• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Windy Mountain

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re: Re:

Note, my original offhand post on the wind was not as a defense of Froome but to point out the variables on Ventoux make it difficult to use for W/Kg, VAM, etc. I made it clear that I thought that Alp d'Huez and the Semnoz were better examples of questionable performance.
Race Radio said:
It is interesting to see that some still choose to twist what I wrote. What the file made clear is the most questionable part of the climb were Foome's attacks, something I pointed out over, and over, and over
No one's twisting the mistaken error you originally wrote. No one.

You wrote that the Ventoux climb could not be relied on due to a tailwind.

The power file you now claim backs you up in fact tears you a new one re: Ventoux being difficult to use. It isn't difficult at all. In fact. It's accurate to within 1 watt.

That's all I have to say on the matter. See you in twitterland, my friend.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
The power file you now claim backs you up in fact tears you a new one re: Ventoux being difficult to use. It isn't difficult at all. In fact. It's accurate to within 1 watt.

That's all I have to say on the matter. See you in twitterland, my friend.
More revisionist history.

The day after the stage Vayer claimed Froome did 413 watts on Venoux. That number was repeated often here. The actual SRM file shows 388.

Perhaps Vayer's calculations were off because he did not factor in the tailwind?

Many other calculations were 400-405
http://quentin-leplat.org/2013/07/14/froome-dans-le-ventoux-plus-haut-cest-le-soleil/
Note, the error in their circulations....they specifically point out they did not factor in the tailwind in the first part of the climb

The file proves what I said, there was a tailwind the majority of the climb. That is why so many of the estimates were 400 watts + when the actual numbers were 388

Anyways, enjoy your stalking
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

Race Radio said:
Dear Wiggo said:
The power file you now claim backs you up in fact tears you a new one re: Ventoux being difficult to use. It isn't difficult at all. In fact. It's accurate to within 1 watt.

That's all I have to say on the matter. See you in twitterland, my friend.
More revisionist history.

The day after the stage Vayer claimed Froome did 413 watts on Venoux. That number was repeated often here. The actual SRM file shows 388.

Perhaps Vayer's calculations were off because he did not factor in the tailwind?

Anyways, enjoy your stalking
Ross Tucker today on radio said that 388 for the 3rd week in a GT is way up there.

You think Sky are clean? You think Froome is clean?

You still thin Little Richie Porte is clean?

It all looks very postal.
 
Re:

Race Radio said:
the sceptic said:
Just saw this on twitter.. headwind from Chalet apparently. :eek:
Yup, side/headwind from the Chalet is pretty clear in all the videos. That would mean the majority of the climb had a tailwind.

Thanks for proving my point
Race Radio said:
Netserk said:
Froome's time (the one that was only 2'' from Armstrong) was of the last 15.65km, so I don't get why you use the 21km segment.
.
Yes, I do think having a tailwind for the majority of the climb, and the run in to Bedoin, does effect how fresh the riders are in the last 5km. Not sure why anyone would think that it didn't.

Some have tried to twist what I have written. I have said many times Froome's attacks that day were mutant.....but the variables make it hard to use the climb for normal calculations. I, and many others, prefer the Semnoz.

I do think Ventoux showed Froome might be a bit better climber then Quintana. From that I think we can deduce that if he did not have a bad day on Alp d'Huez or did not already have the Tour wrapped up on the Semnoz he could have put out some crazy numbers on climbs with fewer variables.
Sorry Race Radio, but I certainly didn't get from your posts that the estimation done by vetooo was absolutely correct. In fact it seems like you wrote that the 80% of tailwind would mean that the estimation would overestimate his effort.

Am I just really dumb, or were you perhaps just partially wrong?

And yes, pretty much everyone gave most credit to vetooo's numbers, not some French dude. If not, you are free to find some quotes to prove otherwise.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Re: Re:

Netserk said:
Race Radio said:
and the tailwind on the mountain helped the times on Ventoux....
So why did vetooo estimate his output dead on?
Simple, he factored in a tailwind.

I did not come up with the idea of a tailwind. Several riders and commentators were talking about it. Ross Tucker pointed it out early
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23368970
the evidence seems to suggest that they had a tailwind on the day, and that may have helped him up the climb faster than in previous years,"
Ross factored in the tailwind and was spot on with his calculations
Ferrari did not factor in the tailwind when he made his calculations. That is why, using the formula he invented, came up 401 and not 388.
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=139

Glad this can be finally put to rest. The file proves there was a tailwind
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Re:

Netserk said:
What are you talking about? Ferrari's formula got him at 5.88, which was correct.

Not vetooo's fault that Ferrari didn't inset the correct numbers.
Did you read the link I posted? It is Ferrari's website where he calculates Froome's performance on Ventoux. He comes up with 401W 6.08w/kg
 
Let's start by assessing the time to climb the last 15 km (1389m of altitude at 9%) of the ascent:

- Froome, 2013: 47'12 "- VAM = 1765 m / h - 6.08w/kg = 401W
- Armstrong, 2002: 48'33 "- VAM = 1718 m / h - 5.92w/kg = 438w
- Contador 2009: 48'57 "- VAM = 1702 m / h - 5.87w/kg = 364w

...
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Ross Tucker today on radio said that 388 for the 3rd week in a GT is way up there.

You think Sky are clean? You think Froome is clean?

You still thin Little Richie Porte is clean?

It all looks very postal.
Are you seriously asking this question? You know the answer as i have answered it over and over and over. There is even a sticky with my answer.

Me pointing out the tailwind was an effort to add information to the discussion and insure accurate calculations. I said over, and over, and over, that Froome's attacks were insane. Unfortunately you have a few obsessed trolls who try to twist what I write into some defense of Froome, when that was clearly not the case.

Odd that these trolls did not go after Ross when he pointed out the same thing. Guess it is purely personal with them

Anyways, goodbye again folks. It has been fun
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Re:

King Boonen said:
Let's start by assessing the time to climb the last 15 km (1389m of altitude at 9%) of the ascent:

- Froome, 2013: 47'12 "- VAM = 1765 m / h - 6.08w/kg = 401W
- Armstrong, 2002: 48'33 "- VAM = 1718 m / h - 5.92w/kg = 438w
- Contador 2009: 48'57 "- VAM = 1702 m / h - 5.87w/kg = 364w

...
Did you watch the video? The file is for is the last 15 km
 
Re: Re:

Race Radio said:
Netserk said:
What are you talking about? Ferrari's formula got him at 5.88, which was correct.

Not vetooo's fault that Ferrari didn't inset the correct numbers.
Did you read the link I posted? It is Ferrari's website where he calculates Froome's performance on Ventoux. He comes up with 401W 6.08w/kg
Did you read what I posted? :rolleyes:

Did you see what numbers he used for the climb?.....





Can you tell me what this says for Froome on Ventoux????

https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/498872795070472192

Tour de France 2013 - data from 6 major climbs #TDF



What formula is the numbers based on???
 
Re: Re:

Race Radio said:
King Boonen said:
Let's start by assessing the time to climb the last 15 km (1389m of altitude at 9%) of the ascent:

- Froome, 2013: 47'12 "- VAM = 1765 m / h - 6.08w/kg = 401W
- Armstrong, 2002: 48'33 "- VAM = 1718 m / h - 5.92w/kg = 438w
- Contador 2009: 48'57 "- VAM = 1702 m / h - 5.87w/kg = 364w

...
Did you watch the video? The file is for is the last 15 km

I've no view on it, I was just posting the data so people don't have to click the link. Should have made that clear.
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
Let's start by assessing the time to climb the last 15 km (1389m of altitude at 9%) of the ascent:

- Froome, 2013: 47'12 "- VAM = 1765 m / h - 6.08w/kg = 401W
- Armstrong, 2002: 48'33 "- VAM = 1718 m / h - 5.92w/kg = 438w
- Contador 2009: 48'57 "- VAM = 1702 m / h - 5.87w/kg = 364w

...
Just FYI, Contador was just holding Schleck 's wheel all up that thing, and Andy actually came in first. I know Andy is the fast becoming the Haimar Zubeldia of these forums, but still, give the man some props.

On the flip side that day they were up against a monster headwind :D
 
Re: Motorised Bike

sniper said:
Cycle Chic said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eiN2vfGKhk

at 2 minutes....I swear he has a motor in the bike....his acceleration is weird ! could also explain his knowing he'll never test positive in years to come. I,m serious.
Indeed it's an interesting slo-mo starting at ca. 1:55
Yes, at 2:00 he is playing with his bars. Di2 does have top bar button though. But knowing what we know now, it certainly looks very suspect.
 
Feb 16, 2011
1,133
0
0
Re: Motorised Bike

thehog said:
sniper said:
Cycle Chic said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eiN2vfGKhk

at 2 minutes....I swear he has a motor in the bike....his acceleration is weird ! could also explain his knowing he'll never test positive in years to come. I,m serious.
Indeed it's an interesting slo-mo starting at ca. 1:55
Yes, at 2:00 he is playing with his bars. Di2 does have top bar button though. But knowing what we know now, it certainly looks very suspect.

So Vivax is killing both the Power data estimates thread and the Windy Mountain thread. Thank you, Vivax. We love you, Vivax. Pimp my ride, Vivax.
 
May 14, 2010
4,833
2
0
Funny, if you look at the chicken's arms and legs, he actually looks fat compared to Froome.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re:

Maxiton said:
Funny, if you look at the chicken's arms and legs, he actually looks fat compared to Froome.
and his quads look like Hoys. or a bodybuilder or powerlifter or weightlifter
 
May 14, 2010
4,833
2
0
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
Maxiton said:
Funny, if you look at the chicken's arms and legs, he actually looks fat compared to Froome.
and his quads look like Hoys. or a bodybuilder or powerlifter or weightlifter
Yeah, he looks like a real cyclist.
 
Re: Motorised Bike

Stingray34 said:
thehog said:
sniper said:
Cycle Chic said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eiN2vfGKhk

at 2 minutes....I swear he has a motor in the bike....his acceleration is weird ! could also explain his knowing he'll never test positive in years to come. I,m serious.
Indeed it's an interesting slo-mo starting at ca. 1:55
Yes, at 2:00 he is playing with his bars. Di2 does have top bar button though. But knowing what we know now, it certainly looks very suspect.

So Vivax is killing both the Power data estimates thread and the Windy Mountain thread. Thank you, Vivax. We love you, Vivax. Pimp my ride, Vivax.

Actually, I change my position on this. Froome is fumbling on the bars but to change gears he goes to the lever itself. He was using a motor. Cheat.



 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS