Quintana??

[franic]

Re: Re:

Don't you guys think it's kinda ridicolous how Pantani would have put 2 minutes 40 seconds into Q on Alpe d'Huez??

I'm left speechless tbh. He makes all the pro's today who are most oviously still doping look like amateurs.
The amount of staff he was on must have been insane.

It's the difference between micro and full dosing...

Not sure that tells the whole story. His best ascent, for example, is about a minute faster than Armstrong's best, which was a TT. He has the top 3 times ever, and those were legendary exploits at the time, he crushed everyone.

He was a dominant climber in his day and certainly everyone was on the juice then.

Overall speeds are a bit slower now then they used to be, but at the top I don't much difference. All the climbs this year have been right in line with an era we know was all-doped, all the time.

He was ad juiced as Armstrong: one with Conconi another one with Ferrari. The difference seems to be that:
- Pantani was, according to many, a natural talent doping or not. Everyone seems to agree Pantani would have won in a clean race, too. Not everybody agrees on Armstrong.
- EPO test in 2000. So only Arnstrong 1999 counts

 

[FroomehasneverdopedX]

Re:

Don't you guys think it's kinda ridicolous how Pantani would have put 2 minutes 40 seconds into Q on Alpe d'Huez??

I'm left speechless tbh. He makes all the pro's today who are most oviously still doping look like amateurs.
The amount of staff he was on must have been insane.

well he died


would be fun though to gather some dopes like lance ricco etc, and dope them up and make a race

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

In 2001 he went pretty much straight from the bottom. I would say that he was trying.

And he had a big gap in the end. I've said this in other threads, but I continue to doubt the comparability of individual climbing times across different years when the same riders doing the same climbs have so widely different times. There is clearly an omitted variable that explains differences in mean climbing times for the same climb done in different years.

I am bored

The mean time for the top-20 riders not named Quintana

42:19 this year

42:32 in 2013

Median

42:33 this year

42:42 in 2013

for the top-10 riders not named Quintana

mean 41:43 in 2015

41:32 in 2013

median

41:58 vs 41:53

Comparing 1st vs 1st, 2nd vs 2nd etc for the top-10 times only 3 times were faster than their 2013 counterparts and Quintana posted the biggest improvement.

 

[franic]

Re: Re:

Don't you guys think it's kinda ridicolous how Pantani would have put 2 minutes 40 seconds into Q on Alpe d'Huez??

I'm left speechless tbh. He makes all the pro's today who are most oviously still doping look like amateurs.
The amount of staff he was on must have been insane.

well he died


would be fun though to gather some dopes like lance ricco etc, and dope them up and make a race

We had races like that before the hematocrit limit at 50.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Don't you guys think it's kinda ridicolous how Pantani would have put 2 minutes 40 seconds into Q on Alpe d'Huez??

I'm left speechless tbh. He makes all the pro's today who are most oviously still doping look like amateurs.
The amount of staff he was on must have been insane.

It's the difference between micro and full dosing...

Not sure that tells the whole story. His best ascent, for example, is about a minute faster than Armstrong's best, which was a TT. He has the top 3 times ever, and those were legendary exploits at the time, he crushed everyone.

He was a dominant climber in his day and certainly everyone was on the juice then.

Overall speeds are a bit slower now then they used to be, but at the top I don't much difference. All the climbs this year have been right in line with an era we know was all-doped, all the time.

He was ad juiced as Armstrong: one with Conconi another one with Ferrari. The difference seems to be that:
- Pantani was, according to many, a natural talent doping or not. Everyone seems to agree Pantani would have won in a clean race, too. Not everybody agrees on Armstrong.
- EPO test in 2000. So only Arnstrong 1999 counts

I don't see how we'd ever know for sure, but by all accounts Pantani was hit with the reality of the sport as soon as he turned pro. Certainly a top climbing talent in the amateur ranks, and maybe he would have been so in a clean peloton, but I don't know.

No question he was on the full program, and I think it's clear that Armstrong would have never been a climber sans Ferrari.

Regardless, his times up the Alpe were dominant in a day when everyone against whom he was competing (no Armstrong in those rides) was fully doped. He won by minutes then. That his times are minutes faster than the best now are no surprise to me. The surprise (if you could call it that) are how it's basically impossible to find a clean ride in the top 100 times up that mountain.

 

[BrentonOfTheNorth]

Re: Re:

As always context is crucial here. For example, there is 3 minutes + between Armstrongs fastest and slowest ascents of L'Alpe which illustrates the difference between full gas and just controlling.

The fastest time of Greg LeMond/Charly Mottet is only 7 seconds slower than Armstrong in 99. Neither LeMond or Mottet were the best climbers of their generation.

Quintana is 2.30 faster than his countryman from 30 years ago Luis Herrera 41.50. Realistic improvement over a 30 year period?? Anyone care to take a guess where a likely improvement curve should be over that period??

One thing is sure, the pace was hot from the foot of the Alpe today which will always result in a faster time and it was Le Tour on the line.

Lol. No it won't. It will only result in a fast time if the riders can sustain the high pace. Or do you think Lemond would climb Alpe faster if he did the first few kms as fast as Pantani did? In 2003 they literally sprinted in the beginning, yet it was one of the slowest ascents of Lance.

What you're saying is 100% wrong....
-Sprinting causes a slower average speed. You don't see riders sprinting in the middle of their time trials do you? If you watch bike racing regularly, you'd notice that when riders attempt failed attacks on a mountain climb it results in dropped riders catching back up.
-In 2003 Armstrong's group rode far more slowly than they could have because they were marking each other. That's how bike racing works.
-Riding at a steady high pace up a climb results in a faster time, in the same way that time trials are ridden at a steady high pace.

 

["Jeff"]

Doping schedule of Marco Pantani in 2003.

Epo, Growth Hormones, Transfusions, Insuline, Anabolic Steroids, Testosteron, Aranesp.

Pharamacy on two wheels.

 

[May0maniac]

Re: Re:

Don't you guys think it's kinda ridicolous how Pantani would have put 2 minutes 40 seconds into Q on Alpe d'Huez??

I'm left speechless tbh. He makes all the pro's today who are most oviously still doping look like amateurs.
The amount of staff he was on must have been insane.

It's the difference between micro and full dosing...

Not sure that tells the whole story. His best ascent, for example, is about a minute faster than Armstrong's best, which was a TT. He has the top 3 times ever, and those were legendary exploits at the time, he crushed everyone.

He was a dominant climber in his day and certainly everyone was on the juice then.

Overall speeds are a bit slower now then they used to be, but at the top I don't much difference. All the climbs this year have been right in line with an era we know was all-doped, all the time.

He was ad juiced as Armstrong: one with Conconi another one with Ferrari. The difference seems to be that:
- Pantani was, according to many, a natural talent doping or not. Everyone seems to agree Pantani would have won in a clean race, too. Not everybody agrees on Armstrong.
- EPO test in 2000. So only Arnstrong 1999 counts

Pantani was just the perfect storm, talented, a natural climber, a great responder and a low natural HTC.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

As always context is crucial here. For example, there is 3 minutes + between Armstrongs fastest and slowest ascents of L'Alpe which illustrates the difference between full gas and just controlling.

The fastest time of Greg LeMond/Charly Mottet is only 7 seconds slower than Armstrong in 99. Neither LeMond or Mottet were the best climbers of their generation.

Quintana is 2.30 faster than his countryman from 30 years ago Luis Herrera 41.50. Realistic improvement over a 30 year period?? Anyone care to take a guess where a likely improvement curve should be over that period??

One thing is sure, the pace was hot from the foot of the Alpe today which will always result in a faster time and it was Le Tour on the line.

Lol. No it won't. It will only result in a fast time if the riders can sustain the high pace. Or do you think Lemond would climb Alpe faster if he did the first few kms as fast as Pantani did? In 2003 they literally sprinted in the beginning, yet it was one of the slowest ascents of Lance.

What you're saying is 100% wrong....
-Sprinting causes a slower average speed. You don't see riders sprinting in the middle of their time trials do you? If you watch bike racing regularly, you'd notice that when riders attempt failed attacks on a mountain climb it results in dropped riders catching back up.
-In 2003 Armstrong's group rode far more slowly than they could have because they were marking each other. That's how bike racing works.
-Riding at a steady high pace up a climb results in a faster time, in the same way that time trials are ridden at a steady high pace.

Did you read my post? There's nothing you wrote that contradicts what I wrote. Did you see which bolded sentence I responded to?

 

["Jeff"]

Re: Re:

As always context is crucial here. For example, there is 3 minutes + between Armstrongs fastest and slowest ascents of L'Alpe which illustrates the difference between full gas and just controlling.

The fastest time of Greg LeMond/Charly Mottet is only 7 seconds slower than Armstrong in 99. Neither LeMond or Mottet were the best climbers of their generation.

Quintana is 2.30 faster than his countryman from 30 years ago Luis Herrera 41.50. Realistic improvement over a 30 year period?? Anyone care to take a guess where a likely improvement curve should be over that period??

One thing is sure, the pace was hot from the foot of the Alpe today which will always result in a faster time and it was Le Tour on the line.

Lol. No it won't. It will only result in a fast time if the riders can sustain the high pace. Or do you think Lemond would climb Alpe faster if he did the first few kms as fast as Pantani did? In 2003 they literally sprinted in the beginning, yet it was one of the slowest ascents of Lance.

What you're saying is 100% wrong....
-Sprinting causes a slower average speed. You don't see riders sprinting in the middle of their time trials do you? If you watch bike racing regularly, you'd notice that when riders attempt failed attacks on a mountain climb it results in dropped riders catching back up.
-In 2003 Armstrong's group rode far more slowly than they could have because they were marking each other. That's how bike racing works.
-Riding at a steady high pace up a climb results in a faster time, in the same way that time trials are ridden at a steady high pace.

Thats indeed how bike racing works, but they werent really slowing down and the first couple of km were probably the fastest ever. Check it out again on YT or so, its ridiculous to watch.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

As always context is crucial here. For example, there is 3 minutes + between Armstrongs fastest and slowest ascents of L'Alpe which illustrates the difference between full gas and just controlling.

The fastest time of Greg LeMond/Charly Mottet is only 7 seconds slower than Armstrong in 99. Neither LeMond or Mottet were the best climbers of their generation.

Quintana is 2.30 faster than his countryman from 30 years ago Luis Herrera 41.50. Realistic improvement over a 30 year period?? Anyone care to take a guess where a likely improvement curve should be over that period??

One thing is sure, the pace was hot from the foot of the Alpe today which will always result in a faster time and it was Le Tour on the line.

Lol. No it won't. It will only result in a fast time if the riders can sustain the high pace. Or do you think Lemond would climb Alpe faster if he did the first few kms as fast as Pantani did? In 2003 they literally sprinted in the beginning, yet it was one of the slowest ascents of Lance.

Lol that is exactly what I meant, if they race from the bottom all the way to the top. Not riding tempo, attacking and slowing etc.

Not a lot of people seem willing to speculate on what time for Alpe d'Huez would be considered 'believable' now.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Not a lot of people seem willing to speculate on what time for Alpe d'Huez would be considered 'believable' now.

Vaughte'rs thinks Quintana's time was believable, but then JV thinks the sun shines out Oleg's posterior.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

Not a lot of people seem willing to speculate on what time for Alpe d'Huez would be considered 'believable' now.

Vaughte'rs thinks Quintana's time was believable, but then JV thinks the sun shines out Oleg's posterior.

I meant people here, in the clinic where the true experts dwell

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

As always context is crucial here. For example, there is 3 minutes + between Armstrongs fastest and slowest ascents of L'Alpe which illustrates the difference between full gas and just controlling.

The fastest time of Greg LeMond/Charly Mottet is only 7 seconds slower than Armstrong in 99. Neither LeMond or Mottet were the best climbers of their generation.

Quintana is 2.30 faster than his countryman from 30 years ago Luis Herrera 41.50. Realistic improvement over a 30 year period?? Anyone care to take a guess where a likely improvement curve should be over that period??

One thing is sure, the pace was hot from the foot of the Alpe today which will always result in a faster time and it was Le Tour on the line.

Lol. No it won't. It will only result in a fast time if the riders can sustain the high pace. Or do you think Lemond would climb Alpe faster if he did the first few kms as fast as Pantani did? In 2003 they literally sprinted in the beginning, yet it was one of the slowest ascents of Lance.

Lol that is exactly what I meant, if they race from the bottom all the way to the top. Not riding tempo, attacking and slowing etc.

Not a lot of people seem willing to speculate on what time for Alpe d'Huez would be considered 'believable' now.

Was the pace "hot from the foot of the Alpe" in 2003? Obviously it always results in a faster time.

Do you think Lemond would've ridden it faster if he entered the climb like in 2003?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Not a lot of people seem willing to speculate on what time for Alpe d'Huez would be considered 'believable' now.

Vaughte'rs thinks Quintana's time was believable, but then JV thinks the sun shines out Oleg's posterior.

I meant people here, in the clinic where the true experts dwell

Ah yes, that'll be you then

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

As always context is crucial here. For example, there is 3 minutes + between Armstrongs fastest and slowest ascents of L'Alpe which illustrates the difference between full gas and just controlling.

The fastest time of Greg LeMond/Charly Mottet is only 7 seconds slower than Armstrong in 99. Neither LeMond or Mottet were the best climbers of their generation.

Quintana is 2.30 faster than his countryman from 30 years ago Luis Herrera 41.50. Realistic improvement over a 30 year period?? Anyone care to take a guess where a likely improvement curve should be over that period??

One thing is sure, the pace was hot from the foot of the Alpe today which will always result in a faster time and it was Le Tour on the line.

Lol. No it won't. It will only result in a fast time if the riders can sustain the high pace. Or do you think Lemond would climb Alpe faster if he did the first few kms as fast as Pantani did? In 2003 they literally sprinted in the beginning, yet it was one of the slowest ascents of Lance.

Lol that is exactly what I meant, if they race from the bottom all the way to the top. Not riding tempo, attacking and slowing etc.

Not a lot of people seem willing to speculate on what time for Alpe d'Huez would be considered 'believable' now.

Was the pace "hot from the foot of the Alpe" in 2003? Obviously it always results in a faster time.

Do you think Lemond would've ridden it faster if he entered the climb like in 2003?

I fail to understand what you don't get. If they come in at the bottom at a fast pace and contiune to race at a fast pace all the way to the top, then of course they will go faster than they start fast but then slow down.

 

[Netserk]

Yep. If only they ride as fast as Pantani did, they'd end up with a time as good as his. No ***.

Perhaps you should read what you have written.

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

Yep. If only they ride as fast as Pantani did, they'd end up with a time as good as his. No ****.

Perhaps you should read what you have written.

I am fine with what is written and what is implied by that. "the pace was hot from the bottom" not "the pace was hot at the bottom".

There is a subtle distinction there. I am aware English is not your native tongue and whilst your grasp of it is exemplary, you might just not get this one.

 

[cnc-it]

Doping I think..2nd in his first tdf.. climbs better than Herrera and time trials almost as well as Cancellara and he improves form towards the end of a grand tour when the tiredness should be setting in..also he rides for a way dodgy Spanish team and spends a big part of the season "training" in Colombia..I also noticed his form declines the longer he is in Europe...but on return from Colombia he becomes Superman again for 3-4 weeks

 

[Saint Unix]

Re:

Doping I think..2nd in his first tdf.. climbs better than Herrera and time trials almost as well as Cancellara and he improves form towards the end of a grand tour when the tiredness should be setting in..also he rides for a way dodgy Spanish team and spends a big part of the season "training" in Colombia..I also noticed his form declines the longer he is in Europe...but on return from Colombia he becomes Superman again for 3-4 weeks

That's Froome you're thinking of.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

With DrF's formula:

Froome on PSM: 40'54'' @ 6.09 W/kg (59'' and 1'04'' to the next two riders)

Quintana on AdH: 39'22'' @ 6.07 W/kg (1'20'' to the next two riders)

Given the context of the performances, Quintana's was more impressive (if the numbers are correct)

You need to correct both formulas for drafting and headwind. Headwind in PSM and drafting in ADH. That is the problem with Ferrari's formula.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

It's beating many top times from the supposedly "most doped" pre 50% limit era. Leblanc, Rominger, Indurain, Tonkov, Zülle, etc. Right in with Riis, Guerini, Sastre.

Back of the envelope, 13.8km @ 8% = 1104m, VAM = 1683m/h, P [DrF] = 6.01W/kg (gradient factor 2.8)

5.9 W/kg on PSM to 6W/kg on AdH - red flag?

Disclaimer: calculation may be psuedoscience

Assuming your numbers are correct.

I have 6 on the first (head wind) and the same (6.02 w/kg) for the second if you correct for drafting. So it is about the same for me.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

Why not use 75 kg as his race weight then as he is a big boy when your agenda is obvious?

????
I have no clue what you meant!

 

[Escarabajo]

Only 39:30 or so for the climb. I am disappointed.

He did break the record up Col de la Croix de Fer though, if that's any consolation for you

When did they last go up Croix de Fer from that side? 2008, probably? Don't think it's used that much, so not sure how meaningful a fast time up it is.

An HC climb that's been ridden 29 times in the Tour? Pretty important.

Not the CDF from that side. I think you are talking about ADH.
CDF has been probably been ridden at slow tempo the previous times. Here they were some attacks FWIW.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

As always context is crucial here. For example, there is 3 minutes + between Armstrongs fastest and slowest ascents of L'Alpe which illustrates the difference between full gas and just controlling.

The fastest time of Greg LeMond/Charly Mottet is only 7 seconds slower than Armstrong in 99. Neither LeMond or Mottet were the best climbers of their generation.

Quintana is 2.30 faster than his countryman from 30 years ago Luis Herrera 41.50. Realistic improvement over a 30 year period?? Anyone care to take a guess where a likely improvement curve should be over that period??

One thing is sure, the pace was hot from the foot of the Alpe today which will always result in a faster time and it was Le Tour on the line.

I can take maybe 10 years. But 30 years, I prefer my S-Works all carbon state of the art any day.
Having said that, I consider Quintana a better athlete than Herrera. Herrera had problems with recuperation. Now that can be a point for doping anyway.
I don't want to argue with anybody about this because I don't know, but I won't be surprise if he was doping with recuperation meds. I would be surprised if we was taking oxygen vectors since it would not be a big benefit for a guy that is that small and living at ~2850 m of altitude.