Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1095 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
The Hitch said:
What's the joke. Reads like a non sequitur to me.
Joke being if they are random enough to just abolish one date from the calander, they might be random enough to just insert another willy nilly.

It's not Richard Pryor or anything, but I saw the joke, all the same.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Netserk said:
No that wasn't the joke.....
Fair enough, non sequitor it is then. Unless it's some odd reference to women asking men to marry them or something specific to that day...which to be fair, would be non sequitor anyway...
 
Mar 12, 2014
227
0
0
Justinr said:
What point are you trying to make about Porte?
As far as I read it, the main point is that David Walsh doesn't know anything about mathematics:

"For the first half of the time trial he was sitting at 413W, and for the second half it was something like 387W. It actually averaged on a bang-on 400W."
If one just assumes the average percentage on the first half and second half of the Col d'Eze are the same (which seems to be confirmed here), a higher power output will simply mean he drove the first half of the TT faster than the second half. The power output of the second half will then have a greater contribution to the average than that of the first half and it should be well below 400W.

The average could indeed be very close to 400W, if David Walsh lives under the impression that the time measurement was done exactly halfway in the TT, while the previous link shows it was at 5.5 of 9.6km.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
HSNHSN said:
As far as I read it, the main point is that David Walsh doesn't know anything about mathematics:



If one just assumes the average percentage on the first half and second half of the Col d'Eze are the same (which seems to be confirmed here), a higher power output will simply mean he drove the first half of the TT faster than the second half. The power output of the second half will then have a greater contribution to the average than that of the first half and it should be well below 400W.

The average could indeed be very close to 400W, if David Walsh lives under the impression that the time measurement was done exactly halfway in the TT, while the previous link shows it was at 5.5 of 9.6km.
Assuming of course that the 5.5km measure is the one used by Sky. Is it not beyond the bounds of possibility that they actually measured it themselves halfway? Or is that not suspicious enough for the conspiracy theorists...

Nowhere in the Walsh article does it state that it was measured at 5.5k ...
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
HSNHSN said:
As far as I read it, the main point is that David Walsh doesn't know anything about mathematics:



If one just assumes the average percentage on the first half and second half of the Col d'Eze are the same (which seems to be confirmed here), a higher power output will simply mean he drove the first half of the TT faster than the second half. The power output of the second half will then have a greater contribution to the average than that of the first half and it should be well below 400W.

The average could indeed be very close to 400W, if David Walsh lives under the impression that the time measurement was done exactly halfway in the TT, while the previous link shows it was at 5.5 of 9.6km.
(413 * 4.8 + 387 * 4.8) / 9.6 = 400

(413 * 5.5 + 387 * 4.1) / 9.6 = 401.8

I'm not sure whether measured at 4.8 or 5.5 makes all that much difference, mathematically.

Perhaps someone could do the same calculations dividing for time rather than distance.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
roundabout said:
11'24" to the split, 19'16" total time.

This whole measuring debate is stupid.
How can there be a debate. The sky guys were doing the talking and measuring, Walsh said it was half and half. No one knows whether that measurement was taken at 5.5 or 4.8 or whatever. The link posted and the innuendo that it meant doping is complete nonsense.

It really does make me laugh when people attack Walsh. This is the journo that for years people were respecting for his stance on LA, etc. and then when he spends time with SKY and comes back with a view they don't like they claim he is bent, wrong, been bribed, is "SKYs *****", etc.
 
Mar 12, 2014
227
0
0
Justinr said:
How can there be a debate. The sky guys were doing the talking and measuring, Walsh said it was half and half. No one knows whether that measurement was taken at 5.5 or 4.8 or whatever. The link posted and the innuendo that it meant doping is complete nonsense.

It really does make me laugh when people attack Walsh. This is the journo that for years people were respecting for his stance on LA, etc. and then when he spends time with SKY and comes back with a view they don't like they claim he is bent, wrong, been bribed, is "SKYs *****", etc.
I totally agree there. What I tried to be saying before, was clearly misunderstood. The meaning was indeed to say there was only one strange thing in that text by D. Walsh and that was something to do with mathematics, not doping (in fact, my point is that the average power is lower than Walsh claims). There are lots of dubious things to say about team Sky, but the contents of this article most certainly don't contribute to those.

It also wasn't meant as an attack to Walsh at all. More like an attempt to point out what was wrong in the mathematics. Apparently I should have pointed out that something was wrong in his mathematics, not what exactly. When it comes to this:
Justinr said:
Assuming of course that the 5.5km measure is the one used by Sky. Is it not beyond the bounds of possibility that they actually measured it themselves halfway? Or is that not suspicious enough for the conspiracy theorists...

Nowhere in the Walsh article does it state that it was measured at 5.5k ...
I was actually assuming Sky measured it themselves, halfway through the course. Why else would Walsh mention values from both halves of the course?

To hopefully quench this once and for all, I'll try to explain this by giving a similar example (after which I'll ignore the topic). Suppose you're climbing a mountain at 3km/h. Then you turn around and walk back along the same path at 6km/h. What is your average speed? Walsh would tell you that it is (3+6)/2=4.5km/h. However, it isn't too hard to calculate that, in fact, it is 4km/h. The reason for this is basically that speed - just as power - is inversely proportional to time. The situation is comparable, since the value of one quantity is known, both in the first and in the second half.

(A last remark is that this is a mistake that is made quite often, especially by journalists.)
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
HSNHSN said:
I totally agree there. What I tried to be saying before, was clearly misunderstood. The meaning was indeed to say there was only one strange thing in that text by D. Walsh and that was something to do with mathematics, not doping (in fact, my point is that the average power is lower than Walsh claims). There are lots of dubious things to say about team Sky, but the contents of this article most certainly don't contribute to those.

It also wasn't meant as an attack to Walsh at all. More like an attempt to point out what was wrong in the mathematics. Apparently I should have pointed out that something was wrong in his mathematics, not what exactly. When it comes to this:

I was actually assuming Sky measured it themselves, halfway through the course. Why else would Walsh mention values from both halves of the course?

To hopefully quench this once and for all, I'll try to explain this by giving a similar example (after which I'll ignore the topic). Suppose you're climbing a mountain at 3km/h. Then you turn around and walk back along the same path at 6km/h. What is your average speed? Walsh would tell you that it is (3+6)/2=4.5km/h. However, it isn't too hard to calculate that, in fact, it is 4km/h. The reason for this is basically that speed - just as power - is inversely proportional to time. The situation is comparable, since the value of one quantity is known, both in the first and in the second half.

(A last remark is that this is a mistake that is made quite often, especially by journalists.)
Thanks for your reply and explanation. I like the last example you gave.

However as no info on measurement was given in the article other than half and half i stand by my initial comment - no conclusion can be drawn on anything, and people posting smileys cant claim so.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
2
0
And thus, little Ritchies dream of winning a grand tour has ended :(

I guess they didnt like his numbers on madone. Or maybe they are scared of Contador.
 
Sep 14, 2011
1,980
0
0
the sceptic said:
And thus, little Ritchies dream of winning a grand tour has ended :(

I guess they didnt like his numbers on madone. Or maybe they are scared of Contador.
Or maybe he has been ill and won't be ready for the Giro.
 
Sep 14, 2011
1,980
0
0
The Hitch said:
1 month before the 2011 vuelta, froome was Ill as well and performing awful. Getting him on peak on time wasn't much of a problem then. Why should it be a problem now?
You genuinely believe that?
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
the sceptic said:
And thus, little Ritchies dream of winning a grand tour has ended :(
But what if he gets to the TdF and pulls a "Froome" by riding Chris off his wheel?

And what if he pulls, what would then become known as, a "Porte" by disobeying team orders and accelerating away to his own Malliot Jaune? :eek:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY