Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

I have just loved today.

1. Sky release data.
2. Data shows power & other data in line with other riders.
3. Data doesn't show / support Clinic 12 view that Sky are doping.
4. Clinic 12 view = they are lying to cover up and therefore must be doping.

Can you expand on your 2nd point? How do you explain riders losing lots of time to Froome doing more W/kg?

I believe his power was shown to be so. Its late here for me and I need to look some things up (so I dont quote wrong info) so please give me 24-48 hours.

 

[samhocking]

So Froome has gained ~1:30 on Quintana from 3 mountain stages. Should more than 30s a stage be a watershed time gain in GT cycling that other riders teams will also need to release data if they cross?

 

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

Of course. Brailsford says he doesn't know Froome's. Straight lie like good ol Lance, looking in your eyes. Today they adjusted the weight to appear Dawg's performance is human. Why? Can't take responsibility? To me releasing a bunch of fake data is more incriminating than not releasing any. They try to cover up. And suddenly we find out that Froome is capable of a HR of 178. On Ventoux he did a motorbike acceleration with 158.

I wouldn't expect DB to know Froomes weight at all. He's the CEO - he's in charge of strategy and overall direction, why the **** would he know Froomes weight on a daily basis? He might want to know that riders were on target, etc. but certainly not the minutiae (now I know he has been like that in the past, but it don't think he is now).

You wouldn't expect?

Brailsford also said he intentionally did not reveal Froome’s racing weight — a key factor in calculating power numbers — because he said that would only open the door for more ambush journalism.

He knows it very well, yet he lies in our faces. Froome is not 67.5 kg, he was 66 in June and he now looks like the starved brother of June Dawg.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

ignoring that posters have shown the figure are different from other figures, but hey dont let that get in the way of obfuscation and shoot the clinic....MV part deux

Have they????

Show the post ....

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29830

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

My point is that they have provided data that shows Froome's power in line with other riders and a lot of people on here have immediately just said they are lying.

His power was the same, uh, lower than Gesink, yet he was able to sprint away on a pretty tough mountain. Somehow the math got mixed up there, perhaps not for you but for others it doesnt look to be right. Make your next try better.

No - YOU think the maths are wrong. So he had lower power than Gesink, so what. We saw what happened and now we have the figures. They could be bullshitting but there has already been a leak so why take the risk. And most of the assessments on CN are by posters who are amateur analysts ...

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I didn't realise there were so many talented physiologists on the forum who know how to interpret data like the pros? Also out of curiosity how many riders have actually told the press in the middle of the race their precise weight? I know of riders saying they have lost a few kgs normally before a race or at the start of the season thats it

No one is arguing that others have released exact weights. The point is that without an accurate weight, the numbers Sky released are completely meaningless. They provided the data, so they need to provide proof it's accurate, including rider weight. So either provide the correct weight with proof or admit the data is useless.

The numbers Sky released show less W/kg than the competitors who he beat. Why?
Sky claim a 6% adjustment for the oval chainrings. I have heard the manufacturer says 4-5%. Why 6%?
The weight they released for Froome, 67.5 kg, is higher than Froome himself claims in the Kimmage interview as 66 and in Cyclingnews earlier this year at 66, with presumably more weight to drop. Why the discrepancy?

Strangely, if you put in the correct weight, which I'd put at 65 kg due to weight loss during the Tour and the right adjustment for the chainring, you end up with numbers that probably aren't humanly possible and certainly aren't for Froome in the race conditions of the day.

Pretty sure Froome said a few days ago he weighs between 67 & 68kgs, which he has also said in other interviews. In fact he called 67kg his magic weight in grand tours a while back

He was 62kg in Dauphine in June.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

[quote="

He was 62kg in Dauphine in June.

Really? Highly doubt that

 

[Bronstein]

Re: Re:

And you are an expert in physiology are you??? And how many on here are? You all love to take the numbers and quote them but I bet you know F'all about it.

The main poster on here worthy of being taken seriously is Merck Index.

You see the numbers, it doesnt support what you want and you call fowl. So CF beat another rider with the same (ish) power. Are you qualified to comment about it? I think not.

Merckx Index has already posted on this topic:

viewtopic.php?p=1774278#p1774278
viewtopic.php?p=1774621#p1774621

My basic point is supported by his explanations. You should really read all the relevant posts in the thread before trying to bait people martin.

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

My point is that they have provided data that shows Froome's power in line with other riders and a lot of people on here have immediately just said they are lying.

His power was the same, uh, lower than Gesink, yet he was able to sprint away on a pretty tough mountain. Somehow the math got mixed up there, perhaps not for you but for others it doesnt look to be right. Make your next try better.

No - YOU think the maths are wrong. So he had lower power than Gesink, so what. We saw what happened and now we have the figures. They could be bullshitting but there has already been a leak so why take the risk. And most of the assessments on CN are by posters who are amateur analysts ...

Explanations have already been posted as to why things don't add up. Seems pretty convincing to me. Why don't you address those explanations and show them to be wrong with your superior understanding of the physics of riding a bike. Proclaiming the Sky Number to be indisputable truth with zero reasoning behind it gets old quick.

I think this is where we find out that you don't actually have a good understanding of the physics at all, yet have an odly strong opinion on the veracity of the numbers anyway, cause Dave B wouldn't lie now would he.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

I didn't realise there were so many talented physiologists on the forum who know how to interpret data like the pros? Also out of curiosity how many riders have actually told the press in the middle of the race their precise weight? I know of riders saying they have lost a few kgs normally before a race or at the start of the season thats it

No one is arguing that others have released exact weights. The point is that without an accurate weight, the numbers Sky released are completely meaningless. They provided the data, so they need to provide proof it's accurate, including rider weight. So either provide the correct weight with proof or admit the data is useless.

The numbers Sky released show less W/kg than the competitors who he beat. Why?
Sky claim a 6% adjustment for the oval chainrings. I have heard the manufacturer says 4-5%. Why 6%?
The weight they released for Froome, 67.5 kg, is higher than Froome himself claims in the Kimmage interview as 66 and in Cyclingnews earlier this year at 66, with presumably more weight to drop. Why the discrepancy?

Strangely, if you put in the correct weight, which I'd put at 65 kg due to weight loss during the Tour and the right adjustment for the chainring, you end up with numbers that probably aren't humanly possible and certainly aren't for Froome in the race conditions of the day.

He said that he DIDN'T adjust for the chain eggs: "Again that’s just the power metre and does not include the 6 per cent adjustment (for O-symmetric).”

I really want to see Froome step on a scale on TV (with a third party calibrated scale) because that would either support their data or, support what this thread is saying.

 

[Eagle]

Re:

So Froome has gained ~1:30 on Quintana from 3 mountain stages. Should more than 30s a stage be a watershed time gain in GT cycling that other riders teams will also need to release data if they cross?

Any team that wants to be seen as transparent should release data

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

My point is that they have provided data that shows Froome's power in line with other riders and a lot of people on here have immediately just said they are lying.

His power was the same, uh, lower than Gesink, yet he was able to sprint away on a pretty tough mountain. Somehow the math got mixed up there, perhaps not for you but for others it doesnt look to be right. Make your next try better.

No - YOU think the maths are wrong. So he had lower power than Gesink, so what. We saw what happened and now we have the figures. They could be bullshitting but there has already been a leak so why take the risk. And most of the assessments on CN are by posters who are amateur analysts ...

Sky have done the math and reckon that there are enough people like you to swallow there BS, they have Walsh (hook, line and sinker) spewing the PR BS and here you are again obfuscating.

Sky have been caught lying. Brailsford made so many claims about how they do things, no stone unturned, attention to detail, FFS he is supposedly the 'master of detail', so yes he should know the weight of his rider, they hired Leinders to weigh it every day, Nico Roche weighs himself 5 times a day, on a team where the weight is obviously such an issue, Froome looks like he got out of Belsen at the start of the race, but Dave knows nothing an you of course believe it and then come in here to obfuscate.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

[quote="

He was 62kg in Dauphine in June.

Really? Highly doubt that

Froome/Sky released his weight. So were they lying then? If so then why are they not lying now?

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

And you are an expert in physiology are you??? And how many on here are? You all love to take the numbers and quote them but I bet you know F'all about it.

The main poster on here worthy of being taken seriously is Merck Index.

You see the numbers, it doesnt support what you want and you call fowl. So CF beat another rider with the same (ish) power. Are you qualified to comment about it? I think not.

Tip: anger management.

No, not at all.

I just want to understand how posters on here seem to think they are some kind of global knowledgeable anti doping svengalis that should be employed to clean up he world ...

 

[SeriousSam]

Re:

So Froome has gained ~1:30 on Quintana from 3 mountain stages. Should more than 30s a stage be a watershed time gain in GT cycling that other riders teams will also need to release data if they cross?

This is the most hilarious explaining away of the PSM performance I've seen yet.

Just average the time gain over 3 days.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

I didn't realise there were so many talented physiologists on the forum who know how to interpret data like the pros? Also out of curiosity how many riders have actually told the press in the middle of the race their precise weight? I know of riders saying they have lost a few kgs normally before a race or at the start of the season thats it

No one is arguing that others have released exact weights. The point is that without an accurate weight, the numbers Sky released are completely meaningless. They provided the data, so they need to provide proof it's accurate, including rider weight. So either provide the correct weight with proof or admit the data is useless.

The numbers Sky released show less W/kg than the competitors who he beat. Why?
Sky claim a 6% adjustment for the oval chainrings. I have heard the manufacturer says 4-5%. Why 6%?
The weight they released for Froome, 67.5 kg, is higher than Froome himself claims in the Kimmage interview as 66 and in Cyclingnews earlier this year at 66, with presumably more weight to drop. Why the discrepancy?

Strangely, if you put in the correct weight, which I'd put at 65 kg due to weight loss during the Tour and the right adjustment for the chainring, you end up with numbers that probably aren't humanly possible and certainly aren't for Froome in the race conditions of the day.

He said that he DIDN'T adjust for the chain eggs: "Again that’s just the power metre and does not include the 6 per cent adjustment (for O-symmetric).”

I really want to see Froome step on a scale on TV (with a third party calibrated scale) because that would either support their data or, support what this thread is saying.

Eh?
Sky mentioned multiple numbers, 1 being 414W which is what the power meter measured, another being 390W which is the corrected number. So they clearly adjusted the number.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

And you are an expert in physiology are you??? And how many on here are? You all love to take the numbers and quote them but I bet you know F'all about it.

The main poster on here worthy of being taken seriously is Merck Index.

You see the numbers, it doesnt support what you want and you call fowl. So CF beat another rider with the same (ish) power. Are you qualified to comment about it? I think not.

Tip: anger management.

No - not anger management, just a curiosity that people on here seem to think they are some kind of anti doping svengalis when in fact they are not.

 

[mrhender]

Let's keep this about the topic at hand, and not posters at hand shall we?

Cheers
mrhender

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Would be fun if movistar decided to release Nairo's powerfile.

 

[carton]

In a 200km stage at 40C no way anyone knows their weight more accurately than +/- 1kg (two bidons). So maybe 68, maybe 66. Probably not 65 or 69.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

[quote="

He was 62kg in Dauphine in June.

Really? Highly doubt that

Froome/Sky released his weight. So were they lying then? If so then why are they not lying now?

I haven't seen them ever release anything saying he was 62 kgs and he would look probably be on his death bed if he did. I've seen several articles where he was quoted as having a racing weight at GT's of being 67kgs.

 

[Tonton]

What I learned today:

- the myth of Dawg's low MHR was...a myth. Probably 185 or so. With that in mind, it makes 140 bpm a 75% of MHR effort (a breathe), 150 bpm a 81% effort, and his boost on the Ventoux '13 video at 161 bpm a 87% of MHR effort: not even an all out effort.
- Dawg must have put Sagan's stones on the scale to come up with 67kg. My guess? 64, if that.

I'm not an expert, but I wasn't born yesterday either.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

And you are an expert in physiology are you??? And how many on here are? You all love to take the numbers and quote them but I bet you know F'all about it.

The main poster on here worthy of being taken seriously is Merck Index.

You see the numbers, it doesnt support what you want and you call fowl. So CF beat another rider with the same (ish) power. Are you qualified to comment about it? I think not.

Tip: anger management.

No, not at all.

I just want to understand how posters on here seem to think they are some kind of global knowledgeable anti doping svengalis that should be employed to clean up he world ...

Obfuscation again, MV, this is forum about doping, not cleaning up the world.

Plenty of big name sports scientists are calling BS on Sky's data. Ross Tucker, Vayer and then we have people very knowledgable about the sport wanting to see lots more and wondering about the lack of transparency from Rasmussen, Jalabert, Kimmage, Stokes, NY times etc etc. I suppose they are all trolls or anti British?

 

[super_domestique]

Re: Re:

So Froome has gained ~1:30 on Quintana from 3 mountain stages. Should more than 30s a stage be a watershed time gain in GT cycling that other riders teams will also need to release data if they cross?

This is the most hilarious explaining away of the PSM performance I've seen yet.

Just average the time gain over 3 days.

So wrong, it's quite brilliant!

 

[Rollthedice]

They "adjusted" all the numbers they did provide.