Windy Mountain

[Dr. Maserati]

I think you have outlined the fact and the crux of the issue quite nicely. The rest is IMO just noise around the real reason why this is a debate.

If you argue that there was a tailwind in the forested, protected lower slopes, you have to concede it was a headwind in the exposed, barren upper slopes. You have to concede that the riders were in a group on the lower part. You have to concede that whatever wind there on the lower slopes was minimized by the trees, the group and the racing.

Given all that, what exactly is the point? That you can't use Ventoux as an indicator of Froome's doping or not? That is utterly subjective even if all are in agreement of the above facts.

The fact is he went insane on the upper slopes and dropped the entire peloton seated, in a kind of attack that this watcher of 38 years of cycling both here and in Europe has never seen. So what if the total climb may have been slightly influenced by a favorable breeze on the lower slopes? It was still an insane overall time and a completely insane attack.

Anyone with eyes can see it for what it was. No discussion of the tailwind in the forest or lack thereof can change that, so really what's the point?

Clearly on the mountain the prevailing wind was WNW. I've watched the tape several times and correlated road direction with wind direction. That jives perfectly with a prevailing N/NW wind after it hits the Ventoux massif and starts to wrap around the mountain.

So there was a slight tail/cross in the forest which was largely blocked by the trees. And there was a decent head/ cross in the exposed part. What is the point? Who cares if it was 80% or 75%? The wind didn't matter much in the forest and it mattered some on top. The ride was still ridiculous.

Good question.


But the thread title would seem to imply that this was about the wind on the mountain and not Froome sitting in the saddle.
I am sure if no-one cares about the 75% - 80% tailwind comment that it wont make the second page....oh wait.

 

[red_flanders]

Good question.


But the thread title would seem to imply that this was about the wind on the mountain and not Froome sitting in the saddle.
I am sure if no-one cares about the 75% - 80% tailwind comment that it wont make the second page....oh wait.

Because no one would ever discuss something that didn't really matter on an internet forum? Oh...wait.

My view is that this wind discussion is a misdirection of the important issues of the ride. You are free to disagree. If the wind mattered, make the case for why it mattered. So far, on that angle, crickets.

 

[Race Radio]

Because no one would ever discuss something that didn't really matter on an internet forum? Oh...wait.

My view is that this wind discussion is a misdirection of the important issues of the ride. You are free to disagree. If the wind mattered, make the case for why it mattered. So far, on that angle, crickets.

I would certainly like to understand why it matters so much to some. I made one, off handed, post that there was a tailwind and was instantly attacked for a week by multiple posters for simply pointing out the obvious.

 

[Benotti69]

If only Brailsford had said that it would be possible to beat doped times after 200kms of racing with a favourable tailwind in the forest. Then it wouldn't be 'questionable'.

I am sorry but thinking Froome's ride was 'questionable' is not selling. It was ridicolous.

Froome is not the best rider of the last 30 years to throw his leg over a bike. That is obvious.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Because no one would ever discuss something that didn't really matter on an internet forum? Oh...wait.

My view is that this wind discussion is a misdirection of the important issues of the ride. You are free to disagree. If the wind mattered, make the case for why it mattered. So far, on that angle, crickets.

Oh, I agree.

I dont care about the conditions per se, for me, the very nature of the climb makes it impossible to come up with any comparisons.
As was mentioned before, there are better climbs to do so, but saying that gets certain people who have an opinion about Froome in to a lather.
As does pointing out that for the majority of the climb there was tailwind.

None of that has to do with Froomes performance.

 

[red_flanders]

I would certainly like to understand why it matters so much to some. I made one, off handed, post that there was a tailwind and was instantly attacked for a week by multiple posters for simply pointing out the obvious.

I agree that what you said has certainly gone through some interpretation. But if you keep responding, it tends to indicate you think it matters that you clarify.

You have also made some posts which indicate you think it altered the times on the climb. Certainly that is debatable.

And it wasn't really a tailwind. That's comes off as a bit disingenuous, and repeating it doesn't make it so. It was a cross/tailwind, and it was in a forest in the group. So repeating over and over that there was a tailwind for the vast majority of the climb is rather inaccurate. There was a cross/tail wind on the lower, mostly forested part of the climb. The point being it really didn't likely affect times at all.

Not surprised there are those who would point that out.

 

[sniper]

I would certainly like to understand why it matters so much to some. I made one, off handed, post that there was a tailwind and was instantly attacked for a week by multiple posters for simply pointing out the obvious.

in your first posts on the topic, the ones that sparked the debate, you spoke of a "strong tailwind" for froome, with the implication that we should therefore desist from comparing froome's ventoux 2013 with armstrong's ventoux 2000.
I think that merited closer scrutiny, especially when guys like Ten Dam come forward speaking of (strong) headwinds in the final segments.

Another thing was that you supported your case with henderson's tweet who had spoken of "tailwind on the whole climb". I think that's been corrected now.

 

[Race Radio]

in your first posts on the topic, the ones that sparked the debate, you spoke of a "strong tailwind" for froome, with the implication that we should therefore desist from comparing froome's ventoux 2013 with armstrong's ventoux 2000.
I think that merited closer scrutiny, especially when guys like Ten Dam come forward speaking of (strong) headwinds in the final segments.

Another thing was that you supported your case with henderson's tweet who had spoken of "tailwind on the whole climb". I think that's been corrected now.

thanks for proving my point.

The facts support that the first 16km had a tailwind. It is odd that some fight so hard to pretend this is not the case. very odd. Pointing out the obvious fact that there was a tailwind for the majority of the climb does not mean I think Froome is clean. Pointing out that using other climbs with fewer variables as better indicators is clearly not.

Henderson was correct, there was a tailwind for the majority of the climb. Ten Dam was correct, that parts of the last 5km had a head wind. Anyone who can read a map can understand why this is the case.

The fact remains, for the majority of the climb there was a tailwind.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I agree that what you said has certainly gone through some interpretation. But if you keep responding, it tends to indicate you think it matters that you clarify.

You have also made some posts which indicate you think it altered the times on the climb. Certainly that is debatable.

And it wasn't really a tailwind. That's comes off as a bit disingenuous, and repeating it doesn't make it so. It was a cross/tailwind, and it was in a forest in the group. So repeating over and over that there was a tailwind for the vast majority of the climb is rather inaccurate. There was a cross/tail wind on the lower, mostly forested part of the climb. The point being it really didn't likely affect times at all.

Not surprised there are those who would point that out.

But was is 'Surprising' and indeed disingenuous is that those who pointed that out would not clearly state what there view or opinion was.
Why not??

As for saying headwind/tailwind - thats not disingenuous.
The climb constantly changes direction and eventually does a large significant turn. Being precise it would be a crosswind for the vast majority of it.
But as all cyclists do, you ask is the crosswind aiding you (tailwind) or hindering you (headwind).

 

[Race Radio]

I agree that what you said has certainly gone through some interpretation. But if you keep responding, it tends to indicate you think it matters that you clarify.

You have also made some posts which indicate you think it altered the times on the climb. Certainly that is debatable.

And it wasn't really a tailwind. That's comes off as a bit disingenuous, and repeating it doesn't make it so. It was a cross/tailwind, and it was in a forest in the group. So repeating over and over that there was a tailwind for the vast majority of the climb is rather inaccurate. There was a cross/tail wind on the lower, mostly forested part of the climb. The point being it really didn't likely affect times at all.

Not surprised there are those who would point that out.

It was a tailwind for the vast majority of the climb. That is a very accurate statement which is why I say it

What is disingenuous is ignoring the repeated insults, trolling, baiting and twisting of my posts to support some false narrative. When I respond to this nonsense I am accused of being obsessed with wind. When I ignore it the baiting is stepped up, even by some mods, in order to get a response.

 

[sniper]

thanks for proving my point.

The facts support that the first 16km had a tailwind. It is odd that some fight so hard to pretend this is not the case. very odd. Pointing out the obvious fact that there was a tailwind for the majority of the climb does not mean I think Froome is clean. Pointing out that using other climbs with fewer variables as better indicators is clearly not.

Henderson was correct, there was a tailwind for the majority of the climb. Ten Dam was correct, that parts of the last 5km had a head wind. Anyone who can read a map can understand why this is the case.

The fact remains, for the majority of the climb there was a tailwind.

perhaps, what is odd is that by stressing the tailwind in the majority of the climb you were/are drawing attention away from the final stretch, which is the part where froome went mutant with at times (considerable) headwind ("wind vol op kop" according to Ten Dam) and beating armstrong/pantani times.

it was additionally interesting in light of the fact that you had previously called froome's time up the ventoux "encouraging", where everybody with two eyes had just seen him destroy the entire field with a mutant excelleration.

just pointing out why I think this debate aroused (my) interest.

 

[Netserk]

IMO there are two main questions about the wind:

1) Was the wind on the day an advantage or a disadvantage compared to a (totally unrealistic) dead calm day with no wind? (This question is related to estimated power)

2) Were the circumstances similar for the two record times from Armstrong and Froome? (Can we compare the two performances)

 

[red_flanders]

But was is 'Surprising' and indeed disingenuous is that those who pointed that out would not clearly state what there view or opinion was.
Why not??

I certainly have stated my view. Repeatedly. The responses have been unsatisfying, so my view remains unchanged. We all know what I think of the wind direction and if I think it matters.

I wish everyone participating on this topic would address more clearly why it matters to them. Certainly the view that it's everyone else's fault for bringing it up doesn't answer the question for me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

perhaps, what is odd is that by stressing the tailwind in the majority of the climb you were/are drawing attention away from the final stretch, which is the part where froome went mutant with at times (considerable) headwind ("wind vol op kop" according to Ten Dam) and beating armstrong/pantani times.

it was additionally interesting in light of the fact that you had previously called froome's time up the ventoux "encouraging", where everybody with two eyes had just seen him destroy the entire field with a mutant excelleration.

just pointing out why I think this debate aroused (my) interest.

Then if so why the repeated cries by you that RR was "(grossly) exaggerating" a tailwind if it made no difference and you wanted to just discuss the last part of the climb?

 

[sniper]

Then if so why the repeated cries by you that RR was "(grossly) exaggerating" a tailwind if it made no difference and you wanted to just discuss the last part of the climb?

your continuous interpretations of what I did and did not want/say/mean are both off and off topic.

 

[Race Radio]

perhaps, what is odd is that by stressing the tailwind in the majority of the climb you were/are drawing attention away from the final stretch, which is the part where froome went mutant with at times (considerable) headwind ("wind vol op kop" according to Ten Dam) and beating armstrong/pantani times.

it was additionally interesting in light of the fact that you had previously called froome's time up the ventoux "encouraging", where everybody with two eyes had just seen him destroy the entire field with a mutant excelleration.

just pointing out why I think this debate aroused (my) interest.

I have to ask, are you posting this misrepresentation intentionally? As I have posted multiple times on this topic I find it hard to believe you do not know the answer to both of these questions.

1. I pointed out very clearly multiple times that Froome's accelerations were very questionable. How am I trying to "drawing attention away from the final stretch" when I pointed out several times that I thought that his performance on that stretch was not normal?

2. The first numbers I received on Froomes time were that he was almost 6 minutes down on Mayo. I thought this was a positive sign given the obvious tailwind that kept the group together at the bottom of the climb. When a wide variety of numbers started flying around on twitter about what his time might be I wrote that due to the confusion I suggest people follow list of posters that are far more focused on that aspect of the sport then I am.

As I have made both of these positions clear multiple times why do you, and others, continue to pretend I have not?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I certainly have stated my view. Repeatedly. The responses have been unsatisfying, so my view remains unchanged. We all know what I think of the wind direction and if I think it matters.

I wish everyone participating on this topic would address more clearly why it matters to them. Certainly the view that it's everyone else's fault for bringing it up doesn't answer the question for me.

The blue and the bolded do not match.

To the bolded - RR stated his opinion. ...Tailwind, 80% of the climb, he also put in qualifiers about that section and using the climb, those were ignored.

Normal discourse should be that anyone who did not agree would show why they don't agree.

 

[Race Radio]

your continuous interpretations of what I did and did not want/say/mean are both off and off topic.

Hello Pot, It's Kettle.....

 

[sniper]

I have to ask, are you posting this misrepresentation intentionally? As I have posted multiple times on this topic I find it hard to believe you do not know the answer to both of these questions.

1. I pointed out very clearly multiple times that Froome's accelerations were very questionable. How am I trying to "drawing attention away from the final stretch" when I pointed out several times that I thought that his performance on that stretch was not normal?

2. The first numbers I received on Froomes time were that he was almost 6 minutes down on Mayo. I thought this was a positive sign given the obvious tailwind that kept the group together at the bottom of the climb. When a wide variety of numbers started flying around on twitter about what his time might be I wrote that due to the confusion I suggest people follow list of posters that are far more focused on that aspect of the sport then I am.

As I have made both of these positions clear multiple times why do you, and others, continue to pretend I have not?

fair enough.
I was explaining mainly how the issue aroused my interest, and yes, you have, after a sloppy start ("strong tailwind" + henderson tweet), satisfactorily readdressed and reassessed the issues.

the debate then continued and got more into detail about the forest part and the 80%, which was probably an unnecessary extension of the debate, I admit, whilst the original issue (can we compare the different ventoux stages?) got lost.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

your continuous interpretations of what I did and did not want/say/mean are both off and off topic.

You have 30+ posts on this thread which is about the wind conditions on Ventoux - I asked you what you view was on the topic, you refused.
So, all your posts are off-topic.

Anytime you wish to give a clear answer then go right ahead.

 

[red_flanders]

The blue and the bolded do not match.

To the bolded - RR stated his opinion. ...Tailwind, 80% of the climb, he also put in qualifiers about that section and using the climb, those were ignored.

Normal discourse should be that anyone who did not agree would show why they don't agree.

They do, sorry it's not clear to you.

As I said, I have showed exactly why I don't agree. Surely you're not suggesting I haven't.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

They do, sorry it's not clear to you.

As I said, I have showed exactly why I don't agree. Surely you're not suggesting I haven't.

I already said I agree with most of your points.

But your "wish" was about others, which is not what has happened on this thread.

 

[red_flanders]

I already said I agree with most of your points.

But your "wish" was about others, which is not what has happened on this thread.

Sorry, didn't understand that.

Let's be clear, the lack of answers on why it matters has been on all sides of the argument. At least to me.

 

[Race Radio]

Sorry, didn't understand that.

Let's be clear, the lack of answers on why it matters has been on all sides of the argument. At least to me.

Why does it matter to me? Easy......for over a week various posters have insulted, trolled, baited, and twisted what I have written. You should ask them what motivates them to do this.

 

[red_flanders]

And we have responded to all reported posts one way or another. Please take comments about the moderation to the appropriate thread. Thanks.