The Chris Squared Thread

[thehog]

Froome's Meteoric rise came in 2011. There was a huge leap from 2010 to 2011 but since then the majority of his improvement has come in this TT ability and his pacing, which was garbage

No. His huge leap came between Poland and the Vuelta. Not 2010 to 2011.

Until September 2011 he was plain old almost without contract Chris Froome.

Then he "changed", literally overnight.

 

[thehog]

3 weeks... LOL.

Isn't that the usual blood withdrawal timeframe?

In short, yes.

 

[Netserk]

Here is a nice video

http://youtu.be/LIRIAinJo0E

Froome attacking everyone. Drops Cobo, Wiggins, Menchov. He set a new record on the climb (17:15) Extraterrestrial. As the commentator says "Wow, wow, wow, wow!"

This year Horner beat Froome's time on the same climb by 33 seconds.

No he didn't. 'Far' from it.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Maybe my logic and understanding of cycling performance is broken, but lighter riders usually go faster uphill, yeah? I mean. If Horner is 10% lighter than Froome, I am struggling to see why he can't beat him up a hill every now and then, given he is a hill climbing specialist.

 

[thehog]

Maybe my logic and understanding of cycling performance is broken, but lighter riders usually go faster uphill, yeah? I mean. If Horner is 10% lighter than Froome, I am struggling to see why he can't beat him up a hill every now and then, given he is a hill climbing specialist.

Your logic is correct.

Horner can’t TT like Froome. Nowhere close. If Horner is the overt juicer that some are claiming him to be he’d be schooling Nibali in this area.

He’s not.

I believe Horner is doping as is Froome

Their similarities really exist in other areas.

* Both had break out performances at the end of their contract coincidently at the Vuelta.
* Both are beyond skinny with no apparent loss of power.
* Both were injured/sick during the season and still managed to go full *** at the Vuelta.
* Both had some form of connection to a dodgy doctor (Ferrari/Leinders).

The one area whereby Horner has one on Froome is the bio passport and his SRMs.

Some suggest that Horner’s passport was a like a Tour stage profile.

It was not.

Not to say it was good but nor did it indicate doping.

One other area Horner has going for him is at least he has shown some form over his career to indicate that he could ride like he did at the Vuelta.

Froome could barely ride a bike and in Poland '11, a one week stage race, lost 26 minutes to Sagan.

3 weeks later he sprinting up mountains like, ummm, like, umm, Rasmussen v Contador!?

 

[Race Radio]

But please, compare Alto de Hazallanas with Axe 3 Domaines. Or Ventoux with Angliru.

All were great freak shows.

Mont Ventoux (last 15.65 km) Froome 48:35 5.88 W/kg
Angrilu Horner 43.06 6.25 w/kg

Axe 3 Domaines had many variables but most estimates put Froome anywhere from 6.3 w/kg to 6.5 w/kg for 23:14

From Horner's SRM using 62kg (I think he is actually 61 but will be generous)

Alto de Hazallanas 23.22 6.29 w/kg
Pena Cabarga 16:42 6.85 w/kg

Looking at the Angrilu and Pena Cabarge it is easy to come to the conclusion that Horner at his peak is the faster climber. Froome would smoke him in a TT though

 

[Rollthedice]

Isn't it that the SRM data is useless without the correct weight of the rider?
If so, why is Horner not telling his real kilos? Isn't this a deliberate attempt to hide the "totally not normal" performance?

 

[Race Radio]

Isn't it that the SRM data is useless without the correct weight of the rider?
If so, why is Horner not telling his real kilos? Isn't this a deliberate attempt to hide the "totally not normal" performance?

Completely agree. Froome has given nothing. Horner has given his SRM details but lied about his weight. It is possible to calculate Horner's weight using other riders SRM's/weights and Horner's SRM. He comes out to 61-62kg.....but Radioshack tells reporters he is 65kg.

 

[thehog]

Isn't it that the SRM data is useless without the correct weight of the rider?
If so, why is Horner not telling his real kilos? Isn't this a deliberate attempt to hide the "totally not normal" performance?

Horner has lied about his weight?

Froome is clearly also lying about his weight.

Although he's not passed on SRMs (bar to Grappee post 2011 only).

Based on the evidence provided I think its safe to say both Chris's are not giving a true reflection of weight.

Thus drawing down Horner's weight but not Froome does not make for a equal comparative analysis.

Its lopsided.

Horner has released BIO and SRMs. Froome not. So it’s hard to make a conclusion that Froome results are what is estimated.

That much is clear.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Mont Ventoux (last 15.65 km) Froome 48:35 5.88 W/kg
Angrilu Horner 43.06 6.25 w/kg

Axe 3 Domaines had many variables but most estimates put Froome anywhere from 6.3 w/kg to 6.5 w/kg for 23:14

From Horner's SRM using 62kg (I think he is actually 61 but will be generous)

Alto de Hazallanas 23.22 6.29 w/kg
Pena Cabarga 16:42 6.85 w/kg

Looking at the Angrilu and Pena Cabarge it is easy to come to the conclusion that Horner at his peak is the faster climber. Froome would smoke him in a TT though

It is a good thing you realise no one knows Froome's weight, as for Horner. So, we pretty dont know anything. Also not what Chris and Chris would do heads up. Horner would be a great dom for team Sky though

What we do know is Nibali was not good enough to beat him or even follow. What we also know is that eyes dont lie.

Based on the evidence provided I think its safe to say both Chris's are not giving a true reflection of weight.

Thus drawing down Horner's weight but not Froome does not make for a equal comparative analysis.

According to Fred Froome was always within 900 grams of his raceweight Hog!

Yeah right.

 

[thehog]

It is a good thing you realise no one knows Froome's weight, as for Horner. So, we pretty dont know anything. Also not what Chris and Chris would do heads up. Horner would be a great dom for team Sky though

What we do know is Nibali was not good enough to beat him or even follow. What we also know is that eyes dont lie.
According to Fred Froome was always within 900 grams of his raceweight Hog!

Yeah right.

I am scratching my head at some of the analysis. Or it may be its VeeToo's. I’ve not seen a link.

Its lopsided towards Froome.

i.e. if you reduce Horner's weight because you think he is lying about his weight but then take Froome's weight as virtue it doesn't stack up.

For Horner you have published SRM's, Froome not but we don't trust Horner's?

We have Horner's bio passport but not Froome’s.

Based on Horners it’s not all that bad. It’s not as bad as Armstrong published account.

Also Prati di Tivo; Horner beat his 2012 time in 2013 but its suggested he was not on form? But clearly he was on form as he bettered his previous best.

It was suggested he had a knee injury where Froome beat him on Prati di Tivo but Horner has clearly said where he hurt his knee – on the second to last stage – (side note: it wasn’t like Horner was holding on to a motorbike ala Froome 2010 Giro with his injured knee )

Prati di Tivo Froome bettered Horner’s 2012 time by over a minute.

Then we have Angulia.

Horner rode 1.40 faster in 2013 than Froome breakout race in 2011.

Froome paced Wiggins up the entire climb and was even able ride away from Wiggins in the last 1.5km in pursuit of Cobo.

Wiggins dropped his chain just before the climb and Froome waited then they chased back on and Cobo went.

Horner rode behind Nibialli and J.Rod the entire stage following wheels until 1.6km to go before he attacked.

Interesting on Angulia Horner got his gear ratio the same as Cobo in 2011.

Froome and Wiggins appeared to have got there’s wrong v Cobo in 2011

2013: Chris Horner 34×32, Vincenco Nibali 34×29, Alejandro Valverde 36×29, Joaquim Rodriguez 36×28 and Nico Roche 36×32.

2011: Cobo 34×32 (28.3-inch); Nibali 34×29 (31.2-inch); Froome and Wiggins 38×32 (31.6-inch);Kessiakoff 34×28 (32.3-inch);Fuglsang and Mollema 36×28 (34.2-inch).

Its one of those things where no one is either right or wrong but pushing 6.2 adjusted for Horner over Froome not adjusted in alternate races doesn’t make a lot of scientific sense.

Ignoring Prati di Tivo which was in 2013 with New Age Froome v New Age Horner is the best example that Froome is clearly better than Horner in climbs and obvisouly the TT.

I just find the analysis really odd at times.

Appears the conclusion was made before the facts were studied.

But it is what it is.

Unfortunately for us it doesn’t look like Horner will get a contract for 2014 so we won’t see Dawg v Hornerag at the Tour!

 

[Race Radio]

Hmmm, lets see,

Horner beats Froome most of the time they have met, but they have never met when both are on top form

Horner has significantly faster times up multiple climbs where both admitted to going full gas

Horner has multiple examples of higher w/kg. Regardless of the formula, with or without his SRM files.

Add in lots of deflection and noise and it appears appears the conclusion was made before the facts were studied.

 

[thehog]

Hmmm lets see...

Horner beats Froome most of the time they have met, but they have never met when both are on top form

Care to list these times where Horner beat Froome?

Top form? What does top form mean? Not something the experts would use. It’s too subjective. How does one define "top form"?

Horner has significantly faster times up multiple climbs where both admitted to going full gas

Define "full gas" - can this be pacing the team leader rather than trying to win a race on the final stage?

What are the multiple climbs? Care to list them out?

Horner is 41. Froome 28. I'm sure Horner has climbed more climbs than Froome. But I don't see multiple climbs.

Horner has multiple examples of higher w/kg. Regardless of the formula, with or without his SRM files.

Regardless of formula?

__

Problem I see is I'm not sure the point you're making.

I'll be honest and with all due respect I'm not sure you're sure what point you're making.

Is it to present that Horner is a doper and Froome not?

or they're both doping but Horner more so than Froome?

I believe both are clearly doping.

Is one worse than the other?

Not at all. I believe both are doping and both cheating.

For what it’s worth for this Chris to the power of 2 thread, Horner has shown more talent on a bike than Froome ever has.

Froome Poland to Vuetla 2011 is insane amount of improvement.

Horner at least has been up there and around Top 10's most of his career.

Froome wasn't even Nico Roche who was almost there but not. He couldn’t keep up on flat stages and then he did the 2011 Vuelta and the rest is history.

I'm still scratching my head at the analysis. It’s really not adding up.

Selectively choosing data points to fit the story, whilst ignoring others and subjectively using a term "top form" as a criteria doesn't amount to a whole lot conclusions.

It’s just makes the issue more muddied.

But as you will.

 

[biopass]

Their similarities really exist in other areas.

* Both had break out performances at the end of their contract coincidently at the Vuelta.
* Both are beyond skinny with no apparent loss of power.
* Both were injured/sick during the season and still managed to go full *** at the Vuelta.
* Both had some form of connection to a dodgy doctor (Ferrari/Leinders)

I don't think bold part has anything to it. I've been doing Crossfit for months and my weight is doing down while my strength is going up. Its not a sudden change, but my overall progress as an athlete is slowly going that way. It's really a combination of different things, such as Crossfit training and Paleo-inspired dieting.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Add in lots of deflection and noise and it appears appears the conclusion was made before the facts were studied.

Lets be honest, there are not a lot of facts around, are there? No weight on Froome, no weight on Horner. Just Horner's SRM and those from which one could make up Horner's weight. Yet the factual weight of the latter are not public too, not that I say those/them are incorrect.

Thats why I thought it was funny in the Tour de Farce Valverde published the wrong SRM file. Just one stage too late Valvi!

Impressed by Hoggies gearsettings, where did you get that info Hog?

 

[Race Radio]

Lets be honest, there are not a lot of facts around, are there? No weight on Froome, no weight on Horner. Just Horner's SRM and those from which one could make up Horner's weight. Yet the factual weight of the latter are not public too, not that I say those/them are incorrect.

Thats why I thought it was funny in the Tour de Farce Valverde published the wrong SRM file. Just one stage too late Valvi!

Impressed by Hoggies gearsettings, where did you get that info Hog?

I agree that Froome's lack of transparency is pathetic, but my point is not who doped more or less, who is a nicer guy, etc. I don't know the answer to those questions....I have tried to address who climbs faster in peak form. Even if you ignore the W/Kg formulas there are still the facts that on multiple climbs Horner has posted significantly faster times then Froome, not by a little but by a lot.

 

[Race Radio]

I'm not sure you're sure what point you're making.

I have covered all of your questions multiple times. If you read my posts it is clear that I think that the evidence supports Horner with his form at the Vuelta is faster then Froome.

I am not making any claims who is the bigger doper, more evil guy, or any of the other nonsense. Simply that the facts support that Horner's climbing at the Vuelta was faster then we have seen from Froome.

 

[thehog]

Impressed by Hoggies gearsettings, where did you get that info Hog?

Gear selection is the forgotten science.

Especially on a climb like Angulia.

Whilst it’s all good and well to go solely on watts p/kg if one guy is pushing the wrong gear up a grade of 23% he is:

a) not going to get up the climb fast enough

and

b) kill his legs slowing him down.


Angulia gets to 23% in the last 6km.

You could for example lose 1.40s right there with the wrong gears. Cobo and Horner showed us what he right gearing can achieve on a very steep hill.

2011 Vuelta gear selection link: http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...ch-gear-ratios-critical-up-the-angliru_191093

2013 Horner gear selection: http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/page/latest-news/?id=109226

Sky on a few occasions have made the wrong gear selection. When Horner and Nibialli attacked Froome at TA Froome couldn’t follow until he got over the ridge.

The best proponent of gear section was probably Armstrong. He studied it religiously. That’s where a recon helps immensely. Knowing your gearing makes a massive difference.

I’m sure we’ve all been in a position on a long climb and you haven’t got that extra gear.

What do you do?

Man overboard.

 

[thehog]

I have covered all of your questions multiple times. If you read my posts it is clear that I think that the evidence supports Horner with his form at the Vuelta is faster then Froome.

.

To be honest it’s not clear.

That's the point.

Horner won the Vuelta by a hand full of seconds.

Froome won the Tour by minutes and had shut down the race on the first climb to Ax3 with Porte.

Contador, Valverde, Quintana, JRod, Mollema, Ten Dam, Krez were well beaten.

The race was over after that stage.

If Froome didn't bonk on d'Huez he would have put more time into them.

The Vuelta was overtly mountainous compared to the Tour and Horner only just won. With a tired JRod, a tired Valverde and Nibs in GT number 2.

Froome with limited climbing chances and only one flat TT won by a good margin with a very strong field peaking for the biggest race of the season.

It’s a stretch to conclude Horner was faster.

But to be honest it’s such a difficult comparison to make I don’t think it’s worth even making the attempt to compare the two races.

A one to one match up we have TA this year. That the best we can go on... for now.

I don't wish to argue with you. But the evidence provided is flimsy at best. I think you know that but that’s ok.

Let's hope we see both riding at the Tour next year. Will be a hell of a race.

 

[thehog]

I don't think bold part has anything to it. I've been doing Crossfit for months and my weight is doing down while my strength is going up. Its not a sudden change, but my overall progress as an athlete is slowly going that way. It's really a combination of different things, such as Crossfit training and Paleo-inspired dieting.

What was your starting weight?

 

[sniper]

Gear selection is the forgotten science.

sheer poetry

 

[Master50]

Trying to compare 2 performances in different races is pointless as all conditions are different. weather, race situation, talen pool, condition of each rider and all the other variables. Very seldom is any climb done at the full limits of the winner especially if there is no pressure to go that fast. Horner won by mere seconds so he was under great pressure to climb at or near his limits as that is his trick. He is a very good climber so that is where he won the race. Froome was not under near as much pressure to out climb anyone since he could keep up and he had minutes of buffer. If anything Froome would be under more pressure to protect his energy than risk it but Horner had no such luxury. Horner had to dig for every second and he had to beat some other good climbers. Without the tactical situation how can you compare 2 climbs, even on the same road. The race situation changes how hard anyone climbs. If anyone was climing at their limits it is more likely the bad climbers racing to make time cuts. We hardly ever look at their times do we? Context! It dictates more about the race than the climb alone.
Just watched a stage from the 1986 Tour over the Tourmalet with a finish at Luz Ardiden. Man those guys spent a lot more time standing on the pedals as they rode much bigger gears than the current crop of sitters. Steven rooks and Herrera climbed a lot standing as did Gert Jan Theunisse. The pros have definitely changed their climbing styles and don't stand near as much today as they used to.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I agree that Froome's lack of transparency is pathetic, but my point is not who doped more or less, who is a nicer guy, etc. I don't know the answer to those questions....I have tried to address who climbs faster in peak form. Even if you ignore the W/Kg formulas there are still the facts that on multiple climbs Horner has posted significantly faster times then Froome, not by a little but by a lot.

Good points. But what it actually comes down to is Froome is equalling that Austin Texas bikeshopowner on Ventoux and Horner coming close - a minute plus - to Heras on the Angliru. Doped performances. Of course neither are believable.

Oops, did I say that?

Lets agree Chris and Chris are very interesting specimen. Either two of the biggest talents ever seen or, well, you get the drift.

I do think the course of the Vuelta is not comparible to the Tour, just like the decapitated Giro of this year. Thats why I earlier tried to compare Axe 3 with that Hazallanas stage. And then compare them when they went gungho for themselves, not being paced.

PS: thanks Hog for the gears, most interesting. Indeed a science.

 

[thehog]

Trying to compare 2 performances in different races is pointless as all conditions are different. weather, race situation, talen pool, condition of each rider and all the other variables. Very seldom is any climb done at the full limits of the winner especially if there is no pressure to go that fast. Horner won by mere seconds so he was under great pressure to climb at or near his limits as that is his trick. He is a very good climber so that is where he won the race. Froome was not under near as much pressure to out climb anyone since he could keep up and he had minutes of buffer. If anything Froome would be under more pressure to protect his energy than risk it but Horner had no such luxury. Horner had to dig for every second and he had to beat some other good climbers. Without the tactical situation how can you compare 2 climbs, even on the same road. The race situation changes how hard anyone climbs. If anyone was climing at their limits it is more likely the bad climbers racing to make time cuts. We hardly ever look at their times do we?

Context! It dictates more about the race than the climb alone.

Agreed.

Context is very important.

Horner in his 2013 Vuelta was gunning for victory. He wanted to win.

Froome first and foremost was a dom in the Vuetla 2011 and the last race he won at that time was
the Atomic Jock Race!

Froome’s job from stage 1 was to protect his leader Wiggins. It wasn’t until the last ¼ of the race was he let off the leash.

All that work and waiting for Wiggins must have cost him along with not even knowing how to win a race.

Comparing Froome ‘11 to Horner ‘13 is wrapped in so much contextual difference attempting to compare would be foolhardy.

Fine for sh1ts and giggles over the numbers but you really couldn’t suggest either one was better than the other.

They had different roles to play.

That’s why Prati di Tivo stage 4 is the best to go on. Both trying to win albeit it was an early season race. But both produced their best times on the climb with Froome riding a course record.

 

[Race Radio]

Pretending that "happy with the top 10" Horner at TA is the same rider we saw at the Vuelta is a funny concept