Wiggo

greeny12

Well I know one thing, as a British fan his placing and form right now is going to keep me on the edge of my seat for the next week, and I'm just delighted about that, since the yellow and green jersey races are over.

I was jumping up and down in my lounge yesterday and was still buzzing when I went to bed. Brad's an absolute hero - he says what he thinks, he's extremely droll and now he's got a puncher's chance at immortality.

I'll be rooting for him with every sinew of my body...

Blonde

I find it funny when any of guys (Wiggo, Cav etc) get abuse, speculation, "back seat" riding comments from the comfort of the commenters arm chair, or some kind of character assasination, when not one of those commentators actually knows them. A two minute sound bite after a hard days ride is not going to show anyone the real character of a person, particularly if it's not the first banal/stupid/annoying question that a rider has answered when they are sweaty and knackered, injured or have just lost... I don't care whether the riders are "nice". Who wants nice? I want them to be agressive, determined, inspriring and to believe they can win - that's how you win races. We should be supporting all out British riders, not slating anyone for some unintentionally hilarious comments, which in any case tend to add to the enjoyment of the race, not detract from it. It's all been excellent this year and really exciting to watch.

DavidBelcher

Moomaloid wrote:

Loved his interview afterwards... the excitement he's portraying is fantastic... Wiggo rules!

And he always seems happy to talk to the press after, no histrionics or tantrums - a very down-to-earth, likeable approach. Best Wiggins comment so far, when asked about a hard stage on the following day, was along the lines of "we just have our Weetabix and get on with it"
As for the change in his uphill preformances, there are plenty of sceptics and detractors out there. My own 2p worth: losing the best part of a stone in weight plays a big part of course, but I do wonder how much input - in terms of mental as much as physical coaching - there has been from BC and Dave Brailsford with one eye on giving the Sky squad a clear leader and Grand Tour contender for next season? Given Brailsford's reputation as a strategist, I wouldn't be surprised if he's playing the 'long game' in this instance. Added to the presence of ex-GAN/Credit Agricole boss Roger Legeay as Sky's technical advisor, I wonder if they are trying to avoid all of the pitfalls which hampered his former charge Chris Boardman's potential transition from top-level track rider to TdF podium candidate?

David

DavidBelcher

Simon E wrote:

Not sure how many times Paul Sherwen mentioned LA's age in the last 20 minutes (he's 37 in case you had missed it) but it was tiresome and irrelevant.

It's not just me, then! It does smack of some old dear banging on about how they're "78, you know" in the queue for a bus at times!
In fact, as you said, Cadel Evans barely got a mention yesterday, and the incessant focus on Armstrong by the commentators at the expense of other contenders for much of the last climb yesterday was bloomin' irritating. No credit given to poor old Nocentini either for pulling a bacon-saving ride out of the bag to remain in the top 10.

David

DaveyL

stagehopper wrote:

So now we have cyclist whose efficiency on the bike has never been questioned, is more confident, focussed, concentrating on a road-specific programme, in an excellent team, and has clearly lost a large chunk of excess weight thus improving his P/W ratio considerably.

Yet the most frequent Salemists when it comes to sniffing out drug cheats using P/W rations as their measurement of guilt seem to want to avoid P/W rations when discussing Wiggins's improvement.

Not sure I follow the point you're trying to make - can you explain?

I would have thought that anyone wanting to accuse Wiggo of doping would have the power-to-weight ratio thing contradicting them, if anything.

shinyhelmut

DavidBelcher wrote:

I wonder if they are trying to avoid all of the pitfalls which hampered his former charge Chris Boardman's potential transition from top-level track rider to TdF podium candidate?

I think Boardman's biggest pitfall was EPO, or in his case lack of.

Stuey01

DaveyL wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

So now we have cyclist whose efficiency on the bike has never been questioned, is more confident, focussed, concentrating on a road-specific programme, in an excellent team, and has clearly lost a large chunk of excess weight thus improving his P/W ratio considerably.

Yet the most frequent Salemists when it comes to sniffing out drug cheats using P/W rations as their measurement of guilt seem to want to avoid P/W rations when discussing Wiggins's improvement.

Not sure I follow the point you're trying to make - can you explain?

I would have thought that anyone wanting to accuse Wiggo of doping would have the power-to-weight ratio thing contradicting them, if anything.

That is the point he is making. Usually P/W would be used as justification for an accusation yet in Wiggo's case the P/W thing contradicts the doping accusation so it is being ignored and he is being accused anyway, contrary to the usual logic.

Wiggo is doing brilliantly and long may it continue. A podium would be A-M-A-Z-I-N-G.

mididoctors

ShinyHelmut wrote:

DavidBelcher wrote:

I wonder if they are trying to avoid all of the pitfalls which hampered his former charge Chris Boardman's potential transition from top-level track rider to TdF podium candidate?

I think Boardman's biggest pitfall was EPO, or in his case lack of.

test and hgh morelike

stagehopper

DaveyL wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

So now we have cyclist whose efficiency on the bike has never been questioned, is more confident, focussed, concentrating on a road-specific programme, in an excellent team, and has clearly lost a large chunk of excess weight thus improving his P/W ratio considerably.

Yet the most frequent Salemists when it comes to sniffing out drug cheats using P/W rations as their measurement of guilt seem to want to avoid P/W rations when discussing Wiggins's improvement.

Not sure I follow the point you're trying to make - can you explain?

I would have thought that anyone wanting to accuse Wiggo of doping would have the power-to-weight ratio thing contradicting them, if anything.

That's my point, the chief finger-pointers regarding doping almost always resort to P/W ratios to "prove" their case. Now the finger-pointing at Wiggins is ignoring P/W ratios. You can't just ignore evidence if it's inconvenient to the case you're building.

DaveyL

Wel, I think there is a place for Wattages but you have to be careful.

E.g. Ferrari said that LA's higher absolute power than AC on Verbier meant he might get some time back in the TT, but (recovery ability notwithstanding) it seems like Contador has a much better aero position than Armstrong (who has a notoriously poor - for elite level - aero position due to spine problems), so it is hard to say Armstrong's highher power will translate to a faster time in the TT.

DaveyL

deal wrote:

Performances at the Tour 2009
By: Michele Ferrari
Published: 19 Jul 2009

On the ascent to Verbier (638m of difference in height at 7.5%) Alberto Contador (62kg) climbed at 1852 m/h, equal to 6.73 w/kg, developing an average of 417w.

Lance Armstrong (72 kg) climbed at 1720 m/h, equal to 6.25 w/kg, developing 450w.

The difference between their VAM's is 7.4% in favor of Alberto, while Lance, whose body weight is 16% heavier, pushed 8% more watts: a suggestion that in the upcoming time trial in Annecy it could be a very close and uncertain duel.

In Arcalis (751m of ascent at 7.1%) Contador climbed at 1671 m/h, equal to 6.18 w/kg, with Armstrong and all the other best riders at 1649 m/h (6.10 w/kg); but in the last couple of km Alberto had already showed a power that was 7.2% superior to his rivals'.

Interesting comment about the TT. Presumably Wiggins at just 1kg lighter than Armstrong but considerably faster than him today was putting out a higher raw wattage than the pair of them (assuming Ferrari's weights and the reported 71kg for wiggins is correct)

I'd be interested to know what effect the start of the climb had on the contenders' overall VAM. Not sure of the profile but it looked like they were going pretty quick when Garmin and then Saxo Bank were setting the pace. There would be some drafting benefit there but I wonder how much difference it would make to the true VAM of the individual rider. Would be interesting to see the VAM for the solo portion of Contador's ride.

Still, 450 W for Armstrong for a 20-odd minute climb - in his prime that would have been between 480 and 500 W I reckon. No comment on the various reasons for said difference...

Also as I commented above, for the TT you need to think about how aerodynamic each rider is as well as absolute power.

Homer J

Eurostar wrote:

Homer J wrote:

Europe would hate a brit to ever win the tour, probably more than they hate it when a yank wins. :roll:

You couldn't get it more wrong. Tommy Simpson has more fans in France than he does here.

I hope i get to be PROVED wrong...oneday

PeteinSQ

DaveyL wrote:

Wel, I think there is a place for Wattages but you have to be careful.

E.g. Ferrari said that LA's higher absolute power than AC on Verbier meant he might get some time back in the TT, but (recovery ability notwithstanding) it seems like Contador has a much better aero position than Armstrong (who has a notoriously poor - for elite level - aero position due to spine problems), so it is hard to say Armstrong's highher power will translate to a faster time in the TT.

Incredible to think how good he is/was at TTs with a crap aero position then!

mandie

mididoctors wrote:

ShinyHelmut wrote:

DavidBelcher wrote:

I wonder if they are trying to avoid all of the pitfalls which hampered his former charge Chris Boardman's potential transition from top-level track rider to TdF podium candidate?

I think Boardman's biggest pitfall was EPO, or in his case lack of.

test and hgh morelike

Boardman IMO had three problems
1) he couldn't recover the following day after a big effort (I think this was down to his body not producing sufficent quanties of certain hormones, which to his immense credit he refused to correct by doping)
2) He would rather not try than try and end up losing, hence his failure to become the great one day rider that I think he could have been.
3) he became obsessed with the Tour de France.

DaveyL

PeteinSQ wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Wel, I think there is a place for Wattages but you have to be careful.

E.g. Ferrari said that LA's higher absolute power than AC on Verbier meant he might get some time back in the TT, but (recovery ability notwithstanding) it seems like Contador has a much better aero position than Armstrong (who has a notoriously poor - for elite level - aero position due to spine problems), so it is hard to say Armstrong's highher power will translate to a faster time in the TT.

Incredible to think how good he is/was at TTs with a crap aero position then!

Notice that I didn't say "crap", but "poor", and qualified it by saying it was relative to the level he is at.

Have a look at his position - he ain't Dave Z and I don't think anyone would put him in the "fantastic aero position" category. He did well in the TTs because he could produce a lot of power, but we all have a fair idea where some of that power came from.

attica

DaveyL wrote:

but we all have a fair idea where some of that power came from.

His legs?
I'm not denying any possibility here, just thought it was a funny answer