Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 837 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
sittingbison

sittingbison

Jul 5, 2012
2,878
1
11,485
coinneach said:
Yes, but has there been anything new since those 17,000 posts?
And the fact that this thread keeps going without anything new??
In my opionion, its the perceived link to usps, and the hatred that remains towards Lance. Get over it guys!
Click to expand...

admittedly about 10000 posts were folk letting off steam in the off season, however a few new things have cropped up since those earlier conjectures, such as Sir Daves lack of performance over Leinders sacking, much ado about nothing with Manchester Q&A, Peters' (sic) interview techniques, the early season and spring performances of Dawg and Richie, Sir Wiggo training alone with only Kerrison for company etc
 
G

Gloin22

Apr 10, 2011
4,818
0
0
sittingbison said:
admittedly about 10000 posts were folk letting off steam in the off season, however a few new things have cropped up since those earlier conjectures, such as Sir Daves lack of performance over Leinders sacking, much ado about nothing with Manchester Q&A, Peters' (sic) interview techniques, the early season and spring performances of Dawg and Richie, Sir Wiggo training alone with only Kerrison for company etc
Click to expand...

But that's nothing mate. Nothing at all. You just proved his point.
 
The Hitch

The Hitch

Jun 14, 2010
34,930
60
22,580
News that froome had never been in a windtunnel was significant new information. So was wiggins lying on why he supported lance rather than being honest like honest sky are supposed to be. News that Wiggins and froome don't really always warm down after stages. things like that may not be the smoking gun which 1 or 2 posters demand but they do little to reassure anyone with an inquisitive mind as they show the gap between sky's Pr on the subject and their actual behaviour.

Fearless Greg made 1 or 2 good posts disproving some of the things Wiggins said but I can't remember what now.
 
Cramps

Cramps

Sep 4, 2012
250
0
9,030
sittingbison said:
admittedly about 10000 posts were folk letting off steam in the off season, however a few new things have cropped up since those earlier conjectures, such as Sir Daves lack of performance over Leinders sacking, much ado about nothing with Manchester Q&A, Peters' (sic) interview techniques, the early season and spring performances of Dawg and Richie, Sir Wiggo training alone with only Kerrison for company etc
Click to expand...

Agreeing with Gloin22. Haven't read this whole thread and been looking for a summary.

20,000 posts to date, and this is really all there is on the charges of major doping offenses?

I hope I live long enough to **** on Rupert Murdoch's grave, and so I find this disappointing.
 
W

Wallace and Gromit

Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Winning a GT when you've never shown the potential to do so?
Click to expand...

This is clearly suspicious, but how many riders - even notorious dopers - actually do this?

Even the most notorious dopers tend to have placed highly in a GT before actually winning one. And realistically, the only reliable indicator of GT-winning potential is to have place prominently in a GT. Extrapolation of week-long race results to three weeks doesn't seem very reliable as far as I can see.

The change from no-hoper to top 5 is probably more suspicious than the change from top 5 to top step, I'd say. (There are obviously exceptions - Contador in 2007 springs to mind - but as a general rule it's true enough.)

And obviously, you don't need to win a GT to be suspicious, as Froome proves!
 
A

andy1234

Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
10,480
Wallace and Gromit said:
This is clearly suspicious, but how many riders - even notorious dopers - actually do this?

Even the most notorious dopers tend to have placed highly in a GT before actually winning one. And realistically, the only reliable indicator of GT-winning potential is to have place prominently in a GT. Extrapolation of week-long race results to three weeks doesn't seem very reliable as far as I can see.

The change from no-hoper to top 5 is probably more suspicious than the change from top 5 to top step, I'd say. (There are obviously exceptions - Contador in 2007 springs to mind - but as a general rule it's true enough.)

And obviously, you don't need to win a GT to be suspicious, as Froome proves!
Click to expand...

Turn up for a tour at 6W\KG a few years ago, and it would render you anonymous. Turn up at 6W\KG now and you will have a fighting chance.

How those 6W\KG are currently being achieved is open for debate, however, if you know a rider has been putting out something close to those figures for years, the apparent transformation is easier to believe.

The possible reason even notorious dopers have shown some Tour form before actually winning one, is that they were never riding at such a power and recovery disadvantage. The step up normally comes as a result of an existing programme becoming more refined, and/or accelerated natural improvement over time.
 
A

andy1234

Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
10,480
Ferminal said:
Anonymous? 6.0 W/kg would get you on the podium of every GT 2008 onwards (and many in the Lance era too).
Click to expand...

I said "few years ago" because I don't know the exact year it changed.
If you say it's 2008, lets go with that.....
Wiggins might agree with you given his TDF 3rd in 2009.

And no, 6.0 wouldn't have put you near the podium in the Lance Era.
 
L

Lanark

May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
andy1234 said:
I said "few years ago" because I don't know the exact year it changed.
If you say it's 2008, lets go with that.....
Wiggins might agree with you given his TDF 3rd in 2009.

And no, 6.0 wouldn't have put you near the podium in the Lance Era.
Click to expand...

From Vetooo:

1. Lance Armstrong | 2003 | 6,18 W/kg
2. Alberto Contador | 2009 | 6,17 W/kg
3. Lance Armstrong | 2004 | 6,09 W/kg
4. Lance Armstrong | 2005 | 6,09 W/kg
5. Lance Armstrong | 2001 | 6,07 W/kg
6. Bradley Wiggins | 2012 | 5,98 W/kg
7. Lance Armstrong | 2000 | 5,97 W/kg
8. Lance Armstrong | 2002 | 5,97 W/kg
9. Alberto Contador | 2007 | 5,92 W/kg
10. Carlos Sastre | 2008 | 5,85 W/kg
11. Alberto Contador | 2010 | 5,78 W/kg
12. Cadel Evans | 2011 | 5,68 W/kg
13. Floyd Landis | 2006 | 5,67 W/kg

Considering the domination Armstrong usually showed in those years, actually producing 6,0 w/kg on every climb would have produced a podium spot in pretty much any Tour.
 
Fearless Greg Lemond

Fearless Greg Lemond

Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
andy1234 said:
Turn up for a tour at 6W\KG a few years ago, and it would render you anonymous. Turn up at 6W\KG now and you will have a fighting chance.

How those 6W\KG are currently being achieved is open for debate, however, if you know a rider has been putting out something close to those figures for years, the apparent transformation is easier to believe.

The possible reason even notorious dopers have shown some Tour form before actually winning one, is that they were never riding at such a power and recovery disadvantage. The step up normally comes as a result of an existing programme becoming more refined, and/or accelerated natural improvement over time.
Click to expand...
Would the reverse also be a possible indication? Lets say from 6.1W to 5.65W?
 
A

andy1234

Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
10,480
Lanark said:
From Vetooo:

1. Lance Armstrong | 2003 | 6,18 W/kg
2. Alberto Contador | 2009 | 6,17 W/kg
3. Lance Armstrong | 2004 | 6,09 W/kg
4. Lance Armstrong | 2005 | 6,09 W/kg
5. Lance Armstrong | 2001 | 6,07 W/kg
6. Bradley Wiggins | 2012 | 5,98 W/kg
7. Lance Armstrong | 2000 | 5,97 W/kg
8. Lance Armstrong | 2002 | 5,97 W/kg
9. Alberto Contador | 2007 | 5,92 W/kg
10. Carlos Sastre | 2008 | 5,85 W/kg
11. Alberto Contador | 2010 | 5,78 W/kg
12. Cadel Evans | 2011 | 5,68 W/kg
13. Floyd Landis | 2006 | 5,67 W/kg

Considering the domination Armstrong usually showed in those years, actually producing 6,0 w/kg on every climb would have produced a podium spot in pretty much any Tour.
Click to expand...


Where is the source? Is that a single climb? an average? Without detail, it means nothing.
A rider with a threshold output of 6.0 wouldn't be able to produce it on every climb....
 
thehog

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
Lanark said:
From Vetooo:

1. Lance Armstrong | 2003 | 6,18 W/kg
2. Alberto Contador | 2009 | 6,17 W/kg
3. Lance Armstrong | 2004 | 6,09 W/kg
4. Lance Armstrong | 2005 | 6,09 W/kg
5. Lance Armstrong | 2001 | 6,07 W/kg
6. Bradley Wiggins | 2012 | 5,98 W/kg
7. Lance Armstrong | 2000 | 5,97 W/kg
8. Lance Armstrong | 2002 | 5,97 W/kg
9. Alberto Contador | 2007 | 5,92 W/kg
10. Carlos Sastre | 2008 | 5,85 W/kg
11. Alberto Contador | 2010 | 5,78 W/kg
12. Cadel Evans | 2011 | 5,68 W/kg
13. Floyd Landis | 2006 | 5,67 W/kg

Considering the domination Armstrong usually showed in those years, actually producing 6,0 w/kg on every climb would have produced a podium spot in pretty much any Tour.
Click to expand...

Wiggins & Froome would challenge Lance.

Telling.
 
thehog

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
andy1234 said:
Where is the source? Is that a single climb? an average? Without detail, it means nothing.
A rider with a threshold output of 6.0 wouldn't be able to produce it on every climb....
Click to expand...

Your telling the story and now you're trying to poke holes in it.
 
G

Gerippe

Oct 3, 2012
8
0
0
The Maximum Power Output over 30min of Evans was at 6.0-6.3W/kg and he never get at the podiums in the armstrong years.
 
W

Wallace and Gromit

Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
andy1234 said:
The possible reason even notorious dopers have shown some Tour form before actually winning one, is that they were never riding at such a power and recovery disadvantage. The step up normally comes as a result of an existing programme becoming more refined, and/or accelerated natural improvement over time.
Click to expand...

Agreed - The move to the top step of the podium from being a challenger isn't an indicator of doping per se, it is an indication of improvement (be it natural or further doping) from an already suspicious (though not conclusive) position.

Becoming a contender at a late stage in your career is suspicious, though as you observe, this might be as a result of maintaining levels whilst those previously above you drop down to mortal levels as doping declines.
 
A

andy1234

Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
10,480
Interesting comparison on that page.
Wiggins 2012 vs a 6.7 w\kg threshold rider.
Although based on those Top x numbers posted, it would be appear no one has actually been calculated at the 6.7 w/kg figures on a final climb.

Tour de France 2012

"Mr. 6.70 W / kg" vs. Bradley Wiggins

Stage 7, La Planche des Belles Filles (5.9 km, 8.53%, 503 m)

"Mr. 6.70 W / kg" 15 min 47 sec, 22.43 Kph, VAM 1911 m / h, 6.70 W / kg
Bradley Wiggins: 16 min 19 sec, 21.70 Kph, VAM 1850 m / h, 6.48 W / kg

Time difference: 0 min 32 sec


Stage 11, La Toussuire (18.0 km, 6.08%, 1095 m)

"Mr. 6.70 W / kg" 37 min 35 sec, 28.74 Kph, VAM 1748 m / h, 6.70 W / kg
Bradley Wiggins: 44 min 58 sec, 24.02 Kph, VAM 1461 m / h, 5.60 W / kg

Time difference: 7 min 23 sec


Stage 16, the Col de Peyresourde (9.5 km, 6.92%, 657 m)

"Mr. 6.70 W / kg" 21 min 51 sec, 26.09 Kph, VAM 1803 m / h, 6.70 W / kg
Bradley Wiggins: 24 min 48 sec, 23.30 Kph, VAM 1611 m / h, 5.99 W / kg

Time difference: 2 min 57 sec


Stage 17, the Col de Peyresourde (9.7 km, 7.32%, 710 m)

"Mr. 6.70 W / kg" 23 min 16 sec, 25.01 Kph, VAM 1820 m / h, 6.70 W / kg
Bradley Wiggins: 26 min 38 sec, 21.85 Kph, VAM 1599 m / h, 5.85 W / kg

Time difference: 3 min 22 sec
 
Fearless Greg Lemond

Fearless Greg Lemond

Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
andy1234 said:
Interesting comparison on that page.

Stage 16, the Col de Peyresourde (9.5 km, 6.92%, 657 m)

"Mr. 6.70 W / kg" 21 min 51 sec, 26.09 Kph, VAM 1803 m / h, 6.70 W / kg
Bradley Wiggins: 24 min 48 sec, 23.30 Kph, VAM 1611 m / h, 5.99 W / kg

Time difference: 2 min 57 sec
Click to expand...
And yet Wiggins - Froome - Nibali were only 1 minute 12 down on Pantani's 1998 time on the Peyresourde.
 
A

andy1234

Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
10,480
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
And yet Wiggins - Froome - Nibali were only 1 minute 12 down on Pantani's 1998 time on the Peyresourde.
Click to expand...

Yes, if the lack of actual 6.7w/kg performances is correct, either the Ferrari w/kg calculation was performed over a much shorter duration, or it was BS.
However calculating power from stages, using anything other than a power meter, isn't gong to be entirely accurate.
Also, the way the climbs are tackled has serious implications on the average power calculations. Is it stop start attacking?, sat behind a team mate until a few kms to go? etc....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom