Porte numbers on Col d'Eze

2

Comments

  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    ddraver wrote:
    You re letting down LL here FF...


    I have him filtered out - not sure how he crept back into my view - more robust Foes setting needed
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    ddraver wrote:
    You re letting down LL here FF...


    I have him filtered out - not sure how he crept back into my view - more robust Foes setting needed

    You should install Norton AntiBerk
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    No one actually mentioned the fact that Porte was 4th in the Worlds ITT in '10, and 6th in '11? No? Oh. I'd better do it then.

    This is all getting beyond a farking joke.

    FF, get a grip. Your idol has been beaten two races in a row. I know its earth-shattering for you but its happened. He may rise again, or he may get beaten again. Deal with it.

    :lol:

    This is particularly :lol:

    when you realise that I am not suggesting Porte was doping and posted a faster time to show that. I am posting information I can across on Porte that I found interesting, being a numbers man, and then posted various other aspects which I thought were interesting and others would find interesting.

    :lol:

    Why don't you post something useful rather than being a Sky fan girl and opining on just about everything.

    ps. Still waiting on the source for the BMC salaries :roll:

    Well, I'm finding the comparisons interesting anyway, so thanks for posting.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • alihisgreat
    alihisgreat Posts: 3,872
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Some people saying Porte slowed down in the last half to get his numbers down.

    Who?
  • lostboysaint
    lostboysaint Posts: 4,250
    ALIHISGREAT wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Some people saying Porte slowed down in the last half to get his numbers down.

    Who?

    FF, obviously!
    Trail fun - Transition Bandit
    Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
    Allround - Cotic Solaris
  • milton50
    milton50 Posts: 3,856
    displacedaussie wrote:
    Milton50 wrote:
    Sure but he would need to have an abnormally low heart rate for someone of his age.

    If you saw the GCN video from the other day, Daniel Lloyd looked at Froome's SRM data (for, er, Stage 5? of TA):

    245 watts average
    116 bpm average

    The heart rates of these pro cyclists are pretty crazy. My HR goes higher than that if I'm pedalling.

    That's insane. What's his resting heart rate 20bpm?
  • milton50
    milton50 Posts: 3,856
    ALIHISGREAT wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Some people saying Porte slowed down in the last half to get his numbers down.

    Who?

    I think there's a chance, just a chance, that FF is trying to wind people up. And some people seem happy to oblige.
  • zammmmo
    zammmmo Posts: 315
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    No one actually mentioned the fact that Porte was 4th in the Worlds ITT in '10, and 6th in '11? No? Oh. I'd better do it then.

    This is all getting beyond a farking joke.

    FF, get a grip. Your idol has been beaten two races in a row. I know its earth-shattering for you but its happened. He may rise again, or he may get beaten again. Deal with it.

    For years now I've thought Contador was an exciting rider to watch but you have say he's not quite what he was circa 2009. FWIW I think his current style bears more hallmarks of someone riding clean. He's obviously incredibly talented and his strength is repeated, erratic attacks in the mountains, which he still does albeit in not quite such devastating fashion, and he doesn't now TT like a specialist thank goodness. He'll rise again but at least it's looking more credible now.
  • mroli
    mroli Posts: 3,622
    zammmmo wrote:
    you have say he's not quite what he was circa 2009.
    He'll rise again but at least it's looking more credible now.
    Yes - agree with the first point - but the second - he DID win the last GT he entered which was post ban.... You can't do better than first!
    http://www.georgesfoundation.org
    http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
    http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/
  • apriliarider
    apriliarider Posts: 222
    Budget info for FF

    http://inrng.com/2012/08/team-sky-budget-accounts/

    http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/02/ ... ise_207432

    http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2011/11/moneyball/

    Bit out of date -

    http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderrepor ... d-warning/


    All seem to indicate that it is not the "how much" but rather "how you use the how much" :roll:

    Cheers

    AR
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,317
    mfin wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    ddraver wrote:
    You re letting down LL here FF...


    I have him filtered out - not sure how he crept back into my view - more robust Foes setting needed

    You should install Norton AntiBerk

    Did that work for you? If you're reading this, obviously not...

    Made a bit of Guinness go up my nose, by the way - there's no higher compliment than that.
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,317
    FF - possibly like yourself, I am a bit of a sucker for all those VAM statistics, climbing records, etc, but I've come to regard them in the same way as (accidentally) reading Hello! Or a tabloid. Great joy is being had (by both writer and reader) in a shared naughty tongue-in-cheek representation of "information". Using sciencey words, numbers and symbols doesn't overrule all of the other contributary factors (as FJS mentioned) that may have been omitted in order to disengenuously suggest that a performance was bordering on impossible without doping.
    AFAIC, please continue posting such info - but perhaps state from the outset your agenda: bearing in mind your well documented disdain with Sky, the assumption will always be that you're taking a swipe at their riders and implying dope features in their performances.
  • fidbod
    fidbod Posts: 317
    frenchfighter wrote:
    From WW:

    Porte did 1584 m/h for the first 5.5km.

    That is apparently the highest ever recorded.

    His w/kg was 6.2 assuming a weight of 140 lbs
    d.
    frenchfighter wrote:
    people saying Porte slowed down in the last half to get his numbers down.

    Sounds rather like he went off too hard at the start of the TT and faded towards the end. Or is that overly simplistic?
  • IanTrcp
    IanTrcp Posts: 761
    frenchfighter wrote:
    From WW:

    Porte did 1584 m/h for the first 5.5km.

    That is apparently the highest ever recorded.

    His w/kg was 6.2 assuming a weight of 140 lbs

    Interesting thread. Could you post a link to the source of this please? I don't know who/what WW is!
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    frenchfighter wrote:
    From WW:

    Porte did 1584 m/h for the first 5.5km.

    That is apparently the highest ever recorded.

    His w/kg was 6.2 assuming a weight of 140 lbs

    These measurements are flawed and not an indicator of anything, especially as it is a TT and not at the end of a huge stage, but thought you might be interested.

    You note that the measurements are flawed and there is one massive one there. They assume a weight of 140lbs but Froome's weight according to the official team website is 69kg and when you add on 7kg for the bike you end up with a total weight of about 167lb.

    Working backing from the above calculation the wattage would be 394w and with the 76kg total weight the w/kg would drop to about 5.2. Mind you, those scoundrels at Sky are probably weighing all their riders with ballast to make their numbers better (this will no doubt be reported as fact on Twitter shortly). That would surely be better than easing up to make your numbers look more believable and risk losing!

    EDIT getting my riders confused :oops:

    Still Porte is 62kg so for combined weight of 69kg he'd have 5.7 w/kg which seems pretty much what you'd expect (slightly low)
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    Pross wrote:

    You note that the measurements are flawed and there is one massive one there. They assume a weight of 140lbs but Froome's weight according to the official team website is 69kg and when you add on 7kg for the bike you end up with a total weight of about 167lb.

    Working backing from the above calculation the wattage would be 394w and with the 76kg total weight the w/kg would drop to about 5.2. Mind you, those scoundrels at Sky are probably weighing all their riders with ballast to make their numbers better (this will no doubt be reported as fact on Twitter shortly). That would surely be better than easing up to make your numbers look more believable and risk losing!

    EDIT getting my riders confused :oops:

    Still Porte is 62kg so for combined weight of 69kg he'd have 5.7 w/kg which seems pretty much what you'd expect (slightly low)

    I don't think you're meant to include the bike weight in W/kg calculations.

    Even so, 6.2 for a 19 minute effort isn't that big a deal.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    RichN95 wrote:
    Pross wrote:

    You note that the measurements are flawed and there is one massive one there. They assume a weight of 140lbs but Froome's weight according to the official team website is 69kg and when you add on 7kg for the bike you end up with a total weight of about 167lb.

    Working backing from the above calculation the wattage would be 394w and with the 76kg total weight the w/kg would drop to about 5.2. Mind you, those scoundrels at Sky are probably weighing all their riders with ballast to make their numbers better (this will no doubt be reported as fact on Twitter shortly). That would surely be better than easing up to make your numbers look more believable and risk losing!

    EDIT getting my riders confused :oops:

    Still Porte is 62kg so for combined weight of 69kg he'd have 5.7 w/kg which seems pretty much what you'd expect (slightly low)

    I don't think you're meant to include the bike weight in W/kg calculations.

    Even so, 6.2 for a 19 minute effort isn't that big a deal.

    Really? Seems odd. I agree that 6.2 seems reasonable over that time as does less than 400w total power.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    So...

    Is this definitive proof of doping or not?

    I can no longer remember whether it's consistency or inconsistency that is the cast iron proof of doping.

    Slowing down????!!!! Really? You're race leader on a final stage short TT and well aware you're in great form. DS gives you a split of 20 seconds up at the first check point. do you...

    A) Go bat sh1t crazy and bury yourself completely as this will provide proof that you aren't doping.

    or...

    B) Ride a strong but controlled race which will guarantee the win but unfortunately condemn you as a 100% confirmed doper?

    Hmmm, who's on drugs? The riders or the 'fans'.
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    ddraver wrote:
    You re letting down LL here FF...


    I have him filtered out - not sure how he crept back into my view - more robust Foes setting needed

    You should install Norton AntiBerk

    Did that work for you? If you're reading this, obviously not...

    Made a bit of Guinness go up my nose, by the way - there's no higher compliment than that.

    :) ...snorting Guinness, that's hardcore that is!
  • Gazzaputt
    Gazzaputt Posts: 3,227
    morstar wrote:
    So...

    Is this definitive proof of doping or not?

    I can no longer remember whether it's consistency or inconsistency that is the cast iron proof of doping.

    Slowing down????!!!! Really? You're race leader on a final stage short TT and well aware you're in great form. DS gives you a split of 20 seconds up at the first check point. do you...

    A) Go bat sh1t crazy and bury yourself completely as this will provide proof that you aren't doping.

    or...

    B) Ride a strong but controlled race which will guarantee the win but unfortunately condemn you as a 100% confirmed doper?

    Hmmm, who's on drugs? The riders or the 'fans'.

    Not all the fans but defo some of the posters on this forum.

    If you don't believe in it or don't like it piss off and look at another sport to throw mud at.
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    apriliarider wrote:
    Budget info for FF

    http://inrng.com/2012/08/team-sky-budget-accounts/

    http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/02/ ... ise_207432

    http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2011/11/moneyball/

    Bit out of date -

    http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderrepor ... d-warning/


    All seem to indicate that it is not the "how much" but rather "how you use the how much" :roll:

    Cheers

    AR

    Cheers.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    IanTrcp wrote:
    Interesting thread. Could you post a link to the source of this please? I don't know who/what WW is!

    http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/
    Contador is the Greatest
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Gazzaputt wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    So...

    Is this definitive proof of doping or not?

    I can no longer remember whether it's consistency or inconsistency that is the cast iron proof of doping.

    Slowing down????!!!! Really? You're race leader on a final stage short TT and well aware you're in great form. DS gives you a split of 20 seconds up at the first check point. do you...

    A) Go bat sh1t crazy and bury yourself completely as this will provide proof that you aren't doping.

    or...

    B) Ride a strong but controlled race which will guarantee the win but unfortunately condemn you as a 100% confirmed doper?

    Hmmm, who's on drugs? The riders or the 'fans'.

    Not all the fans but defo some of the posters on this forum.

    If you don't believe in it or don't like it wee-wee off and look at another sport to throw mud at.

    Think you misunderstand me, I don't have my head in the sand but am more than happy that the sport is far healthier than it has been in a long while.

    Rather than throwing mud, I was highlighting the ridiculous insunuation and leaps of faith to prove or disprove doping based on minor aspects of a performance.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Gazzaputt wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    So...
    Is this definitive proof of doping or not?
    I can no longer remember whether it's consistency or inconsistency that is the cast iron proof of doping.

    Slowing down????!!!! Really? You're race leader on a final stage short TT and well aware you're in great form. DS gives you a split of 20 seconds up at the first check point. do you...

    A) Go bat sh1t crazy and bury yourself completely as this will provide proof that you aren't doping.
    or...
    B) Ride a strong but controlled race which will guarantee the win but unfortunately condemn you as a 100% confirmed doper?

    Hmmm, who's on drugs? The riders or the 'fans'.

    Not all the fans but defo some of the posters on this forum.
    If you don't believe in it or don't like it wee-wee off and look at another sport to throw mud at.


    I think morstar is defending Porte's performance here.....saying that the fans are retarded for thinking that he's deliberately slowed down so as to show he's not doping. The fact he slowed down is because he didn't need to go batsh1t crazy and ruin himself as he had so much time, and could therefore ride a slightly slower, controlled race, but guarantee a finish and therefore win?
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    coriordan wrote:
    Gazzaputt wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    So...
    Is this definitive proof of doping or not?
    I can no longer remember whether it's consistency or inconsistency that is the cast iron proof of doping.

    Slowing down????!!!! Really? You're race leader on a final stage short TT and well aware you're in great form. DS gives you a split of 20 seconds up at the first check point. do you...

    A) Go bat sh1t crazy and bury yourself completely as this will provide proof that you aren't doping.
    or...
    B) Ride a strong but controlled race which will guarantee the win but unfortunately condemn you as a 100% confirmed doper?

    Hmmm, who's on drugs? The riders or the 'fans'.

    Not all the fans but defo some of the posters on this forum.
    If you don't believe in it or don't like it wee-wee off and look at another sport to throw mud at.


    I think morstar is defending Porte's performance here.....saying that the fans are retarded for thinking that he's deliberately slowed down so as to show he's not doping. The fact he slowed down is because he didn't need to go batsh1t crazy and ruin himself as he had so much time, and could therefore ride a slightly slower, controlled race, but guarantee a finish and therefore win?

    Thank you.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    This is too good not to be dropped into a couple of threads - so I'll apologise now and just do it

    http://www.biscuittinmedia.com/team-sky ... obo-racer/
  • alihisgreat
    alihisgreat Posts: 3,872
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    This is too good not to be dropped into a couple of threads - so I'll apologise now and just do it

    http://www.biscuittinmedia.com/team-sky ... obo-racer/

    server is down :(
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Kelly on a vitus 979 weighing 19lbs...frame that is compared to Ritchie's Pinarello at 14lbs..+what does a group set, wheels and components weigh now compared to before? Another 3lbs off. So, at a guess Kelly has 7lbs extra weight..3kg or maybe 3.5 kg weight on Ritchie to get him equal to Kelly's bike?

    On the 9.6km last week
    Ritchie last weekend in 19 minutes 17 seconds...
    Kelly 27 years ago did Col d'eze time 19 minutes 45 seconds for 9.5km

    If you stuck 3kg on Ritchie's bike, would have beaten the time of Kelly? When no EPO was available
    .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Kelly on a vitus 979 weighing 19lbs...frame that is compared to Ritchie's Pinarello at 14lbs..+what does a group set, wheels and components weigh now compared to before? Another 3lbs off. So, at a guess Kelly has 7lbs extra weight..3kg or maybe 3.5 kg weight on Ritchie to get him equal to Kelly's bike?

    On the 9.6km last week
    Ritchie last weekend in 19 minutes 17 seconds...
    Kelly 27 years ago did Col d'eze time 19 minutes 45 seconds for 9.5km

    If you stuck 3kg on Ritchie's bike, would have beaten the time of Kelly? When no EPO was available
    .

    Exactly. This was hardly an eye brow raising performance, some people are just determined to cast suspicion and spread innuendo at anything these days.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Kelly on a vitus 979 weighing 19lbs...frame that is compared to Ritchie's Pinarello at 14lbs..+what does a group set, wheels and components weigh now compared to before? Another 3lbs off. So, at a guess Kelly has 7lbs extra weight..3kg or maybe 3.5 kg weight on Ritchie to get him equal to Kelly's bike?

    On the 9.6km last week
    Ritchie last weekend in 19 minutes 17 seconds...
    Kelly 27 years ago did Col d'eze time 19 minutes 45 seconds for 9.5km

    If you stuck 3kg on Ritchie's bike, would have beaten the time of Kelly? When no EPO was available
    .
    With regard to Kelly's ride, while the distance is listed as 9.5km is was in fact the exact same 9.6km course, it's just that back then everything was listed to the nearest half kilometre
    Twitter: @RichN95

Categories