Froome's SRM data on Ventoux

[BigMac]

Re:

But this might cause that froome doesn't go full *** today but he's insane, i don't think he cares.

I hope he waits though, i want to see what he can thursday, on the plateau

It would actually be more telling for us if he keept a low profile the coming days instead of going berserk as first expected.

 

[Miburo]

Re: Re:

But this might cause that froome doesn't go full *** today but he's insane, i don't think he cares.

I hope he waits though, i want to see what he can thursday, on the plateau

It would actually be more telling for us if he keept a low profile the coming days instead of going berserk as first expected.

We're talking here about the media, they're clueless, they'll never make that connection.

 

[BigMac]

Well, true Miburo.

Meanwhile Tucker tweeted an image with a series of data on Froome's power output. He then deleted it soon after.

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport 4 min
In the interests of not having my twitter account suspended like the last person,I will remove my previous posts with the exact power output

So it seems Sky really jumped on the other dude and got him baninated from twitter that fast.

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport 4 min
However, our estimates were 388W and 389W depending on method. Let's just say based on the now removed video, we're not hacking blindly here

And this I have no idea what it means.

edit: + this

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport 2 min
@jonny_smash You think I'm saying that based on one result?You realize we've been doing this for 6 years, & have multiple files backing it?

 

[hrotha]

He means the actual power outpot according to Froome's file was indeed 388W and that the calculations, naturally, tend to be extremely close. They're not pseudoscience.
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/620740646337286144

@fredfalcone @veloclinic @ammattipyoraily Ferrari estimate = 388W.CPL estimate = 389W. Actual power 388W. As we knew,we're not hacking blind

 

[AICA ribonucleotide]

Hacked my ass. Which is some likely? Vayer knows a hacker or Vayer has a contact within Sky?
Someone within Sky leaked this. Someone within Sky isn't drinking the kool aid and knows enough about cycling not to believe Froome. This will all come crashing down eventually.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re:

That heart rate is outrageous. For example in Ironman perfect heart rate is 155 bpm. For a nine hour effort. Not sprinting up a mountain.

But his average for an hour effort is very consistent with the 2011 training peaks file linked previously.
(and posted by Sky back then so not hacked)

 

[Tonton]

Re:

Froomes Data Hacked

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...-glory-under-threat-in-data-spying-storm.html

So it puts to rest the "it's fake" claims. They admit that data was stolen. Props to Brits news to make it mainstream when so far l'Equipe is silent. It's already out there. Now everyone will want and eventually get access to the video. Too big. Fireworks on Bastille Day, or very soon thereafter.

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

That heart rate is outrageous. For example in Ironman perfect heart rate is 155 bpm. For a nine hour effort. Not sprinting up a mountain.

But his average for an hour effort is very consistent with the 2011 training peaks file linked previously.
(and posted by Sky back then so not hacked)

155 bpm is consistent with a marathon like pace. Not a major effort. That is if your max HR is in the 190s, which I would expect.

 

[red_flanders]

Brailsford also said that data without context could be twisted to suit particular agendas, “particularly when you have things like oval rings [which Froome uses] involved, which can skew the data.”

Great, great stuff. Oval chainrings. Got to add that to the lexicon. It's no Vandenbroucke's dog, but it's gold.

 

[Irondan]

Ross Tucker@Scienceofsport
The first rest day of the Tour de France produced, as usual, some off-the-bike stories, but in 6 years of covering the race, I can't recall such a bizarre sequence of events as this one.
About five days ago, Antoine Vayer, he who provoked Brailsford into calling performance analysis "pseudoscience", started to post graphs on Twitter showing Froome's power output and heart rate on his climb of Ventoux in 2013. They include an attack, off a base of long periods of 400W, up to 1000W, and maintaining 600W during attacks. During this period, his heart rate barely changes - 157 pre-attack, 161 post.
Next, someone industrious managed to take a file of the raw data and synchronize it to video footage of the ride, so that you could see, second by second, how speed, HR, altitude and power changed. It was fascinating to watch - in fact, it's a model for how the broadcast should look.
I'd love to provide you with the link to this video, but Sky's lawyers have had it removed, and have had the twitter account of this person removed too, which I find an absolutely extraordinary response. The data by itself didn't mean all that much, and if it was fabricated, just say so. Or heaven forbid, use the opportunity to explain and gain some points for the now extinct concept of transparency in the sport.
There are many possible explanations for the dislinkage between power output and HR, by the way. He may already have been very close to his maximal heart rate (but then you have to say, that's a mighty fine effort to ride Ventoux at 95% of max in the third week of a Grand Tour). Perhaps the HR was faulty, maybe it's irrelevant or typical for an elite rider attacking to peak power off threshold power. It's probably not worth overplaying.
The power output data is really interesting though - back then, we estimated the power on that climb to be 389W (or 388W using Dr Ferrari's method), and I can assure you, having seen the raw file with second-by-second data (it's doing the rounds), that the estimate is well, very exact. I'm hesitant to post exact figures because Sky's legal team had a person's entire account removed, even though this data is all on the internet already.
The response has been amazing. As in 2013, the data was first dismissed as fabricated. Then as hacked (which is a tacit acknowledgement of its validity). Or maybe irrelevant. The usual attacks that it proves nothing came, to which I'd respond by saying "welcome to a six-year long conversation, take a side-order of context with that indignation". Fact is, we've been here before, and it's the reaction more than the revelation that is so amazing.
Finally, back in 2013, it was a remarkable performance, and putting it to concrete numbers is probably unlikely to sway you from whatever you believed (or want to believe) to begin with. I wish the opaque curtain of PR & legal action could be lifted. Today was not a good day for winning the minds of a watching public, or for the believability of the sport.
Long live transparency.
Ross

 

[Tonton]

Re:

Brailsford also said that data without context could be twisted to suit particular agendas, “particularly when you have things like oval rings [which Froome uses] involved, which can skew the data.”

Great, great stuff. Oval chainrings. Got to add that to the lexicon. It's no Vandenbroucke's dog, but it's gold.

And Egyptian cotton underwear that makes you breath better...

 

[hazaran]

Just 388W average? That's a rather weak display from the Dawg.

Heres Pinot, whose coach is happy to release his data: http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/pinot-ppr.pdf

5.9W/kg and 65kg puts him at 385W over 45min, in 2013 data. I guess the mutant better watches out that the french hope doesn't jump him from behind.

(You won't see HR jumps in data gathered with optical HR devices. They have a very, very long averaging and lag time.)

 

[the sceptic]

Just 388W average? That's a rather weak display from the Dawg.

Heres Pinot, whose coach is happy to release his data: http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/pinot-ppr.pdf

5.9W/kg and 65kg puts him at 385W over 45min, in 2013 data. I guess the mutant better watches out that the french hope doesn't jump him from behind.

(You won't see HR jumps in data gathered with optical HR devices. They have a very, very long averaging and lag time.)

as you know, we already knew this was Dawg's pwer output due to the very good work by pseudo-scientists like Vetooo and Ross Tucker

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

Brailsford also said that data without context could be twisted to suit particular agendas, “particularly when you have things like oval rings [which Froome uses] involved, which can skew the data.”

Great, great stuff. Oval chainrings. Got to add that to the lexicon. It's no Vandenbroucke's dog, but it's gold.

Elliptical chainrings do read strangely when they're paired with a crank based power meter like SRM or Quarq. It's to do with the unusual torque loading.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Just 388W average? That's a rather weak display from the Dawg.

Heres Pinot, whose coach is happy to release his data: http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/pinot-ppr.pdf

5.9W/kg and 65kg puts him at 385W over 45min, in 2013 data. I guess the mutant better watches out that the french hope doesn't jump him from behind.

(You won't see HR jumps in data gathered with optical HR devices. They have a very, very long averaging and lag time.)

Comparing a rider's best 45 minute power to another rider's ascent of Mt Ventoux on stage 15 of the Tour at the end of a 242km race completed in under 6 hours is naive at best.

Don't ask me what it is at worst, I'd rather not be banned right now.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The video was very interesting viewing. A very unfortunate youtube deletion.

 

[S2Sturges]

And I read this morning that Sir Dave has said Froome's training data had been hacked... of course this means that anything leaked or reported will have been manipulated by outside forces keen to debunk the benefits of marginal gains, hard work, gifted coaching, blah blah blah
Clean as....

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Re: Re:

Elliptical chainrings do read strangely when they're paired with a crank based power meter like SRM or Quarq. It's to do with the unusual torque loading.

That is just not true.

 

[Merckx index]

Comparing a rider's best 45 minute power to another rider's ascent of Mt Ventoux on stage 15 of the Tour at the end of a 242km race completed in under 6 hours is naive at best.

Don't ask me what it is at worst, I'd rather not be banned right now.

Why? For Froome, 388 watts works out to about 5.6 watts/kg., which is not mutant. It's less than the 5.9 watts for Pinot, and IIRC, less than a lot of Nibs' power outputs on climbs in the TDF last year. I really don't understand the fuss over 388 watts. Tucker himself draws a line around 6.2-6.3 watts/kg.

 

[Random Direction]

What is more likely?

A. HR to go from 157 to 161 as the physiological result of a 200 watt power increase together with a 20 ram increase in cadence sustained for, say, 40 seconds

B. The same power increase to be the result of, say, 50 watts of physiological exertion and 150 watts of battery power?

C. A + aicar, Hgh and cortisone?

D. B + aicar, Hgh and cortisone?

I'd say time to look at any odd Frovements in the 15 seconds before each attack on Dear Wiggos cousins brothers Dogs lovers tape so where in New Zeeland

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Comparing a rider's best 45 minute power to another rider's ascent of Mt Ventoux on stage 15 of the Tour at the end of a 242km race completed in under 6 hours is naive at best.

Don't ask me what it is at worst, I'd rather not be banned right now.

Why? For Froome, 388 watts works out to about 5.6 watts/kg., which is not mutant. It's less than the 5.9 watts for Pinot, and IIRC, less than a lot of Nibs' power outputs on climbs in the TDF last year. I really don't understand the fuss over 388 watts. Tucker himself draws a line around 6.2-6.3 watts/kg.

I'm saying comparing a rider's PB for 45 min to another rider's Ventoux climb at the end of a 242 km stage 15 race is naive and you ask why?

Sure thing Merxkcx. Sure thing.

 

[acoggan]

Re:

Brailsford also said that data without context could be twisted to suit particular agendas, “particularly when you have things like oval rings [which Froome uses] involved, which can skew the data.”

Great, great stuff. Oval chainrings. Got to add that to the lexicon. It's no Vandenbroucke's dog, but it's gold.

Sorry, but Brailsford's statement is (technically) true - see here:

viewtopic.php?p=1761406#p1761406

 

[The Death Merchant]

Re:

The easiest way to fabricate the data would be if you had the real data for that climb from someone else and then apply a Froome Fudge Factor. Vayer posting it as the real data would indeed leave him open to ridicule if it's not, but I don't see how he could have possibly gotten his hands on Froome's data. Surely Sky Science is hidden in some super max security vault.

Well NSA's top secret data leaked to the public. Data doesn't get much more secret and protected that that. Froome's data is peanuts compared to the NSA leak. To me it isn't strange at all that someone leaked Froome's data. I'm surprised that it didn't happen sooner.

Edit. Oh never mind. I hadn't yet read post were it was confirmed that someone hacked the data. I'm betting they will never know who did it, if it indeed was a hacking and not a leak from someone within.

 

[proffate]

The heart rate is weird but the power numbers aren't a smoking gun. Brailsford might have leaked the files himself and called it a hack, this would allow him to seed the idea of believable power numbers without setting a precedent of transparency.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

The heart rate is weird but the power numbers aren't a smoking gun. Brailsford might have leaked the files himself and called it a hack, this would allow him to seed the idea of believable power numbers without setting a precedent of transparency.

Unlikely.