LeMond III

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I can't say about Sky's program because I don't specifically know, but one does not need a wind tunnel to do good effective aero testing, there are other ways*. While I agree a 15% reduction in CdA would be pretty big (assuming that's what it equates to) it's not completely unheard of even for pro riders. There are some pretty ordinary set ups out there. More typically I see CdA reductions of ~5-10% in many riders I work with but bigger gains are not that unusual either. It's pretty cool what's possible with attention to aero detail and doing enough testing work.

Again, I've no idea about what work Froome/Sky did/did not do. But not using a tunnel does not automatically mean not doing aerodynamics optimisation. He's clearly done some work on road bike descending aerodynamics for when suitable roads were available.


* As an aside, Sky are now using the aero testing technology I've been using for some years.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Alex: http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/feb01/feb09news.shtml

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

Alex: http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/feb01/feb09news.shtml

Thanks for the CN summary item. The opening para looks pretty ordinary I have to say so I see the point being made, although I'd probably want to read the original source material to see what he actually said.

Apart from that and the big gear suppleness comments, not all that much in the rest of that item is particularly wrong. e.g. the trade is hard, too much influence of doctors and people of bad influence with access to riders who are left alone a lot and with inadequate support, power numbers that are not impossible.

 

[Digger]

The line from Jeroen further up = about being told from riders that sky's attention to detail is second to none - I've argued and argued with jeroen so I have no intention of starting here.
I have no doubt jeroen has been told that - he didn't make it up - it's just that I've been told things from people on world tour teams that this isn't the case. Stuff like gear systems, team time trial layouts whilst on the road which aren't noticeable to most lay people (certainly wasn't noticeable to me at first), wind tunnel testing, physiological testing, dieticians. In fact the froome story, in order to give him the benefit of the doubt, needs one to accept that sky dropped the ball big time both in his testing, blood tests and his diet.
Also for argument sake say they do have an excellent attention to detail - doesn't that imply that other top teams don't?
It's like the marginal gains thing - as ross tucker said on Thursday night, we are only getting 50% of the story. For all the so called innovations and gains, do we know that other teams aren't doing this stuff?
There has been a movement of riders and staff from sky. You'd think, with staff especially, they'd be saying we did x on sky and we really need to start doing it on here as well.
Allied with Sean Yates and Stephen Roche saying Sky don't do anything different then we are left asking what exactly they do differently?
It's usually some vague term - first marginal gains, then it was that we don't do anything differently we are just smarter, then it's more vague - we have a clearly defined planning system in place.
All the while we are hearing this week that sky don't use the term marginal gains anymore - which is patently false as brailsford used that exact term the evening of his attack on the descent.
Their tactics if you want to call them tactics are just brute force day after day. That has been the thing for me this July - not really froome he's been much the same - their domestiques are riding serious GC guys off the back.
We hear they train so hard - again implying that other teams don't - but again for argument sake say they do train harder...I know riders at this level who've tried to train harder than others - they broke down. One guy after a really tough month wasn't able to function properly the month after...
And then we are left with the main body of their team...it's as though marginal gains only work for a core group on sky...seems like 70% of riders on the sky roster either stagnate or get worse. Regardless of your abilities you'd think the sky way would lead to you achieving your full potential.
As for Sky's attention to detail on hiring staff...I won't even get into yates et al, I can even understand all that....but to say leinders was hired by mistake is laughable. Google showed in May 2012 that he was a doping doctor. Three former staff members then with sky had worked with leinders at rabobank...
sky say they don't weigh riders every day at the tour - laughable (brailsford said it last july when he refused to give froome's weight)
sky said he'd never done a vo2 max test - and let's again accept that they are dated somewhat - you'd still do one just to give a part of the physiological picture of a rider....
froome saying, after his testing with Jeroen, that he was looking forward to the results as it would show him certain things and explain things to him...how the hell have sky not done this with him already...
their hiring of JTL was laughable - they either knew and did it anyway - or their internal checks were farcically inept. They can't have it both ways.
2010 and attention to detail is also a curious one - the stuff they said they'd do...innovation and marginal gains and attention to detail - they were so poor all season and by their own admittance they said we tried to be too clever and resorted back to more traditional values (now I know full well what they decided to do that winter but that's another conversation)

Ultimately when I see attention to detail being second to none I do wonder....

 

[kwikki]

I can't possibly imagine why Team Sky improved from 2010 to 2012

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I did a post looking at the aero equipment choices of the top 20 from stage 18 ITT. Some of the decisions made by many who have GC aspirations bemuse me. It seems to me that many simply hadn't adequately prepared for the specific course.
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/bemusing-aero-equipment-choices-at-tour.html

 

[Digger]

Re:

I did a post looking at the aero equipment choices of the top 20 from stage 18 ITT. Some of the decisions made by many who have GC aspirations bemuse me. It seems to me that many simply hadn't adequately prepared for the specific course.
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/bemusing-aero-equipment-choices-at-tour.html

it's a good chart - and obviously it's facts so I am not arguing with the content - but riders all made their choices on what would suit them best for that course - it was an awkward one. My point is that none of the riders were left wishing they had all the elements froome had but their team simply didn't have the equipment.

 

[Digger]

Re:

I can't possibly imagine why Team Sky improved from 2010 to 2012

Again this is so misleading in isolation - other teams have also improved their net spend.

 

[Remmie123]

Re:

I did a post looking at the aero equipment choices of the top 20 from stage 18 ITT. Some of the decisions made by many who have GC aspirations bemuse me. It seems to me that many simply hadn't adequately prepared for the specific course.
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/bemusing-aero-equipment-choices-at-tour.html

I was at the TT stage from 8am, in between the first and second time check I saw porte come past me once downhill and twice up hill, I think this implies he was taking it very seriously and giving proper thought to what equipment he should be using.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

I did a post looking at the aero equipment choices of the top 20 from stage 18 ITT. Some of the decisions made by many who have GC aspirations bemuse me. It seems to me that many simply hadn't adequately prepared for the specific course.
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/bemusing-aero-equipment-choices-at-tour.html

Great graph. That shows to me the 'normal' road bike was the right choice. Froome only won it on absolute monster power, ergo, thats why he was able to climb in the Tri bars for 90% of the time.

edit: didnt Mollema have a rear disc wheel too?

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

I can't possibly imagine why Team Sky improved from 2010 to 2012

Again this is so misleading in isolation - other teams have also improved their net spend.

They may have increased their budget, but few get anywhere near Sky's budget. It's the MUFC syndrome, success breeds success. What this means is that they can afford to buy the best of everything from riders to expertise, to equipment.
That's your actual marginal gains.

For example, I read a recent article about Team mechanics for a top team (can't remember which one) and they were complaining about having to do all their work out in the open in the cold weather (Giro). They said that Sky are the only team with a workshop inside the lorry so they get to work inside.

Now, you might scoff at this and call it irrelevant, but the point is it is another teams mechanics bemoaning their lack of facilities so therefore it actually does matter to them! How this translates to an advantage on the road is less quantifiable, but in the article (I'll post a link in a bit) the mechanics describe how they try to meet the requests of the riders, but sometimes they can't. So it seems reasonable to suggest that if a rider requests something it is because it will improve their performance and therefore the lack of provision may adversely affect their performance. That is your actual marginal gain. It's not because Sky are 'better' at what they do, it's because they can pay for better.

The simple test of whether money makes a difference is to think about what would happen if you halved a teams budget. What would the roster look like for a start? Well it would look like one of the poorer current teams who can only afford one B grade Big Name and a motley crew of supporting riders. What difference does this make? It completely alters what they are able to compete within the Tour, and for some of them that might be as little as getting a jersey in a semi-serious breakaway for an hour or so.

Of course, there is no reason to ignore that 'being able to buy the best' would/could/should/does include medical expertise, and I think we all know exactly what that meant in the past, and what it probably means in the present.

This is a long rambling post, and I'm not sure why it's in a thread about LeMond, but I suppose what I am saying is that I believe in marginal gains. I don't think there is any reason to mock them as long as you acknowledge that marginal gains can apply equally to doping practices.

(And yes, I know that Sky explain their success through MGs, and yes, I think it is only a partial explanation)

 

[gooner]

Again on VO2 Max, Matt Slater asked around British Cycling on this and found it's not used as huge outline anymore. JV has said this too.

 

[ontheroad]

Re: Re:

I can't possibly imagine why Team Sky improved from 2010 to 2012

Again this is so misleading in isolation - other teams have also improved their net spend.

They may have increased their budget, but few get anywhere near Sky's budget. It's the MUFC syndrome, success breeds success. What this means is that they can afford to buy the best of everything from riders to expertise, to equipment.
That's your actual marginal gains.

For example, I read a recent article about Team mechanics for a top team (can't remember which one) and they were complaining about having to do all their work out in the open in the cold weather (Giro). They said that Sky are the only team with a workshop inside the lorry so they get to work inside.

Now, you might scoff at this and call it irrelevant, but the point is it is another teams mechanics bemoaning their lack of facilities so therefore it actually does matter to them! How this translates to an advantage on the road is less quantifiable, but in the article (I'll post a link in a bit) the mechanics describe how they try to meet the requests of the riders, but sometimes they can't. So it seems reasonable to suggest that if a rider requests something it is because it will improve their performance and therefore the lack of provision may adversely affect their performance. That is your actual marginal gain. It's not because Sky are 'better' at what they do, it's because they can pay for better.

The simple test of whether money makes a difference is to think about what would happen if you halved a teams budget. What would the roster look like for a start? Well it would look like one of the poorer current teams who can only afford one B grade Big Name and a motley crew of supporting riders. What difference does this make? It completely alters what they are able to compete within the Tour, and for some of them that might be as little as getting a jersey in a semi-serious breakaway for an hour or so.

Of course, there is no reason to ignore that 'being able to buy the best' would/could/should/does include medical expertise, and I think we all know exactly what that meant in the past, and what it probably means in the present.

This is a long rambling post, and I'm not sure why it's in a thread about LeMond, but I suppose what I am saying is that I believe in marginal gains. I don't think there is any reason to mock them as long as you acknowledge that marginal gains can apply equally to doping practices.

(And yes, I know that Sky explain their success through MGs, and yes, I think it is only a partial explanation)

The large budget can be partially attributed to the strength of their domestiques. What it doesn't do however is explain the strength of Froome and to a lesser extent Poels. It is an argument which is not discouraged by sky as it attempts to explain their dominance in a different direction than doping.

I accept that the calibre of rider on their tour team is very strong comparable to other teams. However go back to 2012 and they had inferior riders taking large pulls on mountains as well when the budget was significantly lower.

 

[kwikki]

Accepted, and I've acknowledged that Sky give a partial description of 'marginal gains'.

With regards to 2012, Sky had Froome and Porte as domestics. Both now team leaders. One a near 3 time TdF winner. But, they also had Cavendish, with Eisel alloted to him for sprint wins, which means two fewer people devoted to the leader.

Rogers.....say no more.

 

[Digger]

Re:

Again on VO2 Max, Matt Slater asked around British Cycling on this and found it's not used as huge outline anymore. JV has said this too.

I specifically said in the post that even if vo2 Max is outdated it's still tested. Many riders posted pictures of them doing vo3 Max tests over the winter. Its done as part of a process. Bit of all the post it's funny you focuses on that. In the same way many can say I'm obsessed with Froome and sky I notice you've one for kimmage and lately Ross tucker. Even having a go at off the ball for putting him on.

 

[Digger]

And yes my grammar above is all over the place but I'm on my phone.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

And yes my grammar above is all over the place but I'm on my phone.

Dont worry, were used too that on Twotter

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

I can't possibly imagine why Team Sky improved from 2010 to 2012

Again this is so misleading in isolation - other teams have also improved their net spend.

Net spend!

NET SPEND!

If there's one thing the clinic's been missing, it's discussions of NET SPEND.

https://vine.co/v/ew07mQYPK5j

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

I was at the TT stage from 8am, in between the first and second time check I saw porte come past me once downhill and twice up hill, I think this implies he was taking it very seriously and giving proper thought to what equipment he should be using.

Only deciding on the day? Those things should have been checked and tested weeks/months before on course reccy rides. Those wheels cost him precious time, around 20-30 seconds and the helmet and bar choice more. How far is he off the podium?

50 seconds. Hmmm

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Great graph. That shows to me the 'normal' road bike was the right choice. Froome only won it on absolute monster power, ergo, thats why he was able to climb in the Tri bars for 90% of the time.

Funny how different people interpret data.

In my blog post I pointed out that the average speeds of these riders was in the range of 31-33km/h. Aero matters quite a bit at these average speeds, so why not at least use better wheels and helmets? As for the bike choice, all those clip on bar set ups also cost riders considerable time with way worse aerodynamics. Just makes no sense for those seeking GC glory. Did any of them ride such set ups in the Stage 13 ITT? Of course not. So they all had access to such options.

If you were not using as many aero aids as possible and trained specifically for it on such terrain then you were giving away time.

edit: didnt Mollema have a rear disc wheel too?

Yes, thanks for the error pick up.

I'll update and amend the table on my blog.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Updated:

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

Funny how different people interpret data.

In my blog post I pointed out that the average speeds of these riders was in the range of 31-33km/h. Aero matters quite a bit at these average speeds, so why not at least use better wheels and helmets? As for the bike choice, all those clip on bar set ups also cost riders considerable time with way worse aerodynamics. Just makes no sense for those seeking GC glory. Did any of them ride such set ups in the Stage 13 ITT? Of course not. So they all had access to such options.

If you were not using as many aero aids as possible and trained specifically for it on such terrain then you were giving away time.

edit: didnt Mollema have a rear disc wheel too?

Yes, thanks for the error pick up.

I'll update and amend the table on my blog.

Well, the road bike is way lighter than the full TT bike plus disc wheel, plus, almost all riders with the exception of Froome, didnt have the power to climb in the tri bars.

For Froome it was the right choice though, when you have power to spare you can even stunt like that.

Rodriguez was on a full TT setup as well, he changed bikes on the foot of the climb on his normal bike.

 

[sniper]

Alex, what about a fifth column, "motor yes/no".
Aren't you absolutely pissed off that you have no clue whatsoever who's using a motor and who's not?
Or who's doping or not?
your stats are nice, but competely, and I mean utterly, irrelevant as long as you don't know who's doping and motordoping.
Time to acknowledge that.
Interesting stats nonetheless.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

I can't possibly imagine why Team Sky improved from 2010 to 2012

Again this is so misleading in isolation - other teams have also improved their net spend.

You are right. Just spending more money than anyone else does not guarantee anything. You do have to spend some though. If you look at sports teams, and I am in the US, in the sports without a salary cap, the teams with the highest payrolls are not winning the championships. Baseball, you have KC, San Francisco, Cards etc. Its not Boston, NY, Detroit, LA,

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

Great graph. That shows to me the 'normal' road bike was the right choice. Froome only won it on absolute monster power, ergo, thats why he was able to climb in the Tri bars for 90% of the time.

Funny how different people interpret data.

In my blog post I pointed out that the average speeds of these riders was in the range of 31-33km/h. Aero matters quite a bit at these average speeds, so why not at least use better wheels and helmets? As for the bike choice, all those clip on bar set ups also cost riders considerable time with way worse aerodynamics. Just makes no sense for those seeking GC glory. Did any of them ride such set ups in the Stage 13 ITT? Of course not. So they all had access to such options.

If you were not using as many aero aids as possible and trained specifically for it on such terrain then you were giving away time.

edit: didnt Mollema have a rear disc wheel too?

Yes, thanks for the error pick up.

I'll update and amend the table on my blog.

Question about the disc wheel. They are nowhere near as stiff as a spoked, high profile wheel. Due to the type of course I would think that with hilly course, more standing and mashing involved, the disc wheel would not be the best choice because of the flexing.