Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Tyler'sTwin]

In fact it's even better:

http://www.myspace.com/janifanclub/blog/546060920


ie Jani was trying to sustain 7.38W/kg and for some, strange reason, could not.

They did this climb in what, 17 minutes?

Jani did 6.2 w/kg on that climb.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Why are you keeping comparing with the nineties?

I don't know, maybe because Vayer claimed Froome and Wiggins climb like the stars of the 90's? Was that really so damn hard to understand?

 

[draexem]

I don't know, maybe because Vayer claimed Froome and Wiggins climb like the stars of the 90's

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry, can't believe people are comparing Wiggins and Pantani .....

BWAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Lemond said he produced 380-390 Watts up the entirety of l'Alpe d'Huez, not whatever ****ty short climb Wiggins was on.



http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

So, the new tactic is ****ty climbs? Peyresourde? Port de Balles? Aspin?

Keep on spinning those wheels.

Basso did 420 watts in the wheel of Porte, that's 440 for Porte. Keep it real.

Lemond himself has estimated his wattage during the final stage of the 89 Tour was between 420-430 watts (down from his rested state power of 450-460 watts). Depending on his weight estimate, this would yield an average wattage for the final time trial of between ~6.17 and 6.5 watts/kg.

That's quite an estimate but for sake of the argument we'll even it out. Hell, I know for sure a clean Wiggo, not even talking about Frooomey, can't hit that, come near. No one should believe that.

 

[mastersracer]

So, the new tactic is ****ty climbs? Peyresourde? Port de Balles? Aspin?

Keep on spinning those wheels.

Basso did 420 watts in the wheel of Porte, that's 440 for Porte. Keep it real.

That's quite an estimate but for sake of the argument we'll even it out. Hell, I know for sure a clean Wiggo, not even talking about Frooomey, can't hit that, come near. No one should believe that.

It's not about crappy climbs - it's about context. Re Lemond/Hinault Alpe D'huez time - the two dropped the entire peloton on the Galibier, rode almost the entire stage (the 86 Queen stage) on their own, had a 3 minute gap by the Croix de fer, and a 5 minute gap on Zimmerman (who was in 2nd place at the time) by the start of Alpe D'huez. It's not like their team delivered them to the base of Alpe d'huez without ever having to put their nose into the wind...

 

[acoggan]

VAM is very dodgy. Too many variable involved.

My point for years now.

Heck, even Vayer himself claims a 95% confidence interval of no better than +/- 6%. IOW, when he estimates that, say, Wiggins was sustaining 6 W/kg up a particular climb, he really means that his power was probably somewhere between 5.64 and 6.36 W/kg. How can any scientist worthy of the name embrace this sort of crap?

 

[Darryl Webster]

Andy Coggan, you might well be good with a calculator but ya might want to look up from your workings and actually watch a bike race.
Anyone with the any true understanding of bike racing could tell ya Pharmstrong and USPS were doped to the gills but you sat smugly on the fence declaring " according to my calculations, acting on info they've provided it looks feasible " ( paraphrasing).

But Oh no, you knew better...the calculator told ya...just as ya bloody calculator is telling ya now Wiggo , Froome, Porter and Rogers are clean now eh?.
Good luck with that.

 

[acoggan]

btw, there is all this measuring of power up climbs, which imo doesnt really work for this year because there were no mountains raced.

What about the tts. Race of truth. What about comparing those with the Armstrong years? WHy would that not work?

Because power guesstimates for TTs are even poorer than power guesstimates for climbs.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Andy Coggan, you might well be good with a calculator but ya might want to look up from your workings and actually watch a bike race.
Anyone with the any true understanding of bike racing could tell ya Pharmstrong and USPS were doped to the gills but you sat smugly on the fence declaring " according to my calculations, acting on info they've provided it looks feasible " ( paraphrasing).

But Oh no, you knew better...the calculator told ya...just as ya bloody calculator is telling ya now Wiggo , Froome, Porter and Rogers are clean now eh?.
Good luck with that.

that was funny

 

[Digger]

Andy Coggan, you might well be good with a calculator but ya might want to look up from your workings and actually watch a bike race.
Anyone with the any true understanding of bike racing could tell ya Pharmstrong and USPS were doped to the gills but you sat smugly on the fence declaring " according to my calculations, acting on info they've provided it looks feasible " ( paraphrasing).

But Oh no, you knew better...the calculator told ya...just as ya bloody calculator is telling ya now Wiggo , Froome, Porter and Rogers are clean now eh?.
Good luck with that.

Speaking of which, where is his 'buddy' Ed Coyle the last few days...now that's a guy who became a disgrace. Not that Andy would even dream of conceding that.

 

[the big ring]

What does it come back to, physically? Is it mitochondrial density? Muscle fibre types? Something else? Combinations of the above?

Do you mind answering this one, Andy?

 

[acoggan]

Andy Coggan, you might well be good with a calculator but ya might want to look up from your workings and actually watch a bike race.
Anyone with the any true understanding of bike racing could tell ya Pharmstrong and USPS were doped to the gills but you sat smugly on the fence declaring " according to my calculations, acting on info they've provided it looks feasible " ( paraphrasing).

But Oh no, you knew better...the calculator told ya...just as ya bloody calculator is telling ya now Wiggo , Froome, Porter and Rogers are clean now eh?.
Good luck with that.

Is your thinking/recollection really as muddled as the above makes it seem, or do you only pretend to be so clueless??

In point-of-fact, I have never said anything about Armstrong's/USPS's power output(s), nor have I ever claimed that any of the Sky riders are not doping.

 

[acoggan]

Do you mind answering this one, Andy?

The question was in the context of what determines pursuit performance, correct? I recall reading it, but since the best answer I could provide in a forum such as this one was "it's complicated", decided that it wasn't really worth perpetuating that branch of this thread.

 

[the big ring]

The question was in the context of what determines pursuit performance, correct? I recall reading it, but since the best answer I could provide in a forum such as this one was "it's complicated", decided that it wasn't really worth perpetuating that branch of this thread.

You can click the icon to read the post you wrote to which I asked the question. But essentially you were confirming MAOD can confirm whether an IP rider's aerobic contribution was higher than average.

At 90% aerobic contribution, you responded that that would provide a foundation for a "pretty good" stage racer.

I then asked - what determines the higher than average aerobic contribution - assuming it would apply across the spectrum of efforts, not just IP duration efforts.

Is it mitochondrial density, fibre type propensity, or something(s) else or combinations of the lot.

armchairclimber listed every variable known to influence exercise, which I found unhelpful.

Was not looking for an indepth explanation, just drop some polysyllabic words and I'll go research

Or not, I'm clearly not paying you nor expecting a free lesson in physiology and respect you have a life outside the Clinic.

 

[the big ring]

In point-of-fact, I have never said anything about Armstrong's/USPS's power output(s), nor have I ever claimed that any of the Sky riders are not doping.

Pedantically, you did mention them back in the "Suddenly the Tour is clean" thread:

Indeed. What is also interesting is that, like you, Kraig independently came up with a value of ~6.4 W/kg for Armstrong's l'Alpe de Huez TT, vs. the ~6.7 W/kg bandied about by some. If correct, that would mean that Armstrong's maximal power:mass for 40-60 min was the same as that of Indurain, Boardman, Contador, and at least one other rider whose data I've seen but cannot share.

 

[acoggan]

Pedantically, you did mention them back in the "Suddenly the Tour is clean" thread:

"If correct". IOW, I drew no conclusions re. Armstrong's/USPS rider's reported power, but merely observed that the value someone else came up with was comparable to that reported for Indurain, Boardman, Contador, etc.

 

[acoggan]

You can click the icon to read the post you wrote to which I asked the question. But essentially you were confirming MAOD can confirm whether an IP rider's aerobic contribution was higher than average.

At 90% aerobic contribution, you responded that that would provide a foundation for a "pretty good" stage racer.

I then asked - what determines the higher than average aerobic contribution - assuming it would apply across the spectrum of efforts, not just IP duration efforts.

Is it mitochondrial density, fibre type propensity, or something(s) else or combinations of the lot.

armchairclimber listed every variable known to influence exercise, which I found unhelpful.

Was not looking for an indepth explanation, just drop some polysyllabic words and I'll go research

Or not, I'm clearly not paying you nor expecting a free lesson in physiology and respect you have a life outside the Clinic.

It's complicated.

 

[Morpheus]

So where are the scientific equations that show incontrovertibly, that loosing some weight, as in this case Bradley Wiggins. Can magically bring about a remarkable metamorphosis and turn a complete autobus non grand tour contender into a Tour De France winner. On the first mountain stage of the Tour in 2006 Wiggins in an interview with Paul Kimmage stated "The first climb was mind blowing. There was one stage when I thought. What am I doing here". That is an incredible contrast to how he is performing now. Where are the iron clad studies that show loosing some weight can make this much of a difference in the performance of a professional cyclist. To what degree does loosing some weight actually have on climbing performance. Surely its not enough to turn an autobus cyclist into a Grand Tour Champion.
How long will we be hearing from Wiggins that his magical transformation was due to loosing some weight and training harder. If he had this much talent as a climber surely he would of shown some evidence of it in earlier Grand Tours. But there weren't even a hint of it. Not a shred. Nothing. All the races that Wiggins has won this Year and his fourth place finish in the 2009 Tour ( which may yet become third place ) finishing just 37 seconds behind the greatest doping farce that cycling has ever known. The most logical and rational explanation for this metamorphosis has to be down to his illicit use of performance enhancing drugs. Micro dosing on Epo, blood transfusions, recovery agents and masking agents.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It's not about crappy climbs - it's about context. Re Lemond/Hinault Alpe D'huez time - the two dropped the entire peloton on the Galibier, rode almost the entire stage (the 86 Queen stage) on their own, had a 3 minute gap by the Croix de fer, and a 5 minute gap on Zimmerman (who was in 2nd place at the time) by the start of Alpe D'huez. It's not like their team delivered them to the base of Alpe d'huez without ever having to put their nose into the wind...

Again, 440 for the great Tasmanian devil. Not on the final climbs. Hinault/LeMond numbers, thank you.

I am glad you agree.

Andy Coggan, you might well be good with a calculator but ya might want to look up from your workings and actually watch a bike race.
Anyone with the any true understanding of bike racing could tell ya Pharmstrong and USPS were doped to the gills but you sat smugly on the fence declaring " according to my calculations, acting on info they've provided it looks feasible " ( paraphrasing).

But Oh no, you knew better...the calculator told ya...just as ya bloody calculator is telling ya now Wiggo , Froome, Porter and Rogers are clean now eh?.
Good luck with that.

You w@nker, armchaircyclist, you!



Use your eyes mister Coggan.

So where are the scientific equations that show incontrovertibly, that loosing some weight, as in this case Bradley Wiggins. Can magically bring about a remarkable metamorphosis and turn a complete autobus non grand tour contender into a Tour De France winner.

Hell, even a 37 year old with 4 years not riding can be third. Anything is possible in cycling/

Because power guesstimates for TTs are even poorer than power guesstimates for climbs.

So you agree it is all BS and we should just look through our eyes?

 

[acoggan]

So you agree it is all BS and we should just look through our eyes?

If by that you mean that I think people should stop attempting to discern who is/isn't doping based on guesstimates of power output, then yes. As I have said before, it's a fool's errand.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Andy Coggan, you might well be good with a calculator but ya might want to look up from your workings and actually watch a bike race.
Anyone with the any true understanding of bike racing could tell ya Pharmstrong and USPS were doped to the gills but you sat smugly on the fence declaring " according to my calculations, acting on info they've provided it looks feasible " ( paraphrasing).

But Oh no, you knew better...the calculator told ya...just as ya bloody calculator is telling ya now Wiggo , Froome, Porter and Rogers are clean now eh?.
Good luck with that.

That was lovely DW, thank you...

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

If by that you mean that I think people should stop attempting to discern who is/isn't doping based on guesstimates of power output, then yes. As I have said before, it's a fool's errand.

Do you have recent powertaps from pro's? Are they better than the pre - nineties?

And you can take a 5 % margin at all times, that's why those sportscientists.com are so popular...

That is a simple question.

 

[mastersracer]

Do you have recent powertaps from pro's? Are they better than the pre - nineties?

And you can take a 5 % margin at all times, that's why those sportscientists.com are so popular...

That is a simple question.

notice the word 'guesstimates' in his comment. He was referring to estimating power based on VAM or TT times, which rely on too many unknown values (drag, wind conditions, etc). This is distinct from the issue of demarcating physiologically reasonable performances from power files, which has it's own set of issues.

 

[the big ring]

notice the word 'guesstimates' in his comment. He was referring to estimating power based on VAM or TT times, which rely on too many unknown values (drag, wind conditions, etc). This is distinct from the issue of demarcating physiologically reasonable performances from power files, which has it's own set of issues.

It is curious that acoggan is prepared to introduce 4 unknown variables into a rider's TT vs 1 variable (increase in power) to explain a very strong performance.

These are complicated things, no question. But I think the lack of confidence afforded TT power guesstimation (vs the popularised VAM calcs) works in Wiggin's favour here. Big time.

 

[the big ring]

How's this for a thought experiment:

give me one good reason (with explanation, coz I know it already) why Brad's power file cannot be released from the final 2012 TdF TT.