Catch all Professional Cycling Chat (Possible Spoilers)
07-15-15, 06:58 PM
#376
Not actually Tmonk
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,138
Bikes: road, track, mtb
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2640 Post(s)
Liked 3,153 Times
in
1,660 Posts
Chris Froome bores me to death.
Yeah, he's good, and by that I mean, fit, but screw him.
Yeah, he's good, and by that I mean, fit, but screw him.
__________________
"Your beauty is an aeroplane;
so high, my heart cannot bear the strain." -A.C. Jobim, Triste
"Your beauty is an aeroplane;
so high, my heart cannot bear the strain." -A.C. Jobim, Triste
07-15-15, 07:14 PM
#377
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Posts: 4,850
Bikes: Yeti ASRc, Focus Raven 29er, Flyxii FR316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Again, I'm not at all surprised any professional athlete cheats. It is more what is/or can be enforced or not that makes me think they are not. But that thread was closed.
To me the incredible thing is the endurance / ability to put out that power after 3-4 hours or more.
The numbers in the Tucker recording for Froome for 30 min 385W is not that big a deal by itself. At that time into the race it is more so.
Eddy Merckx put out a measured 455 for and hour and estimated 485 for an hour about 40 years ago. Wiggins said he was trying to hold 485 last year for the ITT.
Why shouldn't cyclist develop like runner and swimmers. And their speeds even more so with the equipment improvements.
1976 1,500m running winning time 3:39.17
2000 1,500m running winning time 3:32.07
1954 Roger Banniter 1st and only to run sub 4 mile (said he would die if he did). A pile of folks have now - 50+ in the USA and some HS kids.
Untitled Normal Page
Then we all know runners are on drugs.
To me the incredible thing is the endurance / ability to put out that power after 3-4 hours or more.
The numbers in the Tucker recording for Froome for 30 min 385W is not that big a deal by itself. At that time into the race it is more so.
Eddy Merckx put out a measured 455 for and hour and estimated 485 for an hour about 40 years ago. Wiggins said he was trying to hold 485 last year for the ITT.
Why shouldn't cyclist develop like runner and swimmers. And their speeds even more so with the equipment improvements.
1976 1,500m running winning time 3:39.17
2000 1,500m running winning time 3:32.07
1954 Roger Banniter 1st and only to run sub 4 mile (said he would die if he did). A pile of folks have now - 50+ in the USA and some HS kids.
Untitled Normal Page
Then we all know runners are on drugs.
Look at that dude compared to modern guys of comparable listed weights. No.
Also, don't use winning times in Olympic/WC track events where tactics come into play as evidence of anything. Those races are run at paces well below what the athletes are capable of doing, with an absolutely NASTY last 400-500m. World Records, top time of the year, or top 5-10 times of the year? Yeah.
Froome was, what, 5% faster than everyone else in the race over the last 20min of the stage? Really?
Last edited by Duke of Kent; 07-15-15 at 07:20 PM.
07-15-15, 08:40 PM
#379
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,475
Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3375 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times
in
253 Posts
Why not share all of the power and heart rate data with the world? Why do they treat this stuff like a trade secret? It's not like the other teams will look at the data and say "aha, 6.2 w/kg, now we know their secret and all we need to do is train to 6.3 w/kg and win!"
07-15-15, 08:48 PM
#380
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 10,978
Bikes: aggressive agreement is what I ride.
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 967 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
sure, but that's not at all the argument I've seen anyone make. I would be less surprised if they caught sky using some sort of crazy diet cocktail.
that said, I miss the good old days when a clean Andy Schleck won the TdF. It just took a couple years to get the results right.
that said, I miss the good old days when a clean Andy Schleck won the TdF. It just took a couple years to get the results right.
07-16-15, 05:45 AM
#383
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Mount Joy, PA
Posts: 315
Bikes: CAAD10 & Slice RS Black Inc
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I want to believe these guys are not doping, it's hard given the events and performances over the past couple days, but I'll believe for now they are just that much better right now. Sky has one of the most sophisticated training programs, which has been stated by cyclist who now race elsewhere. From what I've read in the past, it seems like most GC riders plan it so they are in top form towards the back half of the race.
My prediction, Sky and Froome are in peak form too early and will fade once they get to the Alps. I don't think this race is over yet. I may be completely wrong, but I can still hope
My prediction, Sky and Froome are in peak form too early and will fade once they get to the Alps. I don't think this race is over yet. I may be completely wrong, but I can still hope
07-16-15, 06:46 AM
#384
out walking the earth
sure, but that's not at all the argument I've seen anyone make. I would be less surprised if they caught sky using some sort of crazy diet cocktail.
that said, I miss the good old days when a clean Andy Schleck won the TdF. It just took a couple years to get the results right.
that said, I miss the good old days when a clean Andy Schleck won the TdF. It just took a couple years to get the results right.
Sky and cyclists in general had a great deal of scrutiny around them the past few seasons around weight loss and fat burning drugs.
We'll hate you for not towing the pharmchris line (a bit melodramatic, no?) then a paragraph later admit they're probably all doping? Like I said you're a bit here and there. For your comfort level should we all stick our heads in the sand and pretend that these guys are clean? That when pro athletes put up number inline with the numbers from what's acknowledged as the dirtiest era that it's just because they diet better and train smarter?
I don't know. I don't hate you for believing. Honestly no more than I hated my kid when he believed in Santa Claus. But this is the same BS pattern over and over again. 'Now the sport is really clean.' It's not. It's never going to be. It's a blight.
07-16-15, 08:31 AM
#385
Arrogant Roadie Punk
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: California
Posts: 2,353
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Froome 6.1 W/Kg (Ross Tucker 2015)
Quintana 5.9 W/Kg (Ross Tucker 2015)
Nibali 5.99 W/kg (Ross Tucker 2014)
Lemond 5.7 W/kg (Ross Tucker 2009)
Armstrong 6.97 W/Kg (Ross Tucker 2009)
Riis 6.47 W/kg (Ross Tucker 2009)
Pantani 6.63 W/kg (Ross Tucker 2009)
Ullrich 6.33 W/kg (Ross Tucker 2009)
i dont know how they come up with these numbers. to me it seems like way too many variables. but this is also the guy everyone seems to be quoting. i've never heard of him until this thread. doping less? doping better? doping just enough? not doping?
*69 mph/thor hushovd is totally possible. Michał Kwiatkowski (68 kg) tweeted a photo of 102 kph (63mph) yesterday from his computer post race, from a gruppetto descent not taking risks. Hushovd (80kg), top 5 descender of his generation in his prime, on his own, picking his line, on an open descent with long non-technical sections (which that stage was), chasing down the rider in front off him, with a TDF stage on the line. I dont see how that is not possible. 6mph is not a great difference
Quintana 5.9 W/Kg (Ross Tucker 2015)
Nibali 5.99 W/kg (Ross Tucker 2014)
Lemond 5.7 W/kg (Ross Tucker 2009)
Armstrong 6.97 W/Kg (Ross Tucker 2009)
Riis 6.47 W/kg (Ross Tucker 2009)
Pantani 6.63 W/kg (Ross Tucker 2009)
Ullrich 6.33 W/kg (Ross Tucker 2009)
i dont know how they come up with these numbers. to me it seems like way too many variables. but this is also the guy everyone seems to be quoting. i've never heard of him until this thread. doping less? doping better? doping just enough? not doping?
*69 mph/thor hushovd is totally possible. Michał Kwiatkowski (68 kg) tweeted a photo of 102 kph (63mph) yesterday from his computer post race, from a gruppetto descent not taking risks. Hushovd (80kg), top 5 descender of his generation in his prime, on his own, picking his line, on an open descent with long non-technical sections (which that stage was), chasing down the rider in front off him, with a TDF stage on the line. I dont see how that is not possible. 6mph is not a great difference
Last edited by save10; 07-16-15 at 08:35 AM.
07-16-15, 08:36 AM
#386
Ninny
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Gunks
Posts: 5,295
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 686 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Calculating power on a well known climb with known weather conditions is trivial, and the few actual power numbers that have come out are in almost exact agreement with these calculations. For context I believe the numbers above are for a 40 minute effort.
07-16-15, 08:47 AM
#388
gmt
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
as far as I know, the Ferrari method does not subtract the weight of the bike when calculating a rider's w/kg for an ascent. Put that in your pipe and whatever.
07-16-15, 08:50 AM
#389
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Redlands, CA
Posts: 6,313
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 842 Post(s)
Liked 469 Times
in
250 Posts
To be fair, I see why they don't release power data. There will be about 20 journalists sifting through hours of data to find just enough for a good article. Given enough information you can make anyone look like a cheat, whether its true or not isn't important.
Also from a competitive profile, you're telling the competition what it takes to make you crack or what your power profile is....
Also from a competitive profile, you're telling the competition what it takes to make you crack or what your power profile is....
07-16-15, 08:54 AM
#393
Ninny
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Gunks
Posts: 5,295
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 686 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
FWIW the "hacked" Froome Ventoux data from 2013 agreed exactly with the calculations.
But arguing over the methodology (not that anyone here is arguing necessarily) is really a red herring. There are lots of ways to defend the performances but "he's not really that strong" is a non-starter.
But arguing over the methodology (not that anyone here is arguing necessarily) is really a red herring. There are lots of ways to defend the performances but "he's not really that strong" is a non-starter.
07-16-15, 09:03 AM
#397
out walking the earth
