gotlandrules wrote:
They did these results in training now or what?
Yes, so the timings are declarative values.
I could claim 29:50, it's just that nobody would believe me (and rightly so ).
Still, it shows they're even, if not better, than the guys who're now known for heavy blood doping (transfusions and/or EPO).
Yeah, its ridiculous times. It's clear to anyone thats not a very naive fanboy that they are on some of the good stuff. I guess all hope of Nibali and Valverde challenging is gone. All we can hope for is that Contador gets some real tasty steak
gotlandrules wrote:
They did these results in training now or what?
Yes, so the timings are declarative values.
I could claim 29:50, it's just that nobody would believe me (and rightly so ).
on that note, how believable are the times if they were done in training? Could they have declared a quicker time then they did to play mind games with Contador and Nibali?
gotlandrules wrote:
They did these results in training now or what?
Yes, so the timings are declarative values.
I could claim 29:50, it's just that nobody would believe me (and rightly so ).
on that note, how believable are the times if they were done in training? Could they have declared a quicker time then they did to play mind games with Contador and Nibali?
I guess it's possible, but Froome was up there with Armstrongs times (ahead of him several times) during last years Tour so i find them quite believable.
gotlandrules wrote:
They did these results in training now or what?
Yes, so the timings are declarative values.
I could claim 29:50, it's just that nobody would believe me (and rightly so ).
on that note, how believable are the times if they were done in training? Could they have declared a quicker time then they did to play mind games with Contador and Nibali?
Depends on how they evaluate the question "Is posting an even faster time than we actually did helping to intimidate a select opposition more than it does raise the d-argument throughout the whole cycling world again?"
gotlandrules wrote:
They did these results in training now or what?
Yes, so the timings are declarative values.
I could claim 29:50, it's just that nobody would believe me (and rightly so ).
on that note, how believable are the times if they were done in training? Could they have declared a quicker time then they did to play mind games with Contador and Nibali?
Depends on how they evaluate the question "Is posting an even faster time than we actually did helping to intimidate a select opposition more than it does raise the d-argument throughout the whole cycling world again?"
But if they are either on something they are confident enough can't be detected or clean then surely that wouldn't bother them.
But as they've been claiming they are better than last year then if they posted a similar time to last year then they probably would have improved the time abit to keep up the impression that they are flying.
Obviously only a very rough comparison given fundamental differences in climb lengths not to mention numerous other factors but that didn't stop me making some fun guesstimates!
Froome 2013 Tour over 7 major climbs = 5.90 W/kg / VAM 1635 m/h
Quintana 2014 Giro over 6 major climbs = 5.79 W/kg / VAM 1634 m/h
Hope for 2015??? Edited by ianrussell on 02-06-2014 21:34
Obviously only a very rough comparison given fundamental differences in climb lengths not to mention numerous other factors but that didn't stop me making some fun guesstimates!
Froome 2013 Tour over 7 major climbs = 5.90 W/kg / VAM 1635 m/h
Quintana 2014 Giro over 6 major climbs = 5.79 W/kg / VAM 1634 m/h
Hope for 2015???
Sorry, I couldn't resist going through some analysis, using the data I found following the links you provided.
Most datas were given in DrF formula, which has proven to be one of the least accurate among the 4 methods vetoo uses or used, but well, I compared Froome 2013 (TDF) to Quintana 2013 (TDF) to Quintana 2014 (Giro).
So, let's have a look at the attached screenshot (I didn't manage to join 4 different ones, so I made a big one), from left to right :
1 ) raw datas, on a time/power-per-weight scale. I limited the scale to 5.5 - 6.5, because lower figures are of no interest to GT winners, and above that equates the crème-de-la-crème of the EPO era.
So far it looks a bit confusing.
2) raw datas, but using a ln scale for times. Grappe & Pinot have shown it's statistically relevant, even without any physiological ground for it.
Power should decreases linearly with such a time scale. My purpose is to identify the most relevant performances by those three (two) riders.
3) sorry for the colours that have changed... I have isolated the best performances, and drew a line that's supposed to show their best potential performances. I deliberately left Quintana's Giro TT out (far right grey dot), as it wasn't really at the end of a normal stage.
4) same as before, keeping only the best performances, and drawing a curb on a linear time scale this time.
Conclusions ?
At first sight, Quintana's TDF 2013 was weird, since his shorter efforts were weaker than longer ones.
One of the three low performance is Ax3, where he attacked (IIRC), then faded. Another is a short bit of an ITT, so not necessarily very relevant (unless it's been done at iso power, then the power to weight figure should be applied to his ITT time), the third one was done a group of leaders, not a maximal performance.
Now if you consider his stronger performances, you can't deny he was a better climber than Froome.
Consider his 2014 Giro now : weak. No way he'd win a TDF with that form, only once was he above 6.00 W/kg, for less than 20 minutes. Poor weather conditions, a cold and falls in first week explain that. We lack datas around 20 minutes for more accuracy, but it still looks much weaker than what's needed to be a TDF winner.
Still prefer the road bike party vids as they flow better - often setting up the next trick when on the bike on camera rather than cutting there half way through but not taking it away from the guy - still wow!
.
