The Chris Squared Thread

[sniper]

If Leinders was the personal doc for either Sir Wiggo, Dawg, Little Richie or Dodger there would be trouble at mill. Employed team wide, making sure nobody glows in the dark from their own ingestions, is defensible if you are a spin doctor oops I mean PR merchant and believe your own BS Personally I give credence to Ashos observation... clutches of bad eggs in the basket. Explains how small numbers within a team are so superior to the rest, why deputy dog is always promised a win next year etc.
.

at some point rumors were that leinders was involved in the development of gas6, then others said that those rumors were fully unsubstantiated.
anybody know what the current status of the leinders-gas6 rumor is?

 

[Race Radio]

He keeps going on about how Semnoz is the true indicator of Froomes performance. Why he desperately wants to believe Horner was climbing faster than Froome I dont know but it seems obvious.

This, of course, is nonsense. Multiple experts agree the Semnoz is the most accurate climb to use as it had the least variables and most accurate sync of the models with SRM. Even with his inflated weight Horners' W/Kg are better then Froome's

But it is even more obvious then just a calculation. While you might not agree with Grappe's analysis of Froome's numbers there is not much interpretation needed to realize that Grappe's claim that Froome's numbers were stable from 2011-2013. While his TT ability improved we saw a very similar Froome in the 2011 Vuelta, 2012 Tour, and 2013 Tour.

Froome himself said he went all out on the Angrilu in 2011, the result

44:45 Christopher Froome

43:06 Chris Horner

Horner was 1:39 faster. That might not be a lot for you but for most it only makes the obvious more obvious

 

[sniper]

This, of course, is nonsense. Multiple experts agree the Semnoz is the most accurate climb to use as it had the least variables and most accurate sync of the models with SRM. Even with his inflated weight Horners' W/Kg are better then Froome's

But it is even more obvious then just a calculation. While you might not agree with Grappe's analysis of Froome's numbers there is not much interpretation needed to realize that Grappe's claim that Froome's numbers were stable from 2011-2013. While his TT ability improved we saw a very similar Froome in the 2011 Vuelta, 2012 Tour, and 2013 Tour.

Froome himself said he went all out on the Angrilu in 2011, the result

44:45 Christopher Froome

43:06 Chris Horner

Horner was 1:39 faster. That might not be a lot for you but for most it only makes the obvious more obvious

bit of a lame question, but i'd be curious nonetheless to hear your answer:
on a suspicion index from 0 to 10, where would you place horner and where would you place froome?

(nb: you can take as many variables into account as you wish, i.e. need not just be w/kg, but may also be the environment of the rider, docs, team, training locations, type of transformation, i.e. everything you think is or isn't suspicious)

 

[the sceptic]

This, of course, is nonsense. Multiple experts agree the Semnoz is the most accurate climb to use as it had the least variables and most accurate sync of the models with SRM. Even with his inflated weight Horners' W/Kg are better then Froome's

But it is even more obvious then just a calculation. While you might not agree with Grappe's analysis of Froome's numbers there is not much interpretation needed to realize that Grappe's claim that Froome's numbers were stable from 2011-2013. While his TT ability improved we saw a very similar Froome in the 2011 Vuelta, 2012 Tour, and 2013 Tour.

Froome himself said he went all out on the Angrilu in 2011, the result

44:45 Christopher Froome

43:06 Chris Horner

Horner was 1:39 faster. That might not be a lot for you but for most it only makes the obvious more obvious

What is the problem with Ax3 domains? Or Madone? How can Semnoz be the most accurate climb when there are no previous times to compare against?

And I find it hard to believe that Froome didnt become a better climber between 2011 and 2013.

 

[proffate]

Froome himself said he went all out on the Angrilu in 2011, the result

44:45 Christopher Froome

43:06 Chris Horner

Horner was 1:39 faster. That might not be a lot for you but for most it only makes the obvious more obvious

I could be wrong but my recollection from 2011 is that Cobo was the only one who had sufficient gearing to keep up a smooth cadence. As Ferrari points out and common sense confirms, crazy steep climbs where you are overgeared are not typically where you put out your best performances. This year, everyone looked more prepared in terms of gearing.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Froome himself said he went all out on the Angrilu in 2011, the result

44:45 Christopher Froome

43:06 Chris Horner

Horner was 1:39 faster. That might not be a lot for you but for most it only makes the obvious more obvious

Horner had a tailwind. Clearly.

Seriously, RR, Froome was staying back with Wiggins who was in difficulty. It wasn't until Wiggins broke that Froome was allowed to go. You can't compare those two times.

 

[The Hitch]

This, of course, is nonsense. Multiple experts agree the Semnoz is the most accurate climb to use as it had the least variables and most accurate sync of the models with SRM. Even with his inflated weight Horners' W/Kg are better then Froome's

But it is even more obvious then just a calculation. While you might not agree with Grappe's analysis of Froome's numbers there is not much interpretation needed to realize that Grappe's claim that Froome's numbers were stable from 2011-2013. While his TT ability improved we saw a very similar Froome in the 2011 Vuelta, 2012 Tour, and 2013 Tour.

Froome himself said he went all out on the Angrilu in 2011, the result

44:45 Christopher Froome

43:06 Chris Horner

Horner was 1:39 faster. That might not be a lot for you but for most it only makes the obvious more obvious

Wasn't froome working for vuelta red jersey and overall favourite Bradley Wiggins on the Angliru. I may be wrong but I seem to remember froome was only given the go ahead to leave Wiggins well into the climb.

considering he finished with Wout Poels and Denis menchov , I'm personally a little bit sceptical that froomes 2011 Angliru ascent was the sort of time we would see if 2013 froome gave the climb a go.

 

[roundabout]

Geoxed Menchov and Poels during Vacansoleil's "better days", ahem.

 

[gooner]

This, of course, is nonsense. Multiple experts agree the Semnoz is the most accurate climb to use as it had the least variables and most accurate sync of the models with SRM. Even with his inflated weight Horners' W/Kg are better then Froome's

But it is even more obvious then just a calculation. While you might not agree with Grappe's analysis of Froome's numbers there is not much interpretation needed to realize that Grappe's claim that Froome's numbers were stable from 2011-2013. While his TT ability improved we saw a very similar Froome in the 2011 Vuelta, 2012 Tour, and 2013 Tour.

Froome himself said he went all out on the Angrilu in 2011, the result

44:45 Christopher Froome

43:06 Chris Horner

Horner was 1:39 faster. That might not be a lot for you but for most it only makes the obvious more obvious

He was held back considerably on the Angliru, La Toussuire, and the Peyragudes. That wasn't a true reflection of his maximum output over those entire climbs. I even think La Planche de Beille Filles as well where he only got the go ahead in the final 20% ramp leading into the finish.

The only thing I will say is while he would have gone faster on the Angliru, I do have my doubts he would have been faster by 1:39. I don't think he was held back to that degree.

 

[Race Radio]

He was held back considerably on the Angliru, La Toussuire, and the Peyragudes. That wasn't a true reflection of his maximum output over those entire climbs. I even think La Planche de Beille Filles as well where he only got the go ahead in the final 20% ramp leading into the finish.

The only thing I will say is while he would have gone faster on the Angliru, I do have my doubts he would have been faster by 1:39. I don't think he was held back to that degree.

He certainly held back on a lot of the climbs but after the Angrilu he said

“I’ve got no regret. Bradley and I went as hard as I could but Cobo was unstoppable,” said Froome.

Agreed that he might have been able to go faster.....but 1:39, I don't see it

 

[The Hitch]

He certainly held back on a lot of the climbs but after the Angrilu he said



Agreed that he might have been able to go faster.....but 1:39, I don't see it

So wait a minute.

You introduced Froome's Angliru time, and when its turns out actually Froome was domestiquing on that climb you say- oh but he wouldn't have beaten the time anyway.

Well how do you know?

You say AX3 and Ventoux aren't good examples because of this and that.
How can you in their stead propose ascents that never actually took place then?

Considering he beat Cobo on the 1 stage he was allowed to race Cobo on, I would suggest that at the very least finishing with Cobo on Angliru would have been a possibility. Had they been pushing eachother to go further, maybe even faster.

Thats if we are guessing how fast Froome could have gone up Angliru.

ANother way to look at it is that Froome has creamed Nibali every time they faced eachother on a mountain since 2011. An underperforming Nibalii came within 25 seconds of Horner on Angliru. Me thinks Froome would have managed to stay with Pappy just fine.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Agreed that he might have been able to go faster.....but 1:39, I don't see it

He would have gone faster, perhaps stayed with Cobo if he were racing for himself. He certainly showed he could do so after he became the team leader at the Vuelta that year.

 

[Race Radio]

He would have gone faster, perhaps stayed with Cobo if he were racing for himself. He certainly showed he could do so after he became the team leader at the Vuelta that year.

Perhaps.....Cobo was still 50 seconds slower then Horner

 

[Merckx index]

44:45 Christopher Froome

43:06 Chris Horner

Horner was 1:39 faster. That might not be a lot for you but for most it only makes the obvious more obvious

Horner's time translates to a VAM of about 1720, or about 5.7 watts/kg. Doesn't seem exceptionally high.

I'm a strong critic of both riders, but I don't think is the climb to make the case. As others have pointed out, Froome was held back to some extent. In Horner's case, he had no motive to do anything other than mark Nibali, then he pulled away at the end. I don't think either rider made his best effort on this climb.

Would like to see SRM data for this climb, though. Horner hasn't published any data for longer climbs.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Perhaps.....Cobo was still 50 seconds slower then Horner

Sure. All I am saying is that Froome's time on the Angliru is not a comparison point with Horner.

 

[sniper]

So wait a minute.

You introduced Froome's Angliru time, and when its turns out actually Froome was domestiquing on that climb you say- oh but he wouldn't have beaten the time anyway.

Well how do you know?

You say AX3 and Ventoux aren't good examples because of this and that.
How can you in their stead propose ascents that never actually took place then?

Considering he beat Cobo on the 1 stage he was allowed to race Cobo on, I would suggest that at the very least finishing with Cobo on Angliru would have been a possibility. Had they been pushing eachother to go further, maybe even faster.

Thats if we are guessing how fast Froome could have gone up Angliru.

ANother way to look at it is that Froome has creamed Nibali every time they faced eachother on a mountain since 2011. An underperforming Nibalii came within 25 seconds of Horner on Angliru. Me thinks Froome would have managed to stay with Pappy just fine.

all of this basically

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

So wait a minute.

You introduced Froome's Angliru time, and when its turns out actually Froome was domestiquing on that climb you say- oh but he wouldn't have beaten the time anyway.

Well how do you know?

You say AX3 and Ventoux aren't good examples because of this and that.
How can you in their stead propose ascents that never actually took place then?

Considering he beat Cobo on the 1 stage he was allowed to race Cobo on, I would suggest that at the very least finishing with Cobo on Angliru would have been a possibility. Had they been pushing eachother to go further, maybe even faster.

Thats if we are guessing how fast Froome could have gone up Angliru.

ANother way to look at it is that Froome has creamed Nibali every time they faced eachother on a mountain since 2011. An underperforming Nibalii came within 25 seconds of Horner on Angliru. Me thinks Froome would have managed to stay with Pappy just fine.

Yes. Good post.

 

[Race Radio]

So wait a minute.

You introduced Froome's Angliru time, and when its turns out actually Froome was domestiquing on that climb you say- oh but he wouldn't have beaten the time anyway.

Well how do you know?

You say AX3 and Ventoux aren't good examples because of this and that.
How can you in their stead propose ascents that never actually took place then?

Considering he beat Cobo on the 1 stage he was allowed to race Cobo on, I would suggest that at the very least finishing with Cobo on Angliru would have been a possibility. Had they been pushing eachother to go further, maybe even faster.

Thats if we are guessing how fast Froome could have gone up Angliru.

ANother way to look at it is that Froome has creamed Nibali every time they faced eachother on a mountain since 2011. An underperforming Nibalii came within 25 seconds of Horner on Angliru. Me thinks Froome would have managed to stay with Pappy just fine.

Froome himself said he went all out on the Angliru. You are welcome to ignore this, pretend he never said it, or invent some other excuse of why it does not matter

Horner still beat him, and most others who have ever ridden the climb. Would have been more if Horner had not soft pedaled enough that Valverde was able to catch on

"Never actually took place" ? Do you have a better example of both riders on the same climb in peak condition?

Horner is clearly lying about his weight. Good thing is other riders are not and this make it pretty easy use their SRM file, time gaps, and calculate Chris' actual weight.

1:39

 

[Race Radio]

Horner's time translates to a VAM of about 1720, or about 5.7 watts/kg. Doesn't seem exceptionally high.

I'm a strong critic of both riders, but I don't think is the climb to make the case. As others have pointed out, Froome was held back to some extent. In Horner's case, he had no motive to do anything other than mark Nibali, then he pulled away at the end. I don't think either rider made his best effort on this climb.

Would like to see SRM data for this climb, though. Horner hasn't published any data for longer climbs.

Which is why VAM is not the most accurate measurement. I agree that Horner did not make his best effort on the climb, could likely have gone faster. Froome, on the other hand, has said he made his best effort on the climb

Shortly it will be clear that Horner's w/kg were in the 6.3-6.4 range for 40+ minutes

 

[The Hitch]

Do you have a better example of both riders on the same climb in peak condition?

Prati di Tivo perhaps.

 

[Race Radio]

Prati di Tivo perhaps.

perfect example.

Horner had not raced for over 6 months. Coming into the Vuelta Chris was vocal that he thought he could win, before TA?

I’ll be happy within the top ten

He almost dropped out of TA the day before because knee issues that ultimately kept him out of the Tour. He pushed on and had even more pain on Prati di Tivo

So Horner, riding on one leg, first race for months, was only 15 seconds back from an on form Froome.

Thanks for proving my point

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Froome himself said he went all out on the Angliru. You are welcome to ignore this, pretend he never said it, or invent some other excuse of why it does not matter

Horner still beat him, and most others who have ever ridden the climb. Would have been more if Horner had not soft pedaled enough that Valverde was able to catch on

"Never actually took place" ? Do you have a better example of both riders on the same climb in peak condition?

Horner is clearly lying about his weight. Good thing is other riders are not and this make it pretty easy use their SRM file, time gaps, and calculate Chris' actual weight.

1:39

RR, you've posted some good stuff on this board. Now you're just being knee-jerk defensive when Hitch made a very good argument. Of course Froome is going to say he went all out. You really think he's going to embarrass his teammate Wiggins who was struggling?

As soon as he became team leader, Froome was going much harder.

With respect to Horner, I think most of us agree that he's doping.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

perfect example.

So Horner, riding on one leg, first race for months, was only 15 seconds back from an on form Froome.

Thanks for proving my point

It's as though you did not watch the stage, but rather simply read the results. It's the exact same mistake you made on Angliru.

Please stop with this. I assume you watched this stage. Froome destroyed Horner in the last kilometer. Before that, he had "an armchair ride" as he put it, courtesy of his Sky team. Froome put that time into Horner in less than a km.

Watch the stage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA-R37jUwWY

 

[The Hitch]

So Horner, riding on one leg, first race for months, was only 15 seconds back from an on form Froome.

Thanks for proving my point

What exactly is your point?

Based on the above, it seems to be something like, that Horner can beat Froome? Apologies if Im reading it wrong.

Based on 2 totally different ascents of Angliru from different years, and when Froome is acting as domestique? Is Prati di Tivo really a much worse example?

In Tirreno fair enough I didn't know Horner claimed to be injured, no need for the unpleasant sarcasm, but Froome wasn't exactly in top shape either. It was his 2nd race back (vs 1st for Horner) so not much of a difference (he won his first anyway) and it was the only stage race of the year Froome didnt win. And not that far out from his last alleged Bilharzia treatment.

Anyway if you want to look at Angliru lets look at Angliru.

Sky claim that in order to be top form for a grand Tour one needs to be on a 6 month peak winning every race in sight. That was their master programme for Wiggins to be on form for the Tour in 2012 (wiggins repeatedly saying in all interviews that the races he was winning were just hoops to jump through in order to be top for the Tour). They did the same with Froome this year.

With that in mind Froome in the 2011 Vuelta is at a disadvantage to start with. He hasn't had anywhere near the required preperation that Sky claim is neccesary for their gt leaders to be in top form for a grand tour. His previous outing before the Vuelta was 80th or some such 3 weeks earlier in the Tour of Poland. If a rider came 80th in the Dauphine I guarantee you no one would suggest they would be in top form for the Tour.

Horner came 2nd in Utah which strongly suggests he was closer to 100% before his Vuelta than Froome was before his.

Aside from that he was a domestique. I would propose that that may have mental and physical concequences. It was the reason he cracked on stage 11 of that Vuelta as he was setting all the work. It meant he spent a lot more of the race working on the front than a team leader would. It also meant that he was setting pace from early on on Angliru. It also meant he didn't have that support from the team when neccesary.

All these things matter. Froome says he went all out, and Grappe says Froome's power outputs have remained the same. That does not mean Froome on any given day in September 2011 is the same as Froome on any given day in July 2013. Once again, the fact that Froome finished the stage on s.t with Wout Poels strongly suggests Froome 2011 Angliru is, for whatever reason, not really the performance youll get from Froome at his best.

 

[Race Radio]

It's as though you did not watch the stage, but rather simply read the results. It's the exact same mistake you made on Angliru.

Please stop with this. I assume you watched this stage. Froome destroyed Horner in the last kilometer. Before that, he had "an armchair ride" as he put it, courtesy of his Sky team. Froome put that time into Horner in less than a km.

Watch the stage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA-R37jUwWY

I watched the stage. It is not a mistake to point out that by this point Horner had a pretty serious knee issue that not only limited his performance that day but ultimately had him place 28th in the TT, drop out of his next race, stopped his season and required surgery

.....the mistake would be to ignore the impact this injury had on his performance and pretend that Prati di Tivo is a good comparison of their abilities, it isn't.