Re: Re:
SeriousSam said:TheSpud said:Fearless Greg Lemond said: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.TheSpud said: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.
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 ...
What explanations and where? They werent on here earlier. Post and I will read.
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.