Windy Mountain

[Race Radio]

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.

So the BBC got Ross to lie about the wind?

Strong claim, anything to back that up?

 

[sniper]

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

does that somehow make me a bad person?
Your claims are put to highest of standards. I'd take that as a compliment.
Whether you like it or not, some still consider you the clinic's biggest ally in this whole mess.

Which is also why Dr. Mas's repeated calls that I should provide my own estimates are so laughable: who cares about what I think. I'm not a player in all this. You are. And a respected one.

 

[The Hitch]

So the BBC got Ross to lie about the wind?

?

Excuse me?

Please show me where I said that.

 

[Race Radio]

Then why did you write this:



To this post:

It appears now the discussion has devolved into the hair splitting phase.

I doubt anyone is going to come up with the precise degree of the tailwind, SE, SW, WSW. We will also likely never agree on the precise % of the route that was a tailwind, 70%, 75%, 80%..... because for some here the discussion has nothing to do with wind

split hairs all you like, the majority of the climb had a tailwind

 

[Netserk]

It appears now the discussion has devolved into the hair splitting phase.

I doubt anyone is going to come up with the precise degree of the tailwind, SE, SW, WSW. We will also likely never agree on the precise % of the route that was a tailwind, 70%, 75%, 80%..... because for some here the discussion has nothing to do with wind

split hairs all you like, the majority of the climb had a tailwind

There's 90 degrees difference between SE and SW. That's quite magnificent IMO, and not 'splitting hairs'.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Then why did you write this:


To this post:

I wrote it as it is accurate.

The "prevailing wisdom of the forum" - does not exist.
And it would have only remained pertinent except RR clearly stated that there was tailwind for majority of climb and a crosswind (which he clarified as headwind)

 

[Race Radio]

Excuse me?

Please show me where I said that.

Sure, right here

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.

This thread is about wind direction. Ross made a very accurate observation that the climb had a tail wind.

You dismissed the BBC as biased etc......how does whatever your personal issues with the BBC change Ross' observation? What does the BBC's "Bias" have to do with Ross' expert opinion?

 

[Netserk]

I wrote it as it is accurate.

The "prevailing wisdom of the forum" - does not exist.
And it would have only remained pertinent except RR clearly stated that there was tailwind for majority of climb and a crosswind (which he clarified as headwind)

So something that does not exist is accurate?

I'm sorry, but you have lost me on this one.

 

[sniper]

It appears now the discussion has devolved into the hair splitting phase.

I doubt anyone is going to come up with the precise degree of the tailwind, SE, SW, WSW. We will also likely never agree on the precise % of the route that was a tailwind, 70%, 75%, 80%..... because for some here the discussion has nothing to do with wind

split hairs all you like, the majority of the climb had a tailwind

But you tend to forget or ignore the thrust of your own claim: namely that we shouldn't compare ventoux times, because there was a (strong) tailwind for the majority of the climb.

Do you still take that position?
What about the final tree-less kilometers, where Froome beat Armstrong/Pantani-times in conditions that by several independent observers have been characterized as involving "strong headwinds"?

What do you say to Dumoulin?

Samuel DUMOULIN ‏@SamuelDumoulin 15 Jul

@ammattipyoraily 2000 | Marco Pantani: 18 min 11 sec 2013 | Chris Froome: 17 min 41 sec Inexploitable,vent de face très fort#infodemerde

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So something that does not exist is accurate?

I'm sorry, but you have lost me on this one.

No, something that does not exists, doesn't exist.

 

[Race Radio]

There's 90 degrees difference between SE and SW. That's quite magnificent IMO, and not 'splitting hairs'.

So how many km of the 21 km climb do you think had a direct, or side, tailwind?

 

[Netserk]

So how many km of the 21 km climb do you think had a direct, or side, tailwind?

I don't know, but I try to find out. I'm not claiming to know the answer.

For me the discussion is not about 'winning', but to test the different arguments as to get as close to the truth as possible.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I see you like to forget the thrust of your own claim: namely that we shouldn't compare ventoux times, because there was a (strong) tailwind for the majority of the climb.

Do you still take that position?
What about the final tree-less kilometers, where Froome beat Armstrong/Pantani-times in conditions that by several independent observers have been characterized as involving "strong headwinds"?

Well if you only wuish to talk about the last "tree less kilometres" then what does it matter about the earlier factual tailwind??

And if you wish to only compare a short segment - then start quoting the times and do your due diligence in comparing the conditions of each.

What do you say to Dumoulin?

I would say "Chapeau Dumoulin, you have learned how to retweet."

 

[Race Radio]

But you tend to forget or ignore the thrust of your own claim: namely that we shouldn't compare ventoux times, because there was a (strong) tailwind for the majority of the climb.

Do you still take that position?
What about the final tree-less kilometers, where Froome beat Armstrong/Pantani-times in conditions that by several independent observers have been characterized as involving "strong headwinds"?

What do you say to Dumoulin?

Why do you ask this question again and again if I have answered it again and again?

You are again trying desperately to twist my, and many others, observation that there was a tailwind on the majority of the climb into something it is not.

So how about you, So how many km of the 21 km climb do you think had a direct, or side, tailwind?

 

[Race Radio]

I don't know, but I try to find out. I'm not claiming to know the answer.

Oh, I see. You have no problem challenging others positions but are unwilling to give one of your own. Safer that way, smart

 

[Race Radio]

For me the discussion is not about 'winning', but to test the different arguments as to get as close to the truth as possible.

If you had a series of posters troll, insult, bait, and twist your every post for a week you may feel differently.

 

[Netserk]

If you had a series of posters troll, insult, bait, and twist your every post for a week you may feel differently.

Oh I do think that some here are more interested in 'winning' the argument than getting closer to the truth, but I don't think that is the case for everybody.

 

[sniper]

Why do you ask this question again and again if I have answered it again and again?

You are again trying desperately to twist my, and many others, observation that there was a tailwind on the majority of the climb into something it is not.

So how about you, So how many km of the 21 km climb do you think had a direct, or side, tailwind?

Who cares what I think. I'm not a player in all this.
You are. And a respected one.
Your credibility matters. Mine doesn't.

Whether you like it or not, your considered a (very) important ally in the fight against doping. Your opinion on Froome and Sky matters and will therefore be put under the magnifying glass.

You are again trying desperately to twist my, and many others, observation that there was a tailwind on the majority of the climb into something it is not.

your twisting my post. I'm not talking about your observation in isolation (reread my post please).
i guess we can all agree that, in isolation, your tailwind observation would have been totally irrelevant.

 

[Race Radio]

Oh I do think that some here are more interested in 'winning' the argument than getting closer to the truth, but I don't think that is the case for everybody.

Sure, some would prefer to sit on the sidelines and toss rocks.

Anyone who thinks they are going to get the "Truth" based on wind direction does not know much about the sport. Climbing times or wind direction do not result in sanctions.

 

[Netserk]

Sure, some would prefer to sit on the sidelines and toss rocks.

Anyone who thinks they are going to get the "Truth" based on wind direction does not know much about the sport. Climbing times or wind direction do not result in sanctions.

I meant the truth about the wind. Not the truth about Froome.

 

[Von Mises]

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

Though I agree with you that mostly it was crosswind in last 5 km-s, there were also several stretches what showed tailwind or at least cross-tailwind.

I saw first clear headwind stretch 1,7 km before end (though there were couple of spots before what seemed to be head/cross - but I am not sure, flags were badly positioned or not clearly seen.). But overall I agree with you.

 

[Race Radio]

Who cares what I think. I'm not a player in all this.
You are. And a respected one.
Your credibility matters. Mine doesn't.

Whether you like it or not, some still see you as the Clinic's strongest ally in the fight against doping. Might sound a bit too dramatic, but I think there's some truth in this.

your twisting my post. I'm not talking about your observation in isolation (reread my post please).
but am talking about your observation in combination with a certain recommendation, which is why you made the observation in the first place.
i guess we can all agree that, in isolation, your tailwind observation would have been totally irrelevant.

Thank you for the kind words but please review this thread, I have addressed all of this.

While I have been writing about wind direction others have been trying to read more into what I write. When that does not work the baiting and insults come out. I made it clear that because of the variables on ventoux that other stages would be better indicators from a purely VAM, W/KG basis. I made it clear some of Froome's performances, including his final attack on Ventoux, were questionable. Sorry, questionable is the best I can give you right now. This is an opinion share by many in the sport.

Ignoring the wind direction will not prove, or disprove, if Froome is doping. In the end history will be the judge. Nobody gets away with it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Though I agree with you that mostly it was crosswind in last 5 km-s, there were also several stretches what showed tailwind or at least cross-tailwind.

<snipped pics for brevity>
I saw first clear headwind stretch 1,7 km before end (though there were couple of spots before what seemed to be head/cross - but I am not sure, flags were badly positioned or not clearly seen.). But overall I agree with you.

While you are correct, again - RR addressed this on the very first page:

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]

Though I agree with you that mostly it was crosswind in last 5 km-s, there were also several stretches what showed tailwind or at least cross-tailwind.

I saw first clear headwind stretch 1,7 km before end (though there were couple of spots before what seemed to be head/cross - but I am not sure, flags were badly positioned or not clearly seen.). But overall I agree with you.

Yes, the 5.6km and 5.4kkm points are just after CR where there are long stretches where they would have had the same tailwind that pushed them the first 15.5km. After that it would have been mostly side wind, with the exception of the exposed final 2km

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Hi FGL what is your take on these questions?

I'll do my best.

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)

As stated before, I rewatched the whole climb, from Bedoin on, for me that false flat is not part of the actual climb, but hey, lets include it, for the sake of the argument.

The false flat from Bedoin till about 15.5K had crosswind, looking at the flags quite substancial crosswinds. First from the right, a very few times from the left, I noticed one little part with a cross/tailwind. Is that favourable? Well, compared to no wind not with my experience on the bike, I hate crosswinds, when you cant change lanes you in fact are having headwind.

The forest is done and dusted, there is no wind problem/advantage there, no less power needed there due to a howling tailwind. Sorry, couldnt resist

The section above the treeline was cross/tail/head, at best it evens out, but that is my interpretation on what I saw. The Irizar SRM could suggests otherwise though, but how reliable is his SRM when he was back in the field how much minutes? The top contenders should release their powerfiles so a pattern can be established, but hey, we know the answer to that question.

So, to go back at the question: a part crosswind, a part tail/crosswind, a part headwind. I am not totally sure, I think it evens out in the end.

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

Not sure of the 2 Armstrong record times. Do you mean full EPO 2000 Armstrond vs Pantani and the stage Virenque won?

Well, the 2000 stage had big headwinds above the treeline, on the other hand we know due to the Hamilton book they went gungho from the forest if I remember correctly.

The Virenque win stage was quite simular to this years stage, with a favourable wind the last K's.

So, an equal time in kinda simular conditions to the best known blooddoper since mankind. Yep, I would defend that too.

Not only that, when u compare the climbing conditions with 1994 it is not a surprise those guys had a real tailwind back then.

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.

Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=28

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=99

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=185

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=224

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=233

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=278
[yep, there the 'howling' tailwind presents itsself for the first time]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=357
[Andy having trouble to stay on the bike due to the howling tailwind there]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=376

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=386

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=418

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=442

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=493

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=512

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=544

And for the first 6K false flat:

* 20.8km: crosswind from the rightside
* 20km: idem dito
* 18.5km: idem dito
* 18km: crosswind from the left
* 17.5km: cross/slightly tailwind from the right
* 15.5km: entering the forest, nullifying windconditions untill the highest part of the forest