The Chris Squared Thread

[Race Radio]

What exactly is your point?

My point is pretty clear, that based on multiple data points that when Horner is on form like he was in the Vuelta he can climb faster then Froome.

 

[The Hitch]

My point is pretty clear, that based on multiple data points that when Horner is on form like he was in the Vuelta he can climb faster then Froome.

And as I explained in my post, the Angliru data point is a very very bad one.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

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 stopped his season and required surgery.....the mistake would be to ignore the impact this injury had on his performance

I don't think the impact on his performance is very well measurable. When Froome attacked, Horner was dropped easily. Was that the injury or was it fitness, or was it a combination of both?

What I saw that day was a former nobody crushing former GT winners. Is Horner more of a doper than Froome? Who cares? It appears they're both dope cheats.

 

[The Hitch]

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

28th in a flat tt is hardly Horner underperforming. He finished 44th in the same tt the year before.
In Vuelta tt (horner on the form of his life) he finished 20th in the tt, and that was a tt with hills in it, not short pan flat.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

My point is pretty clear, that based on multiple data points that when Horner is on form like he was in the Vuelta he can climb faster then Froome.

No, RR, this is false and you know it. The Angliru does not serve as such a data point. Neither does Prati di Tivo, where Froome dropped Horner. At the latter, Horner's knee was well enough to make the select group.

I don't see any evidence that Horner can drop Froome. Not by a long shot.

 

[Ferminal]

I don't get it, don't look at Angliru... Horner beat Froome's Pena Cabarga time (although I hazard a guess most of the difference was in the first half) which is a perfect representation of his 2011 ability.

However, the idea that Froome 2011 = 2013 is crazy. Of course his biggest improvement in his career came between Poland and Spain in 2011, but there is little doubt that he has continued to refine his performance since then. I mean he had only just recovered from his crippling illness and devastating treatment months earlier, and had little time to experience the wonders of Kerrison's training regime. Look at the 2011 ITT and the large relative gap to Martin, look at how he fell apart on the windy Manzaneda. Wiggins also improved 2011 -> 2012 both in terms of peak ability and consistency. However, we are stuck with the problem that there are still only four or five examples of Froome at 100% on a climb in his whole career which is why I refer to my earlier point that at this stage comparing other riders to Froome is unrewarding as 1) He has passed every test and climbed better than everyone else when necessary and 2) Any losses are acceptable within the wider objectives. Last year it was because Froome was only a 3/1 chance of winning the Tour and it was believed that Contador on the whole was the better GC rider. But as it stands now, it's like comparing Armstrong to Mancebo or Heras.

 

[Race Radio]

And as I explained in my post, the Angliru data point is a very very bad one.

It is bad data point because it does support your position.

Horner's performance, both his time and his w/kg, indicate that he would be climbing faster then Froome. Do you have an example of Froome doing 6.3 w/kg for 40 minutes?

 

[The Hitch]

It is bad data point because it does support your position.

Thats a very unfair characterization of my position.

I stated very explicitly in quite some length the reasons why I think it is a bad data point, in the post I will repaste below.

Feel free to challenge some of those arguments. I'm perfectly willing to discuss them with you if you have any coutnerobservations.

To totally ignore the points i make and then dismiss me as someone who isn't making arguments but choosing positions based on what I support, is precisely the sort of thing you claimed to oppose when it was being done to you by the hog and co.

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.

 

[The Hitch]

I don't get it, don't look at Angliru... Horner beat Froome's Pena Cabarga time (although I hazard a guess most of the difference was in the first half) which is a perfect representation of his 2011 ability.

However, the idea that Froome 2011 = 2013 is crazy. Of course his biggest improvement in his career came between Poland and Spain in 2011, but there is little doubt that he has continued to refine his performance since then. I mean he had only just recovered from his crippling illness and devastating treatment months earlier, and had little time to experience the wonders of Kerrison's training regime. Look at the 2011 ITT and the large relative gap to Martin, look at how he fell apart on the windy Manzaneda. Wiggins also improved 2011 -> 2012 both in terms of peak ability and consistency. However, we are stuck with the problem that there are still only four or five examples of Froome at 100% on a climb in his whole career which is why I refer to my earlier point that at this stage comparing other riders to Froome is unrewarding as 1) He has passed every test and climbed better than everyone else when necessary and 2) Any losses are acceptable within the wider objectives. Last year it was because Froome was only a 3/1 chance of winning the Tour and it was believed that Contador on the whole was the better GC rider. But as it stands now, it's like comparing Armstrong to Mancebo or Heras.

This.

10 characters.

 

[Race Radio]

Thats a very unfair characterization of my position.

I stated very explicitly in quite some length the reasons why I think it is a bad data point, in this post

Feel free to challenge some of those arguments.

To ignore the points i made and then dismiss me as someone who isn't making arguments but choosing positions based on what I support, is unfair.

If your arguments make sense I would challenge them, but they don't. Don't confused quantity of words with quality.

Do you have an example of Froome doing 6.3 w/kg for 40 + minutes?

 

[BroDeal]

BPC reborn. This time in defense of Froome.

 

[The Hitch]

If your arguments make sense I would challenge them, but they don't. Don't confused quantity of words with quality.

The argument is about whether Angliru is a good or bad data point.

I argued that it is a bad data point because.

*Froome was not the team leader on Angliru.
*Froome's job was to help Wiggins.
*Froome had not prepared for the 2011 Vuelta the way Sky gt leaders typically prepare for a Grand Tour.
* Froome had just a few weeks earlier in his last race before the Vuelta performed very poorly, so likely was not in top shape.

Which of these do not make sense in your opinion?

Edit: I also pointed out that you were wrong to say Horner finishing 28th in a tt he had finished 44th on the previous year was a sign of him underperforming. From where I am standing you were making a lot less sense on that bit than me.

 

[Ferminal]

Do you have an example of Froome doing 6.3 w/kg for 40 + minutes?

Horner did this..?

 

[eleven]

All these decimal w/kg calculations are borderline absurd. There are far too many variables in each climb (and rider) to claim any real accuracy in w/kg.

 

[Ferminal]

For the record I believe Horner's performances were superb and acknowledge they were up in Froome territory.

However, the biggest danger for Froome moving forward is not some guy who will probably not even have a contract and can't TT, it will be the danger of Contador and others going risk on*

*Assuming Horner is actually doing something more than them which they can adopt.

 

[the sceptic]

If your arguments make sense I would challenge them, but they don't. Don't confused quantity of words with quality.

Do you have an example of Froome doing 6.3 w/kg for 40 + minutes?

Col de la Madone?

 

[Race Radio]

All these decimal w/kg calculations are borderline absurd. There are far too many variables in each climb (and rider) to claim any real accuracy in w/kg.

Not when an SRM file is part of the equation.....then it is just math

 

[Race Radio]

Col de la Madone?

Do you have a link to his time? The only "Official" time we have is 32 minutes. He also made a comment to Velo that his best was "more then 30 minutes"

regardless, it is not a MTF on the 20th stage of a GT

 

[eleven]

Not when an SRM file is part of the equation.....then it is just math

No, it's not "just math", SRM or not.

Do you have the SRM from Horner's last climb? From Froomes TDF?

 

[Merckx index]

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

Based on what climb?

On Cabarga, his SRM data were 425 watts for fifteen minutes. If he is really 62 kg, that is 6.85 watts/kg., and I think that suggests 6-3-6.4 watts/kg for 40 minutes is possible. But are there any actual 40 minute data that provide that conclusion directly?

 

[gooner]

Do you have a link to his time? The only "Official" time we have is 32 minutes. He also made a comment to Velo that his best was "more then 30 minutes"

regardless, it is not a MTF on the 20th stage of a GT

I remember Kerrison talking about it but I thought he didn't disclose the specific details of Froome and Porte's performance.

 

[the sceptic]

Do you have a link to his time? The only "Official" time we have is 32 minutes. He also made a comment to Velo that his best was "more then 30 minutes"

regardless, it is not a MTF on the 20th stage of a GT

I only have the interview where Froome said he did 32 minutes, and I also remember something about Kerrison bragging how Porte almost was as good as Froome and it was one of the most impressive things he had ever seen.

 

[Netserk]

@RR

Horner did less than 6.0 W/kg on Angliru.

EDIT: Vetooo
#LaVuelta, Angliru (12.80 km, 9.64 %, 1234 m). Chris Horner ("63.5 kg"): 43:07, 17.81 Kph, VAM 1717 m/h, 5.88 W/kg [CPL / "full drafting"].

 

[Race Radio]

@RR

Horner did less than 6.0 W/kg on Angliru.

EDIT: Vetooo
#LaVuelta, Angliru (12.80 km, 9.64 %, 1234 m). Chris Horner ("63.5 kg"): 43:07, 17.81 Kph, VAM 1717 m/h, 5.88 W/kg [CPL / "full drafting"].

Expect this to be revised to 380 W and 6.2-6.4 w/kg

 

[hrotha]

Why is a calculation that may or may not be revised at a later time less valuable or trustworthy than... just Froome's word about having gone all-out on the Angliru?