Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[xcleigh]

Really?

If you turn up to race and pootle, and get dropped, then yes, your training will be harder than your racing. But for me that's not racing. That's a waste of time.

Racing is getting to the end and having a sprint, in the front bunch.

And I always get power PBs in racing vs training.

But if you seriously race, with all your heart, and sprint for the win at the end, and it's easier than what you do in training, then yes, you should be winning. Or it makes no sense at all.

Again why, I race as hard as I can but it feels, lets say easier, because of some of the ridiculously hard interval sessions that I have done during traning? And Why should I be winning? You are not taking into account what my competitors training is, they may train alot harder than me, doesn't mean that I don't think my training is bloomin hard.

 

[del1962]

Really?

If you turn up to race and pootle, and get dropped, then yes, your training will be harder than your racing. But for me that's not racing. That's a waste of time.

Racing is getting to the end and having a sprint, in the front bunch.

And I always get power PBs in racing vs training.

But if you seriously race, with all your heart, and sprint for the win at the end, and it's easier than what you do in training, then yes, you should be winning. Or it makes no sense at all.

Not necessarily, when you race you may be sitting in Peleton all day getting the drafting benefits, then for the last five minutes (or even less you will be going flat out)

I suspect doing multiple intervals at near fastest pace is a much harder workout, even on some of the more mountanous stages the real action wont start till the last few k.

The point about intervals is you go close to flat out recover then repeat a number of times, this has beneficial effects you cant get in a race. You also need races to sharpen your competative edge, it seems like last year wiggins got the balance right.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Really?

If you turn up to race and pootle, and get dropped, then yes, your training will be harder than your racing. But for me that's not racing. That's a waste of time.

Racing is getting to the end and having a sprint, in the front bunch.

And I always get power PBs in racing vs training.

But if you seriously race, with all your heart, and sprint for the win at the end, and it's easier than what you do in training, then yes, you should be winning. Or it makes no sense at all.

But early season week-long stage races, which are the type of racing that Wiggo specifically highlighted as being not as hard as training, are not like this, are they? They involve lots of time sitting coasting in the bunch, with effort saved for a short TT or a relatively modest mountain stage.

The type of racing you refer to is equivalent to the one-day classics where all the top guys are there and want to win. Mere survival is a challenge in these races, and Wiggo certainly wasn't claiming that this sort of racing is easier than training.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm specifically replying to xcleigh, who trains harder than he races, against guys who train even harder still, but the racing is easy, but he doesn't win.

Nothing to do with Wiggins, who we have established trains harder than he races, and races at the physiological limit.

 

[xcleigh]

I'm specifically replying to xcleigh, who trains harder than he races, against guys who train even harder still, but the racing is easy, but he doesn't win.

Nothing to do with Wiggins, who we have established trains harder than he races, and races at the physiological limit.

Yeah but what I think is hard may not be the same as what somebody else thinks is hard, if you can't even grasp that simple concept, jeez! Cause Wiggins would think my 6 hours a week training is savage!!!!!!!!!! compared to his easy 25 hrs.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Nothing to do with Wiggins, who we have established trains harder than he races, and races at the physiological limit.

You have actually made this up, as it suits the story you're trying to tell. This is the correct state of affairs:

Wiggins trains harder than he would typically ride in certain types of races (eg early season stage races), and only races at the physiological limit in certain races, such as the key Tour stages and the Olympic road race.

 

[Zora_DB]

What I don't get with all this talk of 'you must be racing harder than you train unless you're winning' is that winning a bike race isn't all about effort? I mean, I am not a racer myself but it looks to me like tactics play a part

 

[hiero2]

What I don't get with all this talk of 'you must be racing harder than you train unless you're winning' is that winning a bike race isn't all about effort? I mean, I am not a racer myself but it looks to me like tactics play a part

Correct - tactics are critical to REDUCING the effort required. The freshest legs at the critical moment win the race - or something like that.

 

[martinvickers]

What was fallacious about it.? The fact that you don't understand or have never come across the term "one in a million" and can't work out its obvious meaning, is your problem not mine.
"One in a million" means - very rare, hard to find.

I'm well aware of what the statement mean - given English is my first language - but it's still a hyperbole, and as such, it's misleading - not intentionally, but statistically.

I honestly don't see what you find so outrageous about the fact that someone thinks tour de France winners are very rare and hard to.find.

It's not outrageous, it's just a bit of an exaggeration. And in the clinic environment, exaggeration, even innocent, is best nipped in the bud before someone else starts treating it as holy writ.

Now on the numbers, they do find a tdf winner every year. It's kind of the point of an annual race.

 

[ebandit]

always?

Now on the numbers, they do find a tdf winner every year. It's kind of the point of an annual race.

always? looking back i see years with no winner

i asked for my name to be added.............................but it appears i'm not 1 in a 1,000,000

 

[Haynzie]

I'm specifically replying to xcleigh, who trains harder than he races, against guys who train even harder still, but the racing is easy, but he doesn't win.

Nothing to do with Wiggins, who we have established trains harder than he races, and races at the physiological limit.

I think you need to be clear about specifics here. IIRC Wiggins was saying that the old strategy of using racing as training was not as effective for him as pushing himself in a very specific way whilst training.

It's hard to argue against this. In a race situation, you don't get to choose when, how long or how hard to make your exertions, in training you do. However in racing you can sometimes push yourself harder than you would in training because of the win factor. How close to that you get in training depends on your motivation and will-power, but then endurance sport at some point always comes down to will.

I guess, Dear Wiggo, if you've been racing at say 4th or 3rd cat level, you might think that nothing can be as hard as a race because they tend to go full gas from the start and don't back off. Higher up the levels things get a bit more cat and mouse.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What I don't get with all this talk of 'you must be racing harder than you train unless you're winning' is that winning a bike race isn't all about effort? I mean, I am not a racer myself but it looks to me like tactics play a part

Correct - tactics are critical to REDUCING the effort required. The freshest legs at the critical moment win the race - or something like that.

Club level:

IME: in C grade, yes, tactics may have more of an impact on your results. Once you get to B grade, tactics are a bit like Vittoria Corsa Evo CX's, carbon frames and Di2 satellite buttons: they help, but you aren't the only one in the bunch using them.

Tactics will pummel you into the ground and stop you from winning as much as they will help you winning. But if everyone is sprinting up this hill at the moment at 600W, then attacking each other over the top, you better have that effort in your legs or you're not going anywhere. Even if you're doing the ideal thing and starting at the front of the bunch. Tactics are part of the equation. When somene in the bunch does 700W and everyone else matches it, you better too, or you're once again, not going anywhere.

It's all about motivation.


Pro level:

Mick Rogers hit one of his best ever power numbers at the end of a race. n = 1. I'm comfortably extrapolating that, as noone can push you as hard as someone else, in a race situation. Quit during your intervals and you can have an extra minute rest.

Quit in the race and it's over.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I guess, Dear Wiggo, if you've been racing at say 4th or 3rd cat level, you might think that nothing can be as hard as a race because they tend to go full gas from the start and don't back off. Higher up the levels things get a bit more cat and mouse.

Not sure which style of racing you're discussing. Cat 3/4 says US, which is lots of crits, right?

I've probably raced Cat 3 level crits here in Aus, maybe Cat 2. But there was more cat and mouse than a tom and jerry show - getting passed / caught by lower grade was not unusual. Our average speed only ended up being slight quicker in the end, and average power was down, but normalised power was way up. And we were slowing down a lot, then going manic, back off again, over and over.

I guess for me races are harder because I typically end up off the front in a break (road races, not crits). And with 3-4 other guys I can always push myself harder for that 1-3 hours than I do in person, solo.

If I do X in training (which I have done - matched my 2:40 race power PB solo, in training), I can almost guarantee my next race I can go harder again.

To get back on track: Kerrison reckons Wiggins still has some improvement in him - he hasn't hit his straps yet.

So quicker up the hills maybe?
Quicker in the TT?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

However in racing you can sometimes push yourself harder than you would in training because of the win factor.

Win factor? Is that the same as pushing yourself harder because someone else is going harder?

The only time someone went harder in the Tour, they said - don't worry, they can't sustain it.

Coz they were riding at the physiological limit. You'd need a blood bag to go harder. Sky rider comments say this, not me.

 

[Haynzie]

?
The only time someone went harder in the Tour, they said - don't worry, they can't sustain it.
.

That was supreme judgement of effort level by Sky. Sit just under the red line. The attacker will have to go over the red line to escape, then back off to recover. Very inefficient way to get up a hill

 

[Dear Wiggo]

That was supreme judgement of effort level by Sky. Sit just under the red line. The attacker will have to go over the red line to escape, then back off to recover. Very inefficient way to get up a hill

No, it was the physiological limit. Not sure why you have a wink in your post, is there sarcasm or something I am missing?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It's funny, because you're obviously quite anti-Sky, and the Palfreeman departure - as I seem to remember - has been explained in some detail.

Then you would have no problems sharing that/those detail/s.

Still waiting RownhamHill, put your money where...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Then you would have no problems sharing that/those detail/s.

Still waiting RownhamHill, put your money where...

Check it, aight:

UCI done tol' ol' Sky they don't need no extra testing yo. Fo' shizzle they be down wit da testin' by UCI and WADA, and dat be all she done wrote.

Word.

To wit: (Sky's the limit).

UCI: YOU DON'T NEED TO BE THAT RIGOROUS. IT WILL COST $$. We should know, we slashed testing this year that you started as a pro team. And it won't pick up any more data. 2 urine OOC tests/year is heaps.

Oh wait, there was no rider vote either, where they decided not to adopt it. That didn't happen, no. It was the UCI alone that quashed it.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Check it, aight:

UCI done tol' ol' Sky they don't need no extra testing yo. Fo' shizzle they be down wit da testin' by UCI and WADA, and dat be all she done wrote.

Word.

To wit: (Sky's the limit).

UCI: YOU DON'T NEED TO BE THAT RIGOROUS. IT WILL COST $$. We should know, we slashed testing this year that you started as a pro team. And it won't pick up any more data. 2 urine OOC tests/year is heaps.

Oh wait, there was no rider vote either, where they decided not to adopt it. That didn't happen, no. It was the UCI alone that quashed it.

Really not sure what's going on with the bolded bit but the rest seems acceptable

 

[zalacain]

Forgive my ignorance, but who is Martin Vickers? Not a name I've encountered.

He has a Facebook page. You could ask him personally.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

UCI: YOU DON'T NEED TO BE THAT RIGOROUS. IT WILL COST $$. We should know, we slashed testing this year that you started as a pro team. And it won't pick up any more data. 2 urine OOC tests/year is heaps.

Oh wait, there was no rider vote either, where they decided not to adopt it. That didn't happen, no. It was the UCI alone that quashed it.

And then Palfreeman left. Okido, that is cleared up now. Roger was perfectly happy but left BC/SKY anyways.

 

[SundayRider]

Pro level:

Mick Rogers hit one of his best ever power numbers at the end of a race. n = 1. I'm comfortably extrapolating that, as noone can push you as hard as someone else, in a race situation. Quit during your intervals and you can have an extra minute rest.

Quit in the race and it's over.

Exactly there is so many controllable factors in training that there are not when racing. Like DW says in training you might only go at a particular % of max power whereas in a race you have no control over what other riders do.

 

[JimmyFingers]

If anyone was doping at Sky last season it was Mick Rogers, I'll agree with that.

 

[SundayRider]

If anyone was doping at Sky last season it was Mick Rogers, I'll agree with that.

Not Froome too?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Not Froome too?

For me those two are certainly the most suspicious, as I've said before. The Ferrari connection for Rogers is a smoking gun, and Froome's sudden ascension to top 5 climber in the world asks a lot of questions. I'm more prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt than Rogers.