The Froome Files, test data only thread

Page 97 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Wiggo's Package said:
The Dawg really is down on his luck :(

Freakish metabolism that can't be repeated in the lab means he's tripped the wire :surprised:

Machine calibration error with his HR strap :rolleyes:

:D
Crazy adaptive physiology and seated accelerations that only appeared once on Ventoux 2013.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
thehog said:
Wiggo's Package said:
The Dawg really is down on his luck :(

Freakish metabolism that can't be repeated in the lab means he's tripped the wire :surprised:

Machine calibration error with his HR strap :rolleyes:

:D
Crazy adaptive physiology and seated accelerations that only appeared once on Ventoux 2013.
Ha! Reminds me of this quote from JV in 2014 (http://forum.cyclingnews.imdserve.com/viewtopic.php?p=1489435&sid=3f3f5c5551c64c458bd0c02fe0266279#p1489435):

"Ok, he was asking me how it was possible Froome rode at 6.9w/kg up Madone.

There are three possibilities:

1. Motor on his bike.

2. Serious o2 vector doping.

3. 92vo2 max utilizing 92% of which at MSS, and an efficiency of around 85w/liter of o2. All of which, on their own, are plausible. Put together? I've never seen it in an athlete, however, I refuse to discount that it is possible. All the components are possible individually, so there's no absolute reason it's impossible.

Which one is the right answer? I don't know. Chris Froome does.

JV"
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Wiggo's Package said:
thehog said:
Wiggo's Package said:
The Dawg really is down on his luck :(

Freakish metabolism that can't be repeated in the lab means he's tripped the wire :surprised:

Machine calibration error with his HR strap :rolleyes:

:D
Crazy adaptive physiology and seated accelerations that only appeared once on Ventoux 2013.
Ha! Reminds me of this quote from JV in 2014 (http://forum.cyclingnews.imdserve.com/viewtopic.php?p=1489435&sid=3f3f5c5551c64c458bd0c02fe0266279#p1489435):

"Ok, he was asking me how it was possible Froome rode at 6.9w/kg up Madone.

There are three possibilities:

1. Motor on his bike.

2. Serious o2 vector doping.

3. 92vo2 max utilizing 92% of which at MSS, and an efficiency of around 85w/liter of o2. All of which, on their own, are plausible. Put together? I've never seen it in an athlete, however, I refuse to discount that it is possible. All the components are possible individually, so there's no absolute reason it's impossible.

Which one is the right answer? I don't know. Chris Froome does.

JV"
4. Kidney malfunction
 
Re:

samhocking said:
In my experience as the sweat builds and your chest is expanding and contracting more under heavy breathing of big efforts, the HR readings can go a bit high sometimes outdoors. I don't race with a Head Unit, but I do at a 1.5hr Tuesday night Training Crit every week in the summer and several times you'll look downand think you're ill as the reading is just way too high. It can last a few seconds or a few minutes. My max HR is 174 and i've regularly seen it peaking around 190bpm and sometimes even 190bmp when i'm not even close to maximum perceived effort or high watts for a sustained period. You really just learn to take HR & Power with a pinch of salt when analysing the data in Training Peaks or whatever and smooth it out to get a more realistic idea. End of the day it's precise enough technology to track your progress if it's repeatable and that's all that matters long-term for training. The whole claim of things being +-2% accurate for HR monitors and Power Meters is based on a snapshot against a known power and HR, not how accurate it is with itself over the duration of a ride.

Here's a comparison between a HR Strap & HR watch on the road in the real world.


Here's the same two HR Monitors indoors on a Turbo Trainer.
Considering the fact that those plots come from an article showing that watch based optical systems are not as accurate as electrical-based chest systems in the real world, using them as examples of different HR monitors showing variation in readings without stating this is highly misleading.

gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
There's no smoothing Gillan, that is the raw data. There's way more interference outside and of course you tend to move your body much less on a turbo and of course no rough ground and road buzz etc probably makes a difference with the HR watch as nearer the shaking of the bars on the road. I would never look at my HR or Power and take it 100% accurate. As long as it's repeatable each day, that's fine.
what I meant was that because of the nature of road riding then your heart rate will always be going up and down due to easing off in tailwinds, pushing a bit in climbs...slowing for cars, junctions, deer, other cyclists, crap road surface, puddles etc etc etc...i.e.the raw data is always going up and down

on a turbo its pretty consistent......
See my reply above. You are correct, a turbo will give a more consistent change (course dependent obviously) and SH is also right that the reduced movement on the turbo will stop the watch shaking.

The issue here is that when people talk about discrepancy between readings they would generally refer to comparable measurements made with two comparable devices in a similar situation, such as the turbo session. This is not the case here.The plots SH shows are from an article specifically pointing out that those devices are not comparable on the road. It's here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/how-accurate-is-wrist-based-heart-rate-vs-hr-strap-48458/#disqus_thread

As you can see from the data SH posted, under controlled conditions, turbo, they are extremely similar, within a couple of beats of each other. Replace the watch in the on road test with another chest strap and it's likely to look very similar to the chest strap in this data.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
samhocking said:
In my experience as the sweat builds and your chest is expanding and contracting more under heavy breathing of big efforts, the HR readings can go a bit high sometimes outdoors. I don't race with a Head Unit, but I do at a 1.5hr Tuesday night Training Crit every week in the summer and several times you'll look downand think you're ill as the reading is just way too high. It can last a few seconds or a few minutes. My max HR is 174 and i've regularly seen it peaking around 190bpm and sometimes even 190bmp when i'm not even close to maximum perceived effort or high watts for a sustained period. You really just learn to take HR & Power with a pinch of salt when analysing the data in Training Peaks or whatever and smooth it out to get a more realistic idea. End of the day it's precise enough technology to track your progress if it's repeatable and that's all that matters long-term for training. The whole claim of things being +-2% accurate for HR monitors and Power Meters is based on a snapshot against a known power and HR, not how accurate it is with itself over the duration of a ride.

Here's a comparison between a HR Strap & HR watch on the road in the real world.


Here's the same two HR Monitors indoors on a Turbo Trainer.
Considering the fact that those plots come from an article showing that watch based optical systems are not as accurate as electrical-based chest systems in the real world, using them as examples of different HR monitors showing variation in readings without stating this is highly misleading.

gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
There's no smoothing Gillan, that is the raw data. There's way more interference outside and of course you tend to move your body much less on a turbo and of course no rough ground and road buzz etc probably makes a difference with the HR watch as nearer the shaking of the bars on the road. I would never look at my HR or Power and take it 100% accurate. As long as it's repeatable each day, that's fine.
what I meant was that because of the nature of road riding then your heart rate will always be going up and down due to easing off in tailwinds, pushing a bit in climbs...slowing for cars, junctions, deer, other cyclists, crap road surface, puddles etc etc etc...i.e.the raw data is always going up and down

on a turbo its pretty consistent......
See my reply above. You are correct, a turbo will give a more consistent change (course dependent obviously) and SH is also right that the reduced movement on the turbo will stop the watch shaking.

The issue here is that when people talk about discrepancy between readings they would generally refer to comparable measurements made with two comparable devices in a similar situation, such as the turbo session. This is not the case here.The plots SH shows are from an article specifically pointing out that those devices are not comparable on the road. It's here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/how-accurate-is-wrist-based-heart-rate-vs-hr-strap-48458/#disqus_thread

As you can see from the data SH posted, under controlled conditions, turbo, they are extremely similar, within a couple of beats of each other. Replace the watch in the on road test with another chest strap and it's likely to look very similar to the chest strap in this data.
Cheers KB (and SH) but is that not obvious? I'm assuming we're talking about measuring the HR at the wrist with the actual wrist unit? Of course it'll be different and the wrist one will perform unfavorably, or at least that would be my intuitive thought...I am talking about the comparison between two different HRMs both using chest straps, if they were sooooo different you wouldn't use it...so agree about that data being used being misleading

and, to be fair, I had misread the graphs in terms of the comparison so thanks for clarification on that point (both KB and SH)
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
King Boonen said:
samhocking said:
In my experience as the sweat builds and your chest is expanding and contracting more under heavy breathing of big efforts, the HR readings can go a bit high sometimes outdoors. I don't race with a Head Unit, but I do at a 1.5hr Tuesday night Training Crit every week in the summer and several times you'll look downand think you're ill as the reading is just way too high. It can last a few seconds or a few minutes. My max HR is 174 and i've regularly seen it peaking around 190bpm and sometimes even 190bmp when i'm not even close to maximum perceived effort or high watts for a sustained period. You really just learn to take HR & Power with a pinch of salt when analysing the data in Training Peaks or whatever and smooth it out to get a more realistic idea. End of the day it's precise enough technology to track your progress if it's repeatable and that's all that matters long-term for training. The whole claim of things being +-2% accurate for HR monitors and Power Meters is based on a snapshot against a known power and HR, not how accurate it is with itself over the duration of a ride.

Here's a comparison between a HR Strap & HR watch on the road in the real world.


Here's the same two HR Monitors indoors on a Turbo Trainer.
Considering the fact that those plots come from an article showing that watch based optical systems are not as accurate as electrical-based chest systems in the real world, using them as examples of different HR monitors showing variation in readings without stating this is highly misleading.

gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
There's no smoothing Gillan, that is the raw data. There's way more interference outside and of course you tend to move your body much less on a turbo and of course no rough ground and road buzz etc probably makes a difference with the HR watch as nearer the shaking of the bars on the road. I would never look at my HR or Power and take it 100% accurate. As long as it's repeatable each day, that's fine.
what I meant was that because of the nature of road riding then your heart rate will always be going up and down due to easing off in tailwinds, pushing a bit in climbs...slowing for cars, junctions, deer, other cyclists, crap road surface, puddles etc etc etc...i.e.the raw data is always going up and down

on a turbo its pretty consistent......
See my reply above. You are correct, a turbo will give a more consistent change (course dependent obviously) and SH is also right that the reduced movement on the turbo will stop the watch shaking.

The issue here is that when people talk about discrepancy between readings they would generally refer to comparable measurements made with two comparable devices in a similar situation, such as the turbo session. This is not the case here.The plots SH shows are from an article specifically pointing out that those devices are not comparable on the road. It's here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/how-accurate-is-wrist-based-heart-rate-vs-hr-strap-48458/#disqus_thread

As you can see from the data SH posted, under controlled conditions, turbo, they are extremely similar, within a couple of beats of each other. Replace the watch in the on road test with another chest strap and it's likely to look very similar to the chest strap in this data.
Cheers KB (and SH) but is that not obvious? I'm assuming we're talking about measuring the HR at the wrist with the actual wrist unit? Of course it'll be different and the wrist one will perform unfavorably, or at least that would be my intuitive thought...I am talking about the comparison between two different HRMs both using chest straps, if they were sooooo different you wouldn't use it...so agree about that data being used being misleading

and, to be fair, I had misread the graphs in terms of the comparison so thanks for clarification on that point (both KB and SH)
I think everyone is talking about this, which is why it's so misleading for someone to use data from chest Vs. Watch devices on the road as an example of device variation.
 
Brailsford & Kerrison go into the details on the latest Bespoke. I think the 360 comes from the fact the human body can only absorb 90 grams of carbs an hour. 90 grams of carbs is 360 calories. You can't absorb more than that, so 360 calories/hour is used to decide feeding strategy usually. The way I work it out for long rides is simply 1g of maltodextrine is 4 calories, so 90g of Maltodextrine X 4 calories = 360 calories / hour maximum intake needed. Anymore is just unused and excreted or makes you fill sick.
 
gillan1969 said:
Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?
Froome rode for a hour with Swart on a wind trainer. A quick microdose of EPO would have been enough for that session. His numbers were good but not astounding. Not anywhere a person who can win back to back Tour’s or smash it the way he did on Stage 19 of the Giro.

The only consistent aspect was the heartrate data was lost during the testing and naturally lost during Velon’s recording of Stage 19. What are the chances? :cool:
 
thehog said:
gillan1969 said:
Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?
Froome rode for a hour with Swart on a wind trainer. A quick microdose of EPO would have been enough for that session. His numbers were good but not astounding. Not anywhere a person who can win back to back Tour’s or smash it the way he did on Stage 19 of the Giro.

The only consistent aspect was the heartrate data was lost during the testing and naturally lost during Velon’s recording of Stage 19. What are the chances? :cool:
The amount of data loss is really quite astounding and full of hilarity. I mean, wtf and jfc, most amateurs I know don't have anywhere near this issue with data. Why not just share the truth - we don't want to share it!
 
brownbobby said:
gillan1969 said:
Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?
I shouldn't laugh, but :lol:
quite...the question comes not from me 'believing' froome uses a motor (although I'm not ruling it out). It's more a scientist doing his job in removing the variables from the subject matter..

I mean presumably if you're laughing at what I think you're laughing at, then the UCI even attempting to look for motors is laughable ???
 
thehog said:
gillan1969 said:
Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?
Froome rode for a hour with Swart on a wind trainer. A quick microdose of EPO would have been enough for that session. His numbers were good but not astounding. Not anywhere a person who can win back to back Tour’s or smash it the way he did on Stage 19 of the Giro.

The only consistent aspect was the heartrate data was lost during the testing and naturally lost during Velon’s recording of Stage 19. What are the chances? :cool:
He didn't even have to worry about microdosing, there was no drug test. Swart is laughable.
 
veganrob said:
thehog said:
gillan1969 said:
Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?
Froome rode for a hour with Swart on a wind trainer. A quick microdose of EPO would have been enough for that session. His numbers were good but not astounding. Not anywhere a person who can win back to back Tour’s or smash it the way he did on Stage 19 of the Giro.

The only consistent aspect was the heartrate data was lost during the testing and naturally lost during Velon’s recording of Stage 19. What are the chances? :cool:
He didn't even have to worry about microdosing, there was no drug test. Swart is laughable.
quite...Froome reaches out to Swart to help quell the speculation that froome is a fraud

and guess what...the two things which Froome could use to be a fraud, Swart doesn't factor into his 'research'

great work guys :D
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
gillan1969 said:
King Boonen said:
samhocking said:
In my experience as the sweat builds and your chest is expanding and contracting more under heavy breathing of big efforts, the HR readings can go a bit high sometimes outdoors. I don't race with a Head Unit, but I do at a 1.5hr Tuesday night Training Crit every week in the summer and several times you'll look downand think you're ill as the reading is just way too high. It can last a few seconds or a few minutes. My max HR is 174 and i've regularly seen it peaking around 190bpm and sometimes even 190bmp when i'm not even close to maximum perceived effort or high watts for a sustained period. You really just learn to take HR & Power with a pinch of salt when analysing the data in Training Peaks or whatever and smooth it out to get a more realistic idea. End of the day it's precise enough technology to track your progress if it's repeatable and that's all that matters long-term for training. The whole claim of things being +-2% accurate for HR monitors and Power Meters is based on a snapshot against a known power and HR, not how accurate it is with itself over the duration of a ride.

Here's a comparison between a HR Strap & HR watch on the road in the real world.


Here's the same two HR Monitors indoors on a Turbo Trainer.
Considering the fact that those plots come from an article showing that watch based optical systems are not as accurate as electrical-based chest systems in the real world, using them as examples of different HR monitors showing variation in readings without stating this is highly misleading.

gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
There's no smoothing Gillan, that is the raw data. There's way more interference outside and of course you tend to move your body much less on a turbo and of course no rough ground and road buzz etc probably makes a difference with the HR watch as nearer the shaking of the bars on the road. I would never look at my HR or Power and take it 100% accurate. As long as it's repeatable each day, that's fine.
what I meant was that because of the nature of road riding then your heart rate will always be going up and down due to easing off in tailwinds, pushing a bit in climbs...slowing for cars, junctions, deer, other cyclists, crap road surface, puddles etc etc etc...i.e.the raw data is always going up and down

on a turbo its pretty consistent......
See my reply above. You are correct, a turbo will give a more consistent change (course dependent obviously) and SH is also right that the reduced movement on the turbo will stop the watch shaking.

The issue here is that when people talk about discrepancy between readings they would generally refer to comparable measurements made with two comparable devices in a similar situation, such as the turbo session. This is not the case here.The plots SH shows are from an article specifically pointing out that those devices are not comparable on the road. It's here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/how-accurate-is-wrist-based-heart-rate-vs-hr-strap-48458/#disqus_thread

As you can see from the data SH posted, under controlled conditions, turbo, they are extremely similar, within a couple of beats of each other. Replace the watch in the on road test with another chest strap and it's likely to look very similar to the chest strap in this data.
Cheers KB (and SH) but is that not obvious? I'm assuming we're talking about measuring the HR at the wrist with the actual wrist unit? Of course it'll be different and the wrist one will perform unfavorably, or at least that would be my intuitive thought...I am talking about the comparison between two different HRMs both using chest straps, if they were sooooo different you wouldn't use it...so agree about that data being used being misleading

and, to be fair, I had misread the graphs in terms of the comparison so thanks for clarification on that point (both KB and SH)
I think everyone is talking about this, which is why it's so misleading for someone to use data from chest Vs. Watch devices on the road as an example of device variation.
Also don't almost all the riders in the peloton at least while racing only use the chest device? Valverde using a watch as well, but truthfully can't remember any other rider in the peloton wearing one during races.
 
Alex Simmons/RST said:
gillan1969 said:
Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?
Power was measured at the crank arms and at the ergometer load device. A motor would result in different power readings. They were not different.
For argument sake let’s say he did have a motor during the test.

Crank has Stages so would measure the “strain” applied by the motor, the wind trainer is providing the resistance and is measuring power produced from where? The force of the roller, with resistance? He wasn’t using a standard ergo/jig. Which means a motor could be used depending on the type of motor & where it was placed.

 
thehog said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
gillan1969 said:
Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?
Power was measured at the crank arms and at the ergometer load device. A motor would result in different power readings. They were not different.
For argument sake let’s say he did have a motor during the test.

Crank has Stages so would measure the “strain” applied by the motor, the wind trainer is providing the resistance and is measuring power produced from where? The force of the roller, with resistance? He wasn’t using a standard ergo/jig. Which means a motor could be used depending on the type of motor & where it was placed.

I don't see how any kind of motor could apply power to the upper middle part of the crank arm, which is where the strain gauge is on a stages PM. :confused:
 
Jul 14, 2015
708
0
0
brownbobby said:
I don't see how any kind of motor could apply power to the upper middle part of the crank arm, which is where the strain gauge is on a stages PM. :confused:
That's before you consider strain gauges are not magic devices that measure cycling power as long as something touches them :lol:

It's one big statistical process and will only yield any sort of reasonable number when used in the manner it was trained, pushing down on the pedals.
 
hazaran said:
brownbobby said:
I don't see how any kind of motor could apply power to the upper middle part of the crank arm, which is where the strain gauge is on a stages PM. :confused:
That's before you consider strain gauges are not magic devices that measure cycling power as long as something touches them :lol:

It's one big statistical process and will only yield any sort of reasonable number when used in the manner it was trained, pushing down on the pedals.
Stages doesn’t measure from the downward force on the pedal. It measures via the deflection in the crank arm when force is applied along with using an algorithm for temperature and torque - it doesn’t know where that force might come from.
 
thehog said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
gillan1969 said:
Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?
Power was measured at the crank arms and at the ergometer load device. A motor would result in different power readings. They were not different.
For argument sake let’s say he did have a motor during the test.

Crank has Stages so would measure the “strain” applied by the motor, the wind trainer is providing the resistance and is measuring power produced from where? The force of the roller, with resistance? He wasn’t using a standard ergo/jig. Which means a motor could be used depending on the type of motor & where it was placed.

Let me make this simple for you.

If there was a motor then it could power the rear wheel without any force being applied to the cranks.

Power at the rear wheel is measured via an electromagnetic brake control device - it measures the torque and rotational velocity applied to the trainer's roller.

IOW if there was a motor, then:
Power at the rear wheel/trainer's roller = Power of a motor + Power applied via the bicycle cranks

Since the power measured at the rear wheel was the same as the power measured at the cranks, the contribution by any motor (assuming this hypothetical device even existed) was therefore zero.
 
thehog said:
Stages doesn’t measure from the downward force on the pedal. It measures via the deflection in the crank arm when force is applied along with using an algorithm for temperature and torque - it doesn’t know where that force might come from.
No, it doesn't know (can be your feet/legs, or your hands, or something leaning on it) except that any such force must be applied to the crank arm itself. BB motors do not apply forces to crank arms.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS