Yeah, it’s not like they have people whose job is to see to the equipment.
The numbers are a joke. Sadly enough, I believe we’ll start hearing guys dropping dead from cancer, heart attacks, etc… in the next few years.
Yeah, it’s not like they have people whose job is to see to the equipment.
Yeah…it’s not like pros have never been known to have run mis-calibrated or mis-zeroed power meters :-/
Shit…SRM officially still denies that non-round rings can cause artificial power inflation…
Trust, but verify.
Sky is lying about Froome’s weight. In an interview last year Froome said he had aimed for 69 kg but been able to come 3 kg under that. People looking into this just found a reference for his weight being 66 kg last month. No way he is heavier a month later in the middle of the Tour. He is thinner than he was in 2013.
I think his actual weight is more like 64 - 65 kg.
Antonie Vayer @ festinaboy
We got plenty of real riders SRM files from riders in La planche des belles filles. 5.78 w/kg for Froome: Big Laugh !
The Clear @yayerism
To Sum Up
Froome- 5.78 w/kg won
Adam Yates- 5.84 w/kg lost 2:04
Ten dam - 5.5 w/kg lost 4:25
Gesink- 5.93 w/kg lost 1:33
F*ck You Science
Ross Tucker
Woke up in a parallel universe where you can climb faster than riders producing more paower than you, even when they’re more sheltered in a group
Ross Tucker
That parallel universe must also have massive tailwinds- entire sport of cycling is producing 5% less power, but times remain comparable
Is Sky now math doping- fudging numbers to make the math pass the physiology sniff test? Motor doping- less power go faster with the onboard bike motor? As to whether they are clean or doping, I am always a skeptic given the consistent past 100 years of behavior in cycling and will assume nothing has changed on that front- from the leader or any other GC rider.
How do you know the riders weights are correct? Are they all using the same powermeters? Are these figures allowing for usual + or - 2% accuracy? Was there any temperature effect on power readings? Just two many variables which allows people to come up with what fits their opinion. I can see why Sky released the info (lots of people call for them too), but it’s a case of dammed if you do dammed if you don’t.
Agreed, Sky saying 67-68kg to make numbers more plausible, when apparently 2 years ago Froome went on SA radio saying 2013 TDF weight was 64kg.
Doesn’t look like he’s bulked up to me. Other interviews place him at 65-66kg as well. Personally I’m the same height as Froome (186cm) and ~69kg, no way in hell is Froome 68kg.
So you’re of the opinion that the inflation is much smaller (if there even is one)?
Do Q rings behave differently to Osymetric in terms of power meter readings? Osymetric are a much less consistent shape compared to the uniform ovals of Q rings.
The artificial inflation is mathematically a function of the ovality (since that determines how much the pedal velocity is slowed below the average in the power stroke), and Q-rings are less “out of round” than Osymetrics.
6% is a bit high for the Osymetrics though…Theory and actual test data show it’s more like ~4%
http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/2013/01/whats-up-with-those-funky-rings.html
…but, combine that with the Stages L/R uncertainty??suspect the error is a function of inertial load, i.e. High inertial load => low error. Worst case error occurs with the low inertial load seen while climbing a steep hill.
Antonie Vayer @ festinaboy
We got plenty of real riders SRM files from riders in La planche des belles filles. 5.78 w/kg for Froome: Big Laugh !
The Clear @yayerism
To Sum Up
Froome- 5.78 w/kg won
Adam Yates- 5.84 w/kg lost 2:04
Ten dam - 5.5 w/kg lost 4:25
Gesink- 5.93 w/kg lost 1:33
How do you know the riders weights are correct? Are they all using the same powermeters? Are these figures allowing for usual + or - 2% accuracy? Was there any temperature effect on power readings? Just two many variables which allows people to come up with what fits their opinion. I can see why Sky released the info (lots of people call for them too), but it’s a case of dammed if you do dammed occupied don’t.
Well look at it this way:
5.9 w/kg lost 1:33
5.84 w/kg lost 2:04
5.5 w/kg lost 4:25
You comments are valid, but there is a pattern here. The lower the w/kg, the slower the time. Yet 5.78 was the fastests.
Or another way the climb was 44 minutes or so. So roughly losing 4:25 is going 10% slower (actually a bit more since the effects are not linear, but this is rough), so the faster time would require 10% more power (especially since froome was not sheltered in a group for lots of the climb). That puts Froome close to 6.1 w/kg, or what people estimated. Or losing 2:05 is a bit over 5%, which translate to about 6.1 w/kg for froome again. These are all really rough estimates, but make 6.1 w/kg for climb way more likely than 5.78.
So you’re of the opinion that the inflation is much smaller (if there even is one)?
Do Q rings behave differently to Osymetric in terms of power meter readings? Osymetric are a much less consistent shape compared to the uniform ovals of Q rings.
The artificial inflation is mathematically a function of the ovality (since that determines how much the pedal velocity is slowed below the average in the power stroke), and Q-rings are less “out of round” than Osymetrics.
6% is a bit high for the Osymetrics though…Theory and actual test data show it’s more like ~4%
http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/...ose-funky-rings.html
…but, combine that with the Stages L/R uncertainty??suspect the error is a function of inertial load, i.e. High inertial load => low error. Worst case error occurs with the low inertial load seen while climbing a steep hill.
Actually…it’s the opposite. The error is worse with high inertial load.
In any case, these guys go up hills fast enough that even their hill climbing is relatively high inertia loading 
So you’re of the opinion that the inflation is much smaller (if there even is one)?
Do Q rings behave differently to Osymetric in terms of power meter readings? Osymetric are a much less consistent shape compared to the uniform ovals of Q rings.
The artificial inflation is mathematically a function of the ovality (since that determines how much the pedal velocity is slowed below the average in the power stroke), and Q-rings are less “out of round” than Osymetrics.
6% is a bit high for the Osymetrics though…Theory and actual test data show it’s more like ~4%
http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/...ose-funky-rings.html
…but, combine that with the Stages L/R uncertainty??suspect the error is a function of inertial load, i.e. High inertial load => low error. Worst case error occurs with the low inertial load seen while climbing a steep hill.
Actually…it’s the opposite. The error is worse with high inertial load.
In any case, these guys go up hills fast enough that even their hill climbing is relatively high inertia loading ;-)I thought the error was due to variations in angular velocity which are lower with a high inertial load. Why would the rings have any extra error if the angular velocity was constant (limiting case for high load).
Sky is lying about Froome’s weight. In an interview last year Froome said he had aimed for 69 kg but been able to come 3 kg under that. People looking into this just found a reference for his weight being 66 kg last month. No way he is heavier a month later in the middle of the Tour. He is thinner than he was in 2013.
I think his actual weight is more like 64 - 65 kg.
Well…since the power inflation is more like 4%, (414W x .96)/65kg = 6.1 W/kg…which is still within the range of believable for “naturally aspirated”
No directed at you in particular, Tom.
Sky are full of shit - they keep trying to stay ahead of the PR game and do things their way. Just be totally transparent, these half-measures just invite more suspicion
No directed at you in particular, Tom.
Sky are full of shit - they keep trying to stay ahead of the PR game and do things their way. Just be totally transparent, these half-measures just invite more suspicion
Agreed…their hissy-fit about the power file being “hacked” last week was just silly. Post the files on Strava like Gesink and be done with it.
So you’re of the opinion that the inflation is much smaller (if there even is one)?
Do Q rings behave differently to Osymetric in terms of power meter readings? Osymetric are a much less consistent shape compared to the uniform ovals of Q rings.
The artificial inflation is mathematically a function of the ovality (since that determines how much the pedal velocity is slowed below the average in the power stroke), and Q-rings are less “out of round” than Osymetrics.
6% is a bit high for the Osymetrics though…Theory and actual test data show it’s more like ~4%
http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/...ose-funky-rings.html
…but, combine that with the Stages L/R uncertainty??suspect the error is a function of inertial load, i.e. High inertial load => low error. Worst case error occurs with the low inertial load seen while climbing a steep hill.
Actually…it’s the opposite. The error is worse with high inertial load.
In any case, these guys go up hills fast enough that even their hill climbing is relatively high inertia loading ;-)I thought the error was due to variations in angular velocity which are lower with a high inertial load. Why would the rings have any extra error if the angular velocity was constant (limiting case for high load).
The rear wheel variations are lower with a high inertial load, and thus the crank as well with a ROUND ring. Not the case with a non-round ring.
Think of it this way…if the rear wheel is rotating at a relatively constant speed (due to high inertial load), what has to happen to the crank velocity within a pedal stroke to keep the chain tight? It has to vary as a function of the chainring ovality…and the rotational velocity is lower when the effective chainring diameter is larger, i.e. during the downstroke (and upstroke) portion of the crank cycle.
The issue comes in because the ACTUAL rotational velocity during the period of time the majority of the torque is imparted into the crank is LOWER than the average velocity of that single pedal stroke…hence, the power (which is calculated by multiplying the average torque during that pedal rev by the average rotational velocity - determined by time between a single event trigger) is OVER-estimated. It’s all explained in my blog post linked above, and in links referenced within it.
With low inertial load, the rider can actually make the non-round chainring have a more even rotational velocity, and thus the power isn’t inflated as much.
Thanks! Good explanation.
So is he doping 
Thanks! Good explanation.
So is he doping
As far as I’ve seen, that conclusion can’t be made from that power data…
As Jackmott likes to say, if he is doping, then we need a soigneur or someone to spill the beans, or some journalists to go through garbage cans, or something…to really know.
As far as I’ve seen, that conclusion can’t be made from that power data…
As Jackmott likes to say, if he is doping, then we need a soigneur or someone to spill the beans, or some journalists to go through garbage cans, or something…to really know.
So true. There is no such thing as a secret, so if there is a scandal it will be just a matter of time. I find the grumbling about 2 kilos or a 4 versus 6% power meter correction factor silly. None of these differences change the watts/kg from plausible to implausible.
I do wonder if part of Sky’s reluctance to release the entire power files is that one of there marginal gains is a pacing strategy. Froome spends more time than anyone else looking at his PM and good TT/Tri performance is closely tied to a variability index close to 1. You could certainly train for a specific power output and duration of the attack, say 550 watts for 20 seconds followed by a steady pace of 410. Then hold the set tempo for the remainder of the climber or see if you can nudge it up a bit in the final K. This would explain why Froome is so boring whereas Contador rides on instinct, which might not be as efficient.
How much time has Froome put into his rivals on the climbing stages? It doesn’t seem like he’s blowing the competition out of the water in the hills. He is just holding the lead that he got in earlier stages. If you’re going to accuse Froome of doping you need to include Quintana since he’s been right there with him at the finish line of the hillier stages.
They’re all on some shit froome is probably juiced to the gills they probably feed him hgh crystals for his cereal in the morning pour him a tall glass of test suspension to wash it down
.
How much time has Froome put into his rivals on the climbing stages? It doesn’t seem like he’s blowing the competition out of the water in the hills. He is just holding the lead that he got in earlier stages. If you’re going to accuse Froome of doping you need to include Quintana since he’s been right there with him at the finish line of the hillier stages.
Well he put over a minute on Quintana in stage 4 and stage 10. Stage 4 was classified as hilly while 10 was a mountain stage. So that kinda blows up your argument.