VAM has its flaws, as it's very dependent from the gradient (and only apply to 7 or 8+ % averages). I think it was commonly used till the 90's. Isn't a Ferrari invention, or do we owe it to Conconi ?
Watts work better, IMO, as they consider more parameters.
Edited by Aquarius on 19-07-2012 23:06
Around 6W/kg for a relatively short climb taking 24 minutes when compared with figures around 6.5W/kg for considerably longer climbs in the 90's and 2000's that would take in excess of 40 minutes to climb.
Edited by ianrussell on 19-07-2012 23:53
ianrussell wrote:
Armstrong's 2004 climb of Alp d'Huez was the most extreme example I've seen at a reported 6.97W/kg...
But that was a 15 km TT, wouldn't that make a considerable difference?
You're right not nearly as ridiculous as it seems The other figures are quoted from people who actually know stuff so more reliable than my own digging or rather uninformed reading of that particular number that I saw in isolation
Have edited the original post to remove the misleading bit, thanks. Indeed as I understand it these numbers relate to the final climbs on big mountain stages. For example riders still perform at 6.5W/kg but on less demanding stages and shorter climbs. They certainly don't seem able to sustain that level for 40+ minute climbs at the end of a big mountain stage anymore like they did a few years back.
Edited by ianrussell on 20-07-2012 00:00
Alakagom wrote:
Tbh I still think the competition this year makes them look much better then they are.
Contador and Schleck will really show how good Froome is. Not from this Tour.
Well, in the TT they didn't face Tony Martin but still performed ridiculously good to beat Cancellara by a whole minute for Wiggins and 22 secs for Froome (and I don't really find the argument that Cancellara wasn't in shape much valid, he owned the prologue, and had rested the day earlier). In the mountains, Wiggins would be pwned by Contador, because it's Contador, but Froome... he's been doing a lot of work at the front and is clearly the strongest, it's like he could take out Wiggins advantage anytime on the mountains.
Froome and Wiggo are averaging numbers around 6 W/kg on long climbs, right ? That's 420 W for a 70+8 kg rider. They do more on shorter climbs.
If we look at figures from the past, you can see an evolution. Contador was above those figures, until he faded in last year's Tour. Same with Andy Schleck. Last year, and that made the likes of Voeckler able to contest for G.C., they were rather around 400-410 W average. Which means that Froome and Wiggins would probably climb as well, if not better, than A. Schleck and Contador 2011.
If you look at those two at their peak, and compare them to Sky riders this year, Sky wouldn't match them, but then again we're not sure they're at their absolute limit right now. Especially Froome.
Then there's the ITT aspect, where Wiggins would possibly gain 30 seconds or one minute on Contador, and 4 or 5 minutes on Schleck.
But one thing you forget in your view of 2011 Contador, and that is that he had a Giro, which is without a doubt the hardest when it comes to mountains in the legs before coming to the Tour.
I am not. Why the hell won't anybody understand that? Read my sig!
dress it up all you want, but we all know what it was about 2 months ago
he had a signature
lance didn't doped,if he would did then he would won 8 tdf
that was just few weeks ago
he believed that armstrong was clean even in 2012
he wasn't lance fan,he was contador fan)))
Eh? and to take your signature, do you have any definitive proof that Lance was doped? and no hear-say and second hand testimony from riders who get a plea-deal are not enough.
Alakagom wrote:
Tbh I still think the competition this year makes them look much better then they are.
Contador and Schleck will really show how good Froome is. Not from this Tour.
Well, in the TT they didn't face Tony Martin but still performed ridiculously good to beat Cancellara by a whole minute for Wiggins and 22 secs for Froome (and I don't really find the argument that Cancellara wasn't in shape much valid, he owned the prologue, and had rested the day earlier). In the mountains, Wiggins would be pwned by Contador, because it's Contador, but Froome... he's been doing a lot of work at the front and is clearly the strongest, it's like he could take out Wiggins advantage anytime on the mountains.
Froome and Wiggo are averaging numbers around 6 W/kg on long climbs, right ? That's 420 W for a 70+8 kg rider. They do more on shorter climbs.
If we look at figures from the past, you can see an evolution. Contador was above those figures, until he faded in last year's Tour. Same with Andy Schleck. Last year, and that made the likes of Voeckler able to contest for G.C., they were rather around 400-410 W average. Which means that Froome and Wiggins would probably climb as well, if not better, than A. Schleck and Contador 2011.
If you look at those two at their peak, and compare them to Sky riders this year, Sky wouldn't match them, but then again we're not sure they're at their absolute limit right now. Especially Froome.
Then there's the ITT aspect, where Wiggins would possibly gain 30 seconds or one minute on Contador, and 4 or 5 minutes on Schleck.
But one thing you forget in your view of 2011 Contador, and that is that he had a Giro, which is without a doubt the hardest when it comes to mountains in the legs before coming to the Tour.
Contador is like 60kg as well, dunno how that affects the results. I'm no expert in calculating watts
The lighter you are, the lesser your theoretical max speed. So, for a given speed, you'll be riding closer to your potential if you're light.
The steeper the slope, the most important the weight (because, in proportions, gravity becomes THE strength to beat when the slope increases).
In short, insane numbers are slightly more tolerable by the lightest riders on the steepest slopes.
kgarvey wrote:
As regard the leaked blood passport list from the 2010 tdf. Worth noting that Wiggins himself was not in the 'overwhelming' category (just because he is one of the main targets of accusation this time round)
No, it was just barely under it. It was where comments on riders' doping "start to become affirmative". The rest of the riders were far higher on the And especially the fact that they went out and signed several riders higher on the list after they knew the list cannot possibly be anything but EXTREMELY DAMNING.
kgarvey wrote:
unlike certain fan favourites such as Tony Martin who I can't imagine would receive the same flak if he lost weight and started performing as a GC rider but perhaps he would who knows.
Because that's completely impossible. It's impossible because he already has performed as a GC rider. That's like saying "what if Matt Goss started performing as a sprinter?"
kgarvey wrote:
VDB is a staggering 9/10 on that list yet doesn't seem to receive much hate.
Because one single rider being high on that list is not only a drop of water compared to Sky's many riders listed high, but also because we already had a long discussion about Lotto years back when Kohl explained how Lotto's reaction to his blood values was "wow you hide your doping really well, here's a contract offer!"
And mostly because Lotto is generally regarded as a dirty team and has been for the longest time. There's really not much need for discussion.
kgarvey wrote:
Primarily however if the cycling news article here is to be believed, you have the wording a bit mistaken, the actual wording is "circumstantial evidence of possible doping was overwhelming". When you only have circumstantial evidence that means there are always, always other possible explanations. So to bring me back to my original point, to laugh down these other possible explanations is unfounded and unfair, as overwhelming as the circumstantial evidence may or may not be.
It's cyclingnews that calls it circumstancial, not the original source.
kgarvey wrote:
Trust me you are the last person I wish to get into a debate about cycling with, it would be like an amateur stepping into a ring with Mike Tyson. You are almost sure Sky are doping and that only adds to a casual fan such as myself's suspicions.
Even Mike Tyson has never managed to defeat certain foes. Like the letter S
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Been following this thread for a while, but I have finally decided to post. I would like to make the following points.
Sky - do you really know who the company behind the team is?
What is their motives for sponsoring the British team? It is usually either for exposure or image. No one could argue that the biggest and most dominant pay TV company would need any exposure at all. They practically have a monopoly in the UK, and few sports are not shown on "Sky Sports", few big name TV shows are not shown on Sky 1,2 or 3, or on Sky Atlantic. Practically everyone in the UK has heard of Sky, especially those would would pay for TV.
So Sky's motives are clearly image. Do Sky have an image problem? https://darkpoliti...il-empire/ https://thesatires...mpire.html https://www.indepe...66513.html
Yes they do. Find someone with something nice to say about Murdoch. In fact BSkyB go to great lengths to try to distance themselves from him. Just ask the caller a question about Murdoch's involvement in Sky next time they cold call you.
Sky launched initiatives to try to correct their image problem and some of them have been sport based. Cycling is the main sport they have gone after. One the back of British Olympic success, sky helped to make the Olympic medal hopefuls professional so they could train properly and increase their chances. They are heavily associated now with British cycling from top to bottom. I've mentioned the top level, now here's the bottom: https://www.goskyr...
What is Sky's involvement in cycling about if not to make themselves more cuddly and nice and less the evil empire determined to manipulate the news, media, and governments? BSkyB are not bothered about winning the Tour de France, rather they just want to show how much good they are doing. If they were bothered about winning, why is cycling the highest profile sport you cannot watch on Sky Sports? Surely if they were about winning then they would have paid the meagre fee required to wrestle control from ITV4 (yes it's on channel four of the beleaguered channels output) or Eurosport, and made a big song and dance out of the tour.
BSkyB have given Team Sky £30m over 4 years. That's unprecedented in cycling. It's all about increasing their image and if Team Sky were caught doping it would severely dent BskyB's reputation.
The above article details the announcement of the team and the stated aims of team Sky. With a massive budget, surely sky could just sign the cream of the peleton and use them to achieve it's aim of getting a British Cyclist to challenge.
Next, I would like you to consider Dave Brailsford. https://www.teamsk...49,00.html
after all the gold medals, this guy is a legend in British track cycling. Why would he jeopardise that by allowing the team to dope? Why would he turn his back on his stated aims and allow his team to dope. What motivation is there for this principled man? Why would he continue to be so vocally anti-drugs?
Brailsford said that he became very interested in setting up a British road team after Wiggins' performance in the 2009 TdF, as he felt the time was no right for a British rider to win the TdF as it was clean.
Bradley Wiggins. Have you seen Brad after cofidis was kicked out in 2007 TdF? https://news.bbc.c...916422.stm
There was clips of him in the decent Wiggins documentary on ITV4, and he was clearly livid. Wiggins has since had a lot to say on the use of drugs and has been very outspoken on it. I cannot see a u-turn by this man.
One thing that did make me laugh is someone suggesting that Wiggins results in the time trial was in some evidence of this. What is Wiggins if not proficient in the time trial. This is his background, he's always been a world class time trialist and is stronger over the longer time trial distances.
People, with better cycling knowledge than I, have singled out the likes of Porte and Rogers, and if they think their performance improvements suspicious then who am I to argue, I know far less about them than I do Wiggins. But I do ask this, could Sky with it's massive budget not afford to go out and get the best climbing domestiques out there? If so, why not sign better instead of getting the likes of Porte to dope?
I do not see how team sky, as a whole, can dope without consent or knowledge of Dave Brailsford. I do not believe that he would allow it. It go against everything Sky themselves are trying to do in changing their image.
This tour has been one for me whereby Wiggins has had an easy ride on a course better suited to him than he could ever dream of, against weak rivals (an aging Evans, a faded Basso, a meagre Van Den Broeck, Nibali (who is never going to be one of the greats and who he's beaten before (2009)), a young Van garderen, a young Pinault and a young Rolland.
I sincerely believe Wiggins hasn't doped and that Sky aren't doping as a team. I'm glad people are still asking the questions and still determined to ensure that our sport is cleaned up.
Digger wrote:
Been following this thread for a while, but I have finally decided to post. I would like to make the following points.
Sky - do you really know who the company behind the team is?
What is their motives for sponsoring the British team? It is usually either for exposure or image. No one could argue that the biggest and most dominant pay TV company would need any exposure at all. They practically have a monopoly in the UK, and few sports are not shown on "Sky Sports", few big name TV shows are not shown on Sky 1,2 or 3, or on Sky Atlantic. Practically everyone in the UK has heard of Sky, especially those would would pay for TV.
So Sky's motives are clearly image. Do Sky have an image problem? https://darkpoliti...il-empire/ https://thesatires...mpire.html https://www.indepe...66513.html
Yes they do. Find someone with something nice to say about Murdoch. In fact BSkyB go to great lengths to try to distance themselves from him. Just ask the caller a question about Murdoch's involvement in Sky next time they cold call you.
Sky launched initiatives to try to correct their image problem and some of them have been sport based. Cycling is the main sport they have gone after. One the back of British Olympic success, sky helped to make the Olympic medal hopefuls professional so they could train properly and increase their chances. They are heavily associated now with British cycling from top to bottom. I've mentioned the top level, now here's the bottom: https://www.goskyr...
What is Sky's involvement in cycling about if not to make themselves more cuddly and nice and less the evil empire determined to manipulate the news, media, and governments? BSkyB are not bothered about winning the Tour de France, rather they just want to show how much good they are doing. If they were bothered about winning, why is cycling the highest profile sport you cannot watch on Sky Sports? Surely if they were about winning then they would have paid the meagre fee required to wrestle control from ITV4 (yes it's on channel four of the beleaguered channels output) or Eurosport, and made a big song and dance out of the tour.
BSkyB have given Team Sky £30m over 4 years. That's unprecedented in cycling. It's all about increasing their image and if Team Sky were caught doping it would severely dent BskyB's reputation.
The above article details the announcement of the team and the stated aims of team Sky. With a massive budget, surely sky could just sign the cream of the peleton and use them to achieve it's aim of getting a British Cyclist to challenge.
Good text. Easy to read and well explained
However, it's all irrelevant. The sponsor has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the team dopes
Digger wrote:
Next, I would like you to consider Dave Brailsford. https://www.teamsk...49,00.html
after all the gold medals, this guy is a legend in British track cycling. Why would he jeopardise that by allowing the team to dope? Why would he turn his back on his stated aims and allow his team to dope. What motivation is there for this principled man? Why would he continue to be so vocally anti-drugs?
Brailsford said that he became very interested in setting up a British road team after Wiggins' performance in the 2009 TdF, as he felt the time was no right for a British rider to win the TdF as it was clean.
Why would Bruyneel jeopardize his career and reputation to allow his team to dope? Why would Sáiz? Why would Guimard? Why would Godefroot? Why would Pevenage? Why would [insert literally hundreds of other names]?
All these had massive reputations to protect, yet they all condoned doping.
That's like asking why you would make this argument if you've read the topic and thus know it's been made and discussed to death: if people were perfect it wouldn't happen, but it does anyway because none of us are
Digger wrote:
Bradley Wiggins. Have you seen Brad after cofidis was kicked out in 2007 TdF? https://news.bbc.c...916422.stm
There was clips of him in the decent Wiggins documentary on ITV4, and he was clearly livid. Wiggins has since had a lot to say on the use of drugs and has been very outspoken on it. I cannot see a u-turn by this man.
And at that same Tour he reacted to Leinders' Rabobank scandal by saying that teams with such doctors shouldn't be at the tour or even given a racing license. Yet now he has no problem having Leinders as a team doctor.
There's one example of the u-turn that he has already made, and quite publicly if I may say so.
Digger wrote:
One thing that did make me laugh is someone suggesting that Wiggins results in the time trial was in some evidence of this. What is Wiggins if not proficient in the time trial. This is his background, he's always been a world class time trialist and is stronger over the longer time trial distances..
Yet in his first five seasons as a pro his best result in a time trial of length was to "only" lose over three minutes on the stage winner. So, he has not at all like you say "always been a world class time trialist"
Now he's winning them by dominant margins. Huge transformation if I ever saw one.
Digger wrote:
People, with better cycling knowledge than I, have singled out the likes of Porte and Rogers, and if they think their performance improvements suspicious then who am I to argue, I know far less about them than I do Wiggins. But I do ask this, could Sky with it's massive budget not afford to go out and get the best climbing domestiques out there? If so, why not sign better instead of getting the likes of Porte to dope?
Who could they have gotten at that time who was better? Most better climbers either weren't available, wouldn't go there to be domestiques, or had offers from Sky but rejected them (Cunego comes to mind).
Digger wrote:
I do not see how team sky, as a whole, can dope without consent or knowledge of Dave Brailsford. I do not believe that he would allow it. It go against everything Sky themselves are trying to do in changing their image.
Changing their image? The change in their image is that they made promises of certain core rules they would abide by, and then broke literally all of them.
Digger wrote:
This tour has been one for me whereby Wiggins has had an easy ride on a course better suited to him than he could ever dream of, against weak rivals (an aging Evans, a faded Basso, a meagre Van Den Broeck, Nibali (who is never going to be one of the greats and who he's beaten before (2009)), a young Van garderen, a young Pinault and a young Rolland.
It's not that he's winning, it's the manner of the dominance. And, far more than Wiggins, it's all that you didn't mention or mentioned only in passing: It's Rogers, it's Porte, it's Froome. Wiggins is suspicious, but those three are far more. And the team itself manages to be more suspicious than Froome.
Digger wrote:
I sincerely believe Wiggins hasn't doped and that Sky aren't doping as a team. I'm glad people are still asking the questions and still determined to ensure that our sport is cleaned up.
It's your right to believe as such, as long as you don't get mad at people who disagree like some did
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Digger wrote:
Few sports are not shown on "Sky Sports",
Including the Tour de France
I don't know why Sky didn't bid for the rights in 2009 or earlier this year, ITV have it for peanuts until 2015 Edited by Alastairhufc on 20-07-2012 21:06
