn't a fluid dynamics module. There was in my engineering degree.

You're the perfect target for heuristic BS - someone who thinks that they are a scientist but has sod all appreciation for scientific method.

What you do is pick up a few 'truths' that work for you, basically old axioms -
1. 'you can't lose weight without losing power',
2. 'thin people can't time trial',
3. 'blood counts always go down',
4. 'you can't 'peak' for more than six weeks' etc, etc.

Any sports scientist would laugh at most of them, but these are the cruxes - the heuristics - that you use to form you intuitive decisions. But those decisions are largely, not on fact, but on crap received wisdom and bias confirmation.

Everyone thinks they are smart and logical - but they're not.

Wow.

Just wow.

1. Andy Coggan on lessons he has learnt: never lose weight, never lose weight, never lose weight

2. TT physics:
speed ~= W/m^2
CdA: A depends more on height than weight: http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2011/04/estimation-of-cda-from-anthropometric.html

3. Plasma expansion occurs after as few as 3 days of 90 minutes / day intense exercise. There are studies on this. Parisotto and Ashenden - who know a darn sight more than you do - use it as "evidence".

4. 6 month peaks, son, not 6 weeks.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Linguistics is barely a science. I'm guessing there wasn't a fluid dynamics module. There was in my engineering degree.

You're the perfect target for heuristic BS - someone who thinks that they are a scientist but has sod all appreciation for scientific method.

What you do is pick up a few 'truths' that work for you, basically old axioms - 'you can't lose weight without losing power', 'thin people can't time trial', 'blood counts always go down', 'you can't 'peak' for more than six weeks' etc, etc.

Any sports scientist would laugh at most of them, but these are the cruxes - the heuristics - that you use to form you intuitive decisions. But those decisions are largely, not on fact, but on crap received wisdom and bias confirmation.

Everyone thinks they are smart and logical - but they're not.

*Puts had up* - ok, i am not smart and logically speaking that would mean I don't understand logic.

Now instead of showing how bad other people - me Hitch, Libertine, the PE teacher guy are. etc etc.
Please teach me and show me exactly how this guy who is not unique, or doing anything extraordinary is winning the biggest bike race in the world?
(By doing so you also waive your right to seek compensation when I transform Konig in to a GT winner)

 

[Parker]

Since you are clearly the superior academic because of having selected a purer speciality (hey, I chose a scientific field from within the Arts, which is a contradiction in terms), if you can show me the legitimate scientific evidence that suggests Froome's aerodynamics and build in fact justify his performing up to the level of the likes of Martin in time trials, I will gladly look at reconsidering my position.

I'm not a superior academic - I just a more relevant one. As for providing evidence. There are no academic papers - greater cross section for = greater drag for equal shape is basic stuff. A taller person will have a lesser proportion of his bulk exposed.

I would then ask, how come no other riders of comparable build to Froome have been able to adopt the same principles to produce similar results.

Name them. Or is this are using the logic of 'if it hasn't been done it can never be done'.

Until then, crap received wisdom and bias confirmation that may not be backed up by academic papers but is backed up by several decades of cycling results sheets will have to suffice for us unenlightened artistes. Forgive us.

All you need to know is that you are not nearly half as informed as you think you are (and neither am I). But too many people here explain their lack of knowledge with doping rather than an acceptance of a lack of knowledge.

 

[Parker]

Please teach me and show me exactly how this guy who is not unique, or doing anything extraordinary is winning the biggest bike race in the world?

How about you tell me how he is unique. Then we can move on. In cycling we have two sets of identical twins - Velits and Yates - they are not unique. But in every race they do together, one finishes ahead of the other.

You keep using this word unique. I just say he's just the best at the moment.

Current best does not equal unique.

 

[sittingbison]

Some skating on VERY thin ice going on with lame trolling attempts....gentle(wo)men Sochi is thankfully over, so I suggest you get your skates off.

cheers
bison

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I'm not a superior academic - I just a more relevant one. As for providing evidence. There are no academic papers - greater cross section for = greater drag for equal shape is basic stuff. A taller person will have a lesser proportion of his bulk exposed.



Name them. Or is this are using the logic of 'if it hasn't been done it can never be done'.


All you need to know is that you are not nearly half as informed as you think you are (and neither am I).

Put it this way, if it's as basic as you're stating it is, I don't understand why it's taken 100 years of cycling history for somebody who you've pointed out comes from a total cycling backwater to have managed it. You're trying to argue that what Froome is doing is not remarkable or unusual, and yet simultaneously seemingly acknowledging, he is doing something that has not previously been done. That is surely in itself remarkable and unusual?

While the aerodynamics you point out are no doubt accurate, what about a taller person's wind resistance compared to a more smooth object lower to the ground? The same point could have been applied to Lance's humpbacked TT position compared to somebody like Wiggins, whose back is almost perfectly flat minimising that. It's also especially remarkable (at least to the layman, with your fluid dynamics knowledge you can point out where I'm going wrong here) that Froome could be putting out the comparable power to somebody like Martin while not having had the opportunity to perfect his position through training in a wind tunnel, something most teams - Sky included - use in order to perfect their aerodynamic positions. So Froome is utilising a suboptimal aerodynamic position and putting out as much power as a rider who has a superior aerodynamic position and - to the layman again - greater strength... are you then arguing that the power is comparable and that the shortcomings in Froome's aerodynamic position compared to Martin or Wiggins are compensated for by his narrower profile due to build? That is why I ask why somebody like, say, Andy Schleck, who is tall (1,90m) and thin, and from what we've seen in the mountains has plenty of power, has never produced a TT even remotely commensurate with Froome's level of performance?

I'm not a sports scientist. I wouldn't want to be one. But you don't have to be a sports scientist to work out that what Froome's doing here is highly unusual.

 

[Granville57]

Do you realise that when you bring up what someone said two years ago you don't come across as some great debater as you think, but us some massively creepy guy who keeps dossiers on people so he can get small wins on the internet. It's almost sociopathic behaviour. You seriously creep me out.

New to The Clinic, I take it?

Some skating on VERY thin ice going on with lame trolling attempts....gentle(wo)men Sochi is thankfully over, so I suggest you get your skates off.

Brilliant!

 

[red_flanders]

*Puts had up* - ok, i am not smart and logically speaking that would mean I don't understand logic.

Now instead of showing how bad other people - me Hitch, Libertine, the PE teacher guy are. etc etc.
Please teach me and show me exactly how this guy who is not unique, or doing anything extraordinary is winning the biggest bike race in the world?
(By doing so you also waive your right to seek compensation when I transform Konig in to a GT winner)

Great questions. My only comment would be that he's not just winning, he's easily winning and/or smashing everyone since early last year. He has not been pushed.

How is this possible for someone with such a previously mediocre or worse palmares?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How about you tell me how he is unique. Then we can move on. In cycling we have two sets of identical twins - Velits and Yates - they are not unique. But in every race they do together, one finishes ahead of the other.

You keep using this word unique. I just say he's just the best at the moment.

Current best does not equal unique.

Thats an easy one - I never said he was unique, I asked "whats so unique about him?" - and your answer is he isn't.
Thats fine, we can agree on that.

So, what is that distinguishes Froome, why is he the current best and not other Sky riders (who have same conditions) like Porte or even EBH?

 

[The Hitch]

(But for the record everyone knows Wiggins changes his mind on a daily basis).

How very convenient then that after 3 straight years of being fully pro Armstrong his mind only changed the day after USADA stripped Lance of his titles.

Man that is some really lucky **** right there for Wiggins. For over 1000 days his daily mind change generator was broken. His brain was unable to change from its pro Armstrong stance like it was supposed to. But thank god, like one of those suspense scenes in the movies where the hero saves the world 2 seconds before the universe is about to end, just at the right time- Wiggos random mind change generator flips back into gear the moment his sponsors ask him to tell the world how much he really always hated Lance.

But don't read what I say. I'm just being a creep and a sociopath by remembering what Wiggins used to say about Lance, or what Brailsford used to say about attacking on climbs, or how Froome used to finish gt mountain stages. Real doping discussion doesn't look past last week. Froome beat everyone, he's won a gt before so its not remotely suspicious, and if any dopers have ever managed to ride similar tempo, they must have been mediocre dopers.

 

[42x16ss]

Define coming out of nowhere? Froome had come 2nd, 2nd, 4th in GTs before winning. Also he didn't come through a normal cycling programme like 95% of pros. His Barloworld days were basically the equivalent of other's under 23 days.

If out of nowhere means a Western European guy who has been trying to be a GC guy at WT level for many years - then BS. If it's some guy you have dragged out of a cycling backwater and given some training - then maybe it's legit.

So Froome didn't come out of nowhere in the 2011 Vuelta?

Lets have a look at his cracking Palmares prior:

2005
1st Stage 2 Tour of Mauritius

2006
1st Overall Tour of Mauritius
1st Stages 2 & 3 2nd Anatomic Jock Race

2007
1st Overall Mi-Août Bretonne
1st Stage 5 Giro delle Regioni (Under-23)
1st Stage 6 Tour of Japan
2nd Berg en Dale Classic
2nd Time trial, B World Championships
3rd Road race, All-Africa Games

2008
2nd Overall Giro del Capo
3rd Giro dell'Appennino
4th Overall Herald Sun Tour
83 Tour de France

2009
1st Stage 2 Giro del Capo
1st Anatomic Jock Race
34 Giro d'Italia

2010
2nd National Time Trial Championships
5th Time trial, Commonwealth Games
9th Overall Tour du Haut Var
DSQ Giro d'Italia (holding on to a motorbike to keep up with the laughing bunch)

These results are ALL pre badzhilla, yet we are to beleive that his transformation is completely legit?

For comparisons sake, lets have a look at another, similarly aged riders Palmares:

2004
2nd Tour du lac Leman
5th Stausee-Rundfahrt Klingnau
8th GP della Costa Etruschi

2005
1st Giro del Lago Maggiore (GP Knorr)
3rd Mediterranean Games Road Race
3rd Giro del Mendrisiotto
5th Memorial Cimurri
7th Coppa Sabatini
7th Coppa Placci

2009
1st Overall Tre Valli Varesine
2nd Coppa Agostini
8th Overall Tour Down Under

2010
2nd Coppa Agostoni
5th GP Ouest France-Plouay
8th Giro di Lombardia

2011
2nd Giro della Toscana

2012
4th Giro di Lombardia
6th Clásica de San Sebastián

2013
1st GP Industria & Artigianato di Larciano
2nd Overall Giro del Trentino
3rd Trofeo Laigueglia
5th Gran Premio Città di Camaiore
6th Overall Tour de San Luis
7th Overall Tirreno–Adriatico

Looking at the highlighted results above, would you be surprised if I told you that this rider came top 10 at the 2013 Giro d'Italia? I won't tell you whose results these are until you answer that question.