|
Sky Doping/Hate Thread
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 21-07-2015 21:50
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
Watts per kg, genius.
|
| |
|
|
| Movistar |
Posted on 21-07-2015 22:14
|
Domestique
Posts: 424
Joined: 05-06-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Riis123 wrote:
I can't grasp how much Brailsford pisses me off. Fuck his zero-tolerance and marginal gains...... meh
He is just the fucking worst. |
| |
|
|
| FroomeDog99 |
Posted on 21-07-2015 22:33
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4573
Joined: 07-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
“For that 41:30, Chris had an average power of 414 watts, which gives a 1602 VAM. We know power Osymetric chainrings (used by Froome) over estimate power by about 6 per cent. That’s why it has to be considered when interpreting Chris’ power. With his weight hovering around 67.5kg that gives a correct power of 5.78 watts per kilo.”
- Tim Kerrison, Sky
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-...m-stage-10
414/68 = 6.09 w/kg
Not sure about the osymetric chainrings? |
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 21-07-2015 22:41
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
Wait. Isn't "overestimating a power output by 6%" practically the same as "increasing your performance by 6%"?
If so, I'm very interested who uses those chainrings because they're basically riding a separate race then.
If not, I'm just tired.
|
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 21-07-2015 22:56
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
FroomeDog99 wrote:
“For that 41:30, Chris had an average power of 414 watts, which gives a 1602 VAM. We know power Osymetric chainrings (used by Froome) over estimate power by about 6 per cent. That’s why it has to be considered when interpreting Chris’ power. With his weight hovering around 67.5kg that gives a correct power of 5.78 watts per kilo.”
- Tim Kerrison, Sky
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-...m-stage-10
414/68 = 6.09 w/kg
Not sure about the osymetric chainrings?
Yup, that is the estimate the pseudoscientists found as well.
Cio: Well I thought the same, apparantly Sky's logic behind this is they estimate that using the chainrings basically makes them ride 6% faster up the mountains, thus reaching 5,78 w/kg with the same chainrings as the others, another example at the marginal gains not being that marginal. Either way, hilarious to state that. I cant comprehend how they can be serious about those chainrings, I mean, if it really meant that they would go that much faster, why wouldnt everyone else do it? I simply refuse to believe that. |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 21-07-2015 22:58
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
FroomeDog99 wrote:
“For that 41:30, Chris had an average power of 414 watts, which gives a 1602 VAM. We know power Osymetric chainrings (used by Froome) over estimate power by about 6 per cent. That’s why it has to be considered when interpreting Chris’ power. With his weight hovering around 67.5kg that gives a correct power of 5.78 watts per kilo.”
- Tim Kerrison, Sky
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-...m-stage-10
414/68 = 6.09 w/kg
Not sure about the osymetric chainrings?
Veloclinic suggests an upper estimate of 5.95W/kg
https://veloclinic...-5-95-w-kg
|
| |
|
|
| FroomeDog99 |
Posted on 21-07-2015 23:04
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4573
Joined: 07-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well, maybe Gesink rode with the same chainring and didn't take into account the 6% overestimation?
Would be interesting to see if the 'pseudoscientists' take this into account (if it's indeed true). |
| |
|
|
| FroomeDog99 |
Posted on 21-07-2015 23:05
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4573
Joined: 07-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Riis123 wrote:
FroomeDog99 wrote:
“For that 41:30, Chris had an average power of 414 watts, which gives a 1602 VAM. We know power Osymetric chainrings (used by Froome) over estimate power by about 6 per cent. That’s why it has to be considered when interpreting Chris’ power. With his weight hovering around 67.5kg that gives a correct power of 5.78 watts per kilo.”
- Tim Kerrison, Sky
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-...m-stage-10
414/68 = 6.09 w/kg
Not sure about the osymetric chainrings?
Yup, that is the estimate the pseudoscientists found as well.
Cio: Well I thought the same, apparantly Sky's logic behind this is they estimate that using the chainrings basically makes them ride 6% faster up the mountains, thus reaching 5,78 w/kg with the same chainrings as the others, another example at the marginal gains not being that marginal. Either way, hilarious to state that. I cant comprehend how they can be serious about those chainrings, I mean, if it really meant that they would go that much faster, why wouldnt everyone else do it? I simply refuse to believe that.
Or it could just be the chainring produces a wrong reading that is 106% of the actual average wattage.
Edit: Thanks Crommy, some interesting numbers. Could be another reason to Gesink's higher reading than Sky's.
Edited by FroomeDog99 on 21-07-2015 23:28
|
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 21-07-2015 23:08
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
FroomeDog99 wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
FroomeDog99 wrote:
“For that 41:30, Chris had an average power of 414 watts, which gives a 1602 VAM. We know power Osymetric chainrings (used by Froome) over estimate power by about 6 per cent. That’s why it has to be considered when interpreting Chris’ power. With his weight hovering around 67.5kg that gives a correct power of 5.78 watts per kilo.”
- Tim Kerrison, Sky
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-...m-stage-10
414/68 = 6.09 w/kg
Not sure about the osymetric chainrings?
Yup, that is the estimate the pseudoscientists found as well.
Cio: Well I thought the same, apparantly Sky's logic behind this is they estimate that using the chainrings basically makes them ride 6% faster up the mountains, thus reaching 5,78 w/kg with the same chainrings as the others, another example at the marginal gains not being that marginal. Either way, hilarious to state that. I cant comprehend how they can be serious about those chainrings, I mean, if it really meant that they would go that much faster, why wouldnt everyone else do it? I simply refuse to believe that.
Or it could just be the chainring produces a wrong reading that is 106% of the actual average wattage.
That was my first thought too, but wouldn't the VAM be off too then? I mean that's a number we can put in relation to the actual result and it's derived from the w/kg.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 23-11-2024 03:14
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Movistar |
Posted on 21-07-2015 23:14
|
Domestique
Posts: 424
Joined: 05-06-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
FroomeDog99 wrote:
“For that 41:30, Chris had an average power of 414 watts, which gives a 1602 VAM. We know power Osymetric chainrings (used by Froome) over estimate power by about 6 per cent. That’s why it has to be considered when interpreting Chris’ power. With his weight hovering around 67.5kg that gives a correct power of 5.78 watts per kilo.”
- Tim Kerrison, Sky
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-...m-stage-10
414/68 = 6.09 w/kg
Not sure about the osymetric chainrings?
How do they over estimate power lol. If that was the case every fucking rider in the world would use one. They dont do anything except give SKY another excuse. |
| |
|
|
| Movistar |
Posted on 21-07-2015 23:17
|
Domestique
Posts: 424
Joined: 05-06-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Or it could just be the chainring produces a wrong reading that is 106% of the actual average wattage.
Edit: Thanks Crommy, some interesting numbers. Could be another estimation to Gesink's higher reading than Sky's.
How could the chainring produce a wrong reading? If it more efficient which is what SKY claims then your power will go up.
If it actually did what those losers at SKY claim, 100% of the riders in the peloton would be using it. |
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 21-07-2015 23:18
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Froomey: Yeah, thats probably the case. If thats the case, well, it just seems nothing more than a lie |
| |
|
|
| FroomeDog99 |
Posted on 21-07-2015 23:23
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4573
Joined: 07-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Movistar wrote:
FroomeDog99 wrote:
“For that 41:30, Chris had an average power of 414 watts, which gives a 1602 VAM. We know power Osymetric chainrings (used by Froome) over estimate power by about 6 per cent. That’s why it has to be considered when interpreting Chris’ power. With his weight hovering around 67.5kg that gives a correct power of 5.78 watts per kilo.”
- Tim Kerrison, Sky
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-...m-stage-10
414/68 = 6.09 w/kg
Not sure about the osymetric chainrings?
How do they over estimate power lol. If that was the case every fucking rider in the world would use one. They dont do anything except give SKY another excuse.
As I said above, an incorrect reading is probably a more realistic interpretation.
Cio - Not totally familiar with VAM, but if it is derived from w/kg surely an adjusted figure because of the incorrect reading because of the chainring would lead to a correct VAM figure? (Presumably this adjustment has been used in the sky figure?) |
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 21-07-2015 23:31
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
I have little actual knowledge that doesn't come from trying to understand people who already done the math, and it's a bit late.
But my understanding is that ascend time, VAM and w/kg are linked so w/kg can't be wrong in purely a measurement way if we use the ascend time and Froome's weight.
That means they're saying Froome produced 5.78 w/kg but the chainring is so efficient that it adds whatever's lacking to the 5.95-6.09 w/kg that were measured.
|
| |
|
|
| wogsrus |
Posted on 21-07-2015 23:35
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1200
Joined: 12-01-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Another element we are not talking about is Strava itself, where Gesink, Yates etc power estimates came from. It doesn't exactly produce accurate power measurements.
https://freetrispe...and-hills/
Also, wrote a blog, very relevant to the whole piss throwing and punching incidents. Check it out, and read the comments below the article if you need further clarification.
https://www.theroa...formances/ |
| |
|
|
| Dee-Jay |
Posted on 22-07-2015 00:05
|
Free Agent
Posts: 129
Joined: 20-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
wogsrus wrote:
Another element we are not talking about is Strava itself, where Gesink, Yates etc power estimates came from. It doesn't exactly produce accurate power measurements.
https://freetrispe...and-hills/
Also, wrote a blog, very relevant to the whole piss throwing and punching incidents. Check it out, and read the comments below the article if you need further clarification.
https://www.theroa...formances/
Bravo Sir! I read the blog. At last, a voice of reason instead of people throwing around numbers and scientific concepts which they dont really understand.
Do what this guy says and wait for evidence before you go slating Brailsford and Froome for doping.
By all means complain about tactics etc. |
| |
|
|
| wogsrus |
Posted on 22-07-2015 00:07
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1200
Joined: 12-01-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Dee-Jay wrote:
wogsrus wrote:
Another element we are not talking about is Strava itself, where Gesink, Yates etc power estimates came from. It doesn't exactly produce accurate power measurements.
https://freetrispe...and-hills/
Also, wrote a blog, very relevant to the whole piss throwing and punching incidents. Check it out, and read the comments below the article if you need further clarification.
https://www.theroa...formances/
Bravo Sir! I read the blog. At last, a voice of reason instead of people throwing around numbers and scientific concepts which they dont really understand.
Do what this guy says and wait for evidence before you go slating Brailsford and Froome for doping.
By all means complain about tactics etc. I like the work of Ross Tucker and other sport scientists. Though, they don't provide 100% proof, but do paint a picture of performances. They are good for judging performances, but people using the work in isolation of other factors is extremely stupid.
They are doing some great work in terms of keeping the conversation about doping going, and holding the riders to account if their performances are out of line of what is expected, or achievable.
People like this are as neccessary as the doping testers in the fight for clean sport. |
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 22-07-2015 00:59
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Speaking of Tucker his latest article is interesting reading with real life examples from Pinot (who released all of his training data a while back from the last few years - the post might look long but will only take all of 10-15 minutes to read so worthwhile if you are genuinely interested in having a better understanding):
https://sportsscie...hysiology/
With regard to the oval chain ring thing I don't know why this should be the case but apparently Andrew Coggan has shown this back in 2006:
Edited by ianrussell on 22-07-2015 01:04
|
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 22-07-2015 00:59
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Of course for what any of this is worth. What Pinot has done seems a way forward though with subsequent analysis. |
| |
|
|
| wogsrus |
Posted on 22-07-2015 01:27
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1200
Joined: 12-01-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
There are also a good few tweets by Dan Lloyd on why certain riders may not want to release power data.
https://www.cyclin...ata-183677
Interesting article on Froome's data.
To be fair to Sky, they have done pretty well going into detail when providing information. Just wish we saw it from other riders as well. |
| |
|
