How good is Chris Froome?
Comments
-
BigMat wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:joey54321 wrote:Any 3rd cat rider able to put out 340W+ for 20 minutes shouldn't be a 3rd cat.
I know plenty that can - if you only race once in a blue moon and can't sprint it's not that hard not to pick up 40 points or whatever they are asking now.
What he said.
Hmm I suspect if you cant sprint but can do that sort of power for twenty mins you need to get away and hope to stay away but unless that 340 watts is also near your maximum power and you weigh 15st and ride presenting as much of your body to the wind as possible then you should be able to get away on your own or in a small bunch.
Obviously if you race only once in a while the opportunities to do that wont be there so a third cat you shall stay.0 -
Yeah, if I had 340w+ for 20 mins there is no way I'd be waiting around for the sprint (unless my sprint was similarly impressively large). Unless you have a sail or are riding mountain bike tyres 340w is likely enough watts to just ride away from a bunch of 3rd cats.0
-
-
joey54321 wrote:Yeah, if I had 340w+ for 20 mins there is no way I'd be waiting around for the sprint (unless my sprint was similarly impressively large). Unless you have a sail or are riding mountain bike tyres 340w is likely enough watts to just ride away from a bunch of 3rd cats.
I think you're underestimating the strength of amateur riders these days. I did that on my chaingang the other day and I wasn't riding away from anybody. Anyway, its what you can do at the sharp end of a race that matters or, getting back on subject, what you can do relative to the competition in the third week of a brutal grand tour. Froome's numbers look well within the realms of "normal" but were clearly still enough to crush the opposition. Maybe the pro tour is finally cleaning up its act?0 -
It just sows that the pros aren't so different to us mortals. It's not all about power (even power to weight).BigMat wrote:joey54321 wrote:Yeah, if I had 340w+ for 20 mins there is no way I'd be waiting around for the sprint (unless my sprint was similarly impressively large). Unless you have a sail or are riding mountain bike tyres 340w is likely enough watts to just ride away from a bunch of 3rd cats.
I think you're underestimating the strength of amateur riders these days. I did that on my chaingang the other day and I wasn't riding away from anybody. Anyway, its what you can do at the sharp end of a race that matters or, getting back on subject, what you can do relative to the competition in the third week of a brutal grand tour. Froome's numbers look well within the realms of "normal" but were clearly still enough to crush the opposition. Maybe the pro tour is finally cleaning up its act?0 -
joey54321 wrote:Yeah, if I had 340w+ for 20 mins there is no way I'd be waiting around for the sprint (unless my sprint was similarly impressively large). Unless you have a sail or are riding mountain bike tyres 340w is likely enough watts to just ride away from a bunch of 3rd cats.
340 watts for 20 minutes fresh is not huge if you are ~13 stone, yes good enough to be competitive and probably get 2nd if you spend a season racing rather than mix in 4-5 BC with a few lvrc. May depend where you are from we had a guy up from the South who was a second cat and he wouldn't have been anywhere close to that here - he said that himself too - like I always found South Yorkshire was a hard place to race.
Did an lvrc when i was about that level and had a mate in the break, someone attacks, I mark him but when we get about 100 yds think may as well work together and get across. In the end he tells me just to sit on his wheel as i was f all use (he was more polite but that's the gist) so whatever watts I was putting out he was putting out a lot more. Did get across and got a top 10 though![Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Im 13 stone and can put out about 300-310w for 20 minutes on a calibrated powermeter and get placings in local 3/4 road races. Clearly, it does depend on where you live (and thus who you race). I've got my first E/1/2/3 of the year on Sunday and hopefully, I make it round! I have previously with similar numbers.0
-
I was a 2nd cat for nearly 30 years with a threshold of only around 240 so i guess I massively over performed! Surprsingly i was probably better at crits than hilly races.0
-
Just checked out a ride last night by one of the local hitters on strava, power meter so assume reasonably accurate, he's done our chain gang 40 odd minutes at 350 watts as part of a longer ride, be very surprised if he's over 11 stone.
Hes also got 516 watts for 53 seconds as part of his pre ride round, 401 for 3:46 during the chain gang, 429 for 4:46, 392 for 5:11.
His sprint at the finish is 40s at 465 watts .
Now this guy is good but he's a class apart from Froome and he wasn't racing so Froome's watts don't look extraordinary and mine look extremely ordinary ![Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
joey54321 wrote:Yeah, if I had 340w+ for 20 mins there is no way I'd be waiting around for the sprint (unless my sprint was similarly impressively large). Unless you have a sail or are riding mountain bike tyres 340w is likely enough watts to just ride away from a bunch of 3rd cats.
genuine question is 340W enough to do that? I'm a million miles away from ever being able to even hit 340W on the flat let alone hold it for 20 mins, but there's a fair few of the more powerful riders in my club who do more than that, we're mostly all new to club riding, those guys have just started racing.
I'd have thought you'd need 400+ to really ride off into the distance even at Cat3Rule #5 // Harden The Feck Up.
Rule #9 // If you are out riding in bad weather, it means you are a badass. Period.
Rule #12 // The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.
Rule #42 // A bike race shall never be preceded with a swim and/or followed by a run.0 -
Sounds pretty clear that CF power output isnt that unbelievable then, not to be sniffed at for sure esp at the end of a three week grand tour, but that's what experience and a well drilled / funded team should be doing if they want to win.
that or its aliens ...Rule #5 // Harden The Feck Up.
Rule #9 // If you are out riding in bad weather, it means you are a badass. Period.
Rule #12 // The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.
Rule #42 // A bike race shall never be preceded with a swim and/or followed by a run.0 -
lol, guest appearance from that trusty old Hungarian mechanical genius Mr Varjas:TailWindHome wrote:
I guess everyone just collectively hallucinated all that X-raying and stuff then. Pity, it seemed like a pretty good way to knock that whole motor doping idea on the head...Varjas himself has since talked openly about how these new motors work. "You can activate it remotely by Bluetooth, by remote control, or by a watch. It can be controlled from the team car and the rider may not even be aware that he has a motor. It could just feel like they're having a very good day." The Hungarian also mentioned how when a heart rate gets to a certain level, they can kick in for 15 second bursts and how they are worth more than any form of doping.
It lead us back to the UCI and to that rabbit hole of why they aren't catching people if this is the case. But why didn't they catch Lance? Varjas for instance has said how easy it would be to find out who is using them. "Just weigh the rear wheel," he stated. "If there is an engine, the wheel weighs at least 800g more than the usual weight. If a wheel weighs two kilos, it must be disassembled (to be checked)." Basically, give us a look at the bikes for a few minutes and this can all be solved.
That hasn't happened though and, rightly or wrongly, because of his wins and because of his sport, it brings us back to Froome.
:roll:0 -
adr82 wrote:
lol, guest appearance from that trusty old Hungarian mechanical genius Mr Varjas:TailWindHome wrote:
I guess everyone just collectively hallucinated all that X-raying and stuff then. Pity, it seemed like a pretty good way to knock that whole motor doping idea on the head...Varjas himself has since talked openly about how these new motors work. "You can activate it remotely by Bluetooth, by remote control, or by a watch. It can be controlled from the team car and the rider may not even be aware that he has a motor. It could just feel like they're having a very good day." The Hungarian also mentioned how when a heart rate gets to a certain level, they can kick in for 15 second bursts and how they are worth more than any form of doping.
It lead us back to the UCI and to that rabbit hole of why they aren't catching people if this is the case. But why didn't they catch Lance? Varjas for instance has said how easy it would be to find out who is using them. "Just weigh the rear wheel," he stated. "If there is an engine, the wheel weighs at least 800g more than the usual weight. If a wheel weighs two kilos, it must be disassembled (to be checked)." Basically, give us a look at the bikes for a few minutes and this can all be solved.
That hasn't happened though and, rightly or wrongly, because of his wins and because of his sport, it brings us back to Froome.
:roll:
Wow, he even throws the hole-punch conspiracy in. I remember laughing my tits off at that.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
It must be frustrating that someone can get away with libelous stuff like MacKenna, but you can't do anything about it because Lance sued all and sundry who questioned him, and so anyone else doing the same will get tarred similarly.0
-
His final words sum up the piece perfectly: "you'll have to use your imagination.""Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0
-
Doping conspiracies and potentially new drugs I can get behind.
Varjas is just a shyte stirrer (if he's even a real person) - the rear wheel rim based motor isn't even physically possible (at least in a way that would actually do anything)0 -
I don't think he's that. I think he's just an attention seeker. The media giving a bit of attention can be intoxicating for some and they'll keep upping the ante until someone calls them on it. The cycling media that dote on him would believe anything he says.bobmcstuff wrote:Varjas is just a shyte stirrer (if he's even a real person) - the rear wheel rim based motor isn't even physically possible (at least in a way that would actually do anything)
If you are a journalist that says 'questions must be asked' but give Varjas's BS a free pass then you're not the journalist you think you are.Twitter: @RichN950 -
TailWindHome wrote:
Froome should sue this utter, utter throbber of a guyGiant Trance X 2010
Specialized Tricross Sport
My Dad's old racer
Trek Marlin 29er 20120 -
TailWindHome wrote:
Has a real newspaper really published that?"Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0 -
Just read the article. So the gist of it is that he is too good therefore he must be cheating? But offering no new information or evidence as to how the cheating might be taking place? And some whimsical nonsense about mechanical doping, unnatural weighloss and bilhartzia effects? Seems like the guy lives with the fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Or am I missing something?0 -
And im sure the sky haters will be lapping it all up and preparing their spit for the TDF....0
-
Mikey23 wrote:Just read the article. So the gist of it is that he is too good therefore he must be cheating? But offering no new information or evidence as to how the cheating might be taking place? And some whimsical nonsense about mechanical doping, unnatural weighloss and bilhartzia effects? Seems like the guy lives with the fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Or am I missing something?
Did I read it right that he called people who do believe in Froome flat eathers?"Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0 -
gsk82 wrote:Mikey23 wrote:Just read the article. So the gist of it is that he is too good therefore he must be cheating? But offering no new information or evidence as to how the cheating might be taking place? And some whimsical nonsense about mechanical doping, unnatural weighloss and bilhartzia effects? Seems like the guy lives with the fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Or am I missing something?
Did I read it right that he called people who do believe in Froome flat eathers?
Yes, he has used the term "Sky flat earthers" on Twitter. Seems like a lovely chap who is not in any way biased0 -
Speaking of unbelievable, that MacKenna article takes the biscuit. How sad that such garbage, previously heard among drunks, is now acceptable to print in broadsheets. Of course this press problem extends far beyond cycling.
Meanwhile, Lappartient, ever above the fray – right? Right? – thought the following was appropriate:
Vous faisiez référence à Hinault. Que pensez-vous de l’intervention de Johan Bruyneel lui demandant de se taire ?
Comme disait un dirigeant politique lors d’un débat à la présidentielle, chez certain le passé devient le passif. Pour Bruyneel c’est le cas. Quand il dit à Hinault de fermer sa gueule, s’il y en a bien un qui doit commencer à le faire c’est lui. S’il y a une telle passion pour le cyclisme c’est parce qu’il y a eu des athlètes comme Bernard Hinault. Pas des directeurs sportifs comme Johan Bruyneel.
In English:
You mentioned Hinault. What do you think of Johan Bruyneel’s call for him to shut up?
As a political leader said during a presidential debate, the past becomes passive for some. That’s the case for Bruyneel. When he tells Hinault to shut his mouth, if there’s someone who should start doing that, it’s him. If there’s a passion for cycling, it’s because there were athletes like Bernard Hinault. Not directeurs sportifs like Johan Bruyneel.0 -
r0bh wrote:gsk82 wrote:Mikey23 wrote:Just read the article. So the gist of it is that he is too good therefore he must be cheating? But offering no new information or evidence as to how the cheating might be taking place? And some whimsical nonsense about mechanical doping, unnatural weighloss and bilhartzia effects? Seems like the guy lives with the fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Or am I missing something?
Did I read it right that he called people who do believe in Froome flat eathers?
Yes, he has used the term "Sky flat earthers" on Twitter. Seems like a lovely chap who is not in any way biased
Aren't Flat earthers often motivated by pseudoscience, that has since been disproved and discredited?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:r0bh wrote:gsk82 wrote:Mikey23 wrote:Just read the article. So the gist of it is that he is too good therefore he must be cheating? But offering no new information or evidence as to how the cheating might be taking place? And some whimsical nonsense about mechanical doping, unnatural weighloss and bilhartzia effects? Seems like the guy lives with the fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Or am I missing something?
Did I read it right that he called people who do believe in Froome flat eathers?
Yes, he has used the term "Sky flat earthers" on Twitter. Seems like a lovely chap who is not in any way biased
Aren't Flat earthers often motivated by pseudoscience, that has since been disproved and discredited?
Conspiracy theorists yeah."Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0 -
gsk82 wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:r0bh wrote:gsk82 wrote:Mikey23 wrote:Just read the article. So the gist of it is that he is too good therefore he must be cheating? But offering no new information or evidence as to how the cheating might be taking place? And some whimsical nonsense about mechanical doping, unnatural weighloss and bilhartzia effects? Seems like the guy lives with the fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Or am I missing something?
Did I read it right that he called people who do believe in Froome flat eathers?
Yes, he has used the term "Sky flat earthers" on Twitter. Seems like a lovely chap who is not in any way biased
Aren't Flat earthers often motivated by pseudoscience, that has since been disproved and discredited?
Conspiracy theorists yeah.
I thought so. That's why I particularly like this paragraph:-
As for the company line, it was that Froome was simply the most daring on the descent. Only that didn't add up as, regarding time gained, 22 per cent was downhill, with 29 per cent on the flat and 49 per cent on climbs. What it meant was that for over five hours he didn't take a break and was always claiming chunks so, rather than explaining the win, that lot made it yet more inexplicable.
Not one of those numbers are correct. Not even close."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0
