Windy Mountain

[Benotti69]

You should read my posts and not some trolls intentional misrepresentation of my posts.

I wrote, very clearly, that Semnoz and Alp d'Huez were better examples of questionable performances. Riders said there was a tailwind, the video shows a tailwind. Many of the experts, like Ross Tucker, who calculate W/kg and VAM for most stages agree there was a tailwind. Pointing this fact out is not a declaration of support for Froome, just that there are better climbs to use as a measurement.

I doubt a clean rider will ever match Pantani on Alp d'Huez, Hautacam, etc. What is the limit? Don't know, 6.2 w/kg for 30 min or over is certainly questionable. 6.4 w/kg should set off alarms...6.7, Pas Normal. That is Riis, Pantani area.

Here is an interesting link to some of the best outputs of all time, and some from this year.

http://tour-manager.freehostia.com/start.php

There is either a doping or clean, no greay areas, no 'questions', no 'alarm bells' or 'pas normal'.

Why do you keep referring to Froome's performances as having questions?
______________

I think lots are fearful if another TdF winner is found doping it will be a positive to far for the sport to come back from.

Hence Sky, like Armstrong get the free ride.

 

[Alphabet]

I've come to the conclusion now that comparing anything about Froome- w/kg, tailwind, climbing speeds etc. with big name dopers of the past is nothing more than a red herring. There are always easy (but ultimately false) explanations for that sort of thing, and I think that we're wasting our time debating it. It won't get us anywhere.

What is 100% irrefutable is that his numbers, by a stupidly large amount, outstrip everybody else. That should be the focus of our discussion, I think, rather than 'oh but xx stage was less tough than yy stage and his time was still almost as quick as Armstrong on zz climb'. Why is it that he is so much better than everybody else? Don't they (especially his more talented Colombian team mates) get the same advantages of a tailwind and special pillows? If Sky are the real deal then I want to see Uran and Henao destroying the Vuelta like Froome at the Tour. They were supposed to be by far better than Froome a couple of years ago. They had the obvious talent as well as the obvious potential. If marginal gains can take an average cyclist to being the most dominant rider in the peloton, then why can't they take a cyclist who was supposed to be a superstar to a level at least equal to that?

 

[bewildered]

I haven't seen any evidence of a general tailwind up Ventoux and I don't see how there could have been given all the switchbacks. Was the wind changing direction with Froome?! Liggett repeatedly referred to a headwind and said there was a tailwind only for the last few kms. The weather reports for the day show head/crosswinds for most of the climb.

The first source for tailwind was the Greg Henderson tweet, but this was 100% sarcastic:-

Greg Henderson ‏@Greghenderson1
'Tailwind up the whole climb helped my watts per kilo guys so don't go getting too impressed by my time up Ventoux.'

Henderson finished 32.36 mins down on Froome, 146th out of 181 riders, same time as the rider in 179th place. '...don't go getting too impressed by my time up Ventoux'.

People were calling tailwind as soon as they could and using anything they could get their hands on, incl the henderson tweet, to back it up.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I've come to the conclusion now that comparing anything about Froome- w/kg, tailwind, climbing speeds etc. with big name dopers of the past is nothing more than a red herring. There are always easy (but ultimately false) explanations for that sort of thing, and I think that we're wasting our time debating it. It won't get us anywhere.

What is 100% irrefutable is that his numbers, by a stupidly large amount, outstrip everybody else. That should be the focus of our discussion, I think, rather than 'oh but xx stage was less tough than yy stage and his time was still almost as quick as Armstrong on zz climb'. Why is it that he is so much better than everybody else? Don't they (especially his more talented Colombian team mates) get the same advantages of a tailwind and special pillows? If Sky are the real deal then I want to see Uran and Henao destroying the Vuelta like Froome at the Tour. They were supposed to be by far better than Froome a couple of years ago. They had the obvious talent as well as the obvious potential. If marginal gains can take an average cyclist to being the most dominant rider in the peloton, then why can't they take a cyclist who was supposed to be a superstar to a level at least equal to that?

Then it is a good thing this topic is about the windconditions on Mont Ventoux Tour de France 2013. Sorry about my off topicness adding the climb to Ax3 Domaines video. I just was of the opinion the BS Race Radio was posting here should be adressed.

I did see a windy climb about an hour ago in Spain.

 

[Race Radio]

Hog got banned for his trolling here so he takes it to twitter. Ross Tucker set him straight.

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. difficult to know, because it was 'generally' one way,but seemingly changed often!

 

[the sceptic]

well then thats settled. Tell us more about how Froomes climb was a good thing.

 

[Race Radio]

Here is what Ross Tucker from The Sports Scientist wrote today

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. difficult to know, because it was 'generally' one way

 

[sniper]

Here is what Ross Tucker from The Sports Scientist wrote today

You re relying alot on secondary sources.
Primary sources (e.g. ten dam, wheather forecast, actual footage of the climb) suggest lack of tailwind and parts with headwind.
in the twitter thread u cite from, ross tucker was asked for a source that confirms headwind, but he somehow cant provide one.

 

[Von Mises]

Chris Froome's time up Ventoux was 48'35", just 2" slower than Lance Armstrong's record time of 48'33" in 2002 on a stage won by Richard Virenque after a long solo break. Armstrong finished 3rd on the stage, 2'20" behind Virenque and put massive time to the rest of the top 10 that day, with hot conditions and a side-tailwind.

The next three fastest times are from 2009; Stage 20 from Montélimar to Mont Ventoux. Andy Schleck and Alberto Contado posted 48'57, with Armstrong just behind in 49':00" and run with a 40km / hr. headwind. In 2000, Marco Pantani edged Lance Armstrong for the stage win atop Ventoux, with both riders finishing in 49':01", run in hot conditions with a strong headwind.

My interpretation of flags from 6 kilometers to top.

2002 - sidewind, few parts between side and tail and few parts between side and head. I wouldnt say "side-tailwind"

2000 - very strong headwind, few parts side or between side and head.

2013 - from 6 km to 1,5 km - mostly side, between side and tail, few parts tailwind. From 1,5 km to top - mostly side wind or between side and head or between side and tail.

2000 was clearly worst conditions. Comparison between 2013 and 2002 is harder, but I would say that 2013 conditions were better. If you say that 2002 was side-tailwind, then 2013 was definetely too.

 

[Netserk]

My interpretation of flags from 6 kilometers to top.

2002 - sidewind, few parts between side and tail and few parts between side and head. I wouldnt say "side-tailwind"

2000 - very strong headwind, few parts side or between side and head.

2013 - from 6 km to 1,5 km - mostly side, between side and tail, few parts tailwind. From 1,5 km to top - mostly side wind or between side and head or between side and tail.

2000 was clearly worst conditions. Comparison between 2013 and 2002 is harder, but I would say that 2013 conditions were better. If you say that 2002 was side-tailwind, then 2013 was definetely too.

So you think that Armstrong (2002) and Froome had similar conditions, and that it would be fair to compare their times? So that their performances were very similar in strength?

 

[Von Mises]

So you think that Armstrong (2002) and Froome had similar conditions, and that it would be fair to compare their times? So that their performances were very similar in strength?

I watched videos, I did not measure winds, so it is up to interpretation. What I would say is that 2000 is clearly different (wind is visibly stronger and practically all the time head). 2002 and 2013 are trickier, especially 2013 where wind in some parts seemed to twist (for instance, same flag at one point side, second later between side and tail, then tail, then side again). But if I had to count parts from 2002 and 2013 where I can see flags between side and tail or tail, then from 2013 I can find more. So I would say that 2013 conditions were more favorable, but I wouldnt say how much more...


Edit: I now watched also segment from 10km to 6 km in 2013. I would say mostly tailwind. Especially between trees: not wind at all or only tailwind, but generally not very strong wind. Only when they came out of the trees flags and smoke started to be between tail and side or side or tail...

 

[TourOfSardinia]

So just to conclude the 2000/2013 comparison
(both aged 28) we get pretty equal times for:

a) Armstrong (2000) confessed doper and in worse wind conditions

b) Froome (2013) - not proven

 

[Race Radio]

You re relying alot on secondary sources.
Primary sources (e.g. ten dam, wheather forecast, actual footage of the climb) suggest lack of tailwind and parts with headwind.
in the twitter thread u cite from, ross tucker was asked for a source that confirms headwind, but he somehow cant provide one.

SRM's from multiple riders is a secondary source?

SRM comparison showed assistance,on the whole,over 40+ min of the climb

Add this to the broadcast, which clearly shows tailwind for 80% of the climb and it is obvious. Re. Ten Dam, he said there was a headwind in the last few km.....it is a 21 km climb.

 

[Ferminal]

Whose SRMs? I think we only have Irizar from that day.

 

[sniper]

SRM's from multiple riders is a secondary source?



Add this to the broadcast, which clearly shows tailwind for 80% of the climb and it is obvious. Re. Ten Dam, he said there was a headwind in the last few km.....it is a 21 km climb.

Ten Dam's words are freely interpretable in terms of where the headwind started. If anything, he seems to suggest that there was headwind at least from Chalet Reynard onwards, which would mean the final 6 or 7 km.
If that's true, your 80% is overestimated.

And not only were there headwinds in the final segments, there were strong headwinds. Ten Dam said so, and independent observers said so.

After a furious charge towards the foot of the Ventoux, the climb itself – 20 kilometres long, relentlessly rising to 1,900 metres, with temperatures touching 40 degrees at its base and strong headwinds in the final segment

Another independent observer during the stage:

The riders are faced with a headwind, so Quintana is spending as much time behind Froome as he can. He’s definitely after the stage win, if they stay away, Froome might just let him have it – though I doubt it, he doesn’t seem that sort of guy.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/07/14/2013-tour-de-france-stage-15-live-updates-blog/

And why were all those previews wrong?

This was the preview of the stage by veloclinic:

The riders will likely be fighting a headwind and this will make it very difficult to attack and stay away alone.

This was Science of Sport's prediction:

Apparently, there is a headwind forecast for today - that would slow the times down, so that all estimates of power output would under-estimate the real performances. So let's keep that in mind so that we can use some common sense in the discussions later, bearing mind there is some error and we don't get to see the actual SRM values.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/mont-ventoux-preview-looking-forward-by.html

So, while I'm certainly not saying you are plain wrong, it appears to be not as obvious as you suggest.

 

[Ferminal]

Descriptive quotes from random web articles are pretty worthless. Even words from rider's themselves need further interpretation, the other stuff is better off ignored I think unless it makes reference to a verifiable source.

 

[Von Mises]

Ten Dam's words are freely interpretable in terms of where the headwind started. If anything, he seems to suggest that there was headwind at least from Chalet Reynard onwards, which would mean the final 6 or 7 km.
If that's true, your 80% is overestimated.

And not only were there headwinds in the final segments, there were strong headwinds. Ten Dam said so, and independent observers said so.



Another independent observer during the stage:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/07/14/2013-tour-de-france-stage-15-live-updates-blog/

And why were all those previews wrong?

This was the preview of the stage by veloclinic:


This was Science of Sport's prediction:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/mont-ventoux-preview-looking-forward-by.html

So, while I'm certainly not saying you are plain wrong, it appears to be not as obvious as you suggest.

You dont have to quote or repeat pointless predictions if we have video footage. I repeat what I saw. From 10 to 6, if wind at all, then tailwind. from 6 to 1,5, side and tail and something between. From 1,5 to top - side, tail, head.

 

[Race Radio]

Ten Dam's words are freely interpretable in terms of where the headwind started. If anything, he seems to suggest that there was headwind at least from Chalet Reynard onwards, which would mean the final 6 or 7 km.
If that's true, your 80% is overestimated.

And not only were there headwinds in the final segments, there were strong headwinds. Ten Dam said so, and independent observers said so.



Another independent observer during the stage:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/07/14/2013-tour-de-france-stage-15-live-updates-blog/

And why were all those previews wrong?

This was the preview of the stage by veloclinic:


This was Science of Sport's prediction:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/mont-ventoux-preview-looking-forward-by.html

So, while I'm certainly not saying you are plain wrong, it appears to be not as obvious as you suggest.

This has been covered over, and over , and over,

Ten Dam said that the last 5km are more exposed to a head wind

If you look at the map it is clear that the cross wind do not come into effect until about 1km past CR. So 16.5 km of a 20.83km climb had a tailwind. That is about 80%

It is clear the forecasts for that day were very wrong, which is why the stage finished an hour early.

SRM data supports a tailwind

Video supports a tailwind for the vast majority of the climb

It is obvious there was a tailwind for most of the climb. I am not sure why this is still confusing to some.

 

[BYOP88]

Ok why is the wind direction so important? (Yes I'm aware that he almost beat a fully doped Armstrong time, so Froome apologists 'want' there to be a tailwind and those against Froome 'want' there to have been anything but a tailwind).

But regardless of the wind direction, Froome made everyone else on that climb look like no talent *** clowns.

 

[Ferminal]

This SRM data?

https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/356892390327455744
http://www.srm.de/fileadmin/user_upload/images/news/news_2013/TDF15_Markel_Climb.png
(from Bedoin not Saint-Esteve though)

 

[The Hitch]

Riders said there was a tailwind, the video shows a tailwind.

I asked you this before and you ignored it. Yet you continue to post riders in the plural. Which riders? Henderson is 1 rider. He is cancelled out by Ten Dam who says it was a headwind.

Which riderS?

 

[Race Radio]

I asked you this before and you ignored it. Yet you continue to post riders in the plural. Which riders? Henderson is 1 rider. He is cancelled out by Ten Dam who says it was a headwind.

He is not "Cancelled out" by Ten Dam as he only said there was a head wind in the last 5km

 

[The Hitch]

If you look at the map it is clear that the cross wind do not come into effect until about 1km past CR. So 16.5 km of a 20.83km climb had a tailwind. That is about 80%

Yet Froome matched Armstrong over the final 14k, and also over the final 6k which even by your calculations was about 40% and 90% headwind respectively.

The lower slopes of the climb in the forest where the peloton was still large are less important.

 

[The Hitch]

He is not "Cancelled out" by Ten Dam as he only said there was a head wind in the last 5km

Even if that were the case, Henderson is still only 1 rider, yet you insist that there were multiple riders.

Who were the other riders?

Anyway as I recall henderson, who is known for talking absolute bull****, said it was a tailwind the whole way up. So if Ten Dam said it was headwind for the final 5k which is the most important part of the climb, that sort of does challenge what henderson said.

 

[Race Radio]

Ok why is the wind direction so important? (Yes I'm aware that he almost beat a fully doped Armstrong time, so Froome apologists 'want' there to be a tailwind and those against Froome 'want' there to have been anything but a tailwind).

But regardless of the wind direction, Froome made everyone else on that climb look like no talent *** clowns.

I don't know why it is so important to some people. It is obvious it was a tailwind for most of the climb but some want to pretend it was not.

Ultimately it makes the Ventoux stage not the best to look at for a W/kg or VAM discussion. Semnoz is a better option with fewer variables.