Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1359 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 31, 2015
278
0
0
Re: Re:

BYOP88 said:
Tommy79 said:
red_flanders said:
Tommy79 said:
Prove these gains aren’t possible. Please.

What would make you guys believe Froome is clean?

Going offline now to avoid spoils.
The case that the "gains" you speak of are nonsense has been made over and over. You're claiming they're possible. It's an extraordinary claim given the evidence. Back it up.

We've been watching Froome ride for long enough to form an informed opinion on whether he's doping. It's outside the realm of possibility, IMO, that he's doing it clean.

Since you're the one claiming the miracle of the clean rider, make the case. But no, you don't answer the questions, you just throw out challenges and back them up with jack squat.
That sums it up, both sides throwing out challenges with jack squat to back them up. I can't prove he is clean, obviously. You can't prove he is dirty so we can just bicker and wait for some evidence.

Every day without evidence makes it more likely he is clean.
Just out of interest, how did you come to that conclusion?
If guilty it will come out eventually, not many big fish slip through the net.
 
Re: Re:

Tommy79 said:
red_flanders said:
Tommy79 said:
Prove these gains aren’t possible. Please.

What would make you guys believe Froome is clean?

Going offline now to avoid spoils.
The case that the "gains" you speak of are nonsense has been made over and over. You're claiming they're possible. It's an extraordinary claim given the evidence. Back it up.

We've been watching Froome ride for long enough to form an informed opinion on whether he's doping. It's outside the realm of possibility, IMO, that he's doing it clean.

Since you're the one claiming the miracle of the clean rider, make the case. But no, you don't answer the questions, you just throw out challenges and back them up with jack squat.
That sums it up, both sides throwing out challenges with jack squat to back them up. I can't prove he is clean, obviously. You can't prove he is dirty so we can just bicker and wait for some evidence.

Every day without evidence makes it more likely he is clean.
I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked you to make the case that he's clean (since you appear to believe he is), to tell me where he gained the tremendous amount of power he's gained over his early career, since you brought up the progression of training and athletic performance. Since the bilharzia nonsense has been thoroughly debunked, I am curious to hear the explanation.

There has been a mountain of evidence provided which shows he's doped. There is a large and well documented case against him being clean. It's not proof, but it's more than enough to draw a conclusion. Make the case that he's clean.

Again, let's be clear about the distinction between proof and evidence. You're correct, there is no irrefutable proof he's doped. But there is substantial, incontrovertible evidence of it. Let's hear the evidence to the contrary.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

Tommy79 said:
red_flanders said:
Tommy79 said:
Prove these gains aren’t possible. Please.

What would make you guys believe Froome is clean?

Going offline now to avoid spoils.
The case that the "gains" you speak of are nonsense has been made over and over. You're claiming they're possible. It's an extraordinary claim given the evidence. Back it up.

We've been watching Froome ride for long enough to form an informed opinion on whether he's doping. It's outside the realm of possibility, IMO, that he's doing it clean.

Since you're the one claiming the miracle of the clean rider, make the case. But no, you don't answer the questions, you just throw out challenges and back them up with jack squat.
That sums it up, both sides throwing out challenges with jack squat to back them up. I can't prove he is clean, obviously. You can't prove he is dirty so we can just bicker and wait for some evidence.
The Clinic can't prove he is dirty, nor is it the job of the clinic to do that, but there is lots of questions about Froomes (Wiggins & Thomas too) amazing transformation that Sky have not and refuse to answer.

So in that regard until Sky can show Froome is a naturally talented 'super' human we can pretty much take it for granted that Sky are doing doping in some form, why? Because this is pro cycling and there has been no MONUMENTAL change that the culture to dope has even been addressed never mind reduced to a minority.

But as for 'evidence' we do have the Sky lies. We have the hiring of a doping doctor. We have the hiring of doping enablers after the team got nowhere in 2009/2010. We have the firing of Palfreeman after the teams failure in first seasons and then now him being rehired and Sky saying, "see this proves we are clean". Sky still have Servais Knaven as a DS and now we find out Peter Verboken as a soigneur and the Journalist who wrote the article about the hiring of an ex Armstrong soigneur has been black listed.

Plenty of stuff that points to doping. This is pro cycling and all the above screams doping. If you dont get that you are extremely new to the sport.

What do we have the points to Froome not being able to perform? a blood disease and when he talked about it he gave lots of different versions of the disease and treatment!!

Tommy79 said:
Every day without evidence makes it more likely he is clean.
No it doesn't. Everyday without Sky releasing Froome's full data points to a team doping. Everyday that Froome is in yellow is another day of how? Why? When? Where? Who? etc etc doping, doping, doping.


***I hope the mods are checking these new guys ISPs and if it is coming from some building in London, because you really have to throw logic out the window to consider Sky are clean. Yes there is no positive test, but Cookson is not the guy to bust a big name for doping! There are plenty of present/ex riders talking about testing being crap (hell even Froome talked about lack of testing).
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
Tommy79 said:
He gained a flat 65w regardless of the time period, weight etc? Blimey. Scientific.
Nope. But his average power increase is about 15% between his sucking days pre-2011 and his godlike days post-2011. Using that estimate, we can assume he put out 65W more on Pierre St. Martin this year than he would have if he had ridden it in 2010.

Let's assume a fairly generous estimate of 3-5% of power is lost. Most of this is heat production due to heat being produced from the friction in all the spinning parts (pedals, crank shaft, wheels). In addition, a fairly generous 6-8% goes into overcoming rolling resistance. The true values are probably towards the lower end of my estimates, or maybe even lower than that, but that's irrelevant anyway because of the conclusion we can draw.

That's a total of 13% of the watts at most, just to stack the deck in Sky's favour, which translates to 55 watts on the PSM climb. So even if Sky could make a bike that has ZERO rolling resistance and ZERO friction in any of the moving parts, the bike would still have to produce 10W on its own in order for us to explain that Froome's development is purely down to the bike alone.
Actually, I have to correct myself here and factor in drag. And to make it interesting, we'll add the whole system (Froome + bike) instead of just considering the advancements on the bike.

Riding at the average speed Froome did it (22,5km/h, roughly) a fair guesstimate of the percentage of energy spent of pushing the wind would be about 15%. Of course, there were reports of the infamous tailwind that day, so the actual number is probably lower than that. Never mind about that, though.

That's a total of 28% of the energy, with some very favourable massaging of the numbers in favour of Froome, Kerrison-style, spent on things you can do something about by improving equipment. The remaining 72% (the actual value on a 7,5% incline would probably be about 80%, which shows how heavily I've favoured Froome) is spent overcoming gravity, and unless Sky have a giant tractor beam focused on Froome when he climbs, that's not going to change any time soon.

28% of 414W is 116W, so in this hypothetical situation, you would need to reduce the combined effort spent on pushing the air in front of Froome and his bike, spinning the components and friction between the wheels and the road by about 56%. As I said before, removing both rolling resistance and energy loss entirely won't do the whole job. You'd also need to start hacking off a fairly significant portion of Froome's frontal area, and to be fair, he certainly looks like he's been doing that.

Another option would be to completely remove wind resistance. That would save just about 65W.

Short version: If producing 414W in the real world, using the 80% value for gravitational force, you would need to force the amount of power spent on powering the system and overcoming drag and friction down to about 20W compared to the 85W it used to be to explain Froome' s increase in power with just equipment gains, or a 425% reduction in the total loss due to drag and friction. Not possible.
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
Saint Unix said:
Tommy79 said:
He gained a flat 65w regardless of the time period, weight etc? Blimey. Scientific.
Nope. But his average power increase is about 15% between his sucking days pre-2011 and his godlike days post-2011. Using that estimate, we can assume he put out 65W more on Pierre St. Martin this year than he would have if he had ridden it in 2010.

Let's assume a fairly generous estimate of 3-5% of power is lost. Most of this is heat production due to heat being produced from the friction in all the spinning parts (pedals, crank shaft, wheels). In addition, a fairly generous 6-8% goes into overcoming rolling resistance. The true values are probably towards the lower end of my estimates, or maybe even lower than that, but that's irrelevant anyway because of the conclusion we can draw.

That's a total of 13% of the watts at most, just to stack the deck in Sky's favour, which translates to 55 watts on the PSM climb. So even if Sky could make a bike that has ZERO rolling resistance and ZERO friction in any of the moving parts, the bike would still have to produce 10W on its own in order for us to explain that Froome's development is purely down to the bike alone.
Actually, I have to correct myself here and factor in drag. And to make it interesting, we'll add the whole system (Froome + bike) instead of just considering the advancements on the bike.

Riding at the average speed Froome did it (22,5km/h, roughly) a fair guesstimate of the percentage of energy spent of pushing the wind would be about 15%. Of course, there were reports of the infamous tailwind that day, so the actual number is probably lower than that. Never mind about that, though.

That's a total of 28% of the energy, with some very favourable massaging of the numbers in favour of Froome, Kerrison-style, spent on things you can do something about by improving equipment. The remaining 72% (the actual value on a 7,5% incline would probably be about 80%, which shows how heavily I've favoured Froome) is spent overcoming gravity, and unless Sky have a giant tractor beam focused on Froome when he climbs, that's not going to change any time soon.

28% of 414W is 116W, so in this hypothetical situation, you would need to reduce the combined effort spent on pushing the air in front of Froome and his bike, spinning the components and friction between the wheels and the road by about 56%. As I said before, removing both rolling resistance and energy loss entirely won't do the whole job. You'd also need to start hacking off a fairly significant portion of Froome's frontal area, and to be fair, he certainly looks like he's been doing that.

Another option would be to completely remove wind resistance. That would save just about 65W.

Short version: If producing 414W in the real world, using the 80% value for gravitational force, you would need to force the amount of power spent on powering the system and overcoming drag and friction down to about 20W compared to the 85W it used to be to explain Froome' s increase in power with just equipment gains, or a 425% reduction in the total loss due to drag and friction. Not possible.
Saint would you be so kind to perform an analysis which doesn't favor Froome? One that is decidedly unsympathetic if not hostile?
 
Re: Re:

Tommy79 said:
Have always thought he had to be very special to have got the World Tour from where he came from, the question is why he didn't crack on earlier. Someone with only the natural talent to be pack fodder wouldn't have made it.
He had the backing of the UCI World Cycling Centre. He got to the World Tour mainly by having the right passport when Barloworld went under, otherwise he'd probably have been in a decent ProContinental team at that point, just like he was with Barloworld. And from where he came from, let's bear in mind he wasn't still in Nairobi at that point - he had been in South Africa for many years, and plenty of riders who've made it to the top from South Africa - the likes of Hunter and Impey - have done OK for themselves. They also got to the top via Barloworld, you know, a South African-sponsored team, which showed interest in developing cycling in the region prior to MTN. The obvious team for him to get a contract with.

Many reasons for this discussed in the threads, being left to his own devices training wise, illness, total lack of racecraft have been dismissed out of hand for no good reason other than they don't fit the doping dialogue. There's not one simple answer so it's easy to sneer and shoot down little things individually and ignore what they add up to.
Well, actually, being left to his own devices training-wise has been discussed and dismissed because he's a product of the UCI's organized project to develop cycling talent elsewhere. Illness has been discussed and discredited because of the number of lies and inconsistencies in explaining it (not to mention that Froome + bilharzia yields no hits prior to August 2011!). The total lack of racecraft was dismissed because Sky tried to pull the "he didn't have racecraft or technique, now we improved that he has got better" card, which didn't wash because he was still riding with the same technique, if not a worse one than he showed back in '08.

For full disclosure: I think that the items you mention are in fact genuinely valid reasons for why Froome would improve as a rider.

However, I do not buy that they are valid reasons for him to improve to the magnitude that he has done, to the performance ceiling that he has reached. He was not an untalented rider. He also had an illness. He has also improved his racecraft. But like I've said before, he did NOT show the talent to say "this is the guy who will best the times of the EPO generation and do it clean". He did not have an illness so debilitating that it would hide a full three years of progression. And his racecraft is hardly built on tactical masterstrokes now, since Sky's success has been mainly predicated on a simple bludgeoning tactic of "have strongest leader in race and strongest set of domestiques. Ride on front until everybody collapses." And also... if that was the case, why would Sky have needed to keep changing the story? The same story would have still been accurate. If they had better monitoring of his training, they'll have training data from pre-2011 Vuelta that would prove he had this talent. They could release it. They would have pre-2011 data of him wasting energy early in stages to compare to his more economic riding now. They could release it. They wouldn't have needed to lie about bilharzia or continually shift the goalposts on what he needed and when. They're never going to silence the doubts because they have let them snowball too large before they start fighting them, and as long as the releases of information are partial, they will always be accused of hiding something.

But really, the first thing they would need to do to convince me Froome is clean would be to release at least some of his data from BEFORE the 2011 Vuelta. Let us see what Brailsford allegedly saw that told him this man was a rough diamond who could one day win Grand Tours clean, and not, as I suspected, a potentially decent mountain domestique or stagehunter at the level of Chris Anker Sørensen or Egoi Martínez. Stop obfuscating with limited releases of data only after he became the Chris Froome we know now. We KNOW he's been good since August 2011 (except for February to May 2012) and comparing then to now is no use to quell doubts, because it was the transformation in August 2011 that created the doubts. Jonathan Vaughters claims to have seen Froome's data from back at the UCI World Cycling Centre and been impressed, maybe some of this could be made available since I'm sure Sky could ask the UCI to publish it? That would be very useful.

And I haven't seen a realistic theory about how him in particular would get so good with drugs... if it's a team thing why start him then? If individual how was he protected? The secret new drug that only him and Wiggins have ever responded to is particularly laughable. How do you think it went down?
History is littered with people known as super-responders. People's reactions to doping substances are not equal just as their reaction to natural substances aren't either. I certainly don't think Sky will have started Froome on a program specifically then because if they wanted to they would have renewed his contract before doing so so that they didn't have to pay him more. My suspicion is therefore the Steve Houanard principle, plus super-responding, plus Team Sky's stated aim of a British TDF winner in 5 years meaning he was now jumping the queue, so to speak, so any previous program he likely wouldn't have been part of, as a peripheral member of the team, he now would be in on.

With regards to super-responders and natural gifts and talents, there's a particularly famous case you may be interested in, to do with the legendary Finnish cross-country skier Eero Mäntyranta, whose family (several generations of them) carry a mutant gene that blocks the portion of the body's natural EPO receptor that slows red blood cell production. This meant that his body naturally produced the effects of EPO doping, but also made his cells hypersensitive to it. There's an obituary on him that mentions the study done on him and his family here. Mäntyranta's sporting career came long before the era of synthetic EPO being a factor in endurance sports, but his body's natural sensitivity to it meant that he was able to perform almost like the EPO era all the way back in the 60s. It shows that people do not respond equally. There is, in fact, scientific evidence that shows that the term "super-responder" has some merit. There's also another side to the technological part of it, after all somebody else who Froome reminds me of due to the awkward, painful-looking technique, but boundless energy and dominant performances emerging at a later date than you might expect (i.e. if Froome was clean and blessed with a mutant "natural EPO" gene like the Mäntyrantas, you'd have expected his performances from a younger age to stand out more, especially as Barloworld is hardly a team renowned for its cleanliness either), is the German/Spanish cross-country skier Johann Mühlegg, who dominated the distance races at the 2002 Olympics. He later tested positive for darbopoietin, a second-gen version of synthetic EPO that at that point was so new they hadn't got round to putting it on the banned list yet. Interestingly, because it was detectable almost immediately, darbo fell out of favour among dopers compared to the cheaper first-gen EPO. CERA (third-gen EPO) was popular for a while, but because of its extremely long half-life, once it was testable it was almost useless (after the 2008 Tour, the only real high-profile CERA positive is Danilo di Luca in the 2009 Giro); however the recent sanctions have suggested a bit of a resurgence in use of darbo, but mostly those being caught with it are the likes of Luca Benedetti.
 
Re: Re:

buckle said:
Saint would you be so kind to perform an analysis which doesn't favor Froome? One that is decidedly unsympathetic if not hostile?
Check the short version. Realistically we can assume about 85W are being spent on overcoming drag and friction on a 7,5% gradient when a rider of Froome's weight riding a 7kg bike produces 414W. You need to hack off 65W of those 85W, which is completely impossible without defying physics.

Of course, this is just explaining that someone who says "The only reason for Froome's improvement is that his equipment is much better." is wrong. It's not proof of anything other than that any potential improvement of equipment is at best a very minor piece of the total improvement.
 
Jun 4, 2015
499
0
0
The Ministry Of Truth aka the BBC had two people on this morning's breakfast programme who were defending team sky. They were:

1. Matt White, drugs cheat.
2. Charly Wegelius, I have natural very high hematocrit level, honest gov!

Now of course, 'Joe public' won't know their history, they'll just accept it that the accusations against Sky are unfounded, because these regular guys from other teams say they're legit.
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
Check the short version. Realistically we can assume about 85W are being spent on overcoming drag and friction on a 7,5% gradient when a rider of Froome's weight riding a 7kg bike produces 414W. You need to hack off 65W of those 85W, which is completely impossible without defying physics.

Of course, this is just explaining that someone who says "The only reason for Froome's improvement is that his equipment is much better." is wrong. It's not proof of anything other than that any potential improvement of equipment is at best a very minor piece of the total improvement.
Are you sure it's that high? I found just 8-9% for just air resistance, which works out to about 30-35" Gesink lost to Froome by being in the wind longer. I guess it's about 20% for all non-gravity factors, i.e., air resistance, rolling resistance, and drive train.

Edit: I revisited the issue, and found about 45 W, or 11%, due to air drag—and about 20% total non-gravity work. While as Unix pointed out, we don’t know the exact values for frontal area, air density, etc., one can simply adjust the figures so that on a 7.4% gradient, 414 W results in the same speed that someone of Froome’s size actually recorded. The other values, collectively, must be close to what they should be, and assuming none is wildly off, each individually will be close.

Reasoning then proceeds as follows:

1) if riding in a group, assume putting out about 60% as much energy to overcome air resistance as when unprotected
2) so when riding unprotected, put out about 4.5% [11% - (11% x .600)] more of total energy to overcoming air resistance
3) so speed under these conditions is reduced by about 4.5%
4) If Gesink rode at an average of 22 km hour when protected, then he rode at an average of 21 (22 x .955) km an hour when unprotected.
5) If he rode 4 km further than Froome while unprotected, then he rode those 4 km in 11.43 min., vs. 10.9 min. he would have unprotected.
6) Difference is 0.53 min., or about 32 seconds.


In any case, I don't think Froome’s argument is that he increased in power from pre- to post-2011, but that he lost weight. If he was 71kg before, and is now 66, that is a 7% loss in weight. If he managed that without any lose in power, his W/kg would increase 7%. If he actually weighs 64 kg, as reported by some, his power/weight increases by 10%.

But there are problems with this. First, of course, how does one lose that much weight without losing power? Studies of elite riders have shown that their relative V02max values generally plateau by their early 20s, meaning that if they lose weight, they also lose power. This is where weight loss drugs could come in, and where differential responding becomes relevant.

A second problem is that if Froome’s gains resulted just from weight loss, one wouldn’t see much improvement in time trialing, where weight is not so much of a factor as it is in climbing. But there was an analysis on this forum that indicates Froome gained as much as 15% in power on time trials, pre- vs. post-2011.

Froome’s best argument is probably that his efficiency increased, as there is some evidence that training not only can increase that, but to levels that might conceivably be compatible with 6.0 W/kg or greater. But these studies are controversial, not everyone believes them.

In any case, here are things Sky could do if they were serious:

1) Provide Porte’s and Thomas’ power numbers up PSM, to back up their claim that Froome’s numbers were lower than those of three riders he dropped

2) Request other teams with riders who rode this climb relatively fast to provide their data to some independent analyst

3) Provide experimental evidence that the oval rings result in a reading that is 6% too high in the case of Froome

4) Have Froome weighed immediately before and after a stage to confirm his weight is in the range they claim it is

5) publish Froome’s power data pre-2011

6) obtain and publish any physiological data available from that period, e.g., weight and V02max

7) publish current power data, along the lines of what Pinot did, along with physiological parameters like V02max

8) publish all available passport data, pre- and post-2011
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re:

The Carrot said:
The Ministry Of Truth aka the BBC had two people on this morning's breakfast programme who were defending team sky. They were:

1. Matt White, drugs cheat.
2. Charly Wegelius, I have natural very high hematocrit level, honest gov!

Now of course, 'Joe public' won't know their history, they'll just accept it that the accusations against Sky are unfounded, because these regular guys from other teams say they're legit.
Which proves that other teams (inc JV) don't have a problem with doping........

JV is more inclined towards a guy like Tinkoff and is against Madiot.....tells us all we really need to know about the state of the sport.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
Are you sure it's that high? I found just 8-9% for just air resistance, which works out to about 30-35" Gesink lost to Froome by being in the wind longer.

In any case, I don't think Froome’s argument is that he increased in power from pre- to post-2011, but that he lost weight. If he was 71kg before, and is now 66, that is a 7% loss in weight. If he managed that without any lose in power, his W/kg would increase 7%. If he actually weighs 64 kg, as reported by some, his power/weight increases by 10%.

But there are problems with this. First, of course, how does one lose that much weight without losing power? Studies of elite riders have shown that their relative V02max values generally plateau by their early 20s, meaning that if they lose weight, they also lose power. This is where weight loss drugs could come in, and where differential responding becomes relevant.

A second problem is that if Froome’s gains resulted just from weight loss, one wouldn’t see much improvement in time trialing, where weight is not so much of a factor as it is in climbing. But there was an analysis on this forum that indicates Froome gained as much as 15% in power on time trials, pre- vs. post-2011.

Froome’s best argument is probably that his efficiency increased, as there is some evidence that training not only can increase that, but to levels that might conceivably be compatible with 6.0 W/kg or greater. But these studies are controversial, not everyone believes them.
The amount of work spent on overcoming gravity is easily calculated if we know the exact percentage of work that goes towards overcoming friction and drag, since those are the only forces in question, but I don't have the patience or know-how to figure out an acceptable value. Unless there's a simpler way, that would mean a whole lot of calculations of Froome's frontal area, drag coefficient and air density for the drag and an exact value for rolling resistance and energy loss in the bike itself. 80% is a ballpark estimate for the amount of work going towards overcoming gravity, but if I had to guess I'd say it would most likely a bit higher, especially if there actually was a tailwind.

If friction and drag accounts for 15% of the total work instead of 20%, 65W is spent on overcoming it, but that seems too low to me. Regardless, even a fairly significant equipment-influenced gain of 5% would only reduce the amount of work spent by 3-4 watts if we go by the 65-85W value. Fairly minimal in the grand scheme of things. This is just on climbs, however. Froome could say that he improved his aerodynamics on flat time trials by a significant amount, and that the faster climbing speeds are down to just shedding superfluous body weight, even if that doesn't quite resonate with the fact that he hadn't even been in a wind tunnel by the 2013 Tour. It's all highly unlikely, but a more valid explanation than his climbing being faster because of his gear, at least. Anything would be.


The 15% increase in power that I've used as a base point is taken from ScienceIsCool's analysis of Froome's time trials that you mentioned, and of course, his time trials wouldn't be influenced much by his reduction in weight. That's not saying weight isn't a factor, both due to the reduced drag and the fact that very few time trials are raced on a completely flat course, but it still isn't enough to fully account for his improvement in average speed, so there must be an increase in power too.
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
Merckx index said:
Are you sure it's that high? I found just 8-9% for just air resistance, which works out to about 30-35" Gesink lost to Froome by being in the wind longer.

In any case, I don't think Froome’s argument is that he increased in power from pre- to post-2011, but that he lost weight. If he was 71kg before, and is now 66, that is a 7% loss in weight. If he managed that without any lose in power, his W/kg would increase 7%. If he actually weighs 64 kg, as reported by some, his power/weight increases by 10%.

But there are problems with this. First, of course, how does one lose that much weight without losing power? Studies of elite riders have shown that their relative V02max values generally plateau by their early 20s, meaning that if they lose weight, they also lose power. This is where weight loss drugs could come in, and where differential responding becomes relevant.

A second problem is that if Froome’s gains resulted just from weight loss, one wouldn’t see much improvement in time trialing, where weight is not so much of a factor as it is in climbing. But there was an analysis on this forum that indicates Froome gained as much as 15% in power on time trials, pre- vs. post-2011.

Froome’s best argument is probably that his efficiency increased, as there is some evidence that training not only can increase that, but to levels that might conceivably be compatible with 6.0 W/kg or greater. But these studies are controversial, not everyone believes them.
The amount of work spent on overcoming gravity is easily calculated if we know the exact percentage of work that goes towards overcoming friction and drag, since those are the only forces in question, but I don't have the patience or know-how to figure out an acceptable value. Unless there's a simpler way, that would mean a whole lot of calculations of Froome's frontal area, drag coefficient and air density for the drag and an exact value for rolling resistance and energy loss in the bike itself. 80% is a ballpark estimate for the amount of work going towards overcoming gravity, but if I had to guess I'd say it would most likely a bit higher, especially if there actually was a tailwind.

If friction and drag accounts for 15% of the total work instead of 20%, 65W is spent on overcoming it, but that seems too low to me. Regardless, even a fairly significant equipment-influenced gain of 5% would only reduce the amount of work spent by 3-4 watts if we go by the 65-85W value. Fairly minimal in the grand scheme of things. This is just on climbs, however. Froome could say that he improved his aerodynamics on flat time trials by a significant amount, and that the faster climbing speeds are down to just shedding superfluous body weight, even if that doesn't quite resonate with the fact that he hadn't even been in a wind tunnel by the 2013 Tour. It's all highly unlikely, but a more valid explanation than his climbing being faster because of his gear, at least. Anything would be.


The 15% increase in power that I've used as a base point is taken from ScienceIsCool's analysis of Froome's time trials that you mentioned, and of course, his time trials wouldn't be influenced much by his reduction in weight. That's not saying weight isn't a factor, both due to the reduced drag and the fact that very few time trials are raced on a completely flat course, but it still isn't enough to fully account for his improvement in average speed, so there must be an increase in power too.
Will the values vary for pre-2011 Vuelta Froome?
 
Jul 14, 2015
24
0
0
FWIW, on two recent solo climbs I have done I measure 16% and 17% of power being put into non-gravity work on climbs of 5% and 4.5% at higher altitudes. Given how much slower I am as compared to a TdF contender, 20% seems quite possible if they are climbing on their own and not drafting.
 
Re: Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
Will the values vary for pre-2011 Vuelta Froome?
On account of him being heavier (and less powerful, we have to assume) he's moving slower, so there is less drag and thus the percentage of work spent on overcoming gravity would be higher than post-2011, if that's what you mean.

Energy loss in the bike should stay roughly the same, though, unless Sky have developed some sort of amazing lubricant.
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Will the values vary for pre-2011 Vuelta Froome?
On account of him being heavier (and less powerful, we have to assume) he's moving slower, so there is less drag and thus the percentage of work spent on overcoming gravity would be higher than post-2011, if that's what you mean.

Energy loss in the bike should stay roughly the same, though, unless Sky have developed some sort of amazing lubricant.
That is exactly what they have done, my friend. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR_U75lmjfk
 
Re: Re:

oldcrank said:
Saint Unix said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Will the values vary for pre-2011 Vuelta Froome?
On account of him being heavier (and less powerful, we have to assume) he's moving slower, so there is less drag and thus the percentage of work spent on overcoming gravity would be higher than post-2011, if that's what you mean.

Energy loss in the bike should stay roughly the same, though, unless Sky have developed some sort of amazing lubricant.
That is exactly what they have done, my friend. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR_U75lmjfk
Then there might be a fraction of a watt less on energy loss in the bike. Fair enough.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY