jph27 wrote:
After today I find Sky more believable. Evans blowing showed that he isn't at his best, Nibali, VDB and Pinot managed to hang on, I mean sure they're good but Pinot? When Evans and co are dropped - yes he's very talented but still.
I agree they looked a little more human today, but the way Froome rode was messed up. At the front around 2nd, 3rd place all day, then pulls for about 10kms uphill, then drops, then hits the front again dropping more riders, then drops again, then attacks, then realises he's better than his leader so slows down, than stays at front till final 500m where he sprints ahead and beats everyone else.
I've been lurking for some years now, but since I've been very keen to see numbers from a proper long climb, i decided to measure the climbing time up La Toussuire to do some calculations, i decided to share what i got, because it's easier to argue knowing the numbers. I have to say that I'm a regular guy, and pulled the formulas i used off google so the result might be somewhat off, but i think it's a good indication at the very least. So without further due, here are the relevant numbers.
The time it took to climb the mountain for the head of the main bunch was 44:55 (measured from the polka dot 18.4km to go sign). In comparison, the fastest guy from the main bunch in 2006 (Sastre) climbed it in 44:22 (also measured from the 18.4km to go sign just after the roundabout).
Now to the calculations
I used the following formula to get the W/kg for the climb:
Relative power (W/kg) = VAM (m/hour) / (Gradient factor x 100)
Gradient factor = 2+(percentage grade/10), so 6% would be 2.6
The height difference according to the stage profile was 1101 meters, climbed in just under 45 minutes equals a VAM of
1468 m/hour. The average gradient is 6.1% so the gradient factor is 2.61. So according to the formula, we arrive at 5.62 W/kg. Normalised for a 70kg rider plus 8kg for the bike we are at 438W for the climb up La Toussuire. That's more than impressive, especially if we consider Froome had to slow down for Wiggins and couldnt go all out.
Again my numbers could be off so take them with a grain of salt, but i thought they are worth sharing while we wait for more "official" numbers.
I've been lurking for some years now, but since I've been very keen to see numbers from a proper long climb, i decided to measure the climbing time up La Toussuire to do some calculations, i decided to share what i got, because it's easier to argue knowing the numbers. I have to say that I'm a regular guy, and pulled the formulas i used off google so the result might be somewhat off, but i think it's a good indication at the very least. So without further due, here are the relevant numbers.
The time it took to climb the mountain for the head of the main bunch was 44:55 (measured from the polka dot 18.4km to go sign). In comparison, the fastest guy from the main bunch in 2006 (Sastre) climbed it in 44:22 (also measured from the 18.4km to go sign just after the roundabout).
Now to the calculations
I used the following formula to get the W/kg for the climb:
Relative power (W/kg) = VAM (m/hour) / (Gradient factor x 100)
Gradient factor = 2+(percentage grade/10), so 6% would be 2.6
The height difference according to the stage profile was 1101 meters, climbed in just under 45 minutes equals a VAM of
1468 m/hour. The average gradient is 6.1% so the gradient factor is 2.61. So according to the formula, we arrive at 5.62 W/kg. Normalised for a 70kg rider plus 8kg for the bike we are at 438W for the climb up La Toussuire. That's more than impressive, especially if we consider Froome had to slow down for Wiggins and couldnt go all out.
Again my numbers could be off so take them with a grain of salt, but i thought they are worth sharing while we wait for more "official" numbers.
If that's trrue, it solitifies claims.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Of course, the numbers apply to all the others who finished with Froome, so it's not like they are any cleaner.
this shows that if sky are the doping geniuses who have some wonder drug making them superstars, then the other riders doing well this year must be doped as well, like van garderen- who is riding seriously well this year.
however, i really hope this is not true and we come to realise that actually sky are just a good team who spent a LOT of money and riders like van garderen(7th) and pinot(10th)
this is not some crusade for sky but more a hope. i am a sky fan but this doesnt mean that there isnt a chance that they are doped, i honestly dont know (just like everyone else in the world except team sky)
First of all, something I should've said a bunch of pages ago: Thank goodness for ManxMissile. I mean that. If he hadn't started this topic, the Tour threads would be overwhelmed. Nicely played
marble wrote:
And are you saying that if you're a good climber, while also being the best time trialist. You're certainly a doper? Either way your argument doesn't really work, as there is no proof of how good Wiggins could've been had he tried to be the best time trialer instead.
Of course you know very well I never said anything like that.
Try to read what I wrote instead of trying to read between the lines. If it's not written, don't assume it's what I was trying to s
marble wrote:
So this is a pointless discussion.
At least we can agree there
marble wrote:
Yeah, he beat Westra and Talansky in mountain time trials. Talansky by one second actually. Not really THAT amazing, is it? The Dauphine on the other hand, was impressive.
He also beat Kreuziger, Valverde, Klöden, etc. To win he had to beat the whole field at both.
marble wrote:
He has improved, it's not like you can't improve once you're 32. A good example is Tondo.
Tondò didn't really improve much, he just didn't have the chance to ride the big races before, other than the one year with AndalucÃa where he got to ride the Vuelta but got sick and had to withdraw
As for the Van Garderen argument, remember this isn't his normal level, it was a one-off. In the other two mountain stages he got dropped when the group had around 50 riders in it.
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
Jupi wrote:
Of course, the numbers apply to all the others who finished with Froome, so it's not like they are any cleaner.
This, really. If Sky are on Aicar and it is proven that they are riding above expected thresholds, then all the other contenders (each one of which has matched Sky - whether Rogers, Froome or Wiggo - on at least one stage) are on something similar.
Funnily enough, the only way that you could selectively pick on the Sky riders for potential doping is if they are actually riding bellow the expected limits, and thus you can base an argument on the "out of nowhere" theory.
Otherwise you have to disregard the legitimacy of all the best climbers we have seen at le tour this year, regardless of which riders/teams are doing so most visibly.
Edited by pcm2009fan on 12-07-2012 19:21
issoisso wrote:
First of all, something I should've said a bunch of pages ago: Thank goodness for ManxMissile. I mean that. If he hadn't started this topic, the Tour threads would be overwhelmed. Nicely played
marble wrote:
And are you saying that if you're a good climber, while also being the best time trialist. You're certainly a doper? Either way your argument doesn't really work, as there is no proof of how good Wiggins could've been had he tried to be the best time trialer instead.
Of course you know very well I never said anything like that.
Try to read what I wrote instead of trying to read between the lines. If it's not written, don't assume it's what I was trying to s
marble wrote:
Yeah, he beat Westra and Talansky in mountain time trials. Talansky by one second actually. Not really THAT amazing, is it? The Dauphine on the other hand, was impressive.
He also beat Kreuziger, Valverde, Klöden, etc. To win he had to beat the whole field at both.
marble wrote:
He has improved, it's not like you can't improve once you're 32. A good example is Tondo.
Tondò didn't really improve much, he just didn't have the chance to ride the big races before, other than the one year with AndalucÃa where he got to ride the Vuelta but got sick and had to withdraw
As for the Van Garderen argument, remember this isn't his normal level, it was a one-off. In the other two mountain stages he got dropped when the group had around 50 riders in it.
1. That wasn't aimed at you It was aimed at Teddy the Creator.
2. Yeah, but they were all also beaten by Talansky and Westra respectively. My point is that neither of those were probably in their top shape, had one of the other big guns actually peaked for one of those races, then maybe Wiggins would be in trouble.
3. Sure, that could be the case. I'm not an expert on Tondo's career, however there are several cases where people start blossoming later than expected. Hesjedal just recently won the Giro. Where was he 4 years ago? 44th in the Tour and 60th in the Giro. It's definitely possible for a rider to still get better at old age. Horner is another rider who has been doing great the past few years aswell.
Wiggins said he would not have the balls to make an attack like Evans. He just keeps pointing out how of an Armstrong copy he is.
Edited by Andreas93 on 12-07-2012 20:49
jph27 wrote:
After today I find Sky more believable. Evans blowing showed that he isn't at his best, Nibali, VDB and Pinot managed to hang on, I mean sure they're good but Pinot? When Evans and co are dropped - yes he's very talented but still.
I agree they looked a little more human today, but the way Froome rode was messed up. At the front around 2nd, 3rd place all day, then pulls for about 10kms uphill, then drops, then hits the front again dropping more riders, then drops again, then attacks, then realises he's better than his leader so slows down, than stays at front till final 500m where he sprints ahead and beats everyone else.
Fucked up.
That's it... to me the problem ain't Froome's results, but the way he gets those results. He looks like he could beat both Contador and Andy ^^
issoisso wrote:
First of all, something I should've said a bunch of pages ago: Thank goodness for ManxMissile. I mean that. If he hadn't started this topic, the Tour threads would be overwhelmed. Nicely played
marble wrote:
And are you saying that if you're a good climber, while also being the best time trialist. You're certainly a doper? Either way your argument doesn't really work, as there is no proof of how good Wiggins could've been had he tried to be the best time trialer instead.
Of course you know very well I never said anything like that.
Try to read what I wrote instead of trying to read between the lines. If it's not written, don't assume it's what I was trying to s
marble wrote:
So this is a pointless discussion.
At least we can agree there
marble wrote:
Yeah, he beat Westra and Talansky in mountain time trials. Talansky by one second actually. Not really THAT amazing, is it? The Dauphine on the other hand, was impressive.
He also beat Kreuziger, Valverde, Klöden, etc. To win he had to beat the whole field at both.
marble wrote:
He has improved, it's not like you can't improve once you're 32. A good example is Tondo.
Tondò didn't really improve much, he just didn't have the chance to ride the big races before, other than the one year with AndalucÃa where he got to ride the Vuelta but got sick and had to withdraw
As for the Van Garderen argument, remember this isn't his normal level, it was a one-off. In the other two mountain stages he got dropped when the group had around 50 riders in it.
btw I really enjoy reading your post isso - nice to share your knowledge, it's a very interesting read! Edited by johannes-w on 12-07-2012 21:00
It was aimed at Teddy the Creator.
