collapse


Joachim

  • National Champion
  • Country: be
  • Posts: 894
  • Liked: 290
Re: Chris Froome
« Reply #360 on: July 17, 2013, 08:28 »
So, lets assume Contador, Schleck etc are now clean.

Are we saying that it is impossible for anyone to be better than them?
  • ReplyReply
  • "You can't handle the truth"

    Colonel Nathan R Jessup

    just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Multiple World Champion
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 18982
    • Liked: 4210
    • Awards: Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #361 on: July 17, 2013, 08:43 »
    that sums it up for me pretty well actually Marty.

    I have said that I think Froome is pretty suspect ... but that is where the doubts that I do have come in.  We are comparing him to lesser quality performances and saying "if he can beat Contador by that much ..." and drawing conclusions - but its not really a good comparison.

    The Contador of old would have wiped the floor with him, and we would be saying he is still an average bit-part maybe-top-20 GC rider.     Its only because the likes of Contador, Evans, Schleck etc are NOT the same that he is riding away from them.

    I do not believe Contador of old would have wiped the floor

    I also do not believe Contador is clean , as I said before the doping program has moved on and reduce the effect for AC in my opinion

    Evans and Schleck most likely are at the end of their careers 1 definitely the other most likely

    Is the pool of GC talent smaller or less strong than before, maybe the strongest challenger to Froome 2013 is Nibs 2013 , will 2014 be the same not sure, Quinn , Nibs, Froome will be the team leaders of 3 very strong teams , been a long time since we had 3 top challengers , usually 2 5 :* next year we will have 3 if all things are equal
  • ReplyReply
  • Fignon - In my day, doping methods were derisory and the riders´exploits were massive.
    For the last 15 years or so  it has been the other way rond: there is a huge number of ways in which riders can dope, and any exploits are derisory.

    just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Multiple World Champion
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 18982
    • Liked: 4210
    • Awards: Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #362 on: July 17, 2013, 08:47 »
    So, lets assume Contador, Schleck etc are now clean.

    Are we saying that it is impossible for anyone to be better than them?

    no ofc not but when was the last time a clean rider was so dominate in ITT´s and Mountains ?

    and that is the issue there is no point assuming riders are riding clean ie 100% of them because to look at history of cycling you would find that happened , never.

    and then look at the last Grand Tour 2 riders from 1 team popped for EPO , 1 of the riders was meant to be a podium challenger , yet he was beaten by more than 1 rider on many stages , so assuming a clean peloton is a waste of time
  • ReplyReply

  • Martin318is

    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 558
    • Liked: 153
    • Less interesting than he seems on paper
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #363 on: July 17, 2013, 08:49 »
    No, that would be innacurately reversing the logic of what I said.

    What I am effectively saying is that it is unreasonable to state that someone is doping just because they have beaten those two up a mountain (when the basis for that thinking is that they are both still doping and therefore going faster than a clean person could).

    If we were to make the assumption that they are definitely clean now, then I guess I would say that it is entirely possible for another clean rider to beat a clean Contador and the scale of that beating is a grey area for me.  At the moment I would say that a number of riders can smack a clean Andy uphill.  Contador I am not so sure about...

    This all leads back to my comment that toss a coin and it will tell you which way I am leaning at the moment.  The fence is quite comfortable given I have seen nothing that stands up as solid evidence one way or the other.
  • ReplyReply
  • About Masters Club racing:
    ".. if I can't double the petrol money, I'm headin over the mountains instead" - Michael Fox, Team SAS

    AG

    • Classics Winner
    • *
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 4371
    • Liked: 1634
    • Awards: Winner, 2013 National Championships prediction gameFan of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #364 on: July 17, 2013, 09:02 »
    I am just not sure that it is possible for 1 rider to be able to match it on both the ITT and up a mountain (and be clean).

    ITT is so specialised.  Tony Martin and the like, they spend a LOT of time being the absolute best at everything involved.  At those 'marginal gains' that make a difference in the TT.   They shape their bodies, their muscles, their position on the bike ... everything ... just for the TT.

    Mountain climbing too is for a specific kind of rider.  The Quintana's of the world who are tiny and throw themselves up a mountain just by looking at it.

    How can you split your time, your training, your body type and muscle development ... and still match the very best in the world at both at the same time.

    GC riders, they have to be good at everything.  But they dont have to be the world champ at everything.   

    Have we ever had 1 person who could match the very best in the world at both ... who was clean?
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Multiple World Champion
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 18982
    • Liked: 4210
    • Awards: Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #365 on: July 17, 2013, 09:05 »
    I am just not sure that it is possible for 1 rider to be able to match it on both the ITT and up a mountain (and be clean).

    ITT is so specialised.  Tony Martin and the like, they spend a LOT of time being the absolute best at everything involved.  At those 'marginal gains' that make a difference in the TT.   They shape their bodies, their muscles, their position on the bike ... everything ... just for the TT.

    Mountain climbing too is for a specific kind of rider.  The Quintana's of the world who are tiny and throw themselves up a mountain just by looking at it.

    How can you split your time, your training, your body type and muscle development ... and still match the very best in the world at both at the same time.

    GC riders, they have to be good at everything.  But they dont have to be the world champ at everything.   

    Have we ever had 1 person who could match the very best in the world at both ... who was clean?

    and even the doping riders if true specialists but road for GC had issues ie Marco in ITT and Big Mig as a climber
  • ReplyReply

  • Joachim

    • National Champion
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 894
    • Liked: 290
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #366 on: July 17, 2013, 09:42 »
    I agree about the specialisation. It has only been about 15 years or so that people have focused purely on the Tour, which is why the Giro/Tour double is seen as a virtual impossibility. Go back the same amount of time again and tour winners were winning Classics. Eddy won everything.

    However, as Greg Lemond said this week, there are such things as exceptional legitimate performances. I think that if we deny that we are essentially sucking the beauty out of sport and it is time to turn off the tv. Sport is about exceptional performances, the history of cycling is steeped in them. If you don't want them, why are you watching?

    How have we got to this point? This point where we are saying that the very thing for which we watch the sport is now the very thing that is indicative of cheating? Twenty years where all but a handful of Grand Tour winners have either been busted, or been implicated in doping. That has bred the cynicism, but cynicism it is and we have to acknowledge that.  I think that as spectators who frankly do not really invest much in the sport we can afford to suspend disbelief a little and accept that we might be slightly disillusioned a few years later if history repeats itself, but not being able to accept that means it is time to stop watching.

    Certainly with the lack of anything other than a good performance as evidence. Other evidence, such as peloton rumours and so on does give us the right to raise a clamour. Pure cynicism does not. I do not accept that denouncing riders as cheats on the Internet, with the most spurious of half-understood evidence is "campaigning". It isn't, it's an Internet lynch mob akin to witch burnings of the Middle Ages.  The most amusing thing this week on the Internet was reading that Geert Leinders was involved in clinical trials of the Gas6. That rumour started to get legs until somebody pointed out that the Dutch document where this allegedly was reported said no such thing at all, merely that Leinders name was mentioned in connection to something else.

     I also think that it is naive to assume the motivations behind the cynics are necessarily pure and well-intentioned. Some of them are for sure generated by petty nationalist rivalries, just as much as some of the defenders may do so for nationalistic reasons.

    Pressure on the authorities is a different thing. Asking questions is a different thing. I'm not ever going to state that Froome is clean, precisely because of what I've said above, but I am prepared to enjoy watching him race until I know otherwise, and I am prepared to examine any arguments made for and against him and try and form an objective opinion.
  • ReplyReply

  • Mellow Velo

    • National Champion
    • Country: wales
    • Posts: 829
    • Liked: 398
    • Awards: Velogames Classics Champion 20142013 CQ Ranking Giro Game
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #367 on: July 17, 2013, 10:11 »
    Not exactly. First of all climb comparisons get used for MTF's, not for catergory 2 6% average hills 10k from the stage finish of a transition stage.


    But anyway why shoulnd't Costa be faster than 2011? Everything about this TDF has been way faster than 2011. The speeds in the Tour in 2011 were the lowest since the epo era began.

    By contrast this TDF ranks amongst the highest ever. The ttt was the fastest ever. Not just for the TDF but for any gt. You may say most ttts were longer than 25k but even if you only look at ttts that were 25k or under there have been 13 in gts since the turn of the century and this was the fastest of the lot, and one cant say wind was favourable because it was a circuit so it cut both ways.
     Martins tt was the 3rd fastest ever or some such. The stage on friday was one of the fastest ever. The stage on Sunday had the riders at the bast of Ventoux something like 1 hour ahead of the fastest estimated arrival. Thats before we even take a look at Froomes miracle ascents. There is a point where one cant just argue that the conditions were favourable. 1 stage maybe, 2. 3 if your pushing it. But a whole Tour?

    Anyway, what your comparison doesn't show is that Costa did this climb full gas from the bottom tting his way up.  2011 was very different. The  attacks started later on in the climb and even from then on it was not an even pace but lots of attack and decelerate. Contador attacked 3 times coming back to a stand still on each occasion. What cracked the other gc riders were the constant accelerations to stay with Contador, especially the first one  where many had to  come from quite far back inside the peloton. The thing was a shock to everyone but Contador in the first place since it was supposed to be a nothing stage.

    And Costa has every right to, based on his performances in the last 2 years be ranked as one of the best climbers in the world.


    Now you may say racing situation is part of the flaw in comparing times. But we know that is not a flaw that exists for either Ax 3 or Ventoux since the climbing comparisons were not just numbers in isolation but looked at the respective attack points and so on. Both AX3 and Ventoux were raced quite similarly between Froome and Armstrong, with both attacking quite far out, both giving it everything, so a - but climbs can be raced differently, argument, doesn't cut as deep as you think in dismissing those comparisons since we know they were not raced so differently in those cases.

    Thats why comparing MTF's is a totally different ball game to comparing times up a minor hill a bit from the finish. In the mtfs the gc guys generally go for it since there is no need to sustain the effort past the finish line.

    MTF's throw out of the window a lot of the - what if variables you bring up. And when those variables do come up its pretty easy to tell (eg if 1 ascent has 10 gc guys finish together and another has them come to the finish in bits and pieces)  Thats why they are the ones that get compared.

     Hitch: Maybe it's because we disagree on the bolded section, that we disagree overall.
  • ReplyReply
  • "Lance now has more testicles than Tour de France titles."

    doolols

    • Domestic Rider
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 164
    • Liked: 33
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #368 on: July 17, 2013, 11:22 »
    I also think that it is naive to assume the motivations behind the cynics are necessarily pure and well-intentioned. Some of them are for sure generated by petty nationalist rivalries, just as much as some of the defenders may do so for nationalistic reasons.

    I think so too. Although I'm British, I support all sorts of riders, and consider myself European. It's the same with football - I love good games, no matter who's playing. I love watching good, exciting bike racing. Stage 13 was the best stage in this race, no matter who won.

    Pressure on the authorities is a different thing. Asking questions is a different thing. I'm not ever going to state that Froome is clean, precisely because of what I've said above, but I am prepared to enjoy watching him race until I know otherwise, and I am prepared to examine any arguments made for and against him and try and form an objective opinion.

    There are lots of questions about Froome, principally about his performance relative to both current riders, and previous performances.

    His competition is poor currently, perhaps because doped riders are trying to find ways of getting performance legally, or at least at much lower risk. It's possible, just, that Sky have spent their time in the past few years developing clean ways of improving performance, without wasting their time dabbling in illegal methods. It's possible, because Sky / British Cycling are immensely analytical, have huge resources, and are not steeped in cycling history which dictates *how* a race should be won, or *how* riders should ride on the bike. His 1,000 rpm cadence looked stupid, but seriously? If you want to accelerate uphill for a short time, select a low gear and peddle like crazy. Who's to say you have to get out of the saddle and "dance on the pedals" like Contador. Maybe they're doing that because of the huge psychological effect it has on a rider with you, struggling up a hill, to see someone move away from you at a rate of knots. We've seen riders suddenly crack, because they suddenly lose the ability to climb.

    A lot of hoo-hah centres around comparing his times to those of previously-doped riders from old tours, and the misconception seems to be that performance cannot be increased over time. Why not?  If that were the case, we'd all still be riding on an espresso and a jam sandwich. Maybe the much-lampooned aggregation of marginal gains really does work? 0.2% from using your own pillow; 0.5% from some special nutrition products; 0.3% from a damned good sports psychologist; 0.1% from something else. That's what British Cycling have been doing on the track, where you are talking about fractions of a percent making the difference between a gold medal and not being on the podium.

    Having said all that, I still don't know. I hope he's clean. If he gets popped, it would destroy British Cycling.
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Multiple World Champion
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 18982
    • Liked: 4210
    • Awards: Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #369 on: July 17, 2013, 11:42 »
    inrng just tweeted this photo

    Froome as an amateur , must have lost 15 kgs over the years 

  • ReplyReply

  • Joachim

    • National Champion
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 894
    • Liked: 290
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #370 on: July 17, 2013, 11:49 »
    Is that a total guess?
  • ReplyReply

  • Not here...

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 2442
    • Liked: 375
    • For Sale or Lease!
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #371 on: July 17, 2013, 11:50 »
    To be fair though when looking at this I am reminded that at roughly the same time I was looking at Andy and Contador (and several others) as both being near unstoppable GT machines and suddenly in the last year or so they're not.  I cannot help thinking that if they were both the riders they seemed to be, Froome would be fighting to keep up with them, not stomping away from them.

    I'll admit though that at any time of any day in last week or so (months really) I would toss a coin to decide what I think on the general issue of Froome's performances vs his historical form...

    Fence, meet Marty's arse.
    Marty's arse, meet Fence

    Hey I agree that the top end GC guys have 'dropped down a notch in performance' but Froome's improvement has increased much more than they've declined. With regards Andy if Frank hadn't got popped and was there to hold Andy's hand we'd see the 'old' Andy, you know the one with 'fire in his belly' :P not the guy who's taking the pee in the one of the two races he used to make an effort in.
  • ReplyReply
  • Vus machs da?

    just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Multiple World Champion
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 18982
    • Liked: 4210
    • Awards: Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #372 on: July 17, 2013, 11:50 »

  • ReplyReply

  • Joachim

    • National Champion
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 894
    • Liked: 290
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #373 on: July 17, 2013, 11:54 »
    Is that a beer gut?
  • ReplyReply

  • Jono L.

    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 532
    • Liked: 428
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #374 on: July 17, 2013, 11:54 »
    5k seems like a lot when looking at this pic from 2008, no?

    5kg easy,

    look at the puppy fat arm and cheeks.

    + long peiods of energy deficit eats your bones away good and proper. Trust me on that one!  :bouaaaaah 

    But yeah, solid speculation over odd photos on the net. We're not really going to get anwhere are we now? :yuush

    All part of the fun :D
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Multiple World Champion
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 18982
    • Liked: 4210
    • Awards: Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012

    Fus87

    • Classics Winner
    • *
    • Country: dk
    • Posts: 3780
    • Liked: 1881
    • Awards: National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #376 on: July 17, 2013, 12:44 »
    Not really darkside-related, but anyway:
    Is it just me or do the long, black sleeves of the Sky jersey (and shorts) make him look even skinnier?
    That '08 Barloworld jersey covers almost nothing of the arms; the Sky jersey goes down almost to the elbows.

    Another marginal gain?
  • ReplyReply
  • RIP Keith

    doolols

    • Domestic Rider
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 164
    • Liked: 33
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #377 on: July 17, 2013, 14:21 »
    the Sky jersey goes down almost to the elbows.
    Another marginal gain?

    You can bet that it's been thought about.
  • ReplyReply

  • froome19

    • Classics Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 3963
    • Liked: 1270
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #378 on: July 17, 2013, 21:00 »
    What I will say is that people saying we have to keep times in context are completely correct.

    But at the same time if Froome is constantly beating and managing to post amazing times then there is obviously something there to be noted. I really liked what Lemond said, but at the same time you do have to ask yourself if you are at all surprised that the exceptionally legitimate performance came out of Sky?

    That could be thought about two ways, either Sky are the ground breakers in the sport and so can product such performances.. or they are the ground breakers in doping and so could produce such a performance.

    Anyways what is definite is that Lopez needs a good helping of whatever Froome is on atm.  :D
  • ReplyReply
  • RIP Keith

    Drummer Boy

    • National Champion
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 899
    • Liked: 557
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #379 on: July 17, 2013, 21:46 »
    So Froome Dawg smokes the field, once again, but then claims to have been holding back during his TT!  :rolleye



    Says he was "actually prepared to lose a little bit of time"  and that he "didn't want spend everything today and then be wrecked for tomorrow."

    So how good is Chris Froome? Is he dominating this Tour without even having to go as deep as he can? Will we see him pushed to the brink on Alpe d'Huez? What does Chris Froome look like at 100%?

    He practically claims the stage win came as a surprise to him. It reminds a bit of watching Usain Bolt thump his chest while slowing down at the end of his record-breaking sprint. I want to see what the absolute peak would look like. I thought we saw that on Ventoux, but then Brailsford tells as the Froome Dawg could've actually gone faster.

    What to make of all it? It's almost as if he's unaware of his own abilities.
  • ReplyReply

  • kabloemski

    • krebsy's #1 rooster booster
    • Road Captain
    • Country: za
    • Posts: 2358
    • Liked: 125
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #380 on: July 18, 2013, 08:23 »
    Is there an Alberto Contador thread somewhere on the forum? And I don't mean a fan thread, but rather one like this, where I can go and analyze the material his bib shorts are made of. And also some obscure fungi that grow only in Spain. All of which I'm sure will help me determine whether he is a lying doper or not. I really feel that it's unfair that Froome is hogging all the spotlight, AC deserves a little attention too.
  • ReplyReply
  • Hey, Bart! Your epidermis is showing!

    DinZ

    • 2.2 is where it is at
    • Classics Winner
    • Country: zm
    • Posts: 3476
    • Liked: 363
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #381 on: July 18, 2013, 08:31 »
    Apparently some detailed analysis in Lequipe today. some french expert has had access to some sky data or something?

    my french is not good enough to understand and looks like full article is not online yet
  • ReplyReply

  • Mellow Velo

    • National Champion
    • Country: wales
    • Posts: 829
    • Liked: 398
    • Awards: Velogames Classics Champion 20142013 CQ Ranking Giro Game
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #382 on: July 18, 2013, 08:36 »
    Apparently some detailed analysis in Lequipe today. some french expert has had access to some sky data or something?

    my french is not good enough to understand and looks like full article is not online yet

     I posted some stuff on this earlier, or at least I thought I had.

    Anyhow:
    Quote
    the Inner Ring @inrng wrote:Sky release Froome's climbing data and power stats to L'Equipe who have numbers reviewed by @fredgrappe who draws four conclusions:
    1. Froome's power curve* (W vs time) has a normal slope and his rides in the Tour are consistent with data from last 2 years
    2. Sky have never measured his V02 max but Grappe says he must have a score close to the known physiological limits
    3. his weight's been stable for races and
    4. Grappe says he must have excellent powers of recovery. Data go from Vuelta 2011 to Mont Ventoux

    *Curves comparing Froome's power output vs duration compared to Lemond and Armstrong. Froome and Lemond look very similar. Armstrong very different to them in that for the longer durations he could sustain a much higher power output - up to 10%, apparently.
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Just the facts, Ma'am ...
    • Classics Winner
    • *
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 4922
    • Liked: 2798
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #383 on: July 18, 2013, 08:41 »
    This is exciting because the conclusions are potentially more global than just those for Froome.

    With this data - which I daresay is still private despite this story - we could have an opportunity to see how close is Vayer's, Amattypyoraily's (sic) and Doc Veloclinic's self-generated guesswork to the real data.

    How valid and useful is all that "pseudo-science" which has to deal with all those variables?

    For me, that would represent a big leap forward in the debate.
  • ReplyReply
  • RIP Craig1985 / Craig Walsh
    RIP KeithJamesMc / Keith McMahon

    AG

    • Classics Winner
    • *
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 4371
    • Liked: 1634
    • Awards: Winner, 2013 National Championships prediction gameFan of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #384 on: July 18, 2013, 08:46 »
    Is there an Alberto Contador thread somewhere on the forum? And I don't mean a fan thread, but rather one like this, where I can go and analyze the material his bib shorts are made of. And also some obscure fungi that grow only in Spain. All of which I'm sure will help me determine whether he is a lying doper or not. I really feel that it's unfair that Froome is hogging all the spotlight, AC deserves a little attention too.

    here you go Kablo   http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=81.0

    for the record - Chris Froome thread currently = 385 posts.
    Alberto Contador thread = 337 posts

    the difference is because a lot of the AC stuff was prior to this forum starting up, otherwise the AC thread would be MUCH bigger. 

    These days - there simply isnt too many who will argue that AC is clean, so there isnt a 100 point discussion about anything in relation to him.  Everyone agrees ... so no arguments.

    There is a discussion every day in regards to Chris Froome because
    a)   its current - he is the one dominating at the moment;    and
    b)  there is doubt.  People do believe in him, and others dont.  That makes for discussion and analysis.  People look deeper into things because they are trying to support their argument.

    Can we please not have these "why isnt there a thread on 'rider abc' or 'team xyz' like this?"   There are threads and discussions if people start them, and they continue if people participate in them.  If everyone already agrees ... then mostly there isnt a deep and long-reaching discussion.

  • ReplyReply

  • search

    • Classics Winner
    • *
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 3547
    • Liked: 2394
    • Awards: 2012 CQ Ranking Tour GameAvatar of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #385 on: July 18, 2013, 08:46 »
    this is the whole article, sorry, no time to translate:

    Quote
    « Ses performances sont cohérentes »

    FRED GRAPPE a analysé le potentiel physique de Chris Froome durant ces deux dernières années et n’a relevé aucune anomalie.

    PREMIER CONSTAT: SA PUISSANCE S’ÉMOUSSE NORMALEMENT
    La relation entre la puissance et le temps est similaire à celle que l’on connaît et que l’on observe chez tous les coureurs dont on a établi le Profil de puissance record (PPR). Il montre par exemple une diminution significative et normale de la puissance de 60 watts (0,88 W/kg) entre des efforts de vingt et soixante minutes. Il faut savoir qu’en moyenne un coureur perd une cinquantaine de watts dans cet intervalle de temps. Le PPR de Froome établi sur deux ans ne semble montrer aucune anomalie dans sa structure fondamentale. En d’autres termes, ses données de puissance des deux dernières années sont cohérentes avec le profil qu’il présente. Les performances qu’il a réalisées sur Ax 3 Domaines et le Ventoux pouvaient être attendues en regard de son PPR. En deux années, son profil n’a pas changé. Il apparaît que le potentiel qu’il présente aujourd’hui est similaire à celui qu’il possédait en 2011.

    DEUXIÈME CONSTAT: UN POTENTIEL AÉROBIE HORS DU COMMUN
    La puissance maximale aérobie extrêmement élevée (effort sur 5 minutes) confirme qu’il possède un potentiel aérobie hors du commun, qui l’oblige à posséder une VO2max (laquelle n’a encore jamais été mesurée en laboratoire par son équipe) proche des limites physiologiques scientifiques connues. La puissance exceptionnelle qu’il est capable de développer durant un effort maximal de cinq minutes lui donne une certaine réserve par rapport aux autres coureurs. Cela va dans le sens des accélérations qu’il est capable d’effectuer dans le final des montées. Onpeut estimer que, par rapport à ses principaux rivaux, il possède une marge de 20 watts de puissance supplémentaire. C’est cette marge que l’on retrouve par exemple entre lui et ses principaux rivaux dans les montées d’Ax 3 Domaines et du Ventoux.

    TROISIÈME CONSTAT: UN POIDS TRÈS STABLE
    Son poids moyen sur les deux années est de 68 kg (le matin) avec des variations très faibles, inférieures à 900 grammes. Cela montre que la puissance qu’il développe depuis deux ans est relativement stable lorsqu’on l’exprime en watts par kilogramme (W/kg), indice très important dans la performance en montée.

    QUATRIÈME CONSTAT: D’EXCELLENTES QUALITÉS DE RÉCUPÉRATION
    Il est évident que, pour être capable d’exploiter un profil de puissance à quasiment 100 % de son maximum, il faut que Chris Froome possède d’excellentes qualités de récupération entre les étapes. Parce que si le niveau de fatigue s’accumule trop, il n’est plus possible d’évoluer à proximité de ses records.

    Quote
    La méthode décryptée

    QUE MESURET-ON ?
    L’étude du potentiel physique global d’un cycliste est possible à partir de l’analyse de la puissance qu’il développe lorsqu’il produit des efforts maximaux. La puissance qu’il développe, c’est ce qui lui permet de se déplacer grâce à la force qu’il applique sur chaque pédale en fonction de la cadence de pédalage (la vitesse à laquelle il tourne les jambes). Plus la puissance augmente et plus la force augmente. Mais comme cette dernière est limitée dans le temps, à un moment donné la fatigue musculaire limite la poursuite de l’effort. À l’inverse d’une voiture, avec laquelle on peut rouler à plein régime sur des courtes et des longues durées, le cycliste est obligé de trouver un régime moteur optimal pour chaque durée d’exercice. Ainsi, plus la durée de l’effort est courte et plus il est capable de développer un haut niveau de puissance. A contrario, plus la durée est longue (efforts d’endurance) et plus le niveau de puissance diminue.

    QUELLE MÉTHODE GRAPPE A-T-IL UTILISÉE ?
    Aujourd’hui, la plupart des coureurs possèdent un capteur de puissance monté sur le vélo, ce qui permet à l’issue de chaque course de télécharger les données mesurées très précisément. À partir des relevés fournis par l’équipe Sky (ils concernent des efforts considérés comme maximum et d’une durée comprise entre 5 et 60 minutes), Fred Grappe a établi son Profil de puissance record (PPR) depuis deux ans.

    Quote
    Hier aussi

    AVANT D’ACCÉDER aux données fournies par l’équipe Sky, Fred Grappe avait estimé le potentiel de Froome à partir de son modèle de calcul, qui intègre des paramètres liés au coureur, aux conditions environnementales, au matériel utilisé et aux caractéristiques de la montée. En comparant les chiffres, il a pu établir que la marge d’erreur était de 2,5 %, soit une marge extrêmement faible. Fort de ce constat, il a étudié la première ascension de Froome lors du chrono d’hier. Et il a pu observer « que la puissance moyenne développée était encore une fois très bien intégrée dans son profil de puissance, et donc complètement attendue » .
    ]
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Just the facts, Ma'am ...
    • Classics Winner
    • *
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 4922
    • Liked: 2798
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #386 on: July 18, 2013, 08:50 »
    Here's today's L'Equipe article in rough English. Any mistakes are mine. Be sure to buy the newspaper. ;)

    "His performances make sense"

    FRED GRAPPE has analysed the physical potential of Chris Froome from the last two years and found no anomalies.

    FIRST CONCLUSION: HIS POWER FALLS AWAY NORMALLY

    The relationship between power and time is similar to what we know and observe among all the riders for whom we've established a Power Profile Record (PPR). It shows for example a significant and normal decrease in power from 60 watts (0.88w/kg) between efforts of 20 and 60 minutes. On average a rider loses 50W in this interval of time. Established over two years, Froome's PPR shows no anomalies in its fundamental structure. In other words, his power data for the last two years makes sense with the profile that he delivers. The performances that he achieved on Ax-3-Domaines and the Ventoux could be expected given what his PPR says. In two years, his profile hasn't changed. It appears that the potential that he shows today is similar to the one he had in 2011.

    SECOND CONCLUSION: AN UNUSUALLY HIGH AEROBIC POTENTIAL

    The extremely high maximum aerobic power (for an effort of 5 minutes) confirms that he has a higher than usual aerobic potential, giving him a VO2Max (which to date has never been measured in a lab by his team) close to the known scientific physiological limits. The exceptional power that he can deliver in the course of a maximal effort of 5 minutes gives him a certain reserve in comparison with other riders. That explains the accelerations that he can do towards the top of the climbs. We can estimate that, in relation to his main rivals, he has a margin of 20W of additional power in his favour. This margin is what we see in examples like Ax-3-Domaines and the Ventoux.

    THIRD CONCLUSION: A VERY STABLE BODY WEIGHT

    His average weight over the two years is 68kg in the morning with very small variations of less than 900g. That shows that the power that he's been able to develop in the last two years is relatively stable when you express that it in Watts per kilogram (W/kg), a very important measure in climbing performance.

    FOURTH CONCLUSION: EXCELLENT ABILITY TO RECUPERATE

    It's clear that, to be able to exploit a power profile at more or less 100% of the maximum available, Chris Froome has to have excellent recuperative abilities between stages since, if the level of fatigue accumulates too much, he would no longer be able to get close to his own recorded limits.

    THE METHOD EXPLAINED

    What do we measure?

    The study of total physical potential of a cyclist is possible starting with the analysis of power that he produces when producing maximal efforts. The power that he produces is what enables him to move forward thanks to the force he applies on each pedal stroke in terms of the the pedalling cadence (the speed with which he turns the legs). The more the power increases, the more effort is required. Unlike a car, with which you can move at full gas on short and long durations, the cyclist has to find an optimal engine turnover for each duration of exercise. Thus, the shorter the duration of the effort, the most capable he is of producing a high level of power. At the same time, the longer the duration (endurance efforts), the more the power level diminishes.

    What method has Grappe used?

    Today, the majority of riders have power meters on their bikes, which enables the download of very precise data at the end of each race. Starting with the data handed over by Team Sky (containing efforts treated as the maxmimum and of a duration between 5 and 60 minutes), Fred Grappe has established Froome's Power Profile Record (PPR) for the last two years.

    Also from yesterday

    Before accessing data handed over by Team Sky, Fred Grappe had estimated Froome's potential using his own calculation method, which includes numbers linked to the rider, environmental conditions, equipment used and characteristics of the climb. Comparing the figures, he was able to establish the margin of error as 2.5%, a very narrow number. Using this conclusion, he studied the first climb by Froome in yesterday's time trial and he observed that "the average power produced was once again very much in line with his power profile, and therefore completely expected."
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 18, 2013, 09:22 by L'arriviste »

    Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 1202
    • Liked: 479
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #387 on: July 18, 2013, 08:59 »
    I'll translate it now... please wait ... loading .... do not turn off your computer ...
    Ok, I'll wait,

    hmmmmm tap tap tap tap tap
  • ReplyReply

  • search

    • Classics Winner
    • *
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 3547
    • Liked: 2394
    • Awards: 2012 CQ Ranking Tour GameAvatar of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #388 on: July 18, 2013, 09:16 »
    I can teach you french in the meantime, 5 VR$$ a lesson :D

    but my word pool is very limited
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Just the facts, Ma'am ...
    • Classics Winner
    • *
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 4922
    • Liked: 2798
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #389 on: July 18, 2013, 09:20 »
    Loaded 100%...  :D
  • ReplyReply

  •  

    * Dark Side Chatbox

    Sorry, this shoutbox does not exist.

    Recent Posts

    Recent Topics

    Featured Topics



    Top
    Back to top