Froome's SRM data on Ventoux

Page 22 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 14, 2014
1,687
375
11,180
Re:

.Froomestrong. said:
I'll point out that Dave Brailsford is no dummy, nor is he naive about what he is involved in.
I'd guess that a good part of his reluctance to be transparent in this particular case, boils down to him simply having no real explanation as to how a glorified pro-conti domestique has become the greatest cyclist in history.

As the head of the biggest and most well funded team on Earth, not having the slightest clue about this, must be quite scary. So rather than appear clueless, he makes up all kind of crap about pillows, and juice, and so forth- and the lapdog media is only too willing to let it slide.

Because really...he cant be that stupid.
I think he has a raging clue about how Froome became what he is, and if the truth gets out that would be very scary indeed.

The reason for the secrecy is because they can't back up the transformation with the pre-2011 data without giving the game away.
 
Re:

.Froomestrong. said:
I'll point out that Dave Brailsford is no dummy, nor is he naive about what he is involved in.
I'd guess that a good part of his reluctance to be transparent in this particular case, boils down to him simply having no real explanation as to how a glorified pro-conti domestique has become the greatest cyclist in history.

As the head of the biggest and most well funded team on Earth, not having the slightest clue about this, must be quite scary. So rather than appear clueless, he makes up all kind of crap about pillows, and juice, and so forth- and the lapdog media is only too willing to let it slide.

Because really...he cant be that stupid.
Slow down there buddy... Froome has a looooong way to go before he's accused of being the greatest cyclist in history. There's a list of champions that have at least 5 Tour wins to their palmares. Froome has 1 at this point, and that single victory has not stood the test of time yet. :(
 
Nov 5, 2013
5,299
5,078
23,180
Re: Re:

.Froomestrong. said:
acoggan said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
I didn't really have the time to go back and look at what he's written on the subject of Armstrong and Coyle, but I certainly remembered his defense of both, though he completely denied that a day or two ago.

Your memory is faulty. I've never defended Armstrong, or really even Ed's actions. What I have done is 1) defend the process by which the paper was published, and 2) attempted to provide insight/context into Ed's motivations in publishing it in the 1st place.

If by that you mean unemotional, logically-constructed positions that don't change on a whim and to which someone signs their real name, then yes.

It might be helpful to see that this unemotional, logically-constructed position has often missed drawing the otherwise obvious conclusion that these performances were not natural.

Ouch
 
Sep 14, 2009
6,300
3,561
23,180
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
.Froomestrong. said:
I'll point out that Dave Brailsford is no dummy, nor is he naive about what he is involved in.
I'd guess that a good part of his reluctance to be transparent in this particular case, boils down to him simply having no real explanation as to how a glorified pro-conti domestique has become the greatest cyclist in history.

As the head of the biggest and most well funded team on Earth, not having the slightest clue about this, must be quite scary. So rather than appear clueless, he makes up all kind of crap about pillows, and juice, and so forth- and the lapdog media is only too willing to let it slide.

Because really...he cant be that stupid.
I think he has a raging clue about how Froome became what he is, and if the truth gets out that would be very scary indeed.

The reason for the secrecy is because they can't back up the transformation with the pre-2011 data without giving the game away.

This forum needs a like button!
 
Jul 28, 2011
141
1
8,835
Re:

vedrafjord said:
Via @PDXWheels on Twitter:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...rs-and-round-and-non-round-chainrings.774249/

Lots of interesting stuff about power meters and wonky ring shapes, consensus is that you get the same numbers, which makes sense considering foot -> pedal -> crank -> spider (all the same as round rings) and only then rings -> chain.

This was debated ad nauseam in another bicycle - and more specifically power - based forum and the only consensus was that Mark Sullivan's opinion is in the extreme minority.
 
Re: Re:

V3R1T4S said:
vedrafjord said:
Via @PDXWheels on Twitter:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...rs-and-round-and-non-round-chainrings.774249/

Lots of interesting stuff about power meters and wonky ring shapes, consensus is that you get the same numbers, which makes sense considering foot -> pedal -> crank -> spider (all the same as round rings) and only then rings -> chain.

This was debated ad nauseam in another bicycle - and more specifically power - based forum and the only consensus was that Mark Sullivan's opinion is in the extreme minority.
Thanks for the info. We're going to continue this conversation until this forum reaches it's own conclusion.
 
Oct 4, 2014
769
18
10,010
Ferrari says asymmetric chainrings don’t matter much.
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=127
Asymmetric chainrings are not a recent innovation: already in the 90's, cyclists in the professional team Castorama were proposed an alternative to the traditional circular chainrings.
Brochard, Moreau, Thierry Marie and others tested the "Plateau Harmonic" both in laboratory and on-the-road simulated time trials, experiencing unlikely benefits (5"/km).
The chainring was used by some riders of the French team during the racing season, but it was abandoned rather quickly.

In more recent years, asymmetric chainrings as proposed by Rotor and Osymetric have been used by a number of professional cyclists (Julich, Sastre, and others) and Ironman triathletes.
The recent success of Wiggins, Froome and team Sky have been attributed by some, at least in part, to the use of Osymetric chainrings, both in time trials and standard races.
The manufacturers advertise significant benefits, which have not been confirmed by scientific studies published in international journals (Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2010; 5:459-468, Eur J Appl Physiol 2004, 91:100-104.

Intrigued, I tested it on myself for over six months, installing the Osymetric chainrings (France).
I have been cycling for over 30 years, I cover about 14,000 km/year both on the flats and uphill, I have an anaerobic threshold at 4 mM of lactate of about 320w, with 72 kg of weight. I use 170mm cranks.
For the first four months I ALTERNATED sessions using the standard circular chainrings with others using the Osymetric. I made this choice in order to avoid an addiction to the use of a chainrings set rather than the other, which would have obviously affected the test.

The pedalling gesture is definitely perceived as different: in particular, the bottom dead spot "passes away" more quickly, while the pushing phase between 45° and 135° requires a higher peak force. Even the back of the thigh and buttocks muscles work harder than normal, causing a slight soreness in the 24-48h after training, especially in the first few weeks of use.

Over the following two months I made 10 tests (5 with each of the two chainrings sets), measuring my Anaerobic Threshold on a climb, alternating the use of both.
The tests were carried out on a weekly basis, while maintaining the same training pattern for 3 days before each test (Rest - 2h30min with climbs at Medio - 2h flat course Lento).
I used the same climb with an average gradient of 7.5%, repeating 4min efforts between 200w and 350w, with 2min recovery (riding back down).
Lactate was measured by the finger (Lactate Scout, SensLab GmbH), the average heart rate with a heart rate monitor (Polar Electro, Finland), the average Watts of each uphill effort using the same Power Tap wheel hub (CycleOps, USA).

These are the results:

OSYMETRIC:

200w = 1.4 mM/l; 130 bpm
225w = 1.8 mM/l; 141 bpm
250w = 2.3 mM/l; 145 bpm
275w = 2.7 mM/l; 151 bpm
300w = 3.6 mM/l; 156 bpm
325w = 4.7 mM/l; 160 bpm
350w = 7.1 mM/l; 165 bpm

CIRCULAR:

200w = 1.3 mM/l; 132 bpm
225w = 1.6 mM/l; 140 bpm
250w = 1.9 mM/l; 147 bpm
275w = 2.3 mM/l; 153 bpm
300w = 3.3 mM/l; 157 bpm
325w = 4.4 mM/l; 161 bpm
350w = 6.9 mM/l; 166 bpm

N.B.: the values ​​of lactate and Heart Rate reported above are the average of 5 measurements, obtained in 5 different tests, performed at intervals of one week.

As you can see, there is NO significant difference in values ​​of lactate and heart rate in the 10 tests performed on myself in the arc of two months.

While Richie Porte has returned to the circular chainrings, as we could see in his recent dominating victory at Paris-Nice, Froome and Wiggins continue to use Osymetric: it is possible that tall athletes may have a slight advantage, supported by using longer cranks.
 
Aug 5, 2014
173
0
8,830
acoggan said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
ray j willings said:
Brailsford points out Oval rings could make the difference :D
People might want to make fun of his comment, but the artificial inflation of power readings due to use of these rings on spider based power meters (e.g. SRM) is a real factor, and it is a variable error, varying depending on a few factors (e.g. inertial load, nature of torque application) which in lay terms means the error is likely to be bigger on climbs than on flat terrain.

Consider also that Sky have used Stages power meters since 2014, well we can have even less confidence in the accuracy of power data (if released) due to the natural variability in left/right power balance.

Now, now, Alex - how dare you puncture anyone's fantasy balloon by introducing actual facts into this thread.
You should work on your retroric.
 
Jul 3, 2014
2,351
15
11,510
Re: Re:

irondan said:
.Froomestrong. said:
I'll point out that Dave Brailsford is no dummy, nor is he naive about what he is involved in.
I'd guess that a good part of his reluctance to be transparent in this particular case, boils down to him simply having no real explanation as to how a glorified pro-conti domestique has become the greatest cyclist in history.

As the head of the biggest and most well funded team on Earth, not having the slightest clue about this, must be quite scary. So rather than appear clueless, he makes up all kind of crap about pillows, and juice, and so forth- and the lapdog media is only too willing to let it slide.

Because really...he cant be that stupid.
Slow down there buddy... Froome has a looooong way to go before he's accused of being the greatest cyclist in history. There's a list of champions that have at least 5 Tour wins to their palmares. Froome has 1 at this point, and that single victory has not stood the test of time yet. :(

I think if you looked in to the people that have won it 5 times you could probably rule most if not all of them out, but I get your point - he certainly isn't the greatest cyclist in history, he just happens to be one of the best at the moment.
 
Jul 3, 2014
2,351
15
11,510
Re:

SeriousSam said:
Best climber of all time if clean

Possibly, possibly not - he doesn't win all his climbs, Quintana beat him in on the last climb in 2013. Also he was munched up last year in the Vuelta by Contador wasn't he?
 
Jun 14, 2010
34,930
60
22,580
Re: Re:

irondan said:
.Froomestrong. said:
I'll point out that Dave Brailsford is no dummy, nor is he naive about what he is involved in.
I'd guess that a good part of his reluctance to be transparent in this particular case, boils down to him simply having no real explanation as to how a glorified pro-conti domestique has become the greatest cyclist in history.

As the head of the biggest and most well funded team on Earth, not having the slightest clue about this, must be quite scary. So rather than appear clueless, he makes up all kind of crap about pillows, and juice, and so forth- and the lapdog media is only too willing to let it slide.

Because really...he cant be that stupid.
Slow down there buddy... Froome has a looooong way to go before he's accused of being the greatest cyclist in history. There's a list of champions that have at least 5 Tour wins to their palmares. Froome has 1 at this point, and that single victory has not stood the test of time yet. :(
Fs isn't talking about how many tdfs riders won, but their absolute ability. If froome were doing this clean, he would be so much superior to anyone else in history. Even doped to the gills creme de la creme of the early 2000's riders like ulle couldn't go as fast as he allegedly does clean. If it were natural he would probably be the greatest athlete of all time.
 
Jun 14, 2010
34,930
60
22,580
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
SeriousSam said:
Best climber of all time if clean

Possibly, possibly not - he doesn't win all his climbs, Quintana beat him in on the last climb in 2013. Also he was munched up last year in the Vuelta by Contador wasn't he?
Voeckler once beat contador up a mountain. Must be better than him then.
 
Jul 3, 2014
2,351
15
11,510
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
TheSpud said:
SeriousSam said:
Best climber of all time if clean

Possibly, possibly not - he doesn't win all his climbs, Quintana beat him in on the last climb in 2013. Also he was munched up last year in the Vuelta by Contador wasn't he?
Voeckler once beat contador up a mountain. Must be better than him then.

On that day he clearly was.
 
Jul 3, 2014
2,351
15
11,510
Re:

King Boonen said:
Hinault is the greatest of all time. Glad I could clear that up for everyone :)

Certainly has the greatest attitude - "if that had been me I'd have told them to go f@ck themselves!".
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Fs isn't talking about how many tdfs riders won, but their absolute ability. If froome were doing this clean, he would be so much superior to anyone else in history. Even doped to the gills creme de la creme of the early 2000's riders like ulle couldn't go as fast as he allegedly does clean. If it were natural he would probably be the greatest athlete of all time.

I don't understand this. His peformance on Ventoux was similar to Pinot's published power outputs. How is this superior to anyone else in history?
 
Jul 3, 2014
2,351
15
11,510
Re: Re:

Ventoux Boar said:
The Hitch said:
Fs isn't talking about how many tdfs riders won, but their absolute ability. If froome were doing this clean, he would be so much superior to anyone else in history. Even doped to the gills creme de la creme of the early 2000's riders like ulle couldn't go as fast as he allegedly does clean. If it were natural he would probably be the greatest athlete of all time.

I don't understand this. His peformance on Ventoux was similar to Pinot's published power outputs. How is this superior to anyone else in history?

Because otherwise it doesn't fit the narrative of posters here in The Clinic ...
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Ventoux Boar said:
The Hitch said:
Fs isn't talking about how many tdfs riders won, but their absolute ability. If froome were doing this clean, he would be so much superior to anyone else in history. Even doped to the gills creme de la creme of the early 2000's riders like ulle couldn't go as fast as he allegedly does clean. If it were natural he would probably be the greatest athlete of all time.

I don't understand this. His peformance on Ventoux was similar to Pinot's published power outputs. How is this superior to anyone else in history?

Because otherwise it doesn't fit the narrative of posters here in The Clinic ...
Ventoux Boar said:
The Hitch said:
Fs isn't talking about how many tdfs riders won, but their absolute ability. If froome were doing this clean, he would be so much superior to anyone else in history. Even doped to the gills creme de la creme of the early 2000's riders like ulle couldn't go as fast as he allegedly does clean. If it were natural he would probably be the greatest athlete of all time.

I don't understand this. His peformance on Ventoux was similar to Pinot's published power outputs. How is this superior to anyone else in history?

I cannot tell if you are being serious, or are that naive as to what you are comparing here or some other purpose.

As the question has already been answered at least once, it's somewhat disheartening that the questions even have to be asked.

I have seen posters suggest that actually riding a bike would help, and I would add that riding a bike with a power meter even more so.
 
Jul 25, 2012
12,967
1,970
25,680
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
King Boonen said:
Hinault is the greatest of all time. Glad I could clear that up for everyone :)

Certainly has the greatest attitude - "if that had been me I'd have told them to go f@ck themselves!".
The last true patron of the peloton.
 
Jun 14, 2010
34,930
60
22,580
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Ventoux Boar said:
The Hitch said:
Fs isn't talking about how many tdfs riders won, but their absolute ability. If froome were doing this clean, he would be so much superior to anyone else in history. Even doped to the gills creme de la creme of the early 2000's riders like ulle couldn't go as fast as he allegedly does clean. If it were natural he would probably be the greatest athlete of all time.

I don't understand this. His peformance on Ventoux was similar to Pinot's published power outputs. How is this superior to anyone else in history?

Because otherwise it doesn't fit the narrative of posters here in The Clinic ...
Pinot finished 6 minutes down on Ventoux. How did he manage that with the same power output as Froome?
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
TheSpud said:
Ventoux Boar said:
The Hitch said:
Fs isn't talking about how many tdfs riders won, but their absolute ability. If froome were doing this clean, he would be so much superior to anyone else in history. Even doped to the gills creme de la creme of the early 2000's riders like ulle couldn't go as fast as he allegedly does clean. If it were natural he would probably be the greatest athlete of all time.

I don't understand this. His peformance on Ventoux was similar to Pinot's published power outputs. How is this superior to anyone else in history?

Because otherwise it doesn't fit the narrative of posters here in The Clinic ...
Pinot finished 6 minutes down on Ventoux. How did he manage that with the same power output as Froome?

He had a headwind? Seriously, Hitch. We have real data for Froome and Pinot. No need to be obtuse. Do we have to list some of the variables involved in racing a bike?
 
Feb 14, 2014
1,687
375
11,180
Re: Re:

Ventoux Boar said:
He had a headwind? Seriously, Hitch. We have real data for Froome and Pinot. No need to be obtuse. Do we have to list some of the variables involved in racing a bike?
What the **** did I just read?

You actually buy into the magical Sky-only tailwind theory?
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
Ventoux Boar said:
He had a headwind? Seriously, Hitch. We have real data for Froome and Pinot. No need to be obtuse. Do we have to list some of the variables involved in racing a bike?
What the **** did I just read?

You actually buy into the magical Sky-only tailwind theory?

I answered the question with regard to Pinot. I mean how else could Pinot lose 6 mins to Froome when he is capable of the same power output as 'The Mutant', if he didn't have a Pinot-special headwind?
 
Feb 14, 2014
1,687
375
11,180
Re: Re:

Ventoux Boar said:
I answered the question with regard to Pinot. I mean how else could Pinot lose 6 mins to Froome when he is capable of the same power output as 'The Mutant', if he didn't have a Pinot-special headwind?

Here. Read this again:

Saint Unix said:
Also, if Pinot's capabilities are to match Froome on Ventoux, that means that Pinot would have been able to finish with Froome if he had started completely fresh at the bottom of the hill, whereas Froome had to ride the 220kms beforehand, and Pinot would have paced himself up whereas Froome put in several huge attacks to drop Contador and Quintana.

On his best day, without the fatigue of a three-week stage race and without the fatigue of 220km of fast-paced racing on the flats, Pinot might have been able to follow Froome.