Windy Mountain

[poupou]

I would just precise that, on a such slope on a sunny day, there is always breezes following the slope. So it's more likely that riders of most of Ventoux stages run with a sunny day have benefited of such wind on the low part of the mountain.

 

[sniper]

Note that when vaughters c.s. claimed that the times had gone down, nobody in or outside the Clinic was counterclaiming that this might have been due to strong headwinds.

Now that the times are up again, wind suddenly comes into the debate as a key variable that previously hadn't played much of role in the discussion.

To be sure, I'm not blaming anybody for that. Just shows how strong (and at times irrational ) the desire is to believe again.

 

[Von Mises]

The discussion went like this. RR said Quintana was only 30s behind Froome.
I responded that that the overall gulf in ability is greater than 30s because climbing is 100% of Quintanas ability whereas in Froome's case its only part of his ability since he is a tting god too.
You reply that other gt riders have been good tters and climbers.

Thereby totally missing the point of the comparison between Froome's and Quintana's ascents up Ventoux.

No, discussion went llike this. Alphabet asked: "why the rest of the field didn't benefit from the same gale force tailwind that Froome apparently took advantage of. Shouldn't they all have finished within 12% of Mayo, rather than Froome getting that close and the others being 20% behind?"

I replied to him and brought up historical times at Ventoux, what showed that Froome´s result was not so exceptional.

Then RR replied Alphabet and asked "Did you mean 29 (Is this 20%) seconds?"

And only after this you get involved.

That said, I still think that your case is weak.

Let me be clear - I also think that Froome is more suspicious than Quintana, but it comes mostly from their background, how they arrived to pro scene. What happened in Ventoux, difference between Froome and Quintana, at least in my mind, dint not change Froome´s "suspicion index".

Secondly, though I agree that generally nowadays differences between top riders are smaller, you can find plenty of examples from recent years too. Basso Giro 2010, Contador year later, Contador´s tour wins and so on.

Also, I do not think much about your argument about climbing and TT abilities. Is Contador automatically more suspect than Frank Schleck because he can beat Schleck in mountains and TT-s. Nibali automatically more suspect than Santambrogio because ha can beat him in mountains and TT-s. No, I dont think so.

 

[Parker]

Note that when vaughters c.s. claimed that the times had gone down, nobody in or outside the Clinic was counterclaiming that this might have been due to strong headwinds.

Now that the times are up again, wind suddenly comes into the debate as a key variable that previously hadn't played much of role in the discussion.

To be sure, I'm not blaming anybody for that. Just shows how strong (and at times irrational ) the desire is to believe again.

That's because Vaughters was talking about a general trend based on many climbs by many riders, so the variables will generally even out and are therefore of little importance.

It's not the same as looking at a single performance by one rider, where the conditions and other variables are of importance.

 

[sniper]

That's because Vaughters was talking about a general trend based on many climbs by many riders, so the variables will generally even out and are therefore of little importance.

It's not the same as looking at a single performance by one rider, where the conditions and other variables are of importance.

granted, of course.

yet the point that remains is that when the times are slower, people who say they dedicate their lives to anti-doping as well as a range of cycling officials will shout it off the rooftops as evidence of clean(er) cycling. When the times get faster again, these very same people will largely stay silent, or come up with a variety of spin stories.

reminiscing them days, when ridiculous performances were ridiculous performances.

sorry, off topic.

 

[Ferminal]

But if we discard the first part of the climb from the analysis, then the remainder of the climb should only be compared to ascents of similar profile / duration.

You can't meaningfully compare the final 14k segments of a 20k ascent, as in one ascent the riders may already be working hard and in the other they may be barely more than ticking over.

It's a bit like trying to draw anything too meaningful from who rides the fastest second half in a pursuit. If you've ridden the first half balls-out, you will ride the second half relatively "slowly", but could still beat a rival who coasted in the first half before blitzing the second half.

I'd also dispute the claim that the riders didn't take advantage of the tailwind early on. They can't not have benefited from it unless they rode with their brakes on. For a given speed, even a relatively low one, the stronger the tailwind, the less a rider has to work and the harder they can ride later on.

Has any leader attacked Ventoux before the forest? If you include ~4% sections you effectively have no grounds for comparison as the tactical nature of a race becomes the dominant factor rather than the ability of the individuals performing. A GT climb of 4% could go on for 25km at sea level and you would have no meaningful selection. I guess you can look at the W/kg required to maintain x kmh at 4% under drafting conditions and find out how much it really matters.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

granted, of course.

yet the point that remains is that when the times are slower, people who say they dedicate their lives to anti-doping as well as a range of cycling officials will shout it off the rooftops as evidence of clean(er) cycling. When the times get faster again, these very same people will largely stay silent, or come up with a variety of spin stories.

reminiscing them days, when ridiculous performances were ridiculous performances.

sorry, off topic.

Dont be sorry, it is not off topic, it is the nucleus of this topic. The Windy Mountain. Perhaps we should call it Windy Mountains. There is a clear pattern with some people who once 'slayed the dragon' that extraordinairy performances the last years are often explained due to Windy Mountain Conditions. When confronted with the conditions of the ghosts of the past which seemed to be very simular to todays performances the dragon slayers keep silent.

Funniest thing about Windy Ventoux, isnt Windy Ventoux itsself a weather station? That said, what is the translation for Ventoux again? Wind from everywhere?

I have rewatched the Ventoux climb a couple of times, the whole climb, from Bedoin on - hell, must have had time to kill or something like that - just like the Bonascre climb for that matter, the tailwind stories are fabrications, no more, no less.

Why is that?

It must be my recalcitrant nature but I have some problems with people selling me things I have seen completely different with my own working eyes.

Interesting that they were historically very slow on the Bedoin to Saint-Esteve segment which lines up with a tailwind ~W-WNW. Slowest ever I think and at least 30 seconds slower than 2009. Which is also the segment where the wind effect would be most significant due to combination of low gradient/open terrain, but on the other hand you have the goslow pack riding. So even if there was a tailwind there, they definitely did not take advantage of it (which is of course why proper analysis should only consider the climb from Saint-Esteve)

That might be because of the crosswinds they endured there. Really, go to an appropriate downloadsite - as ASO have killed all open sources on Utube - and see for yourself people.

Windy Mountain Conditions, the new fable.

 

[Netserk]

Hi FGL what is your take on these questions?

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)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dont be sorry, it is not off topic, it is the nucleus of this topic. The Windy Mountain. Perhaps we should call it Windy Mountains. There is a clear pattern with some people who once 'slayed the dragon' that extraordinairy performances the last years are often explained due to Windy Mountain Conditions. When confronted with the conditions of the ghosts of the past which seemed to be very simular to todays performances the dragon slayers keep silent.

It is off topic.

That may be the nucleus for yourself and sniper, but that only exposes your bias.
If RR is wrong (or the other unnamed people are wrong) then you should be able to show they are wrong.

Funniest thing about Windy Ventoux, isnt Windy Ventoux itsself a weather station? That said, what is the translation for Ventoux again? Wind from everywhere?

I have rewatched the Ventoux climb a couple of times, the whole climb, from Bedoin on - hell, must have had time to kill or something like that - just like the Bonascre climb for that matter, the tailwind stories are fabrications, no more, no less.

Why is that?

It must be my recalcitrant nature but I have some problems with people selling me things I have seen completely different with my own working eyes.

That might be because of the crosswinds they endured there. Really, go to an appropriate downloadsite - as ASO have killed all open sources on Utube - and see for yourself people.

Windy Mountain Conditions, the new fable.

Here you are:

From this video at 57 seconds - these are the first flags that are not being waved, blowing very strongly. These is between 16 & 15 km to go.
Below I have the exact point on a map and the direction.

 

[sniper]

...
If RR is wrong (or the other unnamed people are wrong) then you should be able to show they are wrong.

take one step back please.
if somebody makes a claim ("strong tailwind", "80% obvious tailwind"), that certain somebody carries a certain burden of proof, don't you think?
I mean, a link or something, you know, that thingie you always ask for.

What was RR's link/evidence? Henderson's tweet which turned out to be a joke.
SRM data which he misinterpreted.

So RR's initial evidence was simply flawed. Video evidence came in later in RR's story, only after the other evidence had been tackled And let's be honest, the video footage is, at best, ambiguous wrt the 80% tailwind claim.

With the available evidence, I don't think any court, judge, not even you, would rule in favor of the 80% here.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

take one step back please.
if somebody makes a claim ("strong tailwind", "80% obvious tailwind"), that certain somebody carries a certain burden of proof, don't you think?
I mean, a link or something, you know, that thingie you always ask for.

What was RR's link/evidence? Henderson's tweet which turned out to be a joke.
SRM data which he misinterpreted.

So RR's initial evidence was simply flawed. Video evidence came in later in RR's story, only after the other evidence had been tackled And let's be honest, the video footage is, at best, ambiguous wrt the 80% tailwind claim.

With the available evidence, I don't think any court, judge, not even you, would rule in favor of the 80% here.

So the 80% is wrong? Ok - what exact figure did you come up with?
Thanks.

Also, this was RRs (who you are back talking about again, funny that) very first post on this thread - you even responded to it - if links, evidence was your concern why not request it then?

the prevailing wisdom of the forum is the wind was from the SE, resulting in Crosswinds for the last 3-4 km.

If that is the case what is the prevailing wind for the first 16km of the 21km climb?

Pretty simple, it was a tail wind for the vast majority of the climb.

Nothing to factually wrong or even mildly controversial in that post.

 

[Netserk]

Nothing to factually wrong or even mildly controversial in that post.

"the prevailing wisdom of the forum is the wind was from the SE"

 

[sniper]

So the 80% is wrong? Ok - what exact figure did you come up with?
Thanks.

Also, this was RRs (who you are back talking about again, funny that) very first post on this thread - you even responded to it - if links, evidence was your concern why not request it then?

Nothing to factually wrong or even mildly controversial in that post.

i think you missed the start of the discussion in the Walsh thread.
anyway, good to see we agree about the missing links/evidence.

 

[Race Radio]

take one step back please.
if somebody makes a claim ("strong tailwind", "80% obvious tailwind"), that certain somebody carries a certain burden of proof, don't you think?
I mean, a link or something, you know, that thingie you always ask for.

What was RR's link/evidence? Henderson's tweet which turned out to be a joke.
SRM data which he misinterpreted.

So RR's initial evidence was simply flawed. Video evidence came in later in RR's story, only after the other evidence had been tackled And let's be honest, the video footage is, at best, ambiguous wrt the 80% tailwind claim.

With the available evidence, I don't think any court, judge, not even you, would rule in favor of the 80% here.

Henderson's tweet did not "Turn out to be a joke". there is nothing that supports it being a joke. Some posters hoped it would be a joke, but hoping it was does not make it so

Multiple experts said the SRM data, and talks with riders, supported a tailwind. You are welcome take it up with them....but somebody already did that

there were reports from half a dozen riders saying "Cross-tail wind" and then when we got some SRM data, it showed that all estimates (based on time) were higher than actual power,which suggests they were "helped" up.

so it comes down to was it 70%, 75%, or 80% of the climb? It is clear that the vast majority of the climb had a tailwind. I don't think any court, judge, or even you would deny this.

But we both know this is not about the tailwind. You made it clear yesterday that your concern is not wind.

 

[Race Radio]

"the prevailing wisdom of the forum is the wind was from the SE"

I am glad you agree.

Given the number of times a cross wind in the last 5km was posted on here, or the videos that show a clear cross wind in the last 5km, or the riders who talked about the cross wind in the last 5km, it seems obvious there was a crosswind on top.....which would result in a tailwind in the first 16km

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i think you missed the start of the discussion in the Walsh thread.
anyway, good to see we agree about the missing links/evidence.

There is not much need for evidence or links when it is pretty apparent to be a logical conclusion.

But - now since you seem to be an advocate for links and "evidence" as you kept referring to RRs claim of 80% as a "(gross) exaggeration", what figure have you come up to show they are exaggerating?
Thanks.

 

[Race Radio]

There is not much need for evidence or links when it is pretty apparent to be a logical conclusion.

But - now since you seem to be an advocate for links and "evidence" as you kept referring to RRs claim of 80% as a "(gross) exaggeration", what figure have you come up to show they are exaggerating?
Thanks.

Don't hold your breath, he made it clear yesterday this is not about wind.

Here is a link

the evidence seems to suggest that they had a tailwind on the day,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23368970

 

[Netserk]

I am glad you agree.

Given the number of times a cross wind in the last 5km was posted on here, or the videos that show a clear cross wind in the last 5km, or the riders who talked about the cross wind in the last 5km, it seems obvious there was a crosswind on top.....which would result in a tailwind in the first 16km

If the wind had been from SE, then there wouldn't have been a headwind on the final stretch...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If the wind had been from SE, then there wouldn't have been a headwind on the final stretch...

Nope.
Again that was asked back then and this was RRs reply.

I have been pretty clear that the last 2-3 km is very exposed to wind. As you can see by the map it would have head, cross, and tail. Ten Dam would likely have felt a lot of this as he was pulling for much of that IIRC That does not change the fact that 80% of the climb had a tailwind. There was 16-17km of tailwind. Some is less exposed, some of it is more exposed....but the vast majority of the climb had a tailwind.

Stating that fact does not mean I am an employee of SKY or am trying to protect dopers.

 

[Race Radio]

If the wind had been from SE, then there wouldn't have been a headwind on the final stretch...

Yes, there would have as the final 1 km is exposed to the wind coming across the plane. This corrusponds with what Martin and Ten Dam said as well

It is pretty obvious on all the videos and the pictures Dr. Mas posted.

Have you ever ridden Ventoux before.....or any large mountains? As Science pointed out a 6,000 foot high mountain can effect the wind.

 

[Netserk]

So Mas do you think there was a SSW wind or a SE wind?

 

[sniper]

Henderson's tweet did not "Turn out to be a joke". there is nothing that supports it being a joke. Some posters hoped it would be a joke, but hoping it was does not make it so

Multiple experts said the SRM data, and talks with riders, supported a tailwind. You are welcome take it up with them....but somebody already did that



so it comes down to was it 70%, 75%, or 80% of the climb? It is clear that the vast majority of the climb had a tailwind. I don't think any court, judge, or even you would deny this.

But we both know this is not about the tailwind. You made it clear yesterday that your concern is not wind.

if henderson's "tailwind on the whole climb" wasn't a joke, then what was it?
He finished 146th in the bus that day.

the SRM data is apparently open to different interpretations. So in my humble opinion you should at least have left some a scope for error in your analysis, a disclaimer or something. I think if you had, the discussion would have faded soon enough.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So Mas do you think there was a SSW wind or a SE wind?

From the SSW.

 

[The Hitch]

Don't hold your breath, he made it clear yesterday this is not about wind.

Here is a link


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23368970

Umm thats the bbc.

And its an extremely biased one sided article. None of the obvious counter observations to the arguments in favour of Froome are mentioned.

Its like citing ABC in a debate on whether Evans is suspicious.

 

[Netserk]

From the SSW.

Then why did you write this:

Nothing to factually wrong or even mildly controversial in that post.

To this post:

the prevailing wisdom of the forum is the wind was from the SE, resulting in Crosswinds for the last 3-4 km.

If that is the case what is the prevailing wind for the first 16km of the 21km climb?

Pretty simple, it was a tail wind for the vast majority of the climb.