Supimilian said:Don't bother RR, you are already 'exposed as a paid shill'.
'This much we know'
True, time to go spend that money Murdoch gave me on hookers and blow.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Supimilian said:Don't bother RR, you are already 'exposed as a paid shill'.
'This much we know'
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
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.
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
Race Radio said:the sceptic said:Just saw this on twitter.. headwind from Chalet apparently.
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
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.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.
So why did vetooo estimate his output dead on?Race Radio said:and the tailwind on the mountain helped the times on Ventoux....
Netserk said:So why did vetooo estimate his output dead on?Race Radio said:and the tailwind on the mountain helped the times on Ventoux....
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,"
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.
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.
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 read what I posted?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
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
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.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
...
Benotti69 said:Ventoux : Froome-2013 25secs better than Armstrong-Pantani 2000 -...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbO_te8cv7c
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.
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
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.
Maxiton said:Funny, if you look at the chicken's arms and legs, he actually looks fat compared to Froome.
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
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.