Kimmage, anyone?
Comments
-
nathancom wrote:Ok, so because no one knows we should presume that they are? That is what the Yorkshireman is urging.
No, not at all, that's not what I've said in my earlier posts. I am quite prepared to give any rider the benefit of the doubt. They are clean until they fail a test and then receive a ban. That's the way it works, you have to prove a rider is cheating, not just look at some average speeds or what doctor they might have employed. That isn't proof.
It's like with Frank Schleck, I am STILL prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, lets hear his defence, see what he comes up with, he's entitled to that, right? And then if he is banned, I also don't automatically think that means the rest of his team is cheating. If you believe that they are, then you need to prove it.0 -
I honestly don't know why some people follow cycling at all. The minute somebody puts in a great display of riding the accusations/insinuations start flying.
If I was that cynical I would follow another sport because it must be s**t thinking that every cyclist who manages to achieve something is cheating.Cube Agree GTC Pro
Boardman Comp
Carrera Subway Hybrid0 -
Turfle wrote:...they're going far slower up the climbs.
Is that really the case?Schleck is right, the poison acts again.
With 430 watts of average, the favorites have swallowed, as in the heyday, the Peyresourde Pass in 26 min 45 s. From St. Aventin, they conceded only 34 s to the unreal time directed by Contador and Rasmussen in 2007 (23 min 26 s) who tried to break away with sharp bursts of sprinting like numerous injections. Building on this success, Froome and Wiggins then accelerated on the last climb of the Peyragudes. They developed 470 watts for 7 min 3 sec (2.95 km to 7.93%). Froome waited for Wiggins, he had the means to get close to 500 watts. If not throttling his engine to wait for his leader, he could break in to the group of the world record holder of the best "performers" of all time: Pantani, Armstrong, Contador.
…The final comparison incites us more than it deceives us. In 2011, after sixteen years of heavy duty goods, we rejoiced at last, in these columns, the lack of riders to average more than 410 watts over the last passes of the mountain stages: the detection threshold of the poison. Alas! There are four again this year who have crossed the bar: Wiggins, Froome, Nibali and Van den Broecke, with 415 watts for the three top finishers and 410 watts for the fourth.
http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/201 ... _3242.html
The writer doesn't think much of Voeckler's performance either…0 -
So I've had to put up with a boring tour, and now it might not have even been a clean tour!
Chucking random numbers in the middle of some prose doesn't really make for a convincing argument though. I need a chart, a chart showing w/kg that a rider is able to sustain over a set period.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
So it is impossible for someone to ride at certain speed without being on drugs.
Doesn't improved training practices and techniques, riders looking after themselves better than ever before, equipment improvements etc etc have any bearings on this?
Speed/sports records are improving all the time, surely everybody is not cheating :?:Cube Agree GTC Pro
Boardman Comp
Carrera Subway Hybrid0 -
TheYorkshireMan wrote:Is that really the case?
Yes. Vayer is a man Le Monde wheel out to twist the figures to suggest doping. Notice how he takes the 470W for a 7 minute effort, randomly sticks on another 30W due to a small surge near the end by Froome to get to 500W and then compares it to Armstrong and Pantani, who did that wattage over much longer periods.
I don't think he's taken too seriously by other sports scientists - he does this stuff for cash.Twitter: @RichN950 -
the favorites have swallowed, as in the heyday, the Peyresourde Pass in 26 min 45 s. From St. Aventin, they conceded only 34 s to the unreal time directed by Contador and Rasmussen in 2007 (23 min 26 s)
Sorry, but I make 26:45 a full 3:19 slower than Contador and Rasmussen. That's more than 10%. It's 2 seconds less than the gap between 1st and 2nd place GC, and is MORE than the gap between Froome and Nibali.
There's also no mention of where the data is from or how it's calculated, nor which assumptions have been made.
Try the sportscientists article I linked to before for actual detail like that.
He also analysed power output for you favourite "UK Postal" climb in the Dauphine. It was far from unusual.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
This article is a load of bollocks:TheYorkshireMan wrote:
http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/201 ... _3242.html
The writer doesn't think much of Voeckler's performance either…
This article is well written:No tA Doctor wrote:sportsscientists.com with their usual excellent input, crunching the numbers:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07 ... ssion.html
Worth reading the discussion under the article as well.
Why post another article full of insinuation, full of meaningless numbers? Do you comprehend what counts as evidence or do you just choose to ignore it? You end up being like some old gossip telling the world that the butcher has been porking the milkman's wife because you saw him walk by the house on a delivery.0 -
Yes, I think someone has made an error here, somewhere.No tA Doctor wrote:the favorites have swallowed, as in the heyday, the Peyresourde Pass in 26 min 45 s. From St. Aventin, they conceded only 34 s to the unreal time directed by Contador and Rasmussen in 2007 (23 min 26 s)
Sorry, but I make 26:45 a full 3:19 slower than Contador and Rasmussen.
Still, I wonder why Wiggins and co are supposedly putting out more power on the climbs than the likes of Contador and Rasmussen did (450w when riding tempo, according to Wiggins) and yet are going slower? Again, someone's figures make no sense, possibly those of Wiggins, which wouldn't be a first.
http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/40
As to the science in sport article, it was written before the action really started. I see that it concludes with the following:It will be fascinating to see what develops in the high Alps and Pyrenees over the next two weeks. Hopefully, we'll have some data to chat about.
It will be interesting to see what SIS and others do come up when some 'real' numbers are crunched. 0 -
I'm baffled by what Vayer is trying to say. I'll have a read again when more time.
What the science of sport think of the Peyresourde:
The Science of Sport @Scienceofsport
More power numbers “@ammattipyoraily: Col de Peyresourde (9.5 km,6.9 %,657 m). Nibali,Wiggins, Froome: 24:28, VAM 1612 m/h, 5.99 W/kg #tdf
and i know some poeple like charts:
"Wiggins & co today climbed at 1680m/h for 24:28 (~6W/kg). VAM issues aside,compare to historical Tour performances:"
0 -
He's saying that for a seven minute period Froome was producing the sort of wattage that Pantani and Armstrong did over 30+ minutes (as long as we arbitarily add on 30W for Froome). It's crap maths but by making a BS connection to Armstrong, it gets the likes of Bernie excited and gets Le Monde to open their chequebook.Turfle wrote:I'm baffled by what Vayer is trying to say.Twitter: @RichN950 -
We don't know the extent to which the story was polished by his editorial bosses prior to publication, or what the initial brief was, but bear in mind that he's working for a rival to Murdoch's media empire.Turfle wrote:"until the rest day of the 2012 Tour when Brailsford admitted to The Times that Leinders had been employed by the team since 2010."
He didn't "admit" to anything. It was known long before then that Leinders was employed by them.
Very dishonest writing.0 -
nathancom wrote:
Yes, it talks a lot of sense:The bottom line is that cycling's history puts its current champions squarely into the doping spotlight, and so this is a question that owes its origins to fifty years of deception. Given this, a more nuanced response would be welcome, and a stronger anti-doping stance celebrated by those who share Wiggins' apparent frustration with doping
… Let's face it, for at least 15 to 20 years, cycling has made fools of its fans. Just go back and look at the top 5 of the last 15 Tours de France and allow yourself to reminiscence about the excitement you felt watching the race, discovering a new star, cheering your rider to victory, only to later discover the deceit. I know I have.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable for people to be skeptical, particularly when every one of those champions has vehemently protested their innocence before their fall. So when the latest champion (and a man who after today's TT looks more likely than ever to be a huge champion) doesn't give the response they crave, a negative reaction is expected.
… anger and emotion should surely be channeled and directed towards the people responsible for the question in the first place - the dopers. The "irksome, annoying question" that triggered Wiggins wrath surely owes its origin to the actions and deceit of previous generations.
… Wiggins has famously shown his contempt for dopers before, including once calling Christophe Moreni an "idiot" for the doping offense that saw Wiggins' Cofidis team withdraw from the Tour in 2007.
That is the type of response fans applaud - they want their riders to share their anger, to condemn cheating. They cannot understand why a clean rider, who loses out to dopers, would not join them in the fight AGAINST doping, rather than becoming a passive observer (and 'victim') of a dishonest culture (as an aside, the psychology of silence among clean riders in the peloton would make a fascinating thesis). Can you blame them?
But for too long, cycling's champions have been perceived to be leaning more towards sympathy to dopers than condemnation. Wiggins' response is viewed by those people as being yet another example of this. Further, Sky have crafted themselves as a team that prides itself on its anti-doping stance, and their vocal attitude against doping has rightly been hailed as leading the way into a new era for the sport.
So when their star rider, the man who is identified as a custodian of the sport by virtue of the yellow jersey he wears, suddenly turns that anger and wrath against the fans, I can appreciate the disappointment. This is the greatest opportunity for clean riders to show the world that the sport has moved on, and swinging in the opposite direction, against the detractors, only fuels their skepticism and ultimately, invites more of the same doubt.
It doesn't help that Sky hasn't entirely broken ties with all doping baggage, as they still have ties to doctors known to have worked in teams with doping tolerance. This doesn't mean they are doping, and even the doctors can change, but perception is reality, and people who view the sport from outside, who dream of a dope-free Tour, need a stronger reassurance than this.0 -
You claim the SIS article talks a lot of sense, but in the context of a debate about power output you then quote the extensive opinion piece on Wiggins' outburst - which could have been written by anyone that follows the sport - and ignore what the guy does best - the science.
Yet again the goalposts are shifted... You don't seem to have replied to the various points made about how stupid using average speed for the tour is either - quietly dropped while you manipulate the argument in a direction you think is more favourable for you.
Lastly - a concrete point: you ask why Wiggins and co areputting out more power on the climbs than the likes of Contador and Rasmussen did (450w when riding tempo, according to Wiggins) and yet are going slower?
Is that extrapolated from the single climb mentioned in your first article, where Contador and Rasmussen have the same time (give or take 3 minutes over around half an hour....) as Wiggins? Because that's not a solid dataset.
Just for starters, a climb where Contador and Rasmussen duelled wouldn't necessarily have been faster than if they'd ridden at max sustainable output. I'm sure you actually know this, but repeated attacks on a climb isn't the most efficient or quickest way of riding it.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No I am not. I simply agree with Robert Millar's comment that "The fact is you will never know, you can only hope", and with the comments taken from that SIS article quoted above.nathancom wrote:..so because no one knows we should presume that they are? That is what the Yorkshireman is urging.Turfle wrote:More power numbers “@ammattipyoraily: Col de Peyresourde (9.5 km,6.9 %,657 m). Nibali,Wiggins, Froome: 24:28
Interesting. Are those figures calculated by SIS or another poster? If Contador and Rasmussen climbed it in 23 minutes 25 seconds in 2007, this means Wiggo and co were only 1 minute and 3 seconds off their pace, not 3 minutes 19, which ties in with SIS's '2 to 3%' slower comment below. Whatever, it seems that SIS don't actually think that the race is clean, merely cleaner than it was...The Sports Scientists MOD
It's not about it being clean now vs dirty then - I know it is still affected now, I'm not naive. But the difference is just so enormous that you can't claim "Rampant" doping in the last 4 years, because what happened pre biological passport was at a different level altogether. As were the performances.The Sports Scientists MOD
Not much slower - 2 to 3%. Not the 10% we see compared to 15 years ago. Again, I take your point, but I would point out that nowhere have I said it is "clean". I am only saying that it is cleaner - big difference.0 -
No, just taking one point at a time. See my last post...No tA Doctor wrote:You claim the SIS article talks a lot of sense, but in the context of a debate about power output you then quote the extensive opinion piece on Wiggins' outburst - which could have been written by anyone that follows the sport - and ignore what the guy does best - the science.
Anyhow, another point that seems to be overlooked is not whether the performances of Wiggins and co are within the realms of human possibility, but whether they are in the realms of possibility for Wiggins, Froome and co if they are riding clean. The less natural ability that a rider has for something like the Tour (and let's not forget that it was not so long ago that, by his own admission, Wiggins was 'finishing an hour down most days') the less reason we have for believing that they can race cleanly at the limits of what is humanly possible.
Another point is that if Wiggo and co are performing well because of the blood passport, which means that they are now competitive against what is a cleaner field, why it is they who are so dominant. Are we to believe that previously every other rider in the race was doped to the gills and is now riding clean? If 'only' half the field were pushing the limits of the doping envelope, why have not the remaining half also benefited from a cleaner sport to the degree Sky have? Oh yes, I forgot, Sky warm down after a stage...
Oh, and why should doping be geared towards producing 'extra-terrestrial' performances? I am sure that, even working withing the limitations of the blood passport, there are very worthwhile gains to be had from micro-dosing and micro-infusions, if only to maintain a rider's parameters throughout the rigors of three weeks of racing.0 -
And yet you can bet that if it had been significantly slower many would have happily taken this as being 'proof' that Wiggo and co, who spent an awful lot of time on the front of the race, were racing clean...No tA Doctor wrote:Yet again the goalposts are shifted... You don't seem to have replied to the various points made about how stupid using average speed for the tour is either
So by the same reasoning, even if Wiggo and co have climbed consistently slower, then we cannot assume that this in itself shows they are racing clean, as we would also have to look at exactly how the rode the climbs and so forth?No tA Doctor wrote:a climb where Contador and Rasmussen duelled wouldn't necessarily have been faster than if they'd ridden at max sustainable output. I'm sure you actually know this, but repeated attacks on a climb isn't the most efficient or quickest way of riding it.
Were Sky even racing to their limits, or in the modern style simply do just as much as was necessary in order to win against a weak and /or under-prepared field? Plenty on here seemed to think that Froome was holding back. Who knows, if he had been allowed to he might have produced a truly 'extra-terrestrial' performance?0 -
If this is your version of Hope, I would hate to see Despair in your parts.TheYorkshireMan wrote:
No I am not. I simply agree with Robert Millar's comment that "The fact is you will never know, you can only hope", and with the comments taken from that SIS article quoted above.nathancom wrote:..so because no one knows we should presume that they are? That is what the Yorkshireman is urging.
You are trying your hardest to weave a flimsy argument that we should be at the least extremely suspicious of BW. The Sport of Science article gives no cause for suspicion, it in fact states that the results are entirely within physiological norms. Therefore the results of the mountain stage can in no way be used to cast any shadow on BW's Tour. He states that they do not prove no doping has taken place, but please tell me how do you prove a negative?
As to the section you quote where Wiggins is criticised for his reaction to journalists' references to twitter, why are journalists peddling remarks from anonymous individuals on twitter other than to create a stir and get some copy? Was Wiggins' response the most measured? No. Was the response consistent with his character? Absolutely. As one of the responders to the article states:The problem with wanting Wiggins to provide a more nuanced response faced with an accusation of doping immediately after a stage lies precisely in the personality that spoke out against Moreni and other occasions when he's railed against dopers.
Wiggins clearly has an independent mind and a temper. The psychology that allows him not to walk pas the microphones in silence and avoid rocking the boat with Moreni is the same one that snaps and speaks his mind against those who have already decided he's doping. I remember when going after the world TT title a few years ago, a mechanical problem blew his chances and he had a major tantrum that he took out on his bike on the road.
It's difficult to applaud his willingness to speak out and show contempt for the dopers one minute and then ask him to turn into the mindset of someone speaking with more of a politician's measured approach straight after a stage in a press conference. In that sense Lindsey is right that he mirrors the mindset of those who vent their frustrations among the cycling fans on the forums.
And here you go again:TheYorkshireMan wrote:Were Sky even racing to their limits, or in the modern style simply do just as much as was necessary in order to win against a weak and /or under-prepared field? Plenty on here seemed to think that Froome was holding back. Who knows, if he had been allowed to he might have produced a truly 'extra-terrestrial' performance?
Just more insinuation based on zero evidence. You are the kind of person who would steal from old ladies if you could get away with. I bet you are, aren't you?
Is this the kind of argument you are really peddling to try and convince others that cheating has taken place? In truth, that someone, who will claim there is cheating under any circumstances, is forced to hold such a flimsy position is probably the best cause for hope that this has been a clean performance.0 -
I think there's been too much water under the bridge. Anyhow, doping has been a 120 years tradition in Cycling let's not spoil it.
The Fanboys be prepared for a bit of this below-
(Just think of FF's disappointments in the past)
Jerry“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”- Albert Einstein
"You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."
-Jacques Anquetil0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784
Another measure which might make a better comparison, according to Dr Ross Tucker of the sports science institute at the University of Cape Town, is the power-to-weight ratio.
Dr Tucker says you can see a marked difference between today and the bad old days when there were no tests for blood doping or drugs such as EPO.
"In the late 1990s and early 2000s if you were going to be competitive and win the Tour de France you would have to be able to cycle between 6.4 and 6.7 watts per kilogram at the end of a day's stage.
"What we are seeing now, in the last three or four years, is that the speed of the front of the peloton [of] men like Bradley Wiggins, Chris Froome and Vincenzo Nibali, is about 10% down compared to that generation and now the power output at the front is about 6W/kg."
from the BBC so it must be right.0 -
TheYorkshireMan wrote:
And yet you can bet that if it had been significantly slower many would have happily taken this as being 'proof' that Wiggo and co, who spent an awful lot of time on the front of the race, were racing clean...No tA Doctor wrote:Yet again the goalposts are shifted... You don't seem to have replied to the various points made about how stupid using average speed for the tour is either
Shall I just hold that strawman for you while you bayonet it?TheYorkshireMan wrote:
So by the same reasoning, even if Wiggo and co have climbed consistently slower, then we cannot assume that this in itself shows they are racing clean, as we would also have to look at exactly how the rode the climbs and so forth?No tA Doctor wrote:a climb where Contador and Rasmussen duelled wouldn't necessarily have been faster than if they'd ridden at max sustainable output. I'm sure you actually know this, but repeated attacks on a climb isn't the most efficient or quickest way of riding it.
Were Sky even racing to their limits, or in the modern style simply do just as much as was necessary in order to win against a weak and /or under-prepared field? Plenty on here seemed to think that Froome was holding back. Who knows, if he had been allowed to he might have produced a truly 'extra-terrestrial' performance?
I'm just asking for a larger dataset than comparison of a single climb. We can't prove riders are clean just beacuse they're slow (Frank Schleck), I'm sure you understand the logical fallacy of attempting to prove a negative like that, so please don't insult our intelligences further. The context of the climb is, however, important. With a large dataset you can draw conclusionns with less regard for the individual contexts, but for a single climb it's ridiculous - unless you can show that on that climb the "doped" comparison was actually very quick and at abnormal power. That's the piece missing.
In fact I've just watched highlights of Peyresourde 2007. It's cat and mouse stuff, with some insane attacks. I strongly doubt it's the hill record that's set there.
The idea that Froome was holding back is just conjecture. Froome showed in the Vuelta that he was capable of highpeak power that was good for gapping a rival, but not that he could maintain that power for any serious length of time. Sky's strategy was to ride quick at the font to hinder attacks, I thought we were all agreed on that? In which case they would be riding at somewhere close to their peak sustainable power.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
[off topic, personal interest]
As an aside Kids (if there are any of you out there) Bernie's posts are excellent examples of the sort of logical fallacies and twisted thinking and cherry picking of data dressed up as scientific analysis used by Marketing Men, Chiropracters, Homeopathists, Creationists, GW deniers and any other sort of conspiracy fan.
You could do a lot worse than looking at them and seeing what he is doing to construct what at first glance is a concise and well put together, and dare I say convincing argument. Sad, but true, these techniques are used to promote an awful lot of rubbish today. Whether you are specifically interested in science or not, being aware when someone is doing this to you is a valuable skill to learn and will help you carve through an awful lot of BS that is present in adult life.
If you want to learn more, cosult your local library (if it's still there), or better yet, download and listen to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe Podcast or better still rad Bad Science by Dr. Ben Goldacre. If you re about to start a degree (or even if youre doing/have done one) immersing yourself in the murky world of journals and papers, I strongly reccomend the Goldacre Book! I wish I'd read it before my degree.
[/off topic, personal interest]We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:[off topic, personal interest]
As an aside Kids (if there are any of you out there) Bernie's posts are excellent examples of the sort of logical fallacies and twisted thinking and cherry picking of data dressed up as scientific analysis used by Marketing Men, Chiropracters, Homeopathists, Creationists, GW deniers and any other sort of conspiracy fan.
You could do a lot worse than looking at them and seeing what he is doing to construct what at first glance is a concise and well put together, and dare I say convincing argument. Sad, but true, these techniques are used to promote an awful lot of rubbish today. Whether you are specifically interested in science or not, being aware when someone is doping this to you is a valuable skill to learn and will help you carve through an awful lot of BS that is present in adult life.
If you want to learn more, cosult your local library (if it's still there), or better yet, download and listen to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe Podcast or better still rad Bad Science by Dr. Ben Goldacre. If you re about to start a degree (or even if youre doing/have done one) immersing yourself in the murky world of journals and papers, I strongly reccomend the Goldacre Book! I wish I'd read it before my degree.
[/off topic, personal interest]
Another beauty along those lines. I reccomend it to the house:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Straight-Crooke ... 1444117181
This new edition of a timeless classic demonstrates how the use of clear, rational thinking and logic can win any argument, however emotionally charged the topic in question. It describes the typical flaws of reasoning in argument and shows how language can be used to deceive - and how to avoid being deceived. It will show you how, by learning what is 'straight', rational language, and clear thought, you can disentangle emotionally charged rhetoric and hold your own in any argument or debate, no matter how challenging. Although written nearly 80 years ago, this book proves that certain principles remain timeless; it has shown many thousands over the decades how to cope with media spin and distorted reasoning - and now it will do the same for you.0 -
[off topic, personal interest] Anyone that's ever argued with a creationist about the validity of evolution will be familiar with the twists of logic and rhetorical strategies employed. And Ben Goldacre is an excellent columnist, I'm missing him whie he's on sabbatical.
And hey kids, here are a few phrases that should always trigger suspicion:
"By the same logic" - this usually involves completely inverting the logic, or at least claiming some form of symmetry for something that is assymetric.
"It stands to reason" - read: "I've got no factual data and am basing this on a multitude of implicit assumptions"
"It's common knowledge" - read: "there have been numerous academic studies disproving this, but I'm going to completely disregard them because they were written by elitist intellectuals, not taxi drivers"
"They say.." / "Now they tell us..." - but who are "they"? Usualy a spectacularly ill-defined group of heterogenous people subsumed into one homologous lump under the heading of "scientists" or "experts".
[/off topic, personal interest]Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
TheYorkshireMan wrote:Still, I wonder why Wiggins and co are supposedly putting out more power on the climbs than the likes of Contador and Rasmussen did (450w when riding tempo, according to Wiggins) and yet are going slower?
I watched the BW documentary last night, and Shane Sutton said that Wiggins averaged 452w in the Worlds TT last year (and ~490w for the prologue at the TDF) so, even allowing for the fact that it is seemingly "easier" to put out more power when climbing, I don't believe that Sky were pushing 450w whilst riding tempo in the middle of a 5-6 hour stage (and certainly not BW who was 3rd or 4th wheel).
From the reporting I have seen, the 450w figure was just thrown in as a random number. it may even have been inflated for psychological effect.0 -
Very good book, funny and worrying in equal parts. Particularly liked the part about Gillian McKeith "or to give her her full medical title, Gillian McKeith". I'm no scientist or academic but I am now able to see through some of the wool pulled over our eyes by self proclaimed experts.ddraver wrote:[off topic, personal interest]
better still read Bad Science by Dr. Ben Goldacre.
[/off topic, personal interest]
I would be surprised if this is not the cleanest Tour in years. For me the most telling factor is the inability the main protagonists have had to make attacks stick. They can make a break but are always gradually pulled back. This "feels" right. (Maybe the dopers are just getting smarter). I'm not making any accusations but if I was asked about suspicions, Thomas Voeckler was able to put in a very strong performance the day after his most gruelling day, that has elements of the bad old days. Just saying.You've no won the Big Cup since 1902!0 -
TheYorkshireMan wrote:Still, I wonder why Wiggins and co are supposedly putting out more power on the climbs than the likes of Contador and Rasmussen did (450w when riding tempo, according to Wiggins) and yet are going slower? Again, someone's figures make no sense, possibly those of Wiggins, which wouldn't be a first.
Different weight of rider? I suspect Wiggins is a fair bit heavier than those 2 so his power to weight ratio will be less. From what I can find Rasmussen was 59kg, Bertie 62 kg and Wiggo 69kg so on that basis and the 450w quote Wiggo is riding at 6.5 w/kg. Rasmussen would only need to put out 383w to match him and Bertie 403w. Of course, it depends on what climb that refers to as 6.5w/kg is apparently suspicious over a 40 minute HC climb but about what would be reasonably expected to be in the lead group on a shorter climb such as La Planche des Belles Filles (according to SiS). That's the problem with off-the-cuff comments about numbers, we can lose sight of the context in which they were made.0 -
[off topic, personal interest]
As mentioned above, the use of incomplete "facts" to build an argument is a dangerous one utilised by many a politician and journalist. When the journalist in question is an ex-pro who managed to only complete the tour once in 3 attempts (131st place), with his very best ever stage result being 9th, you have a recipe for disaster!
[/off topic, personal interest]
EXAMPLE: Wiggins did the entire final time trial with an average speed of over 50km/h, for the 53.5km course. This morning, I did 53.5km at an average speed of 64km/h so I don't know what the big deal is.
NOW LOOK AGAIN. Boys and Girls, what vital piece of information is missing from the above statement?0 -
nweststeyn wrote:EXAMPLE: Wiggins did the entire final time trial with an average speed of over 50km/h, for the 53.5km course. This morning, I did 53.5km at an average speed of 64km/h so I don't know what the big deal is.
NOW LOOK AGAIN. Boys and Girls, what vital piece of information is missing from the above statement?
Gradient?0 -
I was in my car.0
