TdF Stage 15
Last Post 07/22/2013 03:31 PM by Cosmic Kid. 29 Replies.
Author Messages
jmdirt

Posts:683

--
07/14/2013 03:20 PM
In my thread about stage 8 my main question was about the time up the climb. Obviously I have the same Q for this stage. I'm very cautious now though because the www is more lies than facts (try to contain your shock). For example, CN has the record for Ventoux at 48:35 by turbo blood LA. The rumor mill on the www is that Mayo holds the record at 45+ change and that CF was over a minute faster than that today. Certainly people will be spouting that CF was 4 minutes faster than LA but I'm feeling like that's not the case. I still haven't seen an "official" climb time for today though. The question that I still can't answer is, how much slower should clean racers be than the turbo blood racers of 10 years ago? Edit: Mayo's time was a TT I think.
madvax

Posts:49

--
07/14/2013 04:49 PM
I can't seem to find CF's time today on Ventoux today. It would be interesting to see how it compares within the following top 25 times:
1. 2004: 55:51 Iban Mayo 23.10 km/h
2. 2004: 56:26 Tyler Hamilton 22.86 km/h
3. 1999: 56:50 Jonathan Vaughters 22.70 km/h
4. 2004: 56:54 Oscar Sevilla 22.67 km/h
5. 1999: 57:33 Alexander Vinokourov 22.42 km/h
6. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h
7. 1999: 57:34 Wladimir Belli 22.41 km/h
8. 2004: 57:39 Juan Miguel Mercado 22.38 km/h
9. 1999: 57:42 Joseba Beloki 22.36 km/h
10. 2004: 57:49 Lance Armstrong 22.31 km/h
11. 1999: 57:52 Lance Armstrong 22.29 km/h
12. 2004: 58:14 Inigo Landaluze 22.15 km/h
13. 1999: 58:15 Kevin Livingston 22.15 km/h
14. 1999: 58:31 David Moncoutie 22.05 km/h
15. 2004: 58:35 José Enrique Gutierrez 22.02 km/h
16. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h
17. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h
18. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h
19. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h
20. 1999: 58:51 Unai Osa 21.92 km/h
21. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h
22. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h
23. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h
24. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h
25. 1994: 59:02 Luc Leblanc 21.85 km/h

Source: http://climbing-records.blogspot.co...es-on.html
jmdirt

Posts:683

--
07/14/2013 06:19 PM
Confusing/conflicting/ info. Was Mayo's record in the crit du Daufine? Maybe LA's record is the fastest in the TdF but the numbers are off ~9 minutes.
longslowdistance

Posts:637

--
07/14/2013 08:28 PM
Wind plays a big role on "Mont Windy". Today not a big factor. And of course there are three routes up, so essential to compare apples with apples.
madvax

Posts:49

--
07/14/2013 08:49 PM
And of course there are three routes up, so essential to compare apples with apples.

You're right about this LSD. I didn't check which route. In addition to the wind factor, you also need to take into account that in today's ride they arrived at the climb with 220km of hard racing in their legs. In my mind, this makes CF's explosive performance even more amazing.
jmdirt

Posts:683

--
07/14/2013 09:15 PM
Clarification: When I said "the numbers are off ~9 minutes" I meant between LA's claimed record time (48:35 vs. 59:00 depending on the source).
Cosmic Kid

Posts:1059

--
07/14/2013 10:58 PM
No way you can ever compare times on Ventoux. As has already been noted, wind plays a MASSIVE factor in the results. Trying to compare times is a fool's errand. Just can't be done.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Cosmic Kid

Posts:1059

--
07/14/2013 10:59 PM
Oh, and Mayo's time was a TT. Not certain where the start line was for that.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
jmdirt

Posts:683

--
07/15/2013 01:10 PM
"No way you can ever compare times on Ventoux. As has already been noted, wind plays a MASSIVE factor in the results. Trying to compare times is a fool's errand. Just can't be done."

Cosmic, why can't we use wind data as part of the comparison? There are many factors that should be used (E7 listed some plus there are many more) to compare performances. All of the fun we have on the www is "a fools errand"! ;}
pikeHillRoad

Posts:95

--
07/15/2013 01:29 PM
The Science of Sport has some historical times for ventoux. And some context.
CERV

Posts:151

--
07/15/2013 02:51 PM
Top 50 times for timed portion (Last 15.65km) (these are for mountain top finish in TDF)
http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/showthread.php?38129-Ammattilaispy%F6r%E4ilij%F6iden-nousutietoja-%28aika-km-h-VAM-W-W-kg-etc-%29&p=2061073#post2061073
The record ascent was done by Mayo during a TT, and by Pantani on a stage where the finish wasn't at the summit.

For those talking about source of error, wind resistance, the maths behind the "pseudoscience" etc, you should read the science of sport link posted above and research more about the pVAM and d(pVAM) statistical methods being used on to analyze results. Error sources are taken into account in their comparisons. Chris Froome was again faster than the predicted d(doper)pVAM time for the climb of 48:45.
Also worth noting on this stage is that they preceded it with a hard 200km, so it was not an easy lead up this time.


1. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 48:33 | 2002
-2. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 48:35 | 2013
-3. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 48.57 | 2009
-4. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 48:57 | 2009
-5. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:00 | 2009
-6. Marco Pantani ________ ITA | 49:01 | 2000
-7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:01 | 2000
-8. Frank Schleck ________ LUX | 49:02 | 2009
-9. Nairo Quintana _______ COL | 49:04 | 2013
10. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 49:05 | 2009

11. Franco Pellizotti ____ ITA | 49:15 | 2009
12. Vincenzo Nibali ______ ITA | 49:17 | 2009
13. Bradley Wiggins ______ GBR | 49:22 | 2009
14. Joseba Beloki ________ ESP | 49:26 | 2000
15. Jan Ullrich __________ GER | 49:30 | 2000
16. Raimondas Rumsas _____ LTU | 49:49 | 2002
17. Roberto Heras ________ ESP | 49:49 | 2000
18. Ivan Basso ___________ ITA | 49:52 | 2002
19. Mikel Nieve __________ ESP | 49:58 | 2013
20. Joaquim Rodriguez ____ ESP | 49:58 | 2013
21. Jurgen van den Broeck_ BEL | 49:58 | 2009
22. Andreaas Klöden ______ GER | 50:01 | 2009
23. Francisco Mancebo ____ ESP | 50:04 | 2002
24. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 50:15 | 2013
25. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 50:15 | 2013
26. Jakob Fuglsang _______ DEN | 50:18 | 2013
27. Joseba Beloki ________ ESP | 50:18 | 2002
28. Richard Virenque _____ FRA | 50:18 | 2000
29. Nauke Mollema ________ NED | 50:21 | 2013
30. Francisco Mancebo ____ ESP | 50:24 | 2000

31. Laurens Ten Dam ______ NED | 50:28 | 2013
32. Manuel Beltran _______ ESP | 50:30 | 2000
33. Christophe Moreau ____ FRA | 50:32 | 2000
34. Santiago Botero ______ COL | 50:34 | 2000
35. Kurt van de Wouwer ___ BEL | 50:37 | 2000
36. Levi Leipheimer ______ USA | 50:38 | 2002
37. Jean-Christophe Peraud FRA | 50:43 | 2013
38. Christophe Le Mevel __ FRA | 50:45 | 2009
39. Bart de Clercq _______ BEL | 50:47 | 2013
40. Christian Vandevelde__ USA | 50:53 | 2009

41. Jose Azevedo _________ POR | 50:58 | 2002
42. Michael Rogers _______ AUS | 51:01 | 2013
43. Laurent Jalabert _____ FRA | 51:02 | 2000
44. Mikel Astarloza ______ ESP | 51:03 | 2009
45. Alejandro Valverde ___ ESP | 51:07 | 2013
46. Dan Martin ___________ IRL | 51:11 | 2013
47. Daniele Nardello _____ ITA | 51:17 | 2000
48. Richie Porte _________ AUS | 51:24 | 2013
49. Daniel Atienza _______ ESP | 51:27 | 2000
50. Sylvain Calzati ______ FRA | 51:34 | 2009
50. Luis Leon Sanchez ____ ESP | 51:34 | 2009

___ The record (Dauphine Libere)
___ Iban Mayo ___________ ESP | 45:47 | 2004

___ The record (Tour de France)
___ Marco Pantani _______ ITA | 46:00 | 1994
CERV

Posts:151

--
07/15/2013 02:56 PM
On a brighter note, I didn't expect the statement from Brailford today that he would be willing to release everything they've got to WADA for independent 3rd party analysis.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15005/Brailsford-Sky-will-turn-over-everything-weve-got-to-WADA-to-disprove-doping-claims.aspx

That's encouraging in my books.
jmdirt

Posts:683

--
07/15/2013 03:09 PM
AC said something in his interview today that got me thinking: He referred to how CF has been at a high level all year. That is certainly unlike the turbo blood crew of the 2000's who would only be good for their main target (cobbles, hilly classics, GdI, TdF, VCE, WC, fall classics...). BW was the first guy in a long time to string together a nice spring and a great TdF (plus Oly) and now CF has done something similar. Certainly you could say that the only way to stay on top of your form that long is with "help". But maybe there is something to be said for getting to 90% and holding it until your main target when you (hopefully) hit your peak. The turbo blood crew got us thinking that you could only be good at the TdF (ie) but that was because they were trying to hide their dope not because they could only peak once a year. Racing and winning more increases the chances of a bust if you're hot.

Not that I would ever compare myself to those at the top but I do much better if I keep my fitness high all season. If I try to ramp up for one target I usually miss. If I let my race fitness go too low its nearly impossible to hit a peak but if I'm 90% its more likely that I'll hit a peak as planned.
Keith Richards

Posts:727

--
07/15/2013 03:14 PM
Posted By jmdirt on 07/15/2013 03:09 PM
AC said something in his interview today that got me thinking: He referred to how CF has been at a high level all year. That is certainly unlike the turbo blood crew of the 2000's who would only be good for their main target (cobbles, hilly classics, GdI, TdF, VCE, WC, fall classics...). BW was the first guy in a long time to string together a nice spring and a great TdF (plus Oly) and now CF has done something similar. Certainly you could say that the only way to stay on top of your form that long is with "help". But maybe there is something to be said for getting to 90% and holding it until your main target when you (hopefully) hit your peak. The turbo blood crew got us thinking that you could only be good at the (ie) TdF but that was because hey were trying to hide their dope not because they could only peak once a year. Racing and winning more increases the chances of a bust if you're hot.

Not that I would ever compare myself to those at the top but I do much better if I keep my fitness high all season. If I try to ramp up for one target I usually miss. If I let my race fitness go too low its nearly impossible to hit a peak but if I'm 90% its more likely that I'll hit a peak as planned.


I mentioned earlier about the importance of having a trouble free season. Both Wiggins last year and Froome this year have had no illness or injuries to deal with. Makes a huge difference.
----- It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.
Ride On

Posts:424

--
07/15/2013 07:11 PM
If Richie P hadn't missed the bus the other day I'm pretty sure he would have finished better than 15 th on the day. When he crossed the line he looked pretty fresh.

Sky really should be 1&2 again this year. Is there anybody out there who doesn't think Richie is the 2nd strongest rider in the race ?
jmdirt

Posts:683

--
07/18/2013 10:37 AM
Interesting:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-releases-froomes-power-data
stronz

Posts:304

--
07/18/2013 03:15 PM
fascinating article on the power data -- except one small thing. THERE'S NO DATA. what are the numbers that the French "expert" (there's an oxymoron) has decided are consistent with the athlete's normal profile? and what about the business that he's an exceptionally gifted athlete operating at the limits of human physiology. And that means he's NOT doping? alrightythen
Yo Mike

Posts:258

--
07/18/2013 03:27 PM
Nope, no data, just opinions, supposedly based on the data?

Somewhere I saw it claimed that this expert said essentially the same thing about -7

Orange Crush

Posts:1163

--
07/18/2013 03:28 PM
I don't think there's a problem with the expert, and the fact that Sky release some data is a step.

The problem is that the data is for 2011 (the year that Froome made his breakthrough) forward. The main question however is what happened from 2010 to 2011. That question remains unanswered.

Sky have been given the bilharzia disease/treatment as the reason as this leading to inconsistent peformance prior to 2011 but there are some questions around that story.

So the question remains was Froome really a diamond in the rough that just needed polishing or was there some other "breakthough". Between the questions above and Sky's seeming ability to win at will over last 2 years, I am definitely still on fence although today Froome looked patently human.

stronz

Posts:304

--
07/18/2013 03:53 PM
well a certain Dark side athlete bonked way back when somewhere around Morzine if memory serves and he turned out to be 100% dopified. I dont know -- no one really impressed my today, except maybe TJVG and I liked AC's attempt at breaking things up on the descent. Just cant get beyond how boring it is to watch Froome ride.
Orange Crush

Posts:1163

--
07/18/2013 06:09 PM
Posted By Michael Merva on 07/18/2013 03:27 PM
Somewhere I saw it claimed that this expert said essentially the same thing about -7



Yup, LOL http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/feb01/feb09news.shtml
ElleSeven

Posts:48

--
07/19/2013 03:09 PM
First, you don't watch a Grand Tour for interesting racing. It's about running the engines for twenty-one days and minding the mistakes. It's like golf, except that golf is more exciting because you can watch the grass growing. OK, some beautiful scenery, too, in the mountains. People talk about Contador's panache as if it consisted of something more than jumping out of the saddle every other kilometer for no apparent reason. Contador's antic body-language shakes up the video-feed a little, by being furtive and jumpy, but has practically nothing to do with complex tactics and a lot to do with sheer panic. Meanwhile, Chris Froome either has the biggest engine ever seen in cycling or he's doped to molars, but whichever it is, that's all you're ever going to see.

Second, and more to the point: we know pretty much nothing about those "data" because they weren't released to the public. All we're getting is a third-hand report via the press, who generally barely understand what they're commentating on. But in any case, even if (like me) you think that Froome is clean, how many minutes do you think it would take for Sky's in-house IT Igor to rejigger the numbers in those files before sending them? Or seconds, more like. Those power files don't mean diddly (at least in this forensic sense) unless they're recorded remotely or uploaded into encrypted, independent servers that Sky can't get their hands on.
jrt1045

Posts:361

--
07/19/2013 03:15 PM
doped to his molars...good one
ElleSeven

Posts:48

--
07/19/2013 03:31 PM
... and you golfers out there do realize, I trust, that I'm just winding you up? No offense was intended!
Orange Crush

Posts:1163

--
07/20/2013 12:00 PM
I don't know what you guys saw today but to me it looked full alien.
ElleSeven

Posts:48

--
07/20/2013 03:50 PM
Orange Crush, I really respect your opinion. You've been one of those guys whose occasional skepticism seems balanced and devoid of ulterior agenda. But I'm curious: what did you see that seemed amiss on the face of it? A friend said, "Look at that, Contador can't keep up with fill-in-the-blank, so … ", to which I pointed out that Contador is someone you're seeing race clean for possibly the first time in his career. This is his natural level. Mind you, he's the guy who once (as he brazenly put it himself) picked himself off a beach towel after six weeks without riding and won the Giro.

The lowliest, crappiest pros in the top-fuel 90s, those proverbial "sow's ears," were nevertheless talented to an extreme and "alien" degree. What was different was that 75-kilo guys were zipping over the high cols while 60-kilo ones were scoring in flat time trials. My impression, from being around plenty of doped girls, is that the normal disciplinary variability narrowed, not that absolute performance changed that radically. Chris Boardman and Tony Rominger both did Hour Records of approximately 56kph. The "dope" is that Boardman's was clean, Rominger's dirty. They were both totally alien.
Yo Mike

Posts:258

--
07/20/2013 04:53 PM
Alien or not, CF looks like a puppet on a wire. Did you see how he acted just before he 'went alien'? His hand went up - commentators thought he had flatted or bonked - again - and then seemingly he's on the radio, gets his instructions (?) and then he attacks.

How much do race radio and power meters play in this? Probably a lot, which is why I'd like them eliminated from competition.

The likes of Froome and Wiggins before him (robotic, fugly on the bike, lacking in 'skills') are making me less and less interested in the TdF.
jmdirt

Posts:683

--
07/20/2013 05:30 PM
I agree with E7. There are genetic freaks among us. If all is clean, they will be superior. If things get murky, they will still be among the best. If things are dirty, they might be in the mix. If they dope, they will be superior. This is true in all sports.

Disclaimer: I'm not making any claims to the level of cleanliness of any sport or any person.
Orange Crush

Posts:1163

--
07/20/2013 06:14 PM
Remarkable fresh as daisy performances by some Elle. I am always looking for patterns and things that stand out, maybe cause that is what I do in the real world too. I've raised my eyebrows several times this Tour, during the Giro only once.

BTW - if you'd have Igor manipulate the data he'd likely make a huge mess. I would throw at least one manipulator and two sets of inquisitive eyes at such an endeavor before releasing it.

Today's funny was when everyone was going full blast at bottom of hill, Froome gently putting an arm on Porte as in "we've got this one bagged buddy".
Cosmic Kid

Posts:1059

--
07/22/2013 03:31 PM
Posted By Justin jmdirt on 07/20/2013 05:30 PM
I agree with E7. There are genetic freaks among us. If all is clean, they will be superior. If things get murky, they will still be among the best. If things are dirty, they might be in the mix. If they dope, they will be superior. This is true in all sports.

Disclaimer: I'm not making any claims to the level of cleanliness of any sport or any person.


I was having thsi discussion over on ST....they are, of course, going apeschitt over Froome, saying he is a doper, blah, blah, blah because of his dominance and ride from "nowhere." On the other hand, there is nothing but love for Chrissie Wellington, a woman who came from no endurance sports background or pedigree, showed up out of nowhere and ominated Ironman ditance tris, winning 13 and never losing. Same thing for Allistar Brownlee. He is completely dominating the ITU (draft legal tri's) and everyone sings his praises. They accpet them as "genetic freaks", but label Froome a doper. Intellectual inconsistency, much? (not saying any or all of the above athletes are dopers.....just asking that the same criteria be leveled on all evaluations)
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!


---
Active Forums 4.1