Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Garmin vs Sky (non-doping related)

13468911

Posts

  • Two lots of time consuming statistical analysis for nothing.

    You people :cry:
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    RichN95 wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    t 23 minutes 14 seconds, Team Sky rider Chris Froome set the all-time 3rd fastest mark up Bonascre AX3 Domaines on Stage 8 of the 2013 Tour de France. His time was fast enough to beat Lance Armstrong's times in 2003 and 2005, but fell short of Armstrong's personal record set in 2001.

    <Snip> 



    All this focus on Ax 3. Why not any of the many other climbs Froome has done?

    And here's another question - why was Armstrong or anyone else not faster than Roberto Laiseka - a journeyman climber who never finished in the top 20 of the Tour?

    You copy and paste other people's arguments rather than use your own words, which implies that you don't actually understand it. Until you do you will not realise how you are being conned.


    Excuse me , don't tell me what I do or do not understand .
    Take away your weak point about Laiseka and you are still left were comparisons against known doped riders who doped on a regular basis.

    The data holds up pretty well and I used it to back up my own suspicions.
  • inseine wrote:
    So Talansky was better than Froome when he was 22, for example, but Lance was better still.
    This proves what exactly?

    Proves that Talansky is a bigger talent than Froome, as most of the rest of the pro tour is.

    As for Lance, wasn't he already doping at that point? Hard to compare then.
  • inseineinseine Posts: 5,781
    Other 'clean' riders......
    Lemond, brilliant as a junior
    Sastra, didn't do zip 'til his late 20's
  • But he's not beating his rivals by any greater margin than anyone else in the last 50 years!
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    Interesting analysis, rayjay: but I can't help feeling that with the lack of (non-acronym) capital letters and smiley faces, that this wasn't your own creation. I hope you're not pilfering other people's work without crediting the source...? Were it so, there's a danger some might not take you seriously...

    It's a cut and paste of the Outside Magazine link The Truth put up before... Minus the qualifying bit at the end saying it wasn't validated and expressing it's limitations.

    This is the part I left out . It does not say anything about it not being validated .... as you can see it did not seem important to the debate.


    For more information on cycling performance analysis, I highly recommend reading Ross Tucker's blog on sportsscientists.com and his post The Power of the Tour de France: Performance analysis groundwork is a good place to start. Also, follow @ammattipyoraily and @scienceofsport on Twitter for near real time performance data updates from the Tour de France, and check Cyclismas.com for pVAM updates from Scott Richards

    Here is the whole page http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/bi ... mance.html
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    But he's not beating his rivals by any greater margin than anyone else in the last 50 years!


    So what does that tell you?
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    Interesting analysis, rayjay: but I can't help feeling that with the lack of (non-acronym) capital letters and smiley faces, that this wasn't your own creation. I hope you're not pilfering other people's work without crediting the source...? Were it so, there's a danger some might not take you seriously...

    I never claimed to write the piece.

    The fact is.
    It is a good article and if you are not hypnotised by the Sky dream then it makes some good points.
    If you are then you may as read the beano. Your usual read I was told :lol:
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 24,658
    rayjay wrote:
    Excuse me , don't tell me what I do or do not understand .
    You don't understand what dpVAM is. Unless you can describe it in your own words, you don't understand it. And that just makes you a parrot.
    rayjay wrote:
    Take away your weak point about Laiseka and you are still left were comparisons against known doped riders who doped on a regular basis.
    The data holds up pretty well and I used it to back up my own suspicions.
    It's not a weak point. The fastest time is by a journeyman. Why didn't Armstrong ever go faster than a rider who's only stage race podium was 3rd at the Tour of Catalunya?
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • The answer is ... SKY during the day, you can always tell direction by the sun ... Garmin at night, unless you forget to charge it ...
  • blazing_saddlesblazing_saddles Posts: 16,904
    edited February 2014
    The Truth wrote:
    inseine wrote:
    So Talansky was better than Froome when he was 22, for example, but Lance was better still.
    This proves what exactly?

    Proves that Talansky is a bigger talent than Froome, as most of the rest of the pro tour is.

    Well, apart from the fact that he wasn't, that is:
    Froome:
    2008 Gbr Barloworld PROF 275 253 All Points
    Talansky:
    2011 Usa Team Garmin - Cervélo PRT 274 229 All Points

    6 months age difference, there.

    When you take away Froome's two best seasons (the last two)
    in order to make their ages roughly the same, you get very similar progression scores on CQ.
    You don't even have to factor in Kenya instead of USA.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    RichN95 wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    Take away your weak point about Laiseka and you are still left were comparisons against known doped riders who doped on a regular basis.
    The data holds up pretty well and I used it to back up my own suspicions.
    It's not a weak point. The fastest time is by a journeyman. Why didn't Armstrong ever go faster than a rider who's only stage race podium was 3rd at the Tour of Catalunya?

    This sums you up rayjay, when you are using times up climbs to prove Froome is doping, it is hardcore fact and evidence of it but when anyone else, who disagrees with your point, tries to use it as evidence you call it "weak". Why is that?
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    RichN95 wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    Excuse me , don't tell me what I do or do not understand .
    You don't understand what dpVAM is. Unless you can describe it in your own words, you don't understand it. And that just makes you a parrot.
    rayjay wrote:
    Take away your weak point about Laiseka and you are still left were comparisons against known doped riders who doped on a regular basis.
    The data holds up pretty well and I used it to back up my own suspicions.
    It's not a weak point. The fastest time is by a journeyman. Why didn't Armstrong ever go faster than a rider who's only stage race podium was 3rd at the Tour of Catalunya?


    it seems to me there is no point in debating with you , because all you seem to do is want to insult me.

    If I gave you the answer to anything you would only say "I done a google"

    Instead of trying to attack my intelligence why not read the article and take on board some of the points its making or can't you understand them,,,, I can.

    Your point about a journeyman,,, a journeyman who has gone faster than some of the greatest riders doped.

    Using logic , he must have been the fastest clean rider ever or IMO doped up to the eyeballs.

    Look at all the other riders mentioned, all dopers so what does that suggest about your Journeyman.

    If you want to use him to validate your point then fair enough, but IMO I think it's a weak point considering the rest of the evidence.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    rayjay wrote:
    Your point about a journeyman,,, a journeyman who has gone faster than some of the greatest riders doped.

    Using logic , he must have been the fastest clean rider ever or IMO doped up to the eyeballs.

    Look at all the other riders mentioned, all dopers so what does that suggest about your Journeyman.

    If you want to use him to validate your point then fair enough, but IMO I think it's a weak point considering the rest of the evidence.

    It proves that a rider can put in an exceptional time on a climb and not be the best rider.

    The ride you and the truth seem to mention all the time being exceptional is Mt Ventoux but he was the 23rd quickest time up that climb. Ever had a thought about that? Thought not.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 24,658
    rayjay wrote:
    it seems to me there is no point in debating with you , because all you seem to do is want to insult me.

    If I gave you the answer to anything you would only say "I done a google"

    Instead of trying to attack my intelligence why not read the article and take on board some of the points its making or can't you understand them,,,, I can.
    I have read them and I can see how it is manipulating statistics to almost guarantee at least one performance which can be passed off as 'doped'.
    But I'm not the one presenting it as evidence. You are. If you don't understand it you are just like a parrot squawking what it's been taught.
    rayjay wrote:
    Your point about a journeyman,,, a journeyman who has gone faster than some of the greatest riders doped.

    Using logic , he must have been the fastest clean rider ever or IMO doped up to the eyeballs.

    Look at all the other riders mentioned, all dopers so what does that suggest about your Journeyman.

    If you want to use him to validate your point then fair enough, but IMO I think it's a weak point considering the rest of the evidence.
    So the idea that Ax 3 had never previously been a particularly strategically important stage and followed by summit finish stages at the harder Luz Ardiden or Plat d'Adet (or both) meaning that the top riders didn't give it 100% is off the table then? The idea that Laiseka, for one week only, became the world's greatest ever rider is more rational to you.

    If Cardiff beat Manchester City (as they did earlier this season), I don't think it shows that Cardiff have suddenly become the team in the country. I think that it more likely shows that Manchester City didn't play at their best.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • sjmclean wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    Your point about a journeyman,,, a journeyman who has gone faster than some of the greatest riders doped.

    Using logic , he must have been the fastest clean rider ever or IMO doped up to the eyeballs.

    Look at all the other riders mentioned, all dopers so what does that suggest about your Journeyman.

    If you want to use him to validate your point then fair enough, but IMO I think it's a weak point considering the rest of the evidence.

    It proves that a rider can put in an exceptional time on a climb and not be the best rider.

    The ride you and the truth seem to mention all the time being exceptional is Mt Ventoux but he was the 23rd quickest time up that climb. Ever had a thought about that? Thought not.

    MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)

    ----TOP 50 LIST

    -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
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    The Truth wrote:
    sjmclean wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    Your point about a journeyman,,, a journeyman who has gone faster than some of the greatest riders doped.

    Using logic , he must have been the fastest clean rider ever or IMO doped up to the eyeballs.

    Look at all the other riders mentioned, all dopers so what does that suggest about your Journeyman.

    If you want to use him to validate your point then fair enough, but IMO I think it's a weak point considering the rest of the evidence.

    It proves that a rider can put in an exceptional time on a climb and not be the best rider.

    The ride you and the truth seem to mention all the time being exceptional is Mt Ventoux but he was the 23rd quickest time up that climb. Ever had a thought about that? Thought not.

    MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)

    ----TOP 50 LIST

    -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

    So now you aren't even using the whole climb distance:

    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. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h
    24. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h
    25. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 16,179
    "Arguing with a troll is like playing chess with a pigeon, it knocks the pieces over shits all over the board and struts around like it won"



    (only fair to acknowledge it's an @FestinaGirl RT)
    Believe that a farther shore
    Is reachable from here.
    Believe in miracles
    And cures and healing wells
  • The first part of the climb is little more than a false flat. It makes more sense to use the times from where the real climb begins.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 24,658
    The Truth wrote:
    The first part of the climb is little more than a false flat. It makes more sense to use the times from where the real climb begins.
    There's too much wind up there to make the stats relevant. From your list of times Armstrong in 2009 was the equal of Armstrong in 2000. I don't think anyone thinks that.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    The Truth wrote:
    The first part of the climb is little more than a false flat. It makes more sense to use the times from where the real climb begins.

    You can't decide that, it is classed as a 21km climb. I could just pick one random section and say rider A rode this small selection faster so it must mean he is cheating.
  • PBoPBo Posts: 2,493
    The Truth wrote:
    sjmclean wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    Your point about a journeyman,,, a journeyman who has gone faster than some of the greatest riders doped.

    Using logic , he must have been the fastest clean rider ever or IMO doped up to the eyeballs.

    Look at all the other riders mentioned, all dopers so what does that suggest about your Journeyman.

    If you want to use him to validate your point then fair enough, but IMO I think it's a weak point considering the rest of the evidence.

    It proves that a rider can put in an exceptional time on a climb and not be the best rider.

    The ride you and the truth seem to mention all the time being exceptional is Mt Ventoux but he was the 23rd quickest time up that climb. Ever had a thought about that? Thought not.

    MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)

    ----TOP 50 LIST

    -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

    You're Michael Gove aren't you?

    An odious t1t who thinks he knows best, is stuck in the past and won't listen to any opinion which doesn't agree with his own blinkered, skewed view of the world.

    I claim my £5....
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    Is the last 15.65k a strava segment ? That would explain why Froome hammered it.
  • Bo DukeBo Duke Posts: 1,058
    sjmclean wrote:
    The Truth wrote:
    sjmclean wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    Your point about a journeyman,,, a journeyman who has gone faster than some of the greatest riders doped.

    Using logic , he must have been the fastest clean rider ever or IMO doped up to the eyeballs.

    Look at all the other riders mentioned, all dopers so what does that suggest about your Journeyman.

    If you want to use him to validate your point then fair enough, but IMO I think it's a weak point considering the rest of the evidence.

    It proves that a rider can put in an exceptional time on a climb and not be the best rider.

    The ride you and the truth seem to mention all the time being exceptional is Mt Ventoux but he was the 23rd quickest time up that climb. Ever had a thought about that? Thought not.

    MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)

    ----TOP 50 LIST

    -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

    So now you aren't even using the whole climb distance:

    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. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h
    24. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h
    25. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h

    Well posted sir! What a list of dopers they are at the top.... Its such a shame that certain posters can't drop their obsessive anti-Froome behavior, eh Lance? Do you dream about him at night?
    'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP
  • inseineinseine Posts: 5,781
    In fairness many of the top times on ventoux were in an individual TT whereas Froomes was after 245k.
    On the other hand I have no idea how much slower these guys are after a long stage. What's also not listed is the fact that he was only 29 secs ahead of Quintana.
    What does all this prove? Froome might be doping, but so may any of the riders. We knew that on page one.

    I really wonder if some people on here even like cycling or simply like an argument?
  • sjmclean wrote:
    The Truth wrote:
    The first part of the climb is little more than a false flat. It makes more sense to use the times from where the real climb begins.

    You can't decide that, it is classed as a 21km climb. I could just pick one random section and say rider A rode this small selection faster so it must mean he is cheating.

    I'm going to stick my neck out here and venture that The Truth has never set foot on Mont Ventoux. Here is the profile

    Mont_Ventoux-B%C3%A9doin_profile.jpg

    One could, charitably, describe the first 2km as "false flat" as they are 2.6 and 3.6% average gradient. However, the next 4 are respectively 4.4%, 6%, 5.9% and 4.7%.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • In other news, I can't sodding wait until Het Volk. The lull between the Cross Worlds and the real season starting makes me get involved in nonsense like this. I was considering doing a dot graph of all the winning margins between 1st and 10th and seeing who the real outliers were (my hunch, Merckx and Armstrong)
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • rayjay wrote:
    But he's not beating his rivals by any greater margin than anyone else in the last 50 years!


    So what does that tell you?


    You see this annoys me.

    You can't know who the other riders are, because I anonymised the data. You've no idea, apart from one set of 10 scores what year any of the data comes from. It could be any year between 1950 and 2012. It shows that in every example, the % difference in time between the first and 10th placed rider was less than 0.1% and that Froome Vs. Talansky is the median for the sample given. But because it doesn't chime with your opinion, which is based on a regression analysis you don't understand, you won't even engage with the discussion.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Richn95 - = Bill Nye

    The Truth = Ken Ham
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • MacaloonMacaloon Posts: 5,545
    The second coming of Lance Armstrong, a rider so obviously doped to the gills that only Union Jack blindfolds hide the truth, holds the 87th fastest ascent of Alpe d'Huez.

    If you base your case on single climb time statistics, you're a moron.
    ...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.
This discussion has been closed.