Froome's SRM data on Ventoux

[infeXio]

Re: Re:

What's Digger's twitter name? Thanks!

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum enjoy....

Cheers

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

Belgian sites report on it...

The hacking i mean, not the actual data, they don't care. Typical journalists

pretty much the same as UK good boys BBC and Guardian
- no attempt at understanding the doping angle.

 

[Supimilian]

Re: Re:

Belgian sites report on it...

The hacking i mean, not the actual data, they don't care. Typical journalists

pretty much the same as UK good boys BBC and Guardian
- no attempt at understanding the doping angle.

"Fresh video suggests Froome-cheating"
Headline on the biggest news site front page here.

 

[M Sport]

Ok, just watched it and replayed several sections to try and give you an accurate account as possible without showing my bias against Froome. I watched highlights only of this stage in 2013 so was certainly interesting with power, cadence and HR. This is how all coverage should be.

I'm not going to write a novel, just key points picked up at 24 min mark as Gesink gets dropped from the bunch. Quintana is up the road.

24.00 Gesink dropped
24.55 Valverde dropped
25.25 three remain (split from bunch) Froome HR 156/7
Porte pulls off
28.18 Froome Alien attack 650+ watts for sustained period, Cadence 110-123, HR 155-156
30.10 Video is replaying Porte pulling off but keep an eye on the power and cadence as Froome has just caught and attacked Quintana hitting 1,028 watts and 122 cadence
30.18 camera back on Froome and Quntana. Froome still pulling 596 watts and 113 cadence
30.32 cadence still 102 power back to 400
Then cuts to replay of the attack on Quintana
Quintana pulls back up to Froome
36.20 Froome and Quintana still together, long period of 400 watts at 153 HR, 95 Cadence
4km to go kicks it up to 470 watts average and 154 HR
37.09 Out of saddle attack hitting 865 watts then holding in the 700's, HR barely 160
Eases to 380-420 range for awhile, HR 151-152
2km to go HR down to 150, Froome Quintana riding together
44.00 Froome attacks again up to 600 watts out of saddle, drops Quintana, HR up to 159
1km to go Froome solo, HR 159, avg 400+w
48.35 crosses line after pulling 500w from final corner, 159 HR

Edit: Went back and found the quote I heard first time through
30.30 "Chris Froome wants to win this like a total superior being"

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Its real shame we don't have the expertise of
thehog (banned until mid August)
viewtopic.php?p=1655783#p1655783
on this topic.
digger is persistent but thehog has stamina.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

Ok, just watched it and replayed several sections to try and give you an accurate account as possible without showing my bias against Froome. I watched highlights only of this stage in 2013 so was certainly interesting with power, cadence and HR. This is how all coverage should be.

I'm not going to write a novel, just key points picked up at 24 min mark as Gesink gets dropped from the bunch. Quintana is up the road.

24.00 Gesink dropped
24.55 Valverde dropped
25.25 three remain (split from bunch) Froome HR 156/7
Porte pulls off
28.18 Froome Alien attack 650+ watts for sustained period, Cadence 110-123, HR 155-156
30.10 Video is replaying Porte pulling off but keep an eye on the power and cadence as Froome has just caught and attacked Quintana hitting 1,028 watts and 122 cadence
30.18 camera back on Froome and Quntana. Froome still pulling 596 watts and 113 cadence
30.32 cadence still 102 power back to 400
Then cuts to replay of the attack on Quintana
Quintana pulls back up to Froome
36.20 Froome and Quintana still together, long period of 400 watts at 153 HR, 95 Cadence
4km to go kicks it up to 470 watts average and 154 HR
37.09 Out of saddle attack hitting 865 watts then holding in the 700's, HR barely 160
Eases to 380-420 range for awhile, HR 151-152
2km to go HR down to 150, Froome Quintana riding together
44.00 Froome attacks again up to 600 watts out of saddle, drops Quintana, HR up to 159
1km to go Froome solo, HR 159, avg 400+w
48.35 crosses line after pulling 500w from final corner, 159 HR

Edit: Went back and found the quote I heard first time through
30.30 "Chris Froome wants to win this like a total superior being"

Thanks for the summary

 

[coinneach]

Re:

Ok, just watched it and replayed several sections to try and give you an accurate account as possible without showing my bias against Froome. I watched highlights only of this stage in 2013 so was certainly interesting with power, cadence and HR. This is how all coverage should be.

I'm not going to write a novel, just key points picked up at 24 min mark as Gesink gets dropped from the bunch. Quintana is up the road.

24.00 Gesink dropped
24.55 Valverde dropped
25.25 three remain (split from bunch) Froome HR 156/7
Porte pulls off
28.18 Froome Alien attack 650+ watts for sustained period, Cadence 110-123, HR 155-156
30.10 Video is replaying Porte pulling off but keep an eye on the power and cadence as Froome has just caught and attacked Quintana hitting 1,028 watts and 122 cadence
30.18 camera back on Froome and Quntana. Froome still pulling 596 watts and 113 cadence
30.32 cadence still 102 power back to 400
Then cuts to replay of the attack on Quintana
Quintana pulls back up to Froome
36.20 Froome and Quintana still together, long period of 400 watts at 153 HR, 95 Cadence
4km to go kicks it up to 470 watts average and 154 HR
37.09 Out of saddle attack hitting 865 watts then holding in the 700's, HR barely 160
Eases to 380-420 range for awhile, HR 151-152
2km to go HR down to 150, Froome Quintana riding together
44.00 Froome attacks again up to 600 watts out of saddle, drops Quintana, HR up to 159
1km to go Froome solo, HR 159, avg 400+w
48.35 crosses line after pulling 500w from final corner, 159 HR

Edit: Went back and found the quote I heard first time through
30.30 "Chris Froome wants to win this like a total superior being"

Chris has studied your data:

"Froome said critics on social media who try to interpret power data are "clowns", adding that it means nothing without context"

 

[Supimilian]

That explains the original graph Vayer posted. The highest HR actually was when he attacked Contador, before the 1000W spike.
~390W for the entire climb pretty much confirms the tailwind (but it's probably spin on my part to claim such meteorological phenomena exist).

 

[SkyTears]

so hacks and steals
gets 5.88 W/kg, less than Pinot last year

hopefully some people spent some months in jail, to finally understand that stealing and defamation is bad stuff for your health.

 

[simoni]

Re:

That explains the original graph Vayer posted. The highest HR actually was when he attacked Contador, before the 1000W spike.
~390W for the entire climb pretty much confirms the tailwind (but it's probably spin on my part to claim such meteorological phenomena exist).

Pleasing to see some analysis over and above the "they say its hacked so it must be real and if its real is must be incriminating" hypothesis.

Re: tailwind, I was on the climb that day (c4km from the summit above Chalet Reynard) and there was no significant wind in any direction. I think I have pictures with flags hanging limp. I'm sure this has been covered before and whilst the wind was generally blowing fairly briskly from the north that weekend the southern side of Mont Ventoux is sheltered from that, temperatures were warm without being ridiculous and conditions for racing were probably about as "neutral" as you could expect.

 

[Volderke]

I really don't understand the issue:
Froome's data are visible now, and the data confirm what he did: going up Ventoux with a high average wattage and some power bursts.
His max. heartrate is pretty low, but mine (at 179bpm) is pretty low too, as I know some guys from my age who still can reach 200.
Maximum heartrate doesn't say anything. And when I go full gas from 160 bpm, I can go for like half a minute without reaching max. For reaching max, I would have to go a full minute. Same with Froome, it seems.

I really support showing all data from at least the past year. Ofcourse, showing data just now could reveal weakness to your competitors.
If Sky has nothing to hide, they could show they are annoyed with the data leak, but they could stress that they got nothing to hide and e.g. plan to release a bit more data.

 

[harryh]

Nice analysis @veloclinic in terms of W' balance: https://twitter.com/veloclinic/status/620827797284618240

 

[Supimilian]

Re: Re:

That explains the original graph Vayer posted. The highest HR actually was when he attacked Contador, before the 1000W spike.
~390W for the entire climb pretty much confirms the tailwind (but it's probably spin on my part to claim such meteorological phenomena exist).

Pleasing to see some analysis over and above the "they say its hacked so it must be real and if its real is must be incriminating" hypothesis.

Re: tailwind, I was on the climb that day (c4km from the summit above Chalet Reynard) and there was no significant wind in any direction. I think I have pictures with flags hanging limp. I'm sure this has been covered before and whilst the wind was generally blowing fairly briskly from the north that weekend the southern side of Mont Ventoux is sheltered from that, temperatures were warm without being ridiculous and conditions for racing were probably about as "neutral" as you could expect.

Interesting. The flags seem to indicate a positive wind at the last 4 or so kms from looking at the video.
It's somewhat from left the side as well, near the top. Seems like it would be in effect for the parts not in the forest, given the direction of the climb, but this is somewhat speculating.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

Nice analysis @veloclinic in terms of W' balance: https://twitter.com/veloclinic/status/620827797284618240

Hard to believe Froome is working all that out in his head as he rides, but does explain the constant PM watching. Do the SRMs have W' as a field?

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

Nice analysis @veloclinic in terms of W' balance: https://twitter.com/veloclinic/status/620827797284618240

Hard to believe Froome is working all that out in his head as he rides, but does explain the constant PM watching. Do the SRMs have W' as a field?

I'm impressed by the analysis and it explains why they don't want it getting out too, competitive advantage possibly. Is this common knowledge in sports performance science ?

It also makes Vayer and ScienceOFSport look a right pair of clueless wonders.

 

[adamfo]

What's the problem with the heart rate figures then ? (assuming the video is synced correctly)
Back in 2011 the chart shows a peak of 169 bpm. Clearly he has a large efficient pump in his chest.
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

 

[M Sport]

Re: Re:

That explains the original graph Vayer posted. The highest HR actually was when he attacked Contador, before the 1000W spike.
~390W for the entire climb pretty much confirms the tailwind (but it's probably spin on my part to claim such meteorological phenomena exist).

Pleasing to see some analysis over and above the "they say its hacked so it must be real and if its real is must be incriminating" hypothesis.

Re: tailwind, I was on the climb that day (c4km from the summit above Chalet Reynard) and there was no significant wind in any direction. I think I have pictures with flags hanging limp. I'm sure this has been covered before and whilst the wind was generally blowing fairly briskly from the north that weekend the southern side of Mont Ventoux is sheltered from that, temperatures were warm without being ridiculous and conditions for racing were probably about as "neutral" as you could expect.

People (not a dig at you) keep going on about the data being hacked or stolen. It wasn't hacked from Sky, Sky handed it all over to L'Equipe in 2013. It's just been passed on recently and no crime has occurred as Sky are trying to make out.

Sky are doing an incredibly bad pr job on this.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Nice analysis @veloclinic in terms of W' balance: https://twitter.com/veloclinic/status/620827797284618240

Hard to believe Froome is working all that out in his head as he rides, but does explain the constant PM watching. Do the SRMs have W' as a field?

I'm impressed by the analysis and it explains why they don't want it getting out too, competitive advantage possibly. Is this common knowledge in sports performance science ?

It also makes Vayer and ScienceOFSport look a right pair of clueless wonders.

SKy were / are sponsored by training peaks and use / used their website. Coggan acts like he's involved. I am sure he will sniff his name being mentioned and come and pavlov himself all over the thread again.

Coggan despises Mike or at least acts like he does, so the concepts / methods Mike discusses from his side are ignored or denigrated but pretty much what WKO 4 is going to / does do.

Not sure if WKO 4 is released yet, been promised for a year or more now.

 

[WillemS]

I do not agree with all those saying that the "hacking" statement was the worst move Sky could have made. They would want to reroute the attention from the actual data, data that is hard to interpret and could be interpreted in many ways, to some other scandal and, tell you what, it's working like a charm. If they would have pulled the "forgery" card, the media would be all caught up in the data itself, now they focus on "hackers" and "leaks" and "theft", with almost no true analysis of the actual data published. They don't want any attention drawn to the actual data, so make it a "hacking" scandal.

That said, I'm not sure Sky knows how the data got out in the open. Hacking seems a reasonable explanation, as would be a leak. However, a leak would imply that something is going on that gives people incentive to leak (ethics, probably), so going with outside job story, a hacker, is the safe bet for Sky, as they can point to all the "Sky hating" going one, without discussing why anyone would want to leak Sky stuff. (Armstrong primed the media's attention for the blacksheeping of "deserters" and whistle-blowers.)

Personally I feel that, if the data turns out to be real, that a leak might be more likely, especially if the other files, if ever poster published, turn out to be all relevant to the Froome case. Most hackers would probably steal a whole bunch of files and then dump them on the web somewhere for others to analyse and sort through to get the "right" files of interest or sell them to someone. (I don't think the current chain of release would have any true financial incentive for a hacker, or this single file is a promotion effort. The current people involved don't seem like those who could pay a large sum for information.)

All in all, we don't even know if the data is real, only that Sky does not want to draw attention to the actual published numbers. One of the reasons could be that they don't want to have to counter the published data with the actual file as it might be more damning than the surfaced, possible forged, numbers. I'm guessing this will never go to court, as that could force Sky to be transparent, something they have never been willing to be.

 

[Poursuivant]

5.9 w/kg?

Storm in a teacup comes to mind. Love the fact that digger character knows the data doesn't have a smoking gun, so is now going for the motor excuse

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

data that is hard to interpret and could be interpreted in many ways,

lolnope. Try again.

Seriously. Are you just regurgitating Team Sky press releases? Looks like you might be. Not cool to do that without attribution. Come on. Fair's fair.

 

[JimmyFingers]

So we have data and the numbers are reasonable, hmm, good I'm almost glad of the back, it's reassuring.

As for Sky's reaction, easily demonised but if the data has been stolen and it affords their rivals insights into Froome's ability, why on earth would they be ok about it? Anyway glad it's out there, the legendary Ventoux alien attack exposed as being human.

 

[WillemS]

Re: Re:

data that is hard to interpret and could be interpreted in many ways,

lolnope. Try again.

Seriously. Are you just regurgitating Team Sky press releases? Looks like you might be. Not cool to do that without attribution. Come on. Fair's fair.

Okay, interpret the data, then. I've seen numerous interpretations, by non-experts and quoted experts, in this thread alone. Even carefully collected data in a controlled laboratory setting is often susceptible to diverting interpretations. What are you trying to do? Power playing you opinion through without any actual expertise when it comes down to data analysis? The ad hominem is strong with you.

 

[simoni]

Re: Re:

That explains the original graph Vayer posted. The highest HR actually was when he attacked Contador, before the 1000W spike.
~390W for the entire climb pretty much confirms the tailwind (but it's probably spin on my part to claim such meteorological phenomena exist).

Pleasing to see some analysis over and above the "they say its hacked so it must be real and if its real is must be incriminating" hypothesis.

Re: tailwind, I was on the climb that day (c4km from the summit above Chalet Reynard) and there was no significant wind in any direction. I think I have pictures with flags hanging limp. I'm sure this has been covered before and whilst the wind was generally blowing fairly briskly from the north that weekend the southern side of Mont Ventoux is sheltered from that, temperatures were warm without being ridiculous and conditions for racing were probably about as "neutral" as you could expect.

Interesting. The flags seem to indicate a positive wind at the last 4 or so kms from looking at the video.
It's somewhat from left the side as well, near the top. Seems like it would be in effect for the parts not in the forest, given the direction of the climb, but this is somewhat speculating.

I was well out of the forest and, like I say, have no memory of anything significant (and I'm enough of a nerd to think about this sort of thing!) I don't believe that wind conditions are relevant in this case, whichever side of the "froome is a doper" fence you sit.

 

[Supimilian]

Re: Re:

That explains the original graph Vayer posted. The highest HR actually was when he attacked Contador, before the 1000W spike.
~390W for the entire climb pretty much confirms the tailwind (but it's probably spin on my part to claim such meteorological phenomena exist).

Pleasing to see some analysis over and above the "they say its hacked so it must be real and if its real is must be incriminating" hypothesis.

Re: tailwind, I was on the climb that day (c4km from the summit above Chalet Reynard) and there was no significant wind in any direction. I think I have pictures with flags hanging limp. I'm sure this has been covered before and whilst the wind was generally blowing fairly briskly from the north that weekend the southern side of Mont Ventoux is sheltered from that, temperatures were warm without being ridiculous and conditions for racing were probably about as "neutral" as you could expect.

Interesting. The flags seem to indicate a positive wind at the last 4 or so kms from looking at the video.
It's somewhat from left the side as well, near the top. Seems like it would be in effect for the parts not in the forest, given the direction of the climb, but this is somewhat speculating.

I was well out of the forest and, like I say, have no memory of anything significant (and I'm enough of a nerd to think about this sort of thing!) I don't believe that wind conditions are relevant in this case, whichever side of the "froome is a doper" fence you sit.

The side where we at least attempt to keep it factual and not jump the gun and rile each other up like baboons as soon as Froome holds a wheel on the cobbles or a powerfile shows 1000W. Probably they are all dirty to some extent, the top guys at very least.