I think people are being a bit unfair towards Froomey. If his watt numbers are correct, Nibali last year would have followed him. The team as a whole on the other hand, with Thomas and Porte is funny as hell
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Loving it here - Froome doing exactly what (almost) everyone on here expected him to, and you're all complaining. You even have power data and you're complaining about that. Seriously will you ever be satisfied?
Is the 6,09 w/kg calculation the only one going around? Because I have Froome in 40'43" over 15.3km (22.54kPh) which is quite a big difference with 40'54" over 14.89km...
The reality is:
Contador - cooked from giro
Quintana - good, but when has he beaten Froome who only beat him by 1 minute on an ideal stage for Froome
Nibali - already cooked
Froome - delivered a good performance, made to look stellar by the above
Contador - cooked from giro
Quintana - good, but when has he beaten Froome who only beat him by 1 minute on an ideal stage for Froome
Nibali - already cooked
Froome - delivered a good performance, made to look stellar by the above
Re:
What is the vertical climb in your calculation? I would be very interested to hear. If it's the same as in the calculation going around, then 11" doesn't mean much, nudges the power up to about 6.12.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the gradient got considerably shallower at points near the end, which means more wind resistance and the VAM calculation becomes less reliable--but less reliable in that it underestimates the actual power output.
So he’s changed his mind? A year or two ago, he drew the line at 6.2-6.3 for 30 minutes. Also, even using his new standard, the 388 watts he made a big deal of in the leaked/hacked data works out to just 5.6 watts/kg., well below his gray area.
I think it’s unfortunate we’re having this discussion with Froome, because the real evidence against him—the transformation in 2011—is a different issue from what is possible by some rider. One can be highly suspicious of Froome’s performance because he came out of nowhere, and still not be suspicious of the particular power he showed today, claiming it’s impossible for any clean rider. Gesink reportedly was also over 6 watts/kg, and of course Nibs did it twice last year on climbs about equally long. IIRC, Tucker, while somewhat critical of Nibs, never accused his performance of being "off the charts".
A V02max/kg of 88, coupled with an 85% LT and 23% efficiency, gets you to about 6.0 watts/kg. But efficiency is the real unknown, there have been several papers in recent years claiming much higher values for some riders. So much of this could be cleared up with transparency. All we can say with fairly high certainty is that no one, including Froome, is matching the highest power values of the LA era, but that doesn't mean anyone is squeaky clean.
Assuming Gesink weighs 68 kg (?), that is 6.02 watts/kg., vs. 5.87 calculated from VAM if he lost 1:30 to Froome. If both those assumptions are correct (?), this suggests VAM underestimates the power a little, perhaps because of wind, or because of shallow stretches in the gradient. But in any case, if it does, Froome's real power might rise to around 6.25, which is definitely suspicious for a climb this length.
Flamin said:
What is the vertical climb in your calculation? I would be very interested to hear. If it's the same as in the calculation going around, then 11" doesn't mean much, nudges the power up to about 6.12.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the gradient got considerably shallower at points near the end, which means more wind resistance and the VAM calculation becomes less reliable--but less reliable in that it underestimates the actual power output.
So he’s changed his mind? A year or two ago, he drew the line at 6.2-6.3 for 30 minutes. Also, even using his new standard, the 388 watts he made a big deal of in the leaked/hacked data works out to just 5.6 watts/kg., well below his gray area.
I think it’s unfortunate we’re having this discussion with Froome, because the real evidence against him—the transformation in 2011—is a different issue from what is possible by some rider. One can be highly suspicious of Froome’s performance because he came out of nowhere, and still not be suspicious of the particular power he showed today, claiming it’s impossible for any clean rider. Gesink reportedly was also over 6 watts/kg, and of course Nibs did it twice last year on climbs about equally long. IIRC, Tucker, while somewhat critical of Nibs, never accused his performance of being "off the charts".
A V02max/kg of 88, coupled with an 85% LT and 23% efficiency, gets you to about 6.0 watts/kg. But efficiency is the real unknown, there have been several papers in recent years claiming much higher values for some riders. So much of this could be cleared up with transparency. All we can say with fairly high certainty is that no one, including Froome, is matching the highest power values of the LA era, but that doesn't mean anyone is squeaky clean.
ad9898 said:
Assuming Gesink weighs 68 kg (?), that is 6.02 watts/kg., vs. 5.87 calculated from VAM if he lost 1:30 to Froome. If both those assumptions are correct (?), this suggests VAM underestimates the power a little, perhaps because of wind, or because of shallow stretches in the gradient. But in any case, if it does, Froome's real power might rise to around 6.25, which is definitely suspicious for a climb this length.
Gesink climbed with 409 Watts, average HR 179bpm.... Froome pulled 1.30 on him... wonder what Froome's HR was, about 155 (i.e Sunday casual ride) on this.
https://www.strava.com/activities/345923267/segments/8223093781
https://www.strava.com/activities/345923267/segments/8223093781
The "no one is in form for the races Sky dominate" narrative was dumb in 2012 and it still is.
Re:
You're right... But it's not in peoples nature to just sit down and take it.
I also believe that this is not exactly what people had expected. It's a little different. Maybe they thought Froome would win this stage, and wear Yellow in Paris. But do what he did today? I don't think that was expected. What just happened was eerily similar to the late 90's/early 2000's.
JackRabbitSlims said:
You're right... But it's not in peoples nature to just sit down and take it.
I also believe that this is not exactly what people had expected. It's a little different. Maybe they thought Froome would win this stage, and wear Yellow in Paris. But do what he did today? I don't think that was expected. What just happened was eerily similar to the late 90's/early 2000's.
Re:
Froome delivered a performance that was doped. end of.
6.01w/kg for 40+ mins = doping.
bigcog said:
Froome delivered a performance that was doped. end of.
6.01w/kg for 40+ mins = doping.
It was a perfect storm: Froome is in amazing shape, Contador and Nibali are way, way below their top level, and only Quintana is close to his top level. Then throw in, it was ideal weather for Froome, it was the very first mountain of the Tour, it was the exact type of stage Froome likes (a la Ventoux), Movistar done all the work for Sky to the extent that they only had to work the last 15km, and a rested Porte (has been invisible all week) could do his thing to set up Froome for his attack. So the numbers must be 'mutant' then?
6.09 w/kg is not mutant, as Merckx Index explained in his informative post a page or so back. But, as much as 'Sky bots can't accept things', the irony is, the 'Sky haters' are doing that very thing.
6.09 w/kg is not mutant, as Merckx Index explained in his informative post a page or so back. But, as much as 'Sky bots can't accept things', the irony is, the 'Sky haters' are doing that very thing.
Re:
The fix is in. Probably part of the deal for Astana to keep its licence.
SeriousSam said:
The fix is in. Probably part of the deal for Astana to keep its licence.
Re: Re:
Take yourself out of sky world and think about this, he came out of nowhere and is now here, even Armstrong was more plausible and I hated Armstrong. This is disgusting.bigcog said:
Well done Froomey and sky, as well as movistar. As for people who say this is impossible. I'm sorry you think everything in the human body is a known and measured scientific quantity.
Re:
Unfair ? well data can't be used for anything, its to easy to manipulate or to suit your arguements. All this being said, the thing I am annoyed about is that Froome never has a bad day.. as in very bad. he is not just stable, he is always a superman and that just makes me think Armstrong right away.. its nothing to do with today, since that could have happened, clean ? well none are clean so no... but thats an "even playing field maybe" notice maybe... but the fact he always just peaks and does not look to break a sweat is a problem.. is and was Contador doped ? yes.. but I didnt mind just as much, because he didnt do stuff like this, he did win also with margins, but not every day with ease..
Look Froome is still flying
Vino attacks everyone said:
Unfair ? well data can't be used for anything, its to easy to manipulate or to suit your arguements. All this being said, the thing I am annoyed about is that Froome never has a bad day.. as in very bad. he is not just stable, he is always a superman and that just makes me think Armstrong right away.. its nothing to do with today, since that could have happened, clean ? well none are clean so no... but thats an "even playing field maybe" notice maybe... but the fact he always just peaks and does not look to break a sweat is a problem.. is and was Contador doped ? yes.. but I didnt mind just as much, because he didnt do stuff like this, he did win also with margins, but not every day with ease..
Look Froome is still flying
Re: Re:
agree
i for some weird reason expect something a bit different each year
i'm a slow learner
very similar to that time period you note
murdoch sky uci cookson team sky brailsford froome walsh
all the bases covered
heavily funded dominant pro cycling team that reeks of team wide doping and cover ups from the top down
wake up and smell the stench
it's all around you
H2OUUP2 said:
agree
i for some weird reason expect something a bit different each year
i'm a slow learner
very similar to that time period you note
murdoch sky uci cookson team sky brailsford froome walsh
all the bases covered
heavily funded dominant pro cycling team that reeks of team wide doping and cover ups from the top down
wake up and smell the stench
it's all around you
Re: Re:
He faded in 2013, he wasn't the best climber in the last week, it could easily happen again this year.
DrSahl said:Vino attacks everyone said:
Unfair ? well data can't be used for anything, its to easy to manipulate or to suit your arguements. All this being said, the thing I am annoyed about is that Froome never has a bad day.. as in very bad. he is not just stable, he is always a superman and that just makes me think Armstrong right away.. its nothing to do with today, since that could have happened, clean ? well none are clean so no... but thats an "even playing field maybe" notice maybe... but the fact he always just peaks and does not look to break a sweat is a problem.. is and was Contador doped ? yes.. but I didnt mind just as much, because he didnt do stuff like this, he did win also with margins, but not every day with ease..
Look Froome is still flying
He faded in 2013, he wasn't the best climber in the last week, it could easily happen again this year.
Re:
Yeah great to see all those clean guys doing well, always good to see Valverde up thereToreBear said:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 12: Martinsicuro – Fano, 193.0k- Started by DenisMenchov
- Replies: 345
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 24, Stage 10: Pompei – Cusano Mutri (Bocca della Selva), 142.0k
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 359
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 8: Spoleto – Prati di Tivo, 152.0k
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 592
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 7: Foligno – Perugia, 40.6k (ITT)
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 626
-
Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 11: Foiano di Val Fortore – Francavilla al Mare, 207.0k
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 154
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 9: Avezzano – Napoli, 214.0k
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 334
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram