Pro-cycling thread

muchos.

Cyclingnews reporting it to sound like there was some conspiracy going on...

If Froome was putting out 397w at 66kg (6.01w/kg) and Dumoulin was at 395w at 71kg (5.5w/kg) over 3km at 9.3%, the time gap of about 45s or so by the top makes sense?
Plugging the numbers into Bike Calculator suggests about 36-37 seconds margin.
Extra couple of seconds easily explained by better riding style on gravel, which Froome seems to allude to.

Dumoulin's FTP is higher than Froome's by all accounts, so was putting out a lower % of his FTP, which would also be partly explained by the slightly slower speed waiting for Pinot and Reichenbach.

Cyclingnews reporting it to sound like there was some conspiracy going on...

Cyclingnews have an agenda, and they're not subtle about pushing it. Basically, they don't like Sky and will take any opportunity to cast aspersions and spread innuendo about the team and anyone involved in it. Not sure why, but they don't really make much of an effort to hide it.

Last article from Philippa York was over the top, imo

Very poor form from her since has received nothing but support and admiration for what she has gone though.

in what sense? Bottom line was an emphatic "I have no idea" if Froome is doping or not going on what she saw of the race and her opinion of the tactics etc. Unless just by discussing it and refusing to rule it out she's making an accusation?

shes allowed to have her opinion though you may not agree with it. I don't agree either but shes more qualified than any of us to have a pop

I'm sorry, although I do disagree with her article, those two items are completely unrelated. She doesn't owe anyone anything.

You're one of the worst people to get into an argument with on this thread - and I do mean it in the most respectful way :) - but quotes like:

After all the scandals, from Shane Sutton saying that Team Sky gamed the TUE system, to the stock of Kenalog, Jiffy bags, lost medical records, the DCMS report, UKAD's investigation, testosterone deliveries, Tramadol use, and a win-at-all-cost culture, Froome’s ride could only lead us to ask questions.
The only people who really know (what happenned) are the same ones who got themselves into the salbutamol mess, and that affair lingers over Team Sky like a bad smell.

while she knows perfectly well that if the salbutamol case was not made public (which it should not have been), Froome's attack would not have anything to do with 'bad smell', only goes to show she's taking the CN side of things, which is anti-Froome.

And again, I'm fine with CN openly talking shit about Sky and Froome, after all it's just journalism, but to get the same thing from an ex-rider is surprising - in a bad way.

She said unbelievable a lot and the way it was written was very much anti Froome.

ha. Yes, like a dog with a bone, I know...

For all that, the quotation is a summary of stuff that's already in the public domain and informs people's view of Froome/Sky. I don't think it's particularly inflammatory to mention it in an opinion piece that specifically discusses Froome's stage 19 performance and all the polemic about it. The phrase lingers like a bad smell is pretty apt too-the Salbutamol affair is all anyone has talked about since it was leaked-in the absence of Sky publicly explaining what their defense is, again, people will assume the worst.

Anyway, make of it what you will-I didn't read it as particularly anti Froome, and I really couldn't care either way if it is or isn't, I just don't understand why people are so upset about it.

I was surprised by the tone of that article, too.

She did talk some silly stuff, making a great fuss of what Sean Kelly said (he uses unbelievable about as often as 'make the calculation') and then talking about how form cannot improve during a three week grand tour.

Given how badly Yates cracked, he form over the first two and bit weeks must be looked at riding in the red, while Froome was riding within himself, so he will always look poor against someone burning themselves out. During those two weeks all the dark mutterings were about Yates being on the sauce because he was smashing everyone.

For the hyperbole of Froome being down and out and how Contador recognised that and said Froome should retire, Froome limited his losses early on, then he won on the Zoncolan, then had a decent ITT. At the start of stage 19 he was fourth still.

She did talk some silly stuff, making a great fuss of what Sean Kelly said (he uses unbelievable about as often as 'make the calculation') and then talking about how form cannot improve during a three week grand tour.

Yeah the form thing is questionable, but then I've never rode a GT so I can't situate that in any kind of experience.

Playing devils advocate-the phrase 'unbelievable' was used by far more people than Kelly following stage 19. Would choosing one of them made the discussion of the believability of the ride more palateable?

I read the article as quite off the cuff and discursive of the polemic surrounding the stage rather than any kind of forensic analysis of the performance proper, but maybe I'm blinkered.

Any thoughts on Froome riding an aero bike with deep sections (Pinarello F10) vs Dumoulin on his TCR advanced?

Using Cycling Weekly's aero bike test as a rough guide, the difference between the Madone (their best in test) vs Giant's propel was 19w at 45kmph.
I imagine Froome's speed for the descents and flat sections would be around this speed (also referring back to his average speed for his'empty the tank ride')

The TCR advanced is going to be less aero than their propel by a decent margin.
Over 50km of flat roads, maybe 45 seconds saved with a 10w aero saving, considerably more if the aero advantage is greater.

Maybe if Dumoulin was on an aero bike, the damage done on the descents and flats would be significantly reduced?

(I appreciate the above is not scientific in the least, but thinking out loud that a 10-20w aero advantage gained in equipment, from frame, helmet, from saddle change to a Specialized power saddle, to deeper wheels would have a significant impact in a 80km TT)

wasn't his 'empty the tank' ride motorpaced? i.e the average speed would not reflect either the aeroz or a solo effort?

No idea for the rest. Going up hill there's not going to be much advantage, defo not the deep crabonz, but downhill/valleys I guess so. Dumoulin did have Reichenbach pulling for some sections too though.

Ditto on the riding of GTs for me, but people talk about it and we have seen it bhefore in terms of Nibali and Contador.

Would choosing one of them made the discussion of the believability of the ride more palateable?

Possibly, but she did frame the article by citing that individual response and building an argument that indeed the ride was beyond inevitability and so credibility.

There are two narratives emerging; what I would consider the more measured objective one that looks at stage 19 as a well-judged, daring attack with Chris riding to his strengths, taking advantage of the surface of the Finestre and some risk on the descent, and the disorganised chase from isolated rivals, with the other, hyperbolic reaction which simply is that it was a super-human, alien effort that no-one should have been capable of. York put herself firmly in the latter IMO and fell into the CyclingNews rabbit hole when she did.

Maybe, but that effort was substantially longer in duration, and before it was removed, his heart rate for that ride was stupendously low.

doesn't he have a freakishly low maximum HR? like high 160s?

looked it up now - one article says 174

Yeah I saw his starav and it was incredible but I've never seen anything to compare it against. Jack Haig has HR for all the stages and it was still low but he is still pretty fresh in GT races.

Maybe Dumoulin was just to under prepared he hadn't really raced much and maybe focusing so much on the TT last year was not helpful. Yates said it was his goal to win and like people said three weeks is a long time and he was an unknown. It's not like Froome didn't know what was instore or was some unknown racer that just came with of no where to win.

All these 400w+ ftp cyclists are all genetic freaks...

The performance that day was unbelievable in the context it must be viewed in. After all the scandals, from Shane Sutton saying that Team Sky gamed the TUE system, to the stock of Kenalog, Jiffy bags, lost medical records, the DCMS report, UKAD's investigation, testosterone deliveries, Tramadol use, and a win-at-all-cost culture, Froome’s ride could only lead us to ask questions.

I try not to be cynical about the sport but its history of morals and ethics hasn’t been great, so when you see simple questions from government committees or the cycling media avoided by the likes of Team Sky and their management, there's little benefit of the doubt that can be applied.

Ask me what I think of the last three weeks and I'll say I honestly don't know what happened. The only people who really know are the same ones who got themselves into the salbutamol mess, and that affair lingers over Team Sky like a bad smell. The data, the miraculous recovery, and the answers you all seek are with them.

Sure, RCS got the media coverage they craved by having Froome at the race but that came at the expense of their own credibility and incurred the wrath of many. Yates restored a lot of faith in the sport with his ride, as did Tom Dumoulin and even the guys who fell apart, because they all seemed normal in the light of a tough route.

Stage 19 ended all that with the nuances of all the previous Team Sky mishaps and the debate as to whether Froome should have been on the start line at all. That's why the Tour de France probably won't want Froome at their race, as the fallout might just be waiting to happen.

After Lance Armstrong, the Tour organisers probably aren't willing take such a risk but the Giro has, and we’ve either witnessed a script straight out of Hollywood or we are being taken for mugs again and the story, as it did with Armstrong’s, will appear in an episode of South Park. I just hope it's not the latter.

^ That is pretty good I think.

York put herself firmly in the latter IMO and fell into the CyclingNews rabbit hole when she did.

York said "I genuinely don't know"

I fail to see that as any camp other than the "I genuinely don't know camp"

I think so too.

Context. A very important word.