The Chris Squared Thread

[Race Radio]

Maybe I'll reduce Armstrong weight to make him faster than Froome?

Whether you like it not Froome rode faster than Armstrong.

No modifications or manipulating of the data.

Fact.

Whether you like it or not Horner rode faster then Froome on multiple climbs. No modifications or manipulating of the data.

Fact

 

[thehog]

Whether you like it or not Horner rode faster then Froome on multiple climbs. No modifications or manipulating of the data.

Fact

On 2 climbs. When Froome was a dom.

Froome has also ridden faster than Horner on multiple climbs.

Fact.

No modifications or manipulations.

 

[Race Radio]

On 2 climbs. When Froome was a dom.
.

Your list of modifications, qualifications, excuses, grows

Froome was a dom when he won on Pena Cabarga? Full gas, at his limit......30 seconds behind Horner.

 

[ulrichw]

I still cannot see how Horners weight of 61kg is determined by the multiple weights and SRM of other riders.

Why has VeTooo used 61kg and not 65kg?

380.97/65 = 5.86W/kg

380.97/63.5 = 6.00W/kg

380.97/61 = 6.25W/kg

The weight is actually a bit of a red herring in all of this. Assuming that the Pinot data is accurate, you can actually get a semi-decent estimate of other riders' w/kg by comparing climbing times.

This is because for a sufficiently steep climb, w/kg is the dominant factor in climbing speed. There will of course still be an error based on differences in drag between two riders, but this will be relatively small. (for example, climbing a 10% hill at 18km will take 376 watts for a rider who weighs 70kg with all of his equipment - at this speed a little over 90% of the resistance on the rider is from his weight).

So given Pinot's climb, and assuming his weight is known (plausible, I suppose), you can derive his w/kg. We know that Chris went faster, so his w/kg are almost certainly higher. It's probably not a bad first-order assumption to assume that drag from rolling resistance and wind resistance is similar for Chris vs. Thibaut.

Chris was 3.1% faster than Thibaut heading up the Angliru, so his w/kg is approximately 3.1% higher than Thibaut's (since climbing speed is roughly proportional to w/kg on steep hills) - Taking Vetoo's 5.91 w/kg at face value, that would put Chris at something around 6.1 w/kg for the same stretch.

Note that you can compute neither Chris' power or weight from this - just the w/kg.

The reason I say weight is moot is because w/kg are what we're interested in anyway.

What this means is that if Chris is 65kg, as he claimed, he must have been putting out around 6.1 * 65 = 396.5 watts.

If he's 61kg, then his wattage was probably closer to 372.1 watts.

Where I get lost is in Vetoo's explanation of his process - I have no clue where the 1.43% is coming from, and how he claims to know Chris' wattage in order to be able to compute his weight. I also don't get how he gets 6.25 w/kg for Chris (that's roughly 6% higher than what he has for Thibaut for only a 3% increase in speed)

What is fair to say though, is that there's no way Chris' W/kg were 5.8 - otherwise Thibaut would have finished ahead of him.

 

[thehog]

Your list of modifications, qualifications, excuses, grows

Froome was a dom when he won on Pena Cabarga? Full gas, at his limit......30 seconds behind Horner.

Excuses for what? I believe both are doping.

What would I be excusing?

The only thing to be excused is you making up false weights.

I just don't see any data to demonstrate Horner was faster than Froome 2013.

You're still acting too sensitivity and your facts don't stack. 2 climbs is not multiple.

Froome has beaten Horner's time on several climbs. Choosing 2 selectively doesn't add up to whole lot convincing.

But them the facts.

Sorry.

 

[Race Radio]

Excuses for what? I believe both are doping.

You must be confused. I have not made any claim that one is clean, or cleaner, then the other. If you read my posts you will see that I say that based on multiple data points Horner climbs faster then Froome. Many of the same data points that you, and others, used to claim Froome is faster then Armstrong.

Perhaps you can make a list of modifications, excuses, etc of why it is not OK to compare Froome and Horner but Froome and Horner is off limits. It is getting hard to keep up with all of the excuses, exceptions, qualifiers,

Selective.....Very selective.

 

[thehog]

You must be confused. I have not made any claim that one is clean, or cleaner, then the other. If you read my posts you will see that I say that based on multiple data points Horner climbs faster then Froome. Many of the same data points that you, and others, used to claim Froome is faster then Armstrong.

Perhaps you can make a list of modifications, excuses, etc of why it is not OK to compare Froome and Horner but Froome and Horner is off limits. It is getting hard to keep up with all of the excuses, exceptions, qualifiers,

Selective.....Very selective.

Alas there's only one modifying data to fit.

And as a hint, it's not me

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Sad because this was a really good thread of quality discussion with some very good contributions.

Which has been lost. Disappointing.

 

[Spider1964]

The Hog "Froome's quicker"

RR "Horner's quicker"

#iknowthat

 

[The Hitch]

Horner 2013 was indeed faster than froome 2011 on both climbs. The thing is, so was everyone else among the gc contenders
Rodriguez and Valverde 13 seconds faster on PC Nibali 8 seconds. Roche was also 8 seconds faster. Pinot only 2 seconds slower.

even more staggeringly, Valverde and Nibali over a.minute faster than froome on Angliru and murito about 40 seconds.

And yet when they have come across froome,none of these guys have gotten anywhere near froome for the last 2 years.

Seems to me those big second gaps to froome 2011 by the class of 2013 on those climbs, don't necessarily translate into a real life advantage over froome. For whatever reason. And it could just be that doping technology has improved, which would explain why all round the ascents in 2013 vuelta and tour were so fast.

 

[Race Radio]

And it could just be that doping technology has improved, which would explain why all round the ascents in 2013 vuelta and tour were so fast.

Marginal gains

 

[Ferminal]

While I question many of Grappe's conclusions it should be pretty easy for him to compare numbers so this has some validity. I do not see huge difference in Froome's climbing from late 2011 to 2013.....His TT ability made a pretty dramatic change. He also fixed that pacing issues that made him questionable on longer climbs

Except by deduction the claim is false.

In the 2011 Vuelta he only had one climb at max effort (Angliru half but obviously he's better than Poels and Menchov).

In the 2012 Tour he was not trying so wasn't at max effort.

In the 2012 Vuelta his recovery faltered and was well below his best.

So there is something missing. Either Grappe is only comparing Pena Cabarga (I agree it is a comparable performance but sample size of one means nothing as everyone has better and worse days e.g. Horner Penas Blancas/Gallina/Peyresourde) 2011 to the 2013 Tour, or his "consistent" is within a margin of say +/- 3% which on the road is actually the difference between winning a GT and finishing 4th.

 

[thehog]

Horner 2013 was indeed faster than froome 2011 on both climbs. The thing is, so was everyone else among the gc contenders
Rodriguez and Valverde 13 seconds faster on PC Nibali 8 seconds. Roche was also 8 seconds faster. Pinot only 2 seconds slower.

even more staggeringly, Valverde and Nibali over a.minute faster than froome on Angliru and murito about 40 seconds.

And yet when they have come across froome,none of these guys have gotten anywhere near froome for the last 2 years.

Seems to me those big second gaps to froome 2011 by the class of 2013 on those climbs, don't necessarily translate into a real life advantage over froome. For whatever reason. And it could just be that doping technology has improved, which would explain why all round the ascents in 2013 vuelta and tour were so fast.

I would agree. I wrote in earlier post on this thead that speeds are up across the board. Even the non-GC guys are much faster.

Doping is back. But it's much more subtle and sophisticated than before.

 

[Ferminal]

It's probably more the pacing in the first half of the climbs than anything... Pinot to drop Froome next year, ok.

 

[Race Radio]

Except by deduction the claim is false.

In the 2011 Vuelta he only had one climb at max effort (Angliru half but obviously he's better than Poels and Menchov).

In the 2012 Tour he was not trying so wasn't at max effort.

In the 2012 Vuelta his recovery faltered and was well below his best.

So there is something missing. Either Grappe is only comparing Pena Cabarga (I agree it is a comparable performance but sample size of one means nothing as everyone has better and worse days e.g. Horner Penas Blancas/Gallina/Peyresourde) 2011 to the 2013 Tour, or his "consistent" is within a margin of say +/- 3% which on the road is actually the difference between winning a GT and finishing 4th.

I would expect that Grappe's analysis is also based on measurements from training as well as racing. There were several times in the 2012 Tour that Froome was dropped on climbs only to catch back on, but I think this was based more on poor pacing and tactics as he was likely the fastest climber that year

I do agree that we have seldom see Froome go full gas at his peak. A couple times in 2011, maybe once in 2012, once or twice in 2013....and the same is true for Horner. We have seen Horner like he was at the Vuelta a few times in his career but I doubt we will ever see it again.

It does appear that Pena Cabarga is a good data point to use......Horner beats Froome by 30 seconds

 

[hiero2]

Well, well, well. The last 3 or 4 pages of this thread have seen a few senior members having one of those spitting-into-the-wind contests. What's the best method for tossing pennies?

And the fighting has generated a few complaints.

There have been a few questionable posts, and some questionable claims. Imo, all a bit on the ripe side - but only just barely over the line in a couple of spots. Yet still - it generated complaints.

When you disagree like that, think you can remember to keep the response numbers down? That would be a welcome idea.

 

[Ferminal]

It does appear that Pena Cabarga is a good data point to use......Horner beats Froome by 30 seconds

Yes, that means Horner beats Froome everywhere always.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I would expect that Grappe's analysis is also based on measurements from training as well as racing. There were several times in the 2012 Tour that Froome was dropped on climbs only to catch back on, but I think this was based more on poor pacing and tactics as he was likely the fastest climber that year

I do agree that we have seldom see Froome go full gas at his peak. A couple times in 2011, maybe once in 2012, once or twice in 2013....and the same is true for Horner. We have seen Horner like he was at the Vuelta a few times in his career but I doubt we will ever see it again.

It does appear that Pena Cabarga is a good data point to use......Horner beats Froome by 30 seconds

Mmmh, race tactics dont matter? How come Froome's last K on Pena Cabarga was 20 seconds faster than Horners? Wouldnt that imply that the general speed of the pack was 50 seconds faster over the first 5K of Pena in comparison to 2011? Who did the pacing?

You mentioned Grappe before, and his analysis on Froome's SRM. The only thing in the public domain is this one:
http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

He averages 405W for almost an hour, according to the side that would imply 5.8w/k. We can deduct his weight there easily, namely 405/5.8=69.83 kilo. Are we to believe Froome was always within 900 grams - Grappe's claim - of that 69.8 kiloos?

Raceweight seems the new VO2 max these days, the biggest secret out there. Gaining power yet losing weight, we all know where that comes from.

edit:
Michelle Cound ‏@michellecound 26 april
@ammattipyoraily it's substantially lower than either, maybe it's because you have the weight higher, it was closer to 67kg at the time.

How can Grappe be stating his weight was always within 900 grams? Because he was told so?

 

[sittingbison]

The weight is actually a bit of a red herring in all of this. Assuming that the Pinot data is accurate, you can actually get a semi-decent estimate of other riders' w/kg by comparing climbing times....

...Where I get lost is in Vetoo's explanation of his process - I have no clue where the 1.43% is coming from, and how he claims to know Chris' wattage in order to be able to compute his weight. I also don't get how he gets 6.25 w/kg for Chris (that's roughly 6% higher than what he has for Thibaut for only a 3% increase in speed)

What is fair to say though, is that there's no way Chris' W/kg were 5.8 - otherwise Thibaut would have finished ahead of him.

I get that its reverse engineering, and VeTooo can analyse Horner because he has published data such as Pinot and maybe some others. I just struggle with the leap to "haHA Horner is 61kg" which is 7% less than published, wheres Dawgs published weight is used in these discussions and none of the experts like VeTooo have reverse engineered it. Perhaps not enough data?

Google has Dawg listed as 71kg, wiki has him listed as 69kg. Just the approximate "Horner" 7% reduction in weight would be 66kg (google) or 64kg (wiki).

405/71=5.7
405/69=5.87
405/66=6.13
405/64=6.33

So YES its no wonder that real weight is not being divulged.

I would LOVE to know how the experts arrive at that, its probably a formula that when I see it will make sense.

Where is acoggan and krebs cycle when you need them

 

[Ferminal]

You forgot the SRM site which says 65kg.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Context:

vetooo ‏@ammattipyoraily 2 augustus
#LaVuelta, Angliru (steepest 6.52 km, 13.33 %)
1999 J.M. Jimenez 28:50
2000 Heras 27:20
2002 Heras 27:30
2008 Contador 28:10
2011 Cobo 28:18

vetooo ‏@ammattipyoraily 15 september
///Recalculated/// #LaVuelta, Angliru (steepest 6.52 km, 13.35 %). Chris Horner ("63.5 kg"): 28:06, 13.92 Kph, VAM 1860 m/h, 6.15 W/kg [CPL]

 

[thehog]

Yes, that means Horner beats Froome everywhere always.

I'm not sure Pena Cabarga is a very good data point.

It's a very short climb and straight up, ie no switchbacks.

In 2013 there was a very strong tailwind pushing up Horner - vento di dietro.

Froome & Cobo reportedly had a headwind.

The 30 seconds is cancelled out even more so since Froome & Cobo were stop/start attacking each other.

It's not a good datapoint at all and the experts have said as much.

So I still come back to Prati Di Tivo in 2013. Now if Horner was supposedly not on 'top form' in '13 we can take his 2012 time where Froome wins by a minute.

The other point to mention is if Horner was in Vuelta form at the Tour; would we really expect him to hold onto Porte & Froome at Ax3? Then follow Froome and attack him to win by 30 seconds?

Would he'd held onto Froome's acceleration on Ventoux, then attacked Froome even after Froome's subsequent accelerations on Quintana and won?

I don't think a sane man could suggest that Horner could have done so...

Impossible in fact.

Dropping Honer's weight is fun to do but it doesn't add up to whole lot.

One on one Froome did the damage. There headwind/tailwind, drafting is equal for both.

 

[Ferminal]

There was a tailwind?

My point is, we can't comment with such certainty based on data which uncertain by its very nature. If you want to add some certainty you need a large sample and a good descriptive analysis of all the factors in every case. In this comparison we simply don't know, I'd go with my gut but not like we can wager it in the future.

 

[thehog]

There was a tailwind?

My point is, we can't comment with such certainty based on data which uncertain by its very nature. If you want to add some certainty you need a large sample and a good descriptive analysis of all the factors in every case. In this comparison we simply don't know, I'd go with my gut but not like we can wager it in the future.

Yes I agree with this. You need a wide sample of data from different races and conditions. That is the normal thing to do. Selecting one climb and comparing both is a little fraught.

The same comparing Froome v Armstrong. But as Froome did his damage to Armstrong's times on more than one climb it becomes more compelling.

I choose a race where they were together because racing itself is a good comparison. It's limits the variables.

Yes there was a tailwind in 2013. Widely reported and a well known fact.

Then again we could look at the 2009 Giro? I'm sure Horner beat Froome there!

 

[Race Radio]

My point is, we can't comment with such certainty based on data which uncertain by its very nature. If you want to add some certainty you need a large sample and a good descriptive analysis of all the factors in every case. In this comparison we simply don't know, I'd go with my gut but not like we can wager it in the future.

Unless of we are comparing Armstrong and Froome, then any and all calculations are acceptable.

 

[Race Radio]

The same comparing Froome v Armstrong. But as Froome did his damage to Armstrong's times on more than one climb it becomes more compelling.

Horner did his damage to Froome's times on more then one climb, that is why it is so compelling