You don't get it. Wiggins 5/6 years ago was also a rider who was world and olympic champion in the individual pursuit. To do that you have to have extroardinary physical capabilities.
With loss of weight and specific training he turned into a climber. But he always had that potential to climb well with those physical capabilities.
ruben wrote:
You don't get it. Wiggins 5/6 years ago was also a rider who was world and olympic champion in the individual pursuit. To do that you have to have extroardinary physical capabilities.
With loss of weight and specific training he turned into a climber. But he always had that potential to climb well with those physical capabilities.
ruben wrote:
You don't get it. Wiggins 5/6 years ago was also a rider who was world and olympic champion in the individual pursuit. To do that you have to have extroardinary physical capabilities.
With loss of weight and specific training he turned into a climber. But he always had that potential to climb well with those physical capabilities.
So you're making a bad comparison.
Well Kittel obviously has good physical capibilities too, so if he trains and looses weight he could eb a climber too.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
CrueTrue wrote:
In terms of the watts discussion, I never understood the theory behind it, but we've moved from "that can't be done by a human being" in the Armstrong era till a point where it's actually humanly possible.
That's humanly possible if you consider Froome and Wiggins as the ultimate human beings. Which, admittedly, they're unlikely to both be.
Anyway, besides the scientific aspect, there's one that should make more sense about Watts. The statistical aspect.
The more above that supposed human limits riders have been, the more likely they are to have been convinced or seriously suspected of doping.
Best performers in history : Armstrong, Contador, Riis, Ullrich, Basso (before his suspension), Pantani, etc.
Other top performers : Beloki, Botero, Hamilton, Klöden, Mayo, Menchov, Landis, Heras, Rumsas, Sevilla, Simoni, Vinokourov, etc.
I don't have all the names with me, but I can't name a rider that I consider clean who has performed at that level. I don't mean once on a short hill, I mean in the standard conditions when that limit applies.
So, seeing Froome and Wiggins joining that "club" of super-performing riders is not a proof, it just increases some probabilities.
Wow I see we've hit 57 pages of speculation
From what I've read from experts in the field I would agree with CrueTrue that what we have witnessed in the last few years, and again this year, is much more believable.
Aquarius - not quite sure where you got the "[based on] ultimate human beings" idea from but I think it's reasonable to expect those excelling at the top end of a professional sport that is so dependent on raw physical output are likely to have a physiology that gives them an advantage over most though assumptions around performance are not based on someone whose only weakness is Kryptonite.
As an example of performance this year the yellow jersey group on the key alpine, stage 11 averaged 5.6W/kg on the last climb, a long way shy of what seems to be the consensus of the top end of believable for a 40 odd min climb at the end of a big mountain stage (around 6W/kg)https://www.srm.de/index.php/gb/srm-bl...france/737
Also I've posted some numbers above, though some of it may have got lost amongst the mass of opinion, but the current generation of riders are inarguably riding slower than in the 90's and the 2000's. Science of Sport report "2012's best are 5-13% slower than the previous generation. Just for context, if elite marathon runners slowed by even 8%, they'd run 2:14 instead of 2:04. We'd wonder what happened?"
So putting Froome and Wiggins in the same bracket as "super-performing riders" from the previous generation seems misplaced to me.
I hasten to add I'm not an expert but from someone who I consider to be an impartial anti doping source taken from their Facebook page this was a very useful overview for me (you can look it up there on 14th July if you so wish) Science of Sport "...in the 90s and 2000s, the data say that the best climbers were regularly riding at 6.5W/kg or even higher on the long HC climbs at the end of stages. The goal that riders then set for themselves was based on what they were able to observe in the race, when men like Riis, Pantani, Ullrich, Armstrong were going up Alp d'Huez in under 39 minutes, corresponding to around 6.3 to 6.7W/kg.
Since the biological passport has been introduced, that power output has dropped considerably, and in the last 4 years (the time where I've been documenting the climbing power), the highest I've seen was Contador vs Schleck on the Tormalet where they rode at about 5.9W/kg.
SO I think the new target is probably 6W/kg. Obviously, on a shorter climb (20 min) they can go higher (6.5W/kg), and of course if a climber is fresh, they'll go higher, but at the end of a 4 hour stage, to hit a 30 to 45 min climb at 6.5W/kg just does not happen. Also, the physiological implications of this kind of power output are just not plausible. There is not a combination of physiology that would allow this effort, whereas 6W/kg points to a guy with a high VO2max, high efficiency, so I think these are all good signs for the sport.
They don't prove that it is clean, of course, but they do suggest that it's better than ever. The emphasis now shifts to catching the micro-dosing that the riders might use to help them recover better, because the other thing that factors into all this is the ability to do this every day for 3 weeks!"
Now again I say this doesn't prove anyone is riding clean or not but as a general trend it is an encouraging sign.
Certainly cycling in the UK has benefitted massively from lottery funding over the last few years and Sky has taken an approach that brought Olympic success on the track to road racing via a big budget sponsor. It amazes me that, in comparison, many teams and many top riders still train in some very primitive ways - "here's a training plan go away and come back in shape, see you in 6 weeks...". Little things like this can all add up to give a team a few percent advantage which can make all the difference, especially if they are able to hire riders that would be leaders on most other teams as domestiques and all the serious competition have a disrupted season or aren't there in the first place.
Of course another explanation could conceivably be an organised doping regime and I can't rule that out either but the "substantive" (I use the term advisably) evidence for it amounts to a dodgy doctor (lots of teams have them but it does seem unnecessary given other likely options and therefore it naturally arouses suspicion) and peoples ascertains that certain riders can't improve that much (I can especially understand doubts around Froome given the timing of his improved performance when his contract was in the balance but his serious long term illness also adds some complexities into the mix).
Clearly I'm not objective in this and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I especially feel for those who have seen their own heroes fall at the hands of the cancer that is doping - it must be a gutting experience. If nothing else history shows that lots of people have been disappointed in the past and I may become another one down the line - I hope not but of course it is possible. In the meantime I'm taking the time to enjoy it because if I can't enjoy it when riders I'm a fan of are successful then what's the point?
ruben wrote:
Hmm, but Vaughters said Wiggins is the best rider they ever tested at Garmin.
He is clearly an unique physical talent.
Contador is also a test monster.
Besides, limits are there to be broken. There is no limit to human possibilties. Humans keep evolving, and at a fast rate as well. (just look at average length of a male in Holland between 100 years ago and now or even 20 years ago and now). Everyone keeps pushing boundaries
Sporters are the frontiers of men and woman that surpass previous limits
You are either naive or joking, because if the boundaries were getting bigger as you suggested, it would not have been the case of only 4-5 athletes from the same team and rest still being the same or lower level than few years back...
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 26-07-2012 06:46
To be fair, Wiggins and Froome are rather at the very bottom of the over-performing riders club, so, in all honesty, I have more faith in them than I had in Pantani & co. Or let's put it the other way, there are or were some other riders that I trusted even less.
About the limit : I reckon it's based on analysis performed in the late 80's and then again a decade later, on a wide pool of top sportsmen. They performed various measurements and tested their performances. Conclusion was that if a cyclist had as many "right" genes as possible, and being perfectly trained, fresh, etc. he shouldn't be able to perform consistently above 410 W (if compared to a 70+8 kg model) in a three weeks race. Yes, that goes for elite sportsmen, not random people like probably you, and me. At best the likes of LeMond & co were like 5% below that, but on one occasion per G.T. Their average was rather 10 % below. Froome and Wiggo are like 1% above, Armstrong, Contador and Pantani were 8 to 10 % above !
Once again, it's above perfect, and it's unlikely those two are "perfect".
Anyway, I don't intend to prove anything. I hope we can talk about Sky 2012 in 10 years, and we'll know what they were on, or if we were just sceptical but that apparently nothing ever happened. After all, that should be feasible, I've been in CyM/PCM communities on internet for 10 years now (I first registered when CyM2 was released).
ruben wrote:
So...
I tried the Sky tactic in PCM 2011
Saxo Bank 4th season. Whole team on climbing camp for 20 days in may, and 10 days time trial camp in june.
After dominating the Dauphine the Cyanide newspaper headline was
"Strange domination of Saxo Bank"
I see paralells
Hahah omg did the game really make that headline ?
That is indeed really funny
CrueTrue wrote:
In terms of the watts discussion, I never understood the theory behind it, but we've moved from "that can't be done by a human being" in the Armstrong era till a point where it's actually humanly possible.
That's humanly possible if you consider Froome and Wiggins as the ultimate human beings. Which, admittedly, they're unlikely to both be.
Anyway, besides the scientific aspect, there's one that should make more sense about Watts. The statistical aspect.
The more above that supposed human limits riders have been, the more likely they are to have been convinced or seriously suspected of doping.
Best performers in history : Armstrong, Contador, Riis, Ullrich, Basso (before his suspension), Pantani, etc.
Other top performers : Beloki, Botero, Hamilton, Klöden, Mayo, Menchov, Landis, Heras, Rumsas, Sevilla, Simoni, Vinokourov, etc.
I don't have all the names with me, but I can't name a rider that I consider clean who has performed at that level. I don't mean once on a short hill, I mean in the standard conditions when that limit applies.
So, seeing Froome and Wiggins joining that "club" of super-performing riders is not a proof, it just increases some probabilities.
Best post of the thread.
God i like you Aquarius even though we argue a lot
This is the essence of what i have stated a dozen of times. It is very suspicious of Froome and Wiggins to perfom almost at the same level as all of the superclimbers we've had the past 16 years. Thats my main concern of how "clean they can be". However it is still all speculations
CrueTrue wrote:
In terms of the watts discussion, I never understood the theory behind it, but we've moved from "that can't be done by a human being" in the Armstrong era till a point where it's actually humanly possible.
That's humanly possible if you consider Froome and Wiggins as the ultimate human beings. Which, admittedly, they're unlikely to both be.
Anyway, besides the scientific aspect, there's one that should make more sense about Watts. The statistical aspect.
The more above that supposed human limits riders have been, the more likely they are to have been convinced or seriously suspected of doping.
Best performers in history : Armstrong, Contador, Riis, Ullrich, Basso (before his suspension), Pantani, etc.
Other top performers : Beloki, Botero, Hamilton, Klöden, Mayo, Menchov, Landis, Heras, Rumsas, Sevilla, Simoni, Vinokourov, etc.
I don't have all the names with me, but I can't name a rider that I consider clean who has performed at that level. I don't mean once on a short hill, I mean in the standard conditions when that limit applies.
So, seeing Froome and Wiggins joining that "club" of super-performing riders is not a proof, it just increases some probabilities.
Best post of the thread.
God i like you Aquarius even though we argue a lot
This is the essence of what i have stated a dozen of times. It is very suspicious of Froome and Wiggins to perfom almost at the same level as all of the superclimbers we've had the past 16 years. Thats my main concern of how "clean they can be". However it is still all speculations
Am I missing something :/ Read my post above - as far as I can see they are NOT performing at that level. In fact they and the whole peloton are performing well below those levels and have been since the bio passport came in a few years ago.
Therefore I'm not quite sure what comparison you are referring to so please illuminate me As I understand it the key figures are for the final climb on a big mountain stage and only that for fairly obvious reasons. The performance in that regard was way down this year when compared to the EPO era. This doesn't prove riders are clean but I'm confused as to how you can say recent performances are similar tp those from 5 or 10 years ago when all the data I can see, increased climb times, lower sustained W/kg, points to a significant slowing down of the top riders.
Aquarius says that Wiggins and Froomes wattages data tells us that they are also in the club of "super climbers" , however they are in the buttom of this club. So they are perfoming close the some of above mentioned names. And we all know that 95 percent of above mentioned names has been convicted of doping. So they perform very close to riders who all have been convicted of using dope..
So thats why it raises eye brows especially when they are stating that they ride completely clean
Ybodonk wrote:
Aquarius says that Wiggins and Froomes wattages data tells us that they are also in the club of "super climbers" , however they are in the buttom of this club. So they are perfoming close the some of above mentioned names. And we all know that 95 percent of above mentioned names has been convicted of doping. So they perform very close to riders who all have been convicted of using dope..
So thats why it raises eye brows especially when they are stating that they ride completely clean
My question is where are the numbers to back this up? What are the sources of information and where can I read them? I have shown SRM data and sources that demonstrate they are not at that level - in fact they are no where near it. Read above, click on the links, read them for yourself or do some research don't take my word for it. I'm a random guy on a forum - personally I wouldn't trust myself - but the information is out there.
ruben wrote:
You don't get it. Wiggins 5/6 years ago was also a rider who was world and olympic champion in the individual pursuit. To do that you have to have extroardinary physical capabilities.
With loss of weight and specific training he turned into a climber. But he always had that potential to climb well with those physical capabilities.
So you're making a bad comparison.
Well Kittel obviously has good physical capibilities too, so if he trains and looses weight he could eb a climber too.
No, Kittel has different physical capabilities. He has high maximum wattage output but he cannot sustain a good wattage over a high period of time like Wiggins and like climbers do.
Sprinters do a very different effort from climbers/time trial specialists and require other capabilities
Ybodonk wrote:
Aquarius says that Wiggins and Froomes wattages data tells us that they are also in the club of "super climbers" , however they are in the buttom of this club. So they are perfoming close the some of above mentioned names. And we all know that 95 percent of above mentioned names has been convicted of doping. So they perform very close to riders who all have been convicted of using dope..
So thats why it raises eye brows especially when they are stating that they ride completely clean
My question is where are the numbers to back this up? What are the sources of information and where can I read them? I have shown SRM data and sources that demonstrate they are not at that level - in fact they are no where near it. Read above, click on the links, read them for yourself or do some research don't take my word for it. I'm a random guy on a forum - personally I wouldn't trust myself - but the information is out there.
Aquarius is a shark. He has done some calculations in here for us. I have mostly taken his word for it.
Aquarius will you be so kind to post your formula of wattages calculation + the information you have used to these calculations.
But for instance are you referring to the revealing of Nibali numbers? He did 320 w at one of the stages - the calculation was for a 70kg + 8kg bike.
However remember Nibali is way lighter than 70kg so he did ride way more than 320 w. Thats was what the expert told me
Teddy The Creator wrote:
I'm not at all trying to be condescending I'm just wondering, does that mean nearly any TT specialist could become a strong climber?
Obviously not all individual pursuit riders are as good as Wiggins was. Wiggins' event on the track was a 4km track sprint. He won numerous gold medals at ease (even when he was young) in this event without even training very hard. He has a ridiculously powerful engine and his physique is perfect for riding a bike. He's tall, has long legs, is very flexible and has narrow shoulders. He has near perfect position and style on a bike. There's no reason people like that couldn't train to become exceptional climbers. Let's not forget, this has taken a long time. He's been riding on the road for years.
Edited by Smal on 26-07-2012 13:44
Teddy The Creator wrote:
I'm not at all trying to be condescending I'm just wondering, does that mean nearly any TT specialist could become a strong climber?
Obviously not all individual pursuit riders are as good as Wiggins was. Wiggins' event on the track was a 4km track sprint. He won numerous gold medals at ease (even when he was young) in this event without even training very hard. He has a ridiculously powerful engine and his physique is perfect for riding a bike. He's tall, has long legs, is very flexible and has narrow shoulders. He has near perfect position and style on a bike. There's no reason people like that couldn't train to become exceptional climbers. Let's not forget, this has taken a long time. He's been riding on the road for years.
Then who of the dominating riders in individual pursuit do you think have the potential to develop like Wiggins, if any?
Phinney won in 2009 , 2010 incredible engine, don't ride track anymore Boobridge won 2011 and in the top the last four years, gonna quit the track for good for next season. Hephurn this year's word champ just 20 years old. Sergeant in the top for many years, like Boobridge not focusing on track after the olympics.
I actually think there is a lot og potential in former track racers but i don't think that domination here can say anything for potential in the mountains.
Manager of Team Vestas Wind Project, Pro Conti Team In the Pseudo man game
All of those would need to lose a lot of weight and perhaps don't have the same ability as Wiggins did. When earning his gold medals on the track Wiggins was still very thin. When you compare the size of his thighs to his competitors at the time they're still tiny.
Phinney is one I think who could do it if he wanted.
Edited by Smal on 26-07-2012 14:34
Actually i think it will be really interesting to see wich way a lot of the olympic track riders will develop their talent when they focus solely on the road for next season
In that group are Geraint Thomas, Peter Kenaugh, Rohan Dennis, Jack Bobridge and Jesse Sergeant. Don't know if hephurn stays on the track.
Obviously they can all timetrial but will they stay pure specialist or will they go for hill cobless sprint or stage races. Personally i have high hopes that Bobridge can develop for something more when he loose some weight.
Manager of Team Vestas Wind Project, Pro Conti Team In the Pseudo man game
Don't sit under a pseudonym and write this s***, rather than get off your a***s in your own lives and apply yourselves, work hard and achieve something
