LeMond III

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Or are they simply targeting the fans and not taking account of how it will be perceived by anyone with skepticism?

Thanks, Jeroen. I apologize if you had addressed that question before, I didn't catch it. Personally, would seem to me that sometimes they are really attuned to the thornier issues but then they put out some really daft or even defiant stuff. It's a strange lack of cohesion for an organization of their general competence.

P.S. Am I right in taking from your answer that you think a lot of the the sports science and training innovations they trot out is somewhat over-inflated? That there's some truth then to the "there are no miracles in cycling" quote?

A bit of both.

I know from feedback from riders that their attention to detail is second to none.

And I am sure that attending to detail can eventually add up to a significant sum.

However, some of the "innovations" touted are definitely over-hyped.

One area that would definitely add value is actively focusing on enhancing recover, which results in a reduced "alarm phase" as per my previous post link. That then allows the athlete to increase training intensity and make further gains. In addition, monitoring response by objectively measuring recovery has been completely neglected until recent years. HRV, LSCT test etc are all fairly recent introductions.

Now we know you are trolling.

That myth has been dispelled numerous times.

Every team pays attention to details. Cyclist have been doing this attention to detail since Gino Bartali/Coppi/ Merckx etc to today.

Oh man. That takes me back to the days when marginal gains meant cave-aging your tubulars. The best kept secret a mechanic had was how many months they were put in storage.

John Swanson

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

HI, Jeroen. I'd like to ask your opinion about something. A couple of years ago I did an analysis of Froome's performances in flat time trials (not prologues). The idea was to compare his performance as relative to the peloton. What I found is that from 2008 until Romandie in 2011 he would lose an average of 6.4 seconds/km to the winner (range 3.3 to 9.8 s/km, N=10). His average placing was also, on average, in the top 28%.

After Romandie, Froome's performance changed drastically. Starting in the Tour de Suisse he now lost on average only 1.3 s/km (range 0.0 to 1.9 s/km N=12) and never placed outside the top 6%. If we assume an average TT speed of 50 km/hr, this represents an enormous change of 3.5 km/hr.

Even accounting for a new time trial position or a lowering of CdA, there was an immense shift in performance. Note that his climbing abilities improved at or around the same time. My question: Physiologically, can you offer hypothetical reasons for a sudden change in FTP or similar? Even amongst doping alternatives the transformation seems so implausible.

John Swanson

edit: spelling mistake

Apologies I was commuting home in the rain!

There could be a any one of a multitude of possibilities.

I heard that Vayer said that any performance improvement of more than 6% is physiologically impossible. I have seen many athletes improve as much as 10% after resolving key problems in their training or health. Obviously at the top end of the spectrum this is unlikely but at lower levels there is often massive room for improvement.

The one that I see most often is excessive training load or poorly structured training. Excessively high training loads interfere with the adaptive response. In addition, they prevent progressive overload due to the inability to perform in training.

We recently wrote an article about this and I am posting the link so that I don't have to retype.

http://www.bikehub.co.za/features/_/articles/training-nutrition/ensuring-training-progression-with-power-r5159

I obviously don't have any insight into Froome's improvement and so I cannot comment other than to speculate.

Maybe it was the treatment of the Bilharzia as he has claimed.

Maybe is was a change in his training.

Maybe it was doping.

Maybe it was simply something that you cannot put a finger on. You sometimes do everything correctly and fail and then you do the same or similar and it all goes perfectly. Performance is sometimes as much of an art as it is a science.

This is probably one of the questions that does deserve some proper consideration and a lengthy response.

Thank you for your quick response, though I hope you understand that it feels a bit unsatisfying. The thought that Froome was chronically overtrained/non-adapted would suggest that there would be some health issues that would take more rest, recovery and adaptive training than could occur between Tour de Romandie and Tour de Suisse (the period over which the transformation occurred).

I'm similarly not convinced about Bilharzia as playing any kind of factor. After trying to educate myself a bit, I found that the life-cycle of the schistome and the way the disease presents does not fit at all to what Froome describes. Neither does the timeline fit anywhere close to the transformation.

While I agree that improvements in performance can always be made within the envelope of your genetic limitations, Froome's case just seems odd to me. Almost like he went from zero to hero, but even he can't offer an explanation.

John Swanson

Yes. That's why I said it deserves a considered response.

One important point that comes to mind now that you mentioned the stats:

If there was such a dramatic change in performance that this was statistically significant, how was it achieved.

If it was a manipulation of HB mass (which is the one that would be most likely to alter performance to that extent), why did it not trigger a passport sanction?

Or was it some other substance?

I can't think of one or a combination of substances that would cause such a change in performance without being detectable by the biological passport, steroidal passport or analytical technique.

At one point I started wondering if there was something new that could alter metabolic efficiency, but that just seems so unlikely. According to someone who would know, there are no rumors about anything like that in the peloton either. <shrug>

Anyways, thanks again for your response. Any other insights about the changes in performance would be welcome.

John Swanson

Correct. It doesn't sit well because of the past but it's also not explained by a plausible doping explanation.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Now we know you are trolling.

to be sure, not so much trolling the clinic, but more like trolling proper (sports) science.

pretending the BMI being off with the weight doesn't matter.
pretending Bilharzia is still a viable answer to Froome's transformation.
pretending Sky's attention to detail is second to none.

this is pseudo-(sports-)science pur sang.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

...
Now we know you are trolling.

to be sure, not so much trolling the clinic, but more like trolling proper (sports) science.

pretending the BMI being off with the weight doesn't matter.
pretending Bilharzia is still a viable answer to Froome's transformation.
pretending Sky's attention to detail is second to none.

this is pseudo-(sports-)science pur sang.

This tag team trolling is a brilliant example of shutting down a discussion that doesn't suit your paradigm.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Re: Re:

Or was it some other substance?

I can't think of one or a combination of substances that would cause such a change in performance without being detectable by the biological passport, steroidal passport or analytical technique.

Let's remember that Horner showed us exactly how much one can benefit. It was DETECTABLE by the bio-passport, just not ACTIONABLE for USADA/WADA.
http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/63542182838/analysis-horners-biopassport-data

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Now we know you are trolling.

to be sure, not so much trolling the clinic, but more like trolling proper (sports) science.

pretending the BMI being off with the weight doesn't matter.
pretending Bilharzia is still a viable answer to Froome's transformation.
pretending Sky's attention to detail is second to none.

this is pseudo-(sports-)science pur sang.

This tag team trolling is a brilliant example of shutting down a discussion that doesn't suit your paradigm.

My paradigm is (to attempt) proper, truthful science.
If yours were, too, you would at the very least acknowledge that the available evidence (including a myriad of facts) overwhelmingly points towards Froome/Sky doping. (and no, i'm not talking bout proof, nor about the doping itself being a fact, so please spare me those strawmen)

You're not even acknowledging what the most plausible hypothesis is (occam's razor 101), and instead keep entertaining hypotheses that have been discarded at length, as if they were equally plausible.

Objectively, I can only assume that you either ignore the available evidence, or *pretend* to ignore it.
That's either terribly sloppy science, or scientific fraud.
I'll lable it pseudo-science.

The way you dismiss the BMI/weight issue is a prime example of that.

edit: as to teamtagging, you and Dr. Burnley know all about that, so spare me the faux indignation.
if you can't take the heat...

 

[Benotti69]

Swart said "let's ask some valid questions"

When asked for some valid questions he instead gave statements.

Then puts forward his questions would be about nutrition and sports science, not doping and he can only ask 1 question(which he never asked) which the answer would then lead to more questions. But not even one question!

But Swart says he works for NADO so it seems he would be the right person to ask doping questions, but then doesn't after stating "lets ask some valid questions'.

Anyone who then questions Swart or his motives is ranting and trolling! Straight from the Sky book of how to deal with awkward questions and queries.

Never mind him slating LeMond for using aero bars on twitter.

Easy to figure this one.

 

[kwikki]

All the same, gentlemen, other people appear to be having a polite and productive conversation with Jeroen.

Just saying.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

...
Now we know you are trolling.

to be sure, not so much trolling the clinic, but more like trolling proper (sports) science.

pretending the BMI being off with the weight doesn't matter.
pretending Bilharzia is still a viable answer to Froome's transformation.
pretending Sky's attention to detail is second to none.

this is pseudo-(sports-)science pur sang.

This tag team trolling is a brilliant example of shutting down a discussion that doesn't suit your paradigm.

My paradigm is (to attempt) proper, truthful science.
If yours were, too, you would at the very least acknowledge that the available evidence (including a myriad of facts) overwhelmingly points towards Froome/Sky doping. (and no, i'm not talking bout proof, nor about the doping itself being a fact, so please spare me those strawmen)

You're not even acknowledging what the most plausible hypothesis is (occam's razor 101), and instead keep entertaining hypotheses that have been discarded at length, as if they were equally plausible.

Objectively, I can only assume that you either ignore the available evidence, or *pretend* to ignore it.
That's either terribly sloppy science, or scientific fraud.
I'll lable it pseudo-science.

The way you dismiss the BMI/weight issue is a prime example of that.

edit: as to teamtagging, you and Dr. Burnley know all about that, so i'd say if you can't take the heat...

Sniper, as a favor to me, please knock it off. Dr. Swart is not going to destroy his career just to say the things you want to hear. Destroy how? A good scientist, a responsible person, will be open to all hypothesis and try not to let bias destroy their objectivity. He's already said quite clearly that one of the options here is that Froome is doping. Looking at all the facts, it's not clear what form that doping would take as it also doesn't fit neat and cleanly. And given that he's the expert here it might be worth listening to some of the other perspectives he gives.

I have absolutely no doubt that if there was clear, conclusive data that Froome was doping that Dr. Swart would say so. There isn't, so he's not going to. I agree with that.

But given that I'm a nobody punter that embraces hi bias and has nothing at stake I'll say for the record that: Chris Froome is a dopity-dope-doper.

John Swanson

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

All the same, gentlemen, other people appear to be having a polite and productive conversation with Jeroen.

Just saying.

I tried. He obfuscated and went off elsewhere, but then you know this and hence you adding to it.

 

[Lyon]

What kind of doping could produce these results? All kinds of doping, from the most old fashioned to the most modern. People seem to forget that the reason for the existence of some popular designer-drugs is not that they work better than the non-designer ones, quite to the contrary, but that they are more difficult to detect. In short, designer drugs are a dream come true for both athlete and organizer as it keeps the ball rolling for that much longer.

As for Sky, there are no big secrets (designer-drugs or no designer-drugs), they simply have a head start on the other teams - just like Banesto had back in the day. They have already perfected what the other teams are still trying to learn. They are masters of the new paradigm within professional cycling.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Re:

As for Sky, there are no big secrets (designer-drugs or no designer-drugs), they simply have a head start on the other teams - just like Banesto had back in the day. They have already perfected what the other teams are still trying to learn. They are masters of the new paradigm within professional cycling.

What I find so frustrating is that Sky clearly haven't perfected much:
Zero Tolerance, but hire Leinders, Julich, Yates, JTL
"Over-geared" at the Vuelta
No discernible tactics unless they are just able to ride the front all day
Discovering Wiggins doesnt like to descend in the rain halfway through the Giro

They arrive at basic understanding of the sport of cycling, and act like they discovered life on Mars.

 

[sniper]

John,

How would observing that the BMI/weight ratio is off have endangered his carreer?
Btw, which one of his four carreers are you talking about?
This guy has so many jobs one wonders how he can do a single one properly.
And we're not talking about a small bias. We're talking about conflicts of interest left right and center.

Bottomline, if you're ok with your intelligence being insulted and with (sports) science being taken for a walk, well congrats. I'm not.
If you wanna lower your (scientific) standards and embrace pseudo-science, be my guest.
Just don't expect me to do the same.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

As for Sky, there are no big secrets (designer-drugs or no designer-drugs), they simply have a head start on the other teams - just like Banesto had back in the day. They have already perfected what the other teams are still trying to learn. They are masters of the new paradigm within professional cycling.

What I find so frustrating is that Sky clearly haven't perfected much:
Zero Tolerance, but hire Leinders, Julich, Yates, JTL
"Over-geared" at the Vuelta
No discernible tactics unless they are just able to ride the front all day
Discovering Wiggins doesnt like to descend in the rain halfway through the Giro

They arrive at basic understanding of the sport of cycling, and act like they discovered life on Mars.

This^

So why is a supposedly intelligent guy like Swart defending it?

Why is Walsh defending it?

Why are cycling hacks ignoring it?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Agree with John here, be a bit civilized, and, be realistic, you cant be thinking Swart is going to say anything here he cant substantiate with hard facts fellas. Just like with JV a few years ago by the way....

As a mather of fact, he has said quite a lot to be frank.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Agree with John here, be a bit civilized, and, be realistic, you cant be thinking Swart is going to say anything here he cant substantiate with hard facts fellas. Just like with JV a few years ago by the way....

As a mather of fact, he has said quite a lot to be frank.

JV came here with his own agenda. He didn't come to hang and talk cycling.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Agree with John here, be a bit civilized

take that up with Sky and others ruining the livelihood of clean athletes..

, and, be realistic, you cant be thinking Swart is going to say anything here he cant substantiate with hard facts fellas.

who's thinking that? nobody.
Everybody knows he won't say anything of substance because he's compromised left right and center. Just like JV was, indeed.
Does that mean these people can't be called out? Obviously it doesn't.
They choose to be compromised. It's not as if the conflicts of interest are forced upon them.

For me the real problem procycling faces is the many actors/participants who are conflicted by working on both sides, i.e. with athletes (coaching) and with antidoping. History shows that that's where the seeds of fraud and cheating are planted. Swart is a prime example of that. Btw, he also has his own nutrition brand iinm, which would be another obvious conflict. Meanwhile, he's allegedly also an MD and a (sports) scientist.
As I said, conflicted from top to bottom. I'm not gonna hold my breath.

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

...

Sniper, as a favor to me, please knock it off. Dr. Swart is not going to destroy his career just to say the things you want to hear. Destroy how? A good scientist, a responsible person, will be open to all hypothesis and try not to let bias destroy their objectivity. He's already said quite clearly that one of the options here is that Froome is doping. Looking at all the facts, it's not clear what form that doping would take as it also doesn't fit neat and cleanly. And given that he's the expert here it might be worth listening to some of the other perspectives he gives.

I have absolutely no doubt that if there was clear, conclusive data that Froome was doping that Dr. Swart would say so. There isn't, so he's not going to. I agree with that.

But given that I'm a nobody punter that embraces hi bias and has nothing at stake I'll say for the record that: Chris Froome is a dopity-dope-doper.

John Swanson

Not sure what Sniper should knock off.

He is right on the money wrt Marginal Gains. LeMond is right. Marginal Gains is bullocks, especially in this sport*.

The notion that Swart promoted above about 'adding up' all these marginal gains is even worse. Even if singular marginal gains were valid, there is always overriding concepts like the law of diminishing returns. At least Swart is only promoting an additive effect and not a multiplicative effect.

The whole Froome versus Wiggins dilemma within Sky underscores how Sky's attention to detail wasn't very good at figuring out who was faster than the other.

Where I may have a hair-trigger response to some things that Sniper says, I have been following other statements with interest.

* Let's recall some history in this sport. Like your example of the cave-aging of tubulars, cyclists have long obsessed (!) over minutae.

What other sport would know what a 'weight-weenie- was?

Ok, don't take my word for it. How about we refer to the Urban Dictionary:

weight weenie
Road Bicycle enthusiast who becomes obsessed with subtracting weight from his bicycle at all costs, including overriding safety concerns and practicality. A Weight Weenie will always replace a 100 gram component with a 99 gram component regardless of all other factors...

If we are to believe that Sky invented marginal gains and/or perfected their application, then how does one reconcile this with Eddy Merckx? You know, the guy who used to drill holes in his components (chain rings, rear derailleur...) for marginal gain?

Speaking of Merckx, only Boardman has exceeded his hour record and that was only by 10 m (0.02%). Surely the accumulation of Sky marginal gains should have buried Merckx' hour by now.

Marginal gains like Froome's chainrings? So 1983.

And when I see the fabric on the shoulders of Froome's jersey (edit to add: flapping in the breeze) I shake my head at marginal gains and recall that Lance's jersey was designed to actually be more aero when it was unzipped.

Sky's Marginal Gains are nothing but smokescreen. Period.

Dave.

Edited as noted

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Thought it might be useful to run down the past decade of bike technology and figure out what gains are exclusive to Sky:

-Aero frames: Most have them and Pinarello are definitely not leaders. Scott, Cervelo probably the 'best'
-Aero helmets: Everyone has them and Sky was far from the first
-Wheels: Wide rims are the style, I think Froome uses AX rims on big climbing days, which are light but less aero
-Power Meters: Everyone has them and they are extremely easy to use. Only mis-calibrated if you want them to be.
-Funny shaped chainrings: They cost $200. Everybody can buy them.
-Tires: Conti, Vittoria, Veloflex. FMB arent hard to find if your really want them.
-Bearings: Ceramic bearings are easy to find.
-Kit: Everyone has skinsuits, super light climbing kit, aero rain gear etc etc etc.
-Nutrition: Every big team as staff nutritionists and chefs. Heck, even Cannondale does.

I'm sure I missed some so please add more. What I cannot think of is one tech advancement that would apply specifically to Sky.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

Why not release proper power data?

That would require use of a proper power meter.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Why not release proper power data?

Didn't there already do this? They released all his data to Fred Grappe and then released stage power data for last year too but they did a correction factor for the oval rings (which I believe was incorrect).

When tested at GSK the values for the Stages and Load generator were virtually the same so I think the correction factor might have been incorrectly applied. The engineering of the power meter and the physics predict that the PM would measure a lower power with oval rings but in reality this didn't occur for some reason. If you remove the correction factor they used then the power correlates well with the other published data from riders behind him.

But does the power data really tell us anything? Unless they develop a power passport which monitors the rate of change in performance variables and is validated for accuracy and reliability in the detection of prohibited substances or methods, the data doesn't really tell any story. How you get to the data is the story.

Grappe is not credible. He viewed Armstrong's data and claimed it did not point to doping.

Remind me (genuine request):
Did Grappe actually say the (physiological test / power data) evidence meant Armstrong was not doping, or just that such data could not prove (or disprove) he was doping?

There is quite a big difference, and it's important to make that distinction. It's also important to distinguish what someone actually says/report from how it is reported. The latter statement is true of pretty much all regular physiological testing and power meter data. If he said the former, then that would be a credibility problem but is often the line that media uses when in fact the latter statement is what's actually said/written.

Proof of doping requires specific evidence of such (e.g. blood/urine tests, physical evidence of doping, confessions, witness accounts, that sort of thing). Physiological tests (e.g. VO2max, blood lactate etc) and performance/power meter data won't ever provide such proof.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

HI, Jeroen. I'd like to ask your opinion about something. A couple of years ago I did an analysis of Froome's performances in flat time trials (not prologues). The idea was to compare his performance as relative to the peloton. What I found is that from 2008 until Romandie in 2011 he would lose an average of 6.4 seconds/km to the winner (range 3.3 to 9.8 s/km, N=10). His average placing was also, on average, in the top 28%.

After Romandie, Froome's performance changed drastically. Starting in the Tour de Suisse he now lost on average only 1.3 s/km (range 0.0 to 1.9 s/km N=12) and never placed outside the top 6%. If we assume an average TT speed of 50 km/hr, this represents an enormous change of 3.5 km/hr.

Even accounting for a new time trial position or a lowering of CdA, there was an immense shift in performance. Note that his climbing abilities improved at or around the same time. My question: Physiologically, can you offer hypothetical reasons for a sudden change in FTP or similar? Even amongst doping alternatives the transformation seems so implausible.

John Swanson

edit: spelling mistake

Apologies I was commuting home in the rain!

There could be a any one of a multitude of possibilities.

I heard that Vayer said that any performance improvement of more than 6% is physiologically impossible. I have seen many athletes improve as much as 10% after resolving key problems in their training or health. Obviously at the top end of the spectrum this is unlikely but at lower levels there is often massive room for improvement.

The one that I see most often is excessive training load or poorly structured training. Excessively high training loads interfere with the adaptive response. In addition, they prevent progressive overload due to the inability to perform in training.

We recently wrote an article about this and I am posting the link so that I don't have to retype.

http://www.bikehub.co.za/features/_/articles/training-nutrition/ensuring-training-progression-with-power-r5159

I obviously don't have any insight into Froome's improvement and so I cannot comment other than to speculate.

Maybe it was the treatment of the Bilharzia as he has claimed.

Maybe is was a change in his training.

Maybe it was doping.

Maybe it was simply something that you cannot put a finger on. You sometimes do everything correctly and fail and then you do the same or similar and it all goes perfectly. Performance is sometimes as much of an art as it is a science.

This is probably one of the questions that does deserve some proper consideration and a lengthy response.

If we are accounting for it, it implies we know the scope of the change in Froome's CdA between these two periods. Do we?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

Every team pays attention to details. Cyclist have been doing this attention to detail since Gino Bartali/Coppi/ Merckx etc to today.

Thought it might be useful to run down the past decade of bike technology and figure out what gains are exclusive to Sky:

-Aero frames: Most have them and Pinarello are definitely not leaders. Scott, Cervelo probably the 'best'
-Aero helmets: Everyone has them and Sky was far from the first
-Wheels: Wide rims are the style, I think Froome uses AX rims on big climbing days, which are light but less aero
-Power Meters: Everyone has them and they are extremely easy to use. Only mis-calibrated if you want them to be.
-Funny shaped chainrings: They cost $200. Everybody can buy them.
-Tires: Conti, Vittoria, Veloflex. FMB arent hard to find if your really want them.
-Bearings: Ceramic bearings are easy to find.
-Kit: Everyone has skinsuits, super light climbing kit, aero rain gear etc etc etc.
-Nutrition: Every big team as staff nutritionists and chefs. Heck, even Cannondale does.

I'm sure I missed some so please add more. What I cannot think of is one tech advancement that would apply specifically to Sky.

I'm with you on the PR puff and over hyping of some things, but can someone explain why so many of the GC contenders persist in making poorer aerodynamics choices than Froome? Of the top 10, only the riders placing 1st and 2nd used disks and aero helmets on full TT bike. Road bikes, clip ons, no disks and road helmets on many of the GC contenders. WTF?

Yes it was a variable course but this stuff still matters and costs many of those contenders time.

I'd suggest that it was probably a lack of adequate recon and not thinking carefully enough about equipment and set up choices suitable for the parcours.

Pacing was also less than well executed by some, but that's another story.

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

Thought it might be useful to run down the past decade of bike technology and figure out what gains are exclusive to Sky:

-Aero frames: Most have them and Pinarello are definitely not leaders. Scott, Cervelo probably the 'best'
-Aero helmets: Everyone has them and Sky was far from the first
-Wheels: Wide rims are the style, I think Froome uses AX rims on big climbing days, which are light but less aero
-Power Meters: Everyone has them and they are extremely easy to use. Only mis-calibrated if you want them to be.
-Funny shaped chainrings: They cost $200. Everybody can buy them.
-Tires: Conti, Vittoria, Veloflex. FMB arent hard to find if your really want them.
-Bearings: Ceramic bearings are easy to find.
-Kit: Everyone has skinsuits, super light climbing kit, aero rain gear etc etc etc.
-Nutrition: Every big team as staff nutritionists and chefs. Heck, even Cannondale does.

I'm sure I missed some so please add more. What I cannot think of is one tech advancement that would apply specifically to Sky.

I'm with you on the PR puff and over hyping of some things, but can someone explain why some many of the GC contenders persist in making poorer aerodynamics choices than Froome? Of the top 10, only the riders placing 1st and 2nd used disks and aero helmets on full TT bike. Road bikes, clip ons, no disks and road helmets on many of the GC contenders. WTF?

Yes it was a variable course but this stuff still matters and costs many of those contenders time.

I'd suggest that it was probably a lack of adequate recon and thinking carefully about equipment and set up choices suitable for the parcours.

Pacing was also less than well executed by some, but that's another story.

Agree with the sentiments and most of this list. Bottom line, aero >> friction, rolling resistance, etc.

A minor point is that the Pinarello may compare more favorably than you might think against Cervelo, etc. Head-to-head wind tunnel data is compelling.

Another item for this list is the aerodynamics of tires. This is a far bigger deal than seems to be well accepted or understood. But, fastest tires are all commercially available. If you haven't done your homework, shame on you, because the data is there.

Ceramic bearings - not so sure. IIRC, loose SS bearings are faster than ceramic. Please recall that back in the day people used to use oil for lubrication and not grease to try and reduce friction. But, again, friction is a rounding error on aerodynamics.

One marginal gain that Froome is not taking advantage, and Quintana and Valverde are, is how their number is attached to their jersey. Froome' number is definitely adding aero drag. The two Movistars, however, have some kind of nice lamination thing going on.

But, yes, when you look at what the fastest guys rode (full TT bikes), then what where the competitors thinking?

Where I have criticized the notion of marginal gains, it was illuminating to read that Brailsford said that they did the calculations on the disc and were glad that the result matched. However, those same calculations could have been made by every other team and rider. If Sky's marginal gains are really about trying to avoid stupidity, then maybe I have to change my dismissive tune.

One thing about Froome's pacing was how fast he was on the descent at the top. You have to think about how much the TT bike + Disc helped at that point. You also have to give Froome a lot of credit for staying in the aero bars for pretty much the entire effort. Not easy, but effective.

Does Dumoulin rue the fact he didn't ride a disc? If he didn't go with the disc, he should have selected deeper rims. The weight savings on the rims he chose would be miniscule. Also note that he elected to not ride with a face shield. Give Quintana credit there. The combination of the low profile rims and lack of face shield could have made 21 seconds worth of difference.

Dave.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

HI, Jeroen. I'd like to ask your opinion about something. A couple of years ago I did an analysis of Froome's performances in flat time trials (not prologues). The idea was to compare his performance as relative to the peloton. What I found is that from 2008 until Romandie in 2011 he would lose an average of 6.4 seconds/km to the winner (range 3.3 to 9.8 s/km, N=10). His average placing was also, on average, in the top 28%.

After Romandie, Froome's performance changed drastically. Starting in the Tour de Suisse he now lost on average only 1.3 s/km (range 0.0 to 1.9 s/km N=12) and never placed outside the top 6%. If we assume an average TT speed of 50 km/hr, this represents an enormous change of 3.5 km/hr.

Even accounting for a new time trial position or a lowering of CdA, there was an immense shift in performance. Note that his climbing abilities improved at or around the same time. My question: Physiologically, can you offer hypothetical reasons for a sudden change in FTP or similar? Even amongst doping alternatives the transformation seems so implausible.

John Swanson

edit: spelling mistake

Apologies I was commuting home in the rain!

There could be a any one of a multitude of possibilities.

I heard that Vayer said that any performance improvement of more than 6% is physiologically impossible. I have seen many athletes improve as much as 10% after resolving key problems in their training or health. Obviously at the top end of the spectrum this is unlikely but at lower levels there is often massive room for improvement.

The one that I see most often is excessive training load or poorly structured training. Excessively high training loads interfere with the adaptive response. In addition, they prevent progressive overload due to the inability to perform in training.

We recently wrote an article about this and I am posting the link so that I don't have to retype.

http://www.bikehub.co.za/features/_/articles/training-nutrition/ensuring-training-progression-with-power-r5159

I obviously don't have any insight into Froome's improvement and so I cannot comment other than to speculate.

Maybe it was the treatment of the Bilharzia as he has claimed.

Maybe is was a change in his training.

Maybe it was doping.

Maybe it was simply something that you cannot put a finger on. You sometimes do everything correctly and fail and then you do the same or similar and it all goes perfectly. Performance is sometimes as much of an art as it is a science.

This is probably one of the questions that does deserve some proper consideration and a lengthy response.

If we are accounting for it, it implies we know the scope of the change in Froome's CdA between these two periods. Do we?

It can be inferred. If the changes were solely due to position change then CdA would have had to be reduced by 15% (!!). Not bad for a guy who hadn't been in a wind tunnel. Note that such a change is nearly the same the difference between a normal bike in the drops and a full-on time trial bike/position.

A 3.5 km/hr difference at 50 km/hr is a 20% change in power. Which means it's ~15% change in force. Force is linear with CdA.

John Swanson