Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[acoggan]

"Perhaps a few positional / equipment tweaks" is a fact?

See Xavier's comments re. the aerodynamics of the Graal vs. the USKI framesets.

"Wiggins CdA decreases at yaw", based on "a bit of crosswind" is a fact?

See our wind tunnel validation study in J Appl Biomech. (Also note the words "perhaps" and "could".)

No wonder you don't do this for a living.

If I did, I'd be a rich man. I'm not particularly interested in money, though, so I settle for, e.g., awards from USA Cycling and the United States Olympic Committee, and/or thanks from national, regional, world, and/or Olympic champions and/or their coaches. What have you accomplished in your life?

 

[M Sport]

And as it turns out, Coyle's theories (re. the trainability of efficiency) are proving to be correct... or don't you read the scientific literature?

The Armstrong 8% increase in efficiency wasn't proved correct though, was it?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

See Xavier's comments re. the aerodynamics of the Graal vs. the USKI framesets.

See our wind tunnel validation study in J Appl Biomech. (Also note the words "perhaps" and "could".)

derp de derp that my point, "genius". You are attributing the status of "fact" to "could"s and "perhaps"s. tsk tsk. These are, as I originally stated, at best, guesses, suppositions, or make believe.

They are not, in fact, facts.

As I strongly suggested previously - you need to school up on what a fact is, coz you're doing it wrong.

As for wind tunnel studies. Good oh. But the TT was on the streets of London, not in a wind tunnel - I thought you knew that?

Again.

Guesses. Created to defend the performance of the current top GC rider in the world.

Just.
Like.
Armstrong.

 

[Ferminal]

Wiggins aint the top GC rider

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Wiggins aint the top GC rider

For 2012! That's when the suppositions were made. Or is that still wrong. Looked pretty good to me. Or did Cobo beat him in the end, points wise?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Good quote, but dont lump in the likes Krebs who's wikipedia quick guide to cycling led him to believe that no pure climber has ever won a gt, with Vaughters.

Too bad you are so intent on insulting me that you missed the entire point of that post and the context in which it was made.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Fact: Wiggins went from a deficit to Tony Martin @ the 2011 World champs to beating him soundly at the Olympics.

Many, including the esteemed poster 131313 you mention, posited the theory that Wiggins produced more power to do this incredible feat.

You may want to recall Tony had a serious accident early in the year, and not only was isn't in the best form at the Olympics from that, he was still injured from a subsequent crash.

Lets see what Tony does this year, I think he is going to be back ontop of the pile. 2012 was poor for Tony, and to me that was the biggest difference.

 

[JimmyFingers]

You may want to recall Tony had a serious accident early in the year, and not only was isn't in the best form at the Olympics from that, he was still injured from a subsequent crash.

Lets see what Tony does this year, I think he is going to be back ontop of the pile. 2012 was poor for Tony, and to me that was the biggest difference.

This. Martin still hadn't recovered fully from a fractured wrist in the tour, and Cancellara got smashed up in the road race ahead of the TT. In the end it was a bit of a cakewalk for Wiggins given the conditions of his main opponents. Don't let those facts get in the way of your argument.

Actually that's a redundant question: I know you won't.

And calling Wiggins 'the top GC rider in the world' is a huge stretch. He's top 5, and out of that top 5 I'd probably place him 5th.

 

[Mr.38%]

Guys, accept that Coggan is incompatible with the clinic. Both elements can/must exist but surely not in the same place as their logics are completely different. I wonder why acoggan is wasting his time here because he won't change anything, which is good.

I will continue to train based on his research, though, which is good as well.

 

[acoggan]

The Armstrong 8% increase in efficiency wasn't proved correct though, was it?

??

It hasn't been proven incorrect. That is, just because Armstrong has now confessed to doping doesn't necessarily mean that his efficiency didn't improve over time.

But again, that's just me being logical (i.e., A being true only means that B is false if they are mutually exclusive, which isn't true in this case).

 

[acoggan]

Guys, accept that Coggan is incompatible with the clinic. Both elements can/must exist but surely not in the same place as their logics are completely different.

Clearly.

I wonder why acoggan is wasting his time here

I tend to get drawn into discussions of the technical/scientific aspects of cycling regardless of the particular forum or sub-forum.

 

[acoggan]

derp de derp that my point, "genius". You are attributing the status of "fact" to "could"s and "perhaps"s. tsk tsk. These are, as I originally stated, at best, guesses, suppositions, or make believe.

They are not, in fact, facts.

As I strongly suggested previously - you need to school up on what a fact is, coz you're doing it wrong.

As for wind tunnel studies. Good oh. But the TT was on the streets of London, not in a wind tunnel - I thought you knew that?

Again.

Guesses. Created to defend the performance of the current top GC rider in the world.

Just.
Like.
Armstrong.

1. It is a fact that Xavier, who has worked for/with British Cycling, stated that Wiggins' CdA (when riding a Graal) is lower than 131313 *** u me d. (You remember 131313, don't you? You know, the person whose assertions I was pointing out were uncertain.)

2. It is a fact that Xavier believed the UKSI frame to be more aero than the Graal.

3. It is a fact that, when Olympic medals were on the line, not only Wiggins but the entire British team opted to ride UKSI bikes (including in the road race).

4. It is a fact that Wiggins is lanky.

5. It is a fact that individuals with his build tend to often experience a significant reduction in CdA at non-zero yaw angles.

6. It is a fact that due to #5, the effective CdA of riders with Wiggins' build is often lower than measured at 0 deg of yaw in a wind tunnel.

7. It is a fact that if you take such crosswind effects into account, wind tunnel data are highly predictive of what happens out on the road.

8. Based on 1-7, it is a fact that you can't *** u me a value for CdA and back-calculate to obtain an accurate estimate of rider's power output (which is what 131313 attempted to do, and what I disputed).

9. Finally, it is a fact that the power output that 131313 back-calculated using his flawed approach is inconsistent with Wiggins' expected power based on a critical power analysis of publicaly-available data.

Based on these facts, the logical conclusion to draw is that Wiggins' did not win the Olympics by producing more power than ever before. Too bad that conflicts with your world view.

 

[SundayRider]

Science is not needed - everyone knows what they saw last July...

 

[JimmyFingers]

Science is not needed - everyone knows what they saw last July...

Burn them! BURN THEM ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

9. Finally, it is a fact that the power output that 131313 back-calculated using his flawed approach is inconsistent with Wiggins' expected power based on a critical power analysis of publicaly-available data.

We call that lazy science, as is pointed out before, you do nothing, absolutely nothing, with the missing data/years. You make an assumption and call that assumption a fact because it suites your thesis. Not to mention, you do not even know IF that data is correct.

Just a very simple question:
lowering cadence, gaining speed, does that require a bigger gear cum suis more power?

 

[mastersracer]

derp de derp that my point, "genius". You are attributing the status of "fact" to "could"s and "perhaps"s. tsk tsk. These are, as I originally stated, at best, guesses, suppositions, or make believe.

They are not, in fact, facts.

As I strongly suggested previously - you need to school up on what a fact is, coz you're doing it wrong.

As for wind tunnel studies. Good oh. But the TT was on the streets of London, not in a wind tunnel - I thought you knew that?

Again.

Guesses. Created to defend the performance of the current top GC rider in the world.

Just.
Like.
Armstrong.

No wonder Vaughters put you on his ignore list. Your comment about wind tunnel testing is beyond idiotic.

 

[JimmyFingers]

No wonder Vaughters put you on his ignore list. Your comment about wind tunnel testing is beyond idiotic.

This, I'm afraid

 

[sniper]

No wonder Vaughters put you on his ignore list. Your comment about wind tunnel testing is beyond idiotic.

Lance, Pat, and Hein have impressive ignore lists. Wiggins, Millar and Vaughters are gradually expanding their ignore lists. Not a good sign.

 

[acoggan]

We call that lazy science, as is pointed out before, you do nothing, absolutely nothing, with the missing data/years. You make an assumption and call that assumption a fact because it suites your thesis. Not to mention, you do not even know IF that data is correct.

So let me get this straight: I'm the one who bothered to dig up Wiggins' data, and I'm the one who first pointed out the limitations of the dataset (i.e., that it was 1) was based on self-reports, and 2) had important gaps in the timeline), and I'm still the only one who has offered any quantitative insight/analysis into the question of whether or not Wiggins' power in 2012 was greater than in previous years...and you accuse me of "lazy science"?!?

Here's a suggestion: instead of making yourself look foolish by posting nonsense such as the above, why don't you do a little digging around yourself, and see if there are any contradictory data out there...or are you too lazy?

Just a very simple question:
lowering cadence, gaining speed, does that require a bigger gear cum suis more power?

Bigger gear, yes, more power, not necessarily.

 

[acoggan]

BTW, wouldn't it be great if someone who was privvy to Wiggins' actual data would post it to this forum, and thus put an end to the debate about whether his power increased or not?

 

[acoggan]

No wonder Vaughters put you on his ignore list. Your comment about wind tunnel testing is beyond idiotic.

Indeed:

http://www.academia.edu/239368/Mart...cycling_power._J_Appl_Biomech_1998_14_276-291

 

[Dr. Maserati]

BTW, wouldn't it be great if someone who was privvy to Wiggins' actual data would post it to this forum, and thus put an end to the debate about whether it increased or not?

While I wouldn't go as far to call it 'lazy science' you yourself have acknowledged that the data is scarce and reliant on hearsay.

For me however, that Wiggins is talented is not in dispute - nor would I object to the figures that are often used. But it merely shows he was good in 2004 and his TTs or individual performances on a few select events is pretty consistent.

But the debate gets diluted on this issue - 'we' are not discussing Wiggins winning a TT in a Tour, or climbing well on one 40 minute climb.
It is the fact that he won the Tour outright, no data presented can in itself explain that.

 

[acoggan]

you yourself have acknowledged that the data is scarce and reliant on hearsay.

Indeed, I pointed that out when I first posted my analysis. The fact remains, however, that it is the only data that is publicly available, so unless someone can come up with additional numbers, it is all there is to go by.

 

[oldcrank]

All that can be counted, doesn't count
and all that counts, can't be counted.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Indeed, I pointed that out when I first posted my analysis. The fact remains, however, that it is the only data that is publicly available, so unless someone can come up with additional numbers, it is all there is to go by.

I appreciate that - but the data does not (and as far as I can see never) explain a GT performance. So using that data is rather pointless.