How good is Chris Froome?

inseine

Lookyhere wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

All this talk of his domination ... yet to me his lead always feels so fragile (see his time loss the day after the Vuelta ITT: him cracking up that steep finish at the Tour). I don't think I've ever felt like it was game over once he gets the yellow/red jersey; it's just that history seems to suggest that's the case.
Armstrong was usually about 5 mins ahead of second (usually Ullrich), 10 mins ahead of 3rd...similar with Indurain.

Doping was the difference, the Sport is much cleaner now, it s more about the team/rider combination than ever before, harder to get ahead, equally harder to make up time.

It's all relative but the question shouldnt be How good is Chris Froome but How good is Team SKY?

Also, the comment that LA put almost a min into his rivals over 19km, Froome put 35sec over 14km into Porte.

It was a wet, technical course and Porte was more circumspect. Froome was 6th I think. It's not really a comparison.

RichN95.

A bit of an aside but here's some stats about the Tour/Vuelta doub;e which puts it in perspective, particularly for spectics who think being on for for both is unbelievable.

In the previous ten season 2007-16, of the number riders who have finished in the top four at the Tour who have then started the Vuelta is 16

Of those sixteen, nine also finished in the top four of the Vuelta, one finished seventh and six failed to finish (including Froome crashing, Nibali's DQ and Schleck being sent home)

So holding form from one to the other isn't unusual, it's normal.

larkim

Lookyhere wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

All this talk of his domination ... yet to me his lead always feels so fragile (see his time loss the day after the Vuelta ITT: him cracking up that steep finish at the Tour). I don't think I've ever felt like it was game over once he gets the yellow/red jersey; it's just that history seems to suggest that's the case.
Armstrong was usually about 5 mins ahead of second (usually Ullrich), 10 mins ahead of 3rd...similar with Indurain.

Doping was the difference, the Sport is much cleaner now, it s more about the team/rider combination than ever before, harder to get ahead, equally harder to make up time.

It's all relative but the question shouldnt be How good is Chris Froome but How good is Team SKY?

Also, the comment that LA put almost a min into his rivals over 19km, Froome put 35sec over 14km into Porte.

If doping was as prevalant in that era as I think most of us believe / recognise, surely the time gaps should have been broadly the same as today - doped riders in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th up the hill should present the same gaps as non-doped 1st-5th surely? I agree with OCD's perspective, it always looks so fragile. A mechanical, a fall, a lapse in concentration could easily have seen Froome lose the TDF and the Vuelta.

I went through some TdF classifications yesterday and was surprised that the overall GC time gaps weren't quite as big as I'd have remembered in the Armstrong era. Perhaps rose tinted glasses? (admittedly I only looked at 3 years, so I might have missed years with bigger gaps)

rick_chasey

Would be pretty cool if he won the 2018 Giro though....3 in a row!

ocdupalais

Rick Chasey wrote:

Would be pretty cool if he won the 2018 Giro though....3 in a row!

Yeah - he might scrape into the Top 10 of Best British Riders of All Time; just behind Ian Cammish.

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

I went through some TdF classifications yesterday and was surprised that the overall GC time gaps weren't quite as big as I'd have remembered in the Armstrong era. Perhaps rose tinted glasses? (admittedly I only looked at 3 years, so I might have missed years with bigger gaps)

Armstrong's mantra for winning the Tour used to be "two good time trials, one good mountain". Beyond that he tended to be quite a defensive rider (most GT winners are when they're leading)

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

I went through some TdF classifications yesterday and was surprised that the overall GC time gaps weren't quite as big as I'd have remembered in the Armstrong era. Perhaps rose tinted glasses? (admittedly I only looked at 3 years, so I might have missed years with bigger gaps)

Armstrong's mantra for winning the Tour used to be "two good time trials, one good mountain". Beyond that he tended to be quite a defensive rider (most GT winners are when they're leading)

He would regularly win decent chunks of time in the others though; inevitably the make up of the group he finished with was different, but he rarely ever conceded time to anyone in the top 5, so even if it didn't look like a great day, one of those 5 was on a worse day.

He was always picking up time, apart from in '04 really.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

He would regularly win decent chunks of time in the others though; inevitably the make up of the group he finished with was different, but he rarely ever conceded time to anyone in the top 5, so even if it didn't look like a great day, one of those 5 was on a worse day.

He was always picking up time, apart from in '04 really.

Yeah and he'd often have a teammate in that group for emergencies. He'd typically jump away in the last 1500m. In '04 he clearly felt he had a point to prove after his close shave in '03.

(When people compare climb times of Armstrong and Froome - usually Ventoux and Ax3 - they clearly haven't watched the stages. Froome is on full on attack mode, while Armstrong is trundling along following wheels, until near the end)

rick_chasey

Soz, typo - i meant '03.

bobmcstuff

larkim wrote:

If doping was as prevalant in that era as I think most of us believe / recognise, surely the time gaps should have been broadly the same as today - doped riders in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th up the hill should present the same gaps as non-doped 1st-5th surely? I agree with OCD's perspective, it always looks so fragile. A mechanical, a fall, a lapse in concentration could easily have seen Froome lose the TDF and the Vuelta.

I don't see why that has to be the case, with the really rampant blood doping it surely depends who had a blood bag last night etc., who's taken the most EPO, who responds better to it.

What we seem to see now is riders either being in a group at roughly at the same level or cracking completely and losing minutes. Riders also seem to struggle to hold form for long periods (e.g., Quintana).

timothyw

Isn't the closeness we see now down to the use of power meters (and the evolution of their usage)?

So in the past riders would overexert themselves, crack and lose time, whereas now riders are a lot more used to riding to the numbers (so setting a hard pace, but one they know they can sustain) and managing their losses.

Presumably now that they've been around for a couple of decades the most effective techniques for using them in training are pretty well known (and everyone does them) so there isn't such a divide between those that have been training properly and those that haven't.

Probably also down to the value of a top ten GC finish in world tour points - encourages riders to ride defensively even in 6th and 7th place, rather than risk dropping places with big attacks.

keef66

larkim wrote:

If doping was as prevalant in that era as I think most of us believe / recognise, surely the time gaps should have been broadly the same as today - doped riders in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th up the hill should present the same gaps as non-doped 1st-5th surely?

All the stuff I've read about EPO suggests that some riders responded better and gained a greater advantage than others. And with blood doping there was ample scope for doing it successfully or cocking it up and nearly killing a rider. And it's not as if they were all on the same juice; some were simply better dopers, some had more sophisticated and effective support, and some took greater risks - of detection, and of death - than others. Most of them were at it, but it wasn't as level a playing field as I think it is now.

m.r.m.

Judging by performance on individual stages the case can be made that Astana had the strongest team this Vuelta. However, each rider rode for personal glory instead of a unified directive.

Pross

TimothyW wrote:

Probably also down to the value of a top ten GC finish in world tour points - encourages riders to ride defensively even in 6th and 7th place, rather than risk dropping places with big attacks.

I think this pays a much bigger part in the perceived negative racing we appear to get these days than the power meter issue.

rick_chasey

Riders train & eat significantly better than they used to.

Take the '96 and '97 Tour winners.

(From the yellow jersey club book)

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Riis: Train for 5 hours, have a bottle of fizzy water and three sleeping pills to stop you eating anything until the next morning.

Ullrich; Put a jar of nutella in the microwave and drink it with a straw.

keef66

I do like the sound of the microwaved Nutella though...

hypster

I think way too much is made of the power meter issue these days especially where Chris Froome is concerned. He gets accused of riding to it too much which supposidly makes his effort somehow boring. However, it's not as if it's not available to all other riders to do the same and I am sure some do.

Also, it doesn't take into account days when the rider is cooked and just doesn't have the legs like stage 17 to Los Machucos. How can he put out whatever wattage he is capable of under ideal circumastances if he's still shagged from the previous day's effort? How does he know what his power level is on such days? The answer is he doesn't, he just has to ride to a feeling.

You could also argue why did he put so much effort into the ITT if he knows what his optimum wattage is? Presumably he exceeded that figure and wasn't riding to the power meter at all. He's not such a machine as a lot of people would like to think.

Were Contador and Nibali riding to a power meter when they put time into Froome on stage 17? Probably not. Would it have made any difference either way? Who knows?

RichN95.

hypster wrote:

I think way too much is made of the power meter issue these days especially where Chris Froome is concerned. He gets accused of riding to it too much which supposidly makes his effort somehow boring. However, it's not as if it's not available to all other riders to do the same and I am sure some do.

Also, it doesn't take into account days when the rider is cooked and just doesn't have the legs like stage 17 to Los Machucos. How can he put out whatever wattage he is capable of under ideal circumastances if he's still shagged from the previous day's effort? How does he know what his power level is on such days? The answer is he doesn't, he just has to ride to a feeling.

You could also argue why did he put so much effort into the ITT if he knows what his optimum wattage is? Presumably he exceeded that figure and wasn't riding to the power meter at all. He's not such a machine as a lot of people would like to think.

Were Contador and Nibali riding to a power meter when they put time into Froome on stage 17? Probably not. Would it have made any difference either way? Who knows?

The thing with the power meter is that is only of limited use. When judging effort, a heartmeter remains the best. That's a measure of how hard the body is working, while a power meter only measures output. Efficiency will vary.

And the idea that someone as experienced as Froome can't ride without a power meter is like saying Benedict Cumberbatch can't act without the script in front of him.

DeVlaeminck

hypster wrote:

You could also argue why did he put so much effort into the ITT if he knows what his optimum wattage is? Presumably he exceeded that figure and wasn't riding to the power meter at all. He's not such a machine as a lot of people would like to think.

Were Contador and Nibali riding to a power meter when they put time into Froome on stage 17? Probably not. Would it have made any difference either way? Who knows?

Why did Froome put so much into the TT ? Because he wanted to gain time on his rivals. Riders may try and conserve energy during a grand tour but GC contenders go all in on stages like TTs and mountain top finishes where there is an opportunity to gain time or a need to limit losses. When people talk about riding to power they mean what is sustainable on that stage - I'd be surprised if anyone cedes time simply to conserve energy for a future stage.

As for close time gaps, I think power meters probably play a part in preventing riders blowing up but yes it probably isn't a huge part, more sports science, stronger teams, more emphasis on places maybe play a part too. I'm not convinced epo extended the gaps - accept it didn't make a level playing field but unless it gave a bigger advantage to the better riders I don't follow why it should necessarily lead to bigger gaps. Maybe an argument could be made that money buys a better doping programme as well as a better team, a better leader etc so it did reinforce existing inequalities.

hypster

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Why did Froome put so much into the TT ? Because he wanted to gain time on his rivals. Riders may try and conserve energy during a grand tour but GC contenders go all in on stages like TTs and mountain top finishes where there is an opportunity to gain time or a need to limit losses. When people talk about riding to power they mean what is sustainable on that stage - I'd be surprised if anyone cedes time simply to conserve energy for a future stage.

I agree with you which is the whole point I was making. If Froome had been riding like an automiton controlled purely by his power meter (as many would have you believe) then he wouldn't have overstepped the mark in the time trial. As it was he wanted to put as much time as possible into the rest of the field and so took a bit too much out of himself as witnessed by his performance on the next day's stage (and by his own admission).

In many ways controlling your power output in an individual time (with a power meter) is almost the easiest thing to do because you are riding on your own against the clock with no attacks etc. from contenders. Even the course wasn't all that technical and hilly so he should theoretically been able to maintain a constant power output.

Lanterne_Rogue

Froome's comments suggested that he rode too hard in the TT because he wasn't getting frequent enough time gaps and so put in more effort than he would have otherwise to ensure he took time. In this case the clock was more important to him than a power meter.

Edited to add - if true, this just goes to show how much Froome focuses on managing races to take manageable small chunks where possible, rather than all-out attacks that might bite him the next day. It might make things a little duller, but it's the mentality of a stage racer who keeps their eye on the prize.

DeVlaeminck

I interpreted Froome's remarks as him having been tired from the TT - not that he would normally hold back a bit - I might be wrong I've never ridden a grand tour but would a GC rider really give up time in a time trial to be fresher for the next day ?

EnacheV

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I interpreted Froome's remarks as him having been tired from the TT - not that he would normally hold back a bit - I might be wrong I've never ridden a grand tour but would a GC rider really give up time in a time trial to be fresher for the next day ?

usually they don;t hold out but Froome was riding 2nd gt in 1st place for 40+ days already, body is tired

m.r.m.

Has Froome ever done anything akin to Contador on the Mortirolo in 2015? Would he be capable or has he never had to due to Sky maintaining control mostly?

RichN95.

M.R.M. wrote:

Has Froome ever done anything akin to Contador on the Mortirolo in 2015? Would he be capable or has he never had to due to Sky maintaining control mostly?

In a few stages in past Vueltas he's dropped back quite a bit, to the point people thought he was dropped, and then surging through the field to challenge for the win.

I don't know if that is a similar thing as I didn't see Mortirolo

m.r.m.

No, not really. Contador was in the Maglia Rosa. Aru and Landa in second and third. Contador bridged a huge gap to Astana on his own Cancellara style and then proceeded to drop Aru, causing Aru to cry on the bike. He basically ate his soul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O22lT1zGG-I

ocdupalais

A power meter doesn't "add science" (and thereby "detract romance"): the science is already there - in the power/weight of the rider. By not looking at a power meter doesn't give you mystical extra magic fairy dust: you've either got it or you haven't. Admittedly, there will undoubtedly be times when a rider seems to exceed their expected performance parameters; but then I'd say that they've trained their body so well and/or the demands of the competition have pushed their power and endurance levels to a point that their previous thresholds have shifted and need to be reassessed.
That Mortirolo stage was 2 weeks into a hard Giro: by that point in the race, I'd be very surprised that there's any software or infallible science that could inform a rider of exactly what power output is achievable over a given time bearing in mind the countless ways in which they're fatigued.
What a power meter might be able to do is give Rider A - who doesn't usually have an innate understanding of their own body - the ability to monitor themselves in a way that Rider B can do naturally. Much like by giving someone a poor sense of direction a sat nav. It's probably the case that the likes of Coppi, Anqueteil, Merckx, Hainault, etc, were all Rider Bs.

ocdupalais

Bertie is a Rider B.

RichN95.

OCDuPalais wrote:

Bertie is a Rider B.

All pros are rider B. They do this day in day out for years. The idea that they can't judge themselves without a computer is ludicrous. To use your analogy, even a person with a poor sense of direction doesn't need a sat nav to drive home from work.

DeVlaeminck

It's not really ludicrous, some pros think it helps and others don't, see CyclingWeekly recently for a few opinions from the peloton, so it's a reasonable debate to have. Personally I think it helps to know you should be able to do can do x watts because beyond a certain level it hurts anyway. OK I've not racked up 20k miles a year but I've been riding as long as most pros and I know for hard extended intervals knowing power helps me. That's not to say it has transformed racing but I think it can have an affect.