Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

Froome, prior to becoming the most dominant GT rider of this generation, won the Atomic Jock Race, and came in 5th in the Commonwealth TT...but that's all because of p!ss poor training, and Badzilla and stuff...which explains why Sky won't release his data prior to the 2011 Vuelta...because they just needed to train him better to get that result.

When a rider rides like a cheat, has a MASSIVE (unexpected) rise in performance, and beats the times of known cheats (who were oxygen vector doping), you'll have to excuse us if we're skeptical...

How does a cheat ride?

I expect athletes to get quicker over time as sports science improves, and yes overtake times set by dopers. Just as swimmers have beaten times set using now banned swimsuits.

I know some here believe we live in a utopia where everything about the human body is known, there are no more gains to be found and presumably there is no more disease. A generation ago you had cyclists starving themselves on rest days.

Deductive fallacy and non-sequitur, are we playing logic bingo?

Ahhh, smug superiority with no content, that's put me back in my box and no mistake!

As long as I don't have to pay any postage!

Deductive fallacy:

Swimmers are beating times set in illegal suits, therefore training must be improving. No, correlation does not equal causation. It's perfectly possible doping practices are improving and in fact is highly likely. Either way, there is no evidence. You might as well say that there has been a black pudding shortage and that's affecting swimmers.

Non-sequitur:

Making up an argument you think applies to posters in the clinic and applying it with a broad brush in an attempt to enforce your own position.

Ok. I believe that sports science progresses, as all sciences do and that clean athletes will be improving with each generation. I read from many sources that cycling is an area where there has been a lot of resistance to embracing the latest thinking in for both physiological and mechanical gains (most recently in an interview with the Mavic CEO I think) so it seems reasonable that could be even greater gains here.

I think the above is perfectly rational and the most likely scenario.

 

[Saint Unix]

Right, so Sky are making quantum leaps in sports science and equipment manufacturing that allows riders to perform times that are comparable to those set just 10-15 years ago, that we know were helped by the 5-15% performance boost that oxygen vector doping gives.

Sky discover all these things at the same time and decide to give it to one guy 2011. Not their captain, the biggest cycling star in Great Britain, who has been a force in the three-week races since his podium in 2009. Not their most talented domestiques, Super Gotland and Xandio. No, they give it to the guy whose contract is running out and who only made the team because another rider dropped out. Makes sense.

And despite the enormous success of these advancements, they don't give this unbelievable equipment to the rest of the team. Or maybe Porte, Rogers, Thomas and Kennaugh have been allowed to have a go on Froome's gear on special occasions?

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

Ok. I believe that sports science progresses, as all sciences do and that clean athletes will be improving with each generation. I read from many sources that cycling is an area where there has been a lot of resistance to embracing the latest thinking in for both physiological and mechanical gains (most recently in an interview with the Mavic CEO I think) so it seems reasonable that could be even greater gains here.

I think the above is perfectly rational and the most likely scenario.

All things old become new again.

Yea, no reason to think that teams whose fiscal lives depend on producing results, and who employ a gaggle of doctors, and who receive equipment from multi-million dollar companies would be inquiring into more advanced practices and equipment. Sky invented that...just like USPS before them.

I wonder how long it will be before there are thousands of second-hand Pinarellos for sale in the UK?

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re:

Right, so Sky are making quantum leaps in sports science and equipment manufacturing that allows riders to perform times that are comparable to those set just 10-15 years ago, that we know were helped by the 5-15% performance boost that oxygen vector doping gives.

Sky discover all these things at the same time and decide to give it to one guy 2011. Not their captain, the biggest cycling star in Great Britain, who has been a force in the three-week races since his podium in 2009. Not their most talented domestiques, Super Gotland and Xandio. No, they give it to the guy whose contract is running out and who only made the team because another rider dropped out. Makes sense.

And despite the enormous success of these advancements, they don't give this unbelievable equipment to the rest of the team. Or maybe Porte, Rogers, Thomas and Kennaugh have been allowed to have a go on Froome's gear on special occasions?

Froome should be bringing up bottles from the team car today based on everything pre-2011...but now he's beating riders while producing fewer watts per kg than those he's beating...that isn't just a massive technological innovation...it's a miracle...sorry, but I don't believe in those...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So BMC -- you know, the guys that actually design, make and sell the bikes that their pro team riders ride -- are going to be out done by Pinarello, who sponsor Team Sky?

Seriously?

 

[Tommy79]

Prove these gains aren’t possible. Please.

What would make you guys believe Froome is clean?

Going offline now to avoid spoils.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re:

Prove these gains aren’t possible. Please.

What would make you guys believe Froome is clean?

Going offline now to avoid spoils.

Sorry, but I stopped having the "What would it take for you to believe he's clean/What would it take for you to believe he's dirty" debate in 2003 because the poster "lance armstrong is god" and I could never come to an answer that satisfied either of us...

 

[Saint Unix]

Re:

Prove these gains aren’t possible. Please.

What would make you guys believe Froome is clean?

Going offline now to avoid spoils.

ScienceIsCool calculated that Froome had gained about 15% power after his 2011 transformation. If we take the 414W value given by Sky recently, that's a gain of 65W from his previous level.

If you take one of the bikes in peloton (bearing in mind, these are weight-limited bikes in the €10,000+ range) and do some work on it and somehow manage to make a bike that allows you to produce 65 extra watts without adding a motor or a chemically-enhanced rider there might just be a Nobel prize in physics waiting for you, because there's got to be some gravity-/physics-/logic-defying tech going into that machine.

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

Prove these gains aren’t possible. Please.

What would make you guys believe Froome is clean?

Going offline now to avoid spoils.

Sorry, but I stopped having the "What would it take for you to believe he's clean/What would it take for you to believe he's dirty" debate in 2003 because the poster "lance armstrong is god" and I could never come to an answer that satisfied either of us...

So you would describe yourself as totally blinkered?

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

Prove these gains aren’t possible. Please.

What would make you guys believe Froome is clean?

Going offline now to avoid spoils.

ScienceIsCool calculated that Froome had gained about 15% power after his 2011 transformation. If we take the 414W value given by Sky recently, that's a gain of 65W from his previous level.

If you take one of the bikes in peloton (bearing in mind, these are weight-limited bikes in the €10,000+ range) and do some work on it and somehow manage to make a bike that allows you to produce 65 extra watts without adding a motor or a chemically-enhanced rider there might just be a Nobel prize in physics waiting for you, because there's got to be some gravity-/physics-/logic-defying tech going into that machine.

He gained a flat 65w regardless of the time period, weight etc? Blimey. Scientific.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

Prove these gains aren’t possible. Please.

What would make you guys believe Froome is clean?

Going offline now to avoid spoils.

Sorry, but I stopped having the "What would it take for you to believe he's clean/What would it take for you to believe he's dirty" debate in 2003 because the poster "lance armstrong is god" and I could never come to an answer that satisfied either of us...

So you would describe yourself as totally blinkered?

No, I'd describe myself as completelydontgiveafuk.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

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.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

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.

A bike with ZERO rolling resistance would be impossible to pedal. Descending would be a nightmare.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

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.

A bike with ZERO rolling resistance would be impossible to pedal. Descending would be a nightmare.

Would it be impossible to pedal, or would it be impossible for it to move forward? <-physics isn't my thing, so serious question.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

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.

A bike with ZERO rolling resistance would be impossible to pedal. Descending would be a nightmare.

Would it be impossible to pedal, or would it be impossible for it to move forward? <-physics isn't my thing, so serious question.

My brain spazzed as I tried to think about it. I think you're right - you'd pedal and go nowhere and fall over.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

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.

A bike with ZERO rolling resistance would be impossible to pedal. Descending would be a nightmare.

Luckily, I doubt that's a problem we're going to be encountering any time soon.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

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.

A bike with ZERO rolling resistance would be impossible to pedal. Descending would be a nightmare.

Would it be impossible to pedal, or would it be impossible for it to move forward? <-physics isn't my thing, so serious question.

My brain spazzed as I tried to think about it. I think you're right - you'd pedal and go nowhere and fall over.

So the bikes Froome was using pre August 2011, then?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

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.

A bike with ZERO rolling resistance would be impossible to pedal. Descending would be a nightmare.

Luckily, I doubt that's a problem we're going to be encountering any time soon.

Give Brailsford time. Give him time.

Lots would lap that sht up without a second thought.

On the track they coat their cogs with special crap to reduce tranmission losses.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

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.

A bike with ZERO rolling resistance would be impossible to pedal. Descending would be a nightmare.

Would it be impossible to pedal, or would it be impossible for it to move forward? <-physics isn't my thing, so serious question.

Yeah, the wheels wouldn't catch the road surface, so they'd just spin in place as you pedal.

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

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?

 

[Lyon]

HAVE YOU GUYS NEVER HEARD OF ZERO GRAVITY? THEY HAVE GOT IT ON THE MOON FFS!!? IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE SOMEONE USED IT HERE ON EARTH. BESIDES, BRITAIN IS ALREADY CLOSER TO THE MOON THAN THE REST OF EUROPE IS. THAT IS WHY FROOME BECAME A BRIT CITIZEN.

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

If guilty it will come out eventually, not many big fish slip through the net.