Sky/Froome Talk Only (No Way Sky Are Cleans?)

[BYOP88]

This one could also be posted in the Wiggins Cadence topic but I seem not to be able to find it.

There is this thing:
http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/ProRaceAnalysis.aspx

Tour de France 2012
prologue

1 Fabian Cancellara (Swi) RadioShack-Nissan (1.86,82) 0:07:13 0.22 511Watts 6.23w/k 2320
2 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Sky Procycling (1.9,69) 0:07:20 0.227 489watts 7.08w/k 2154
3 Sylvain Chavanel (Fra) Omega Pharma-QuickStep (1.82,70) 0:07:20 0.221 479 6.84 2169
4 Tejay van Garderen (USA) BMC Racing Team (1.85,69) 0:07:23 0.223 474 6.86 2122
5 Edvald Boasson Hagen (Nor) Sky Procycling (1.81,73) 0:07:24 0.219 467 6.4 2134
6 Brett Lancaster (Aus) Orica GreenEdge Cycling Team (1.88,78) 0:07:24 0.223 479 6.14 2150
7 Patrick Gretsch (Ger) Argos - Shimano (1.87,69) 0:07:25 0.225 470 6.82 2094
8 Denis Menchov (Rus) Katusha Team (1.8,65) 0:07:26 0.221 458 7.04 2071
9 Philippe Gilbert (Bel) BMC Racing Team (1.79,67) 0:07:26 0.22 457 6.82 2081
10 Andriy Grivko (Ukr) Astana Pro Team (1.8,67) 0:07:28 0.22 453 6.76 2056
11 Christopher Froome (GBr) Sky Procycling (1.86,69) 0:07:29 0.224 458 6.64 2046
36 Richie Porte (Aus) Sky Procycling (1.72,62) 0:07:35 0.216 423 6.83


Tour de France second TT
1 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Sky Procycling (1.9,69) 1:04:13 0.227 479watts 6.95w/k 2114
2 Christopher Froome (GBr) Sky Procycling (1.86,69) 1:05:29 0.224 451watts 6.53w/k 2013
3 Luis Leon Sanchez Gil (Spa) Rabobank Cycling Team (?,?) 1:06:03
4 Peter Velits (Svk) Omega Pharma-QuickStep (1.81,65) 1:06:15 0.222 430 6.62 1941
5 Richie Porte (Aus) Sky Procycling (1.72,62) 1:06:38 0.216 413 6.66 1909
6 Patrick Gretsch (Ger) Argos - Shimano (1.87,69) 1:06:41 0.225 431 6.25 1919
7 Tejay van Garderen (USA) BMC Racing Team (1.85,69) 1:06:47 0.223 427 6.19 1914
8 Vasili Kiryienka (Blr) Movistar Team (1.83,72) 1:06:59 0.221 423 5.87 1914
9 Rein Taaramae (Est) Cofidis, Le Credit En Ligne (1.86,70) 1:07:03 0.224 424 6.06 1897
28 Denis Menchov (Rus) Katusha Team (1.8,65) 1:08:41 0.221 391 6.01 1768

Assuming these numbers are correct I notice several things.

Wiggins:
* 7 minutes effort: 489watts
* 64 minutes effort: 479watts

Froome:
* 7 minutes effort: 458watts
* 65 minutes effort: 451watts

Van Garderen:
* 7 minutes effort: 474watts
* 67 minutes effort: 427watts

Menchov:
7 minutes effort: 458watts
69 minutes effort: 391watts

Porte:
* 7 minutes effort: 423watts
* 66 minutes effort: 413watts

So, Sky riders loosing at max 2% power over an effort almost 10 fold, other riders clearly loosing 10-15%. the odd duck being the duck from Jose Taus's club, Velits.

Lets move on to the Olympics:
1 Bradley Wiggins (Great Britain) (1.9,69) 0:50:39 0.227 478 6.92
2 Tony Martin (Germany) (1.86,75) 0:51:21 0.222 458 6.11
3 Christopher Froome (Great Britain) (1.86,69) 0:51:47 0.224 446 6.46

And then over to the World TT:
1 Tony Martin (Germany) (1.86,75) 0:58:38 0.222 451 6.01

Since Martin had a mechanical at the prologue that cost him at least 20 to 25 seconds we have no real comparison for his drop of.
45 Tony Martin (Ger) Omega Pharma-QuickStep (1.86,75) 0:07:36 0.222 443watts 5.9

He would have come in around the time of Cancellara, wattage must have been in the 485-495 range.
So, the best TT'er of the last few years also looks to have a dropoff of around 10% on efforts 10 fold a prologue but the Skyboys not?

Good post. Just one thing for the prologue and final ITT the weight is the same. Wouldn't they have lost some weight over the 3 weeks?

 

[Pentacycle]

Those watts look awfully suspicious indeed. But didn't JV once say that he rated Wiggins' talent highly, because he won the ind. pursuit almost exclusively with aerobic effort? He could reach very high power w/o building up much lactate. That would mean his level over longer distance doesn't decline as much as a less aerobically efficient rider's power would. And Froome seems to have taken that to a whole new level.

 

[Franklin]

This one could also be posted in the Wiggins Cadence topic but I seem not to be able to find it.

Seems very impressive, but wasn't power almost impossible to accurately calculate in flat TT's hence it's more accurate to use climbing stages?

 

[thehog]

Seems very impressive, but wasn't power almost impossible to accurately calculate in flat TT's hence it's more accurate to use climbing stages?

...wasn't there a drug problem in the sport causing suspicious performances from riders going from the grupetto to leading GTs?

 

[the sceptic]

Those watts look awfully suspicious indeed. But didn't JV once say that he rated Wiggins' talent highly, because he won the ind. pursuit almost exclusively with aerobic effort? He could reach very high power w/o building up much lactate. That would mean his level over longer distance doesn't decline as much as a less aerobically efficient rider's power would. And Froome seems to have taken that to a whole new level.

Dont worry, Wiggins is clean. His improvement is due to studying how fast Tony Martin was going. And of course training and warming up/down.

I hope he has been studing Indurain lately. I think he should try to do 500 watts this year.

 

[burning]

Those watts look awfully suspicious indeed. But didn't JV once say that he rated Wiggins' talent highly, because he won the ind. pursuit almost exclusively with aerobic effort? He could reach very high power w/o building up much lactate. That would mean his level over longer distance doesn't decline as much as a less aerobically efficient rider's power would. And Froome seems to have taken that to a whole new level.

So he doesn't produce any anaerobic watts in prologue and doesn't get worse after 3 weeks of racing.

There are 3 possibilities for this results
1-The calculation is wrong
2-He rides like a *** in the prologue or he manages his effort so well that he wont get the jersey in the first stage
3-He's using marginal gains

 

[The Hitch]

Hate to defend Wiggins, even if only a little bit, but does Martin's valkenberg tt calculation take into account the fact that it had a couple of hills and ended on the cauberg?

 

[the sceptic]

Hate to defend Wiggins, even if only a little bit, but does Martin's valkenberg tt calculation take into account the fact that it had a couple of hills and ended on the cauberg?

Probably not since he did more in copenhagen 2011.

Placing Rider Weight (KG) Watts/m^2 CdA Watts
1 Tony Martin 75 2,089 481
2 Bradley Wiggins 69 1,943 447
3 Fabian Cancellara 82 1,961 451

Sir Wiggins only doing 447 watts. Must have forgot to warm up.

 

[burning]

Probably not since he did more in copenhagen 2011.



Sir Wiggins only doing 447 watts. Must have forgot to warm down.

Fixed it for you

 

[Franklin]

...wasn't there a drug problem in the sport causing suspicious performances from riders going from the grupetto to leading GTs?

Harhar

You know that I'm always open for data and do not dismiss things easily. I'm simply curious about the accuracy of these numbers.

Confirmation of data is pretty standard if you want to get anywhere. Otherwise it's just (very high) numbers.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Seems very impressive, but wasn't power almost impossible to accurately calculate in flat TT's hence it's more accurate to use climbing stages?

I am more looking at the pattern than the actual powernumbers.

Hate to defend Wiggins, even if only a little bit, but does Martin's valkenberg tt calculation take into account the fact that it had a couple of hills and ended on the cauberg?

Good point.

I am more puzzled by the only 2/2.5% drop off in power at the Sky clan versus the rest.

When you look at Martin's TT at the Tirreno
1 Tony Martin (Ger) Omega Pharma-Quick Step (1.86,75) 0:10:25 0.222 513watts 6.85

there is a lot of drop off versus longer TT's, at least no 2%.

And, it was not just Wiggins, Froome too, Porte too.

 

[Franklin]

I am more looking at the pattern than the actual powernumbers.

I get that, but if for example the CW numbers are off it should also influence the percentages. That said, the differences between fall-off seems to be truly gigantic

Definitely not a marginal gain

 

[Franklin]

I am more looking at the pattern than the actual powernumbers.

I get that, but if for example the CW numbers are off it should also influence the drop off percentages somewhat. That said, it shouldn't change much now should it? i'm not a mathematician, but considering it's comparing it with other riders any inaccuracy should be pretty much dampened. So yes, the differences between fall-off seems to be truly gigantic.

Definitely not a marginal gain

The question comes to mind.. how did Jan and Lanceypoo fare in similar calculations?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This one could also be posted in the Wiggins Cadence topic but I seem not to be able to find it.

There is this thing:
http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/ProRaceAnalysis.aspx

I raised this months ago. ACoggan jumped in and said the numbers were wrong and explained it all away with a bunch of guesses as to how Wiggins improved his CdA ~10%.

 

[Ripper]

I raised this months ago. ACoggan jumped in and said the numbers were wrong and explained it all away with a bunch of guesses as to how Wiggins improved his CdA ~10%.

That was particularly funny sh!t. Wiggo's been racing the pursuit. Aerodynamics are critical. Looks like he has always been pretty aero (duh). A 10% improvement is HUGE. I mean, holy F!!, he will destroy people on the track now that he is really aero

 

[Dear Wiggo]

That was particularly funny sh!t. Wiggo's been racing the pursuit. Aerodynamics are critical. Looks like he has always been pretty aero (duh). A 10% improvement is HUGE. I mean, holy F!!, he will destroy people on the track now that he is really aero

The explanation included things like lead cars, side winds, skinny riders acting like sails in side winds, etc.

Funny how none of those things really seemed to impact on anyone else.

 

[blackcat]

That was particularly funny sh!t. Wiggo's been racing the pursuit. Aerodynamics are critical. Looks like he has always been pretty aero (duh). A 10% improvement is HUGE. I mean, holy F!!, he will destroy people on the track now that he is really aero

who was this, coyle?

 

[blackcat]

I raised this months ago. ACoggan jumped in and said the numbers were wrong and explained it all away with a bunch of guesses as to how Wiggins improved his CdA ~10%.

coyle right?

 

[blackcat]

The explanation included things like lead cars, side winds, skinny riders acting like sails in side winds, etc.

Funny how none of those things really seemed to impact on anyone else.

ed, ed coyle. hes a scientist too right?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I raised this months ago. ACoggan jumped in and said the numbers were wrong and explained it all away with a bunch of guesses as to how Wiggins improved his CdA ~10%.

Okay. Must have missed that.

At least 10% is not 18%

Looking at the numbers of the Tirreno Chris has made a marginal gain this year as well:
6 Christopher Froome (GBr) Sky Procycling (1.86,69) 0:10:40 0.224 480 6.96

versus

11 Christopher Froome (GBr) Sky Procycling (1.86,69) 0:07:29 0.224 458 6.64

4.87% progress when not even in peak form.

Also, look at Castroviejo:
Tirreno:
5 Jonathan Castroviejo Nicolas (Spa) Movistar Team (1.71,62) 0:10:39 0.215 462 7.45
Olympics:
9 Jonathan Castroviejo Nicolas (Spain) (1.71,62) 0:53:29 0.215 391 6.3
Worlds:
22 Jonathan Castroviejo Nicolas (Spain) (1.71,62) 1:02:02 0.215 370 5.97

A clear downward pattern.

But acoggan must be right. Only the Sky numbers are wrong.

 

[SundayRider]

As far as Wiggins and Froome go there are two possibilities.

1) The peloton is totally clean now, doping has been eradicated allowing riders who struggled to compete before to dominate now.

2) Or Wiggins and Froome tried hard to 'beat them' but couldn't so decided to 'join them'.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Is Cancellara really 82kg these days? I know he's a big lad, but that's relative to the stick insects in the peloton so it seems rather high for a guy of his height, assuming he has single digit body fat.

 

[SundayRider]

Is Cancellara really 82kg these days? I know he's a big lad, but that's relative to the stick insects in the peloton so it seems rather high for a guy of his height, assuming he has single digit body fat.

Yeah I thought this too. Seems to me like a lot of riders weights seem to be exaggerated i.e. some listed at 70Kg who look nowhere near that etc.

 

[Cycle Chic]

As far as Wiggins and Froome go there are two possibilities.

1) The peloton is totally clean now, doping has been eradicated allowing riders who struggled to compete before to dominate now.

2) Or Wiggins and Froome tried hard to 'beat them' but couldn't so decided to 'join them'.

Funniest post in a long time. The oldies down the womens institute could have concluded that !!

 

[webvan]

Yeah I thought this too. Seems to me like a lot of riders weights seem to be exaggerated i.e. some listed at 70Kg who look nowhere near that etc.

Dunno, 1.90 and 69kg is very, very thin, that's what I'd weigh if I had 0% body fat...no actually I'd weigh 72kg!